![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
A coxcomb has suppressed the date of the discovery of this statuette. Does that person think such information is irrelevant? The brief aside "akin to Gaia" has also been suppressed. May we be permitted any reference to Gaia in this context, even to deny any connection? Think of the reader. -- Wetman 06:03, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"Others have raised the possibility that it was designed to be inserted vaginally, perhaps as a fertility charm, to become pregnant."
This bit needs a reference! The vaginal insertion really seems vandalism to me, as is.
Giacomo — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
81.208.60.198 (
talk)
09:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
"A possible purpose of this sculpture is far more mundane, indeed. In the paleolithic times, food would have been such a scarce commodity that any excess of weight in the human body would be looked upon with shock. This statue may merely be one artist's recording of such an extraordinary individual."
All we know for certain is that the food supply back then was sufficient (since we're around nowadays, duh), and we also have no idea whether humanity back then was as easily shockable about fat woman as modern society appears to be.
As for the Venus being an 'extraordinary individual' -- I am going to demonstrate to you that this is unlikley:
If you look at the Venus, she isn't that outrageous obsese, just looks like a normal fat woman who has a BMI of about 38 and big boobs of about JJ cup size (boobs are not fat tissue but mainly mammary glands and the size does not change dramatically with weight gain or loss either, but is more determined by genetics and nursing). That together with the raised vulva could possibly point towards it being connected with fertility. It could also be a yardstick to show women how fat they should be before winter starts, let's do some comparions and sums:
The venus looks a little fatter than me, but not by much. In fact, I very much look like the venus when nekkid, so, let's take me as a living example :) I'm 1.56m and weigh 90kg, and I'm 42 years old. My 'fat-free' weight is 58kg, so, I have 32kg extra on my ribs. I need about 2500 calories a day when I'm active. I have spare 32*7700 calories = 246400 calories, which is only 100 days supply if there is complete starvation, 200 days if I have enough stores to provide 1250 calories daily. 100 days is 3 month -- so, I could survive one winter if the supplies were lost (bears, other tribes etc). So, given this, one could claim that the Venus actually has the ideal figure for survival ;) Btw, if the Venus was nursing a babe or small toddler (highly likely back then) her calorie requirement would be far higher, and so, the estimate of 100 days is rather conservative.
Cinnamon
Ps.: The article is rather judgemental about what constitutes 'ugly' -- please let people decide for themselves if they think it is ugly or not! (I'm here because a customer ordered a pendant that looks like her, so, someone somewhere is still enjoying the art enough to order one at great expense from my studio, so don't knock it! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.218.135 ( talk • contribs) 16:27, 12 September 2006
Could we get sources for all the interpretations of this figure? A lot of the commentary seems to be wiki-editors opinions and the article provides no indication as to how accepted each interpretation (art/fertility/goddess, etc) is. Ashmoo 05:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I could be wrong, but after looking I can't actually see any reference to Venus of Willendorf, or any palaeolithic art at all, in the source cited as the basis for the Venus being seen as a fertility figure, 10:'Lawrence Cunningham; John J Reich (2006). Culture and values : a survey of the humanities'. Otziiiceman 08:19, 06 May 2024 (GMT)
This was not the name for the piece before it was found. Someone named it Venus simply because it is female. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenlight ( talk • contribs) 21:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
In all my art history classes my teachers insisted that modern scholars are careful to call this the "Woman of Willendorf", as the word "Venus" invites too many assumptions about this being a goddess, when in reality nobody knows exactly what it is. I suggest calling the article the "Woman of Willendorf" and having "Venus of Willendorf" redirect here. It's more accurate and contemporary. Rglong 02:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
No further comments since Rglong 10 years ago!? As Rglong states, "Venus" is an after-the-fact Eurocentric assumption. The piece should be listed as Woman of Willendorf with a redirect for Venus. Glenn irs ( talk) 21:04, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
It looks like the feet were carved to insert into a wooden base. To have sat on some ancient mantlepiece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.21.203 ( talk) 22:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Reminds me of a pregnant woman with steatopygia. 24.36.78.185 ( talk) 21:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I like David Brin's suggestion in his novel Kil'n People that the Woman of Willensdorf was in fact pornography. Has anyone considered this seriously? Adambrowne666 ( talk) 04:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that no woman would ever carve this as a self portrait. If a young woman wanted fertility they might very well be carving an attractive young man, not an obese woman. I believe this was carved by a man as a type of prehistoric Penthouse magazine. He was trying to create his ideal of a woman - young, pretty hair, submissive attitude, immense breasts, obese short stature and thick thighs. It could be prehistoric visualization; if he carved her and prayed to her, maybe she would select him. Joanlutz ( talk) 07:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)joanl
It also reminds of an Onge woman (African) with the characteristic negrito "peppercorn hair". That is we can conclude saying that this figurine belong to Africa's continent. Davedawit ( talk) 20:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I added a brief discussion of and link to an article that, imho, explains this figurine and several of its analogs more logically and instructively than any of the other theories I've examined over the last two decades. If anyone has a problem with this addition, I'd appreciate discussing it with me before he or she redacts or removes anything in it. Thanks very much in advance. Berlant ( talk) 13:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)Berlant
This was raised before, see above, and an editor changed the lead a few hours ago. I can find sources saying 'Woman of Willendorf' is the term used by archaeologists usually, and [1] agrees with other sources saying the 'Venus' label is absurd. Which raises NPOV issues. Dougweller ( talk) 05:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
The two photos on this page are of self-evidently different sculptures. Which one is real? If not the Venus of Willendorf, what is the other one? User:Jonwilliamsl( talk| contribs) 03:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
The following was the end of the introduction:
"The Willendorf figure was named following a model already over fifty years old, and shares many characteristics with other figures."
However nowhere else on the page notes the word “fifty” and what that clause means is completely mysterious and unexplained.
I am guessing the intent is to communicate that female sculptures have been named “Venus” for the last 50 years before this particular statue was discovered, but I am at a loss for why this was not, you know, 'said' instead of awkwardly hinted-at.
-- X883 ( talk) 20:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
The current edit now has conflicting dates for the age of the figurine in the OP and the infobox/first section, each with its own references. They can't both be correct. nagualdesign ( talk) 04:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
This is sort of a "crapshoot" speculation, but in a group I frequent on Facebook, someone pointed out that, from the top down, the Venus of Willendorf's proportions look much more realistic. Knowing that mirrors were not widespread (or even really extant) at this point in prehistory, and so an artist's view of themselves would be entirely reliant on what they could see of themselves from their own eyes (and in murky reflections), perhaps this was an attempted work of self portraiture? (Or, if it is a fertility idol, perhaps the artist modeled it after themselves?)
I looked at a 3D replica of the statue here. http://www.123dapp.com/Scenes-and-Props/123C-3D-Model-Venus-of-Willendorf-Fertility-Statue/595811
Not sure if this is the right place to discuss it, even, but I think people might find it interesting. Sphecidae ( talk) 14:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello! I am a college student and working on this article for a class project. Please let me know if this is acceptable information for the main article.
"The sac-like breasts, bulging belly, and padded hips conflate woman with her procreative function. She symbolizes health and abundance. But the masked face and withered arms disturbingly show that she has no sight, speech, or reach--no identity as an individual."
"It's an overtly sexual, earthy style: Many of the intricately carved figurines share features such as large, pendulous breasts, huge buttocks, and chubby legs with no feet...Moreover, during the Willendorf period, male figurines, many anatomically correct with penises and detailed facial features, also appear frequently, and occasional sculptures depict men and women side by side."
"[The Woman of Willendorf] is assumed by most archaeologists to have been the product of artistic fantasy. There is no way, they say, that a real woman in a hunter-gatherer society could have gotten that fat. But Barbara Calogero, of the University of Connecticut, who comes to archaeology by way of hospital nursing, begs to differ. Look closely at how the figure's fat collects behind the shoulders, drapes over her knees, and at the way her derriere rises nearly to her waist, and you'll see, Calogero argues, a particularly accurate portrayal of female plumpness."
Eharford ( talk) 01:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
References
I never heard of such a stupid theory. No woman in her right mind would make herself out to look like a pregnant mammoth with no face. LOL! No, this is a man's depiction all the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.135.55.229 ( talk) 03:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
There seems to be consensus that Venus of Willendorf is the usual title of this sculpture in most literature, although clearly different editors still disagree on whether Woman of Willendorf or other variations are widely-used alternatives or merely rare exceptions. The most recent attempt to suggest that they're now preferred came with no fewer than five citations: one very good one (Encyclopaedia Britannica), and four others of varying usefulness: I'm not sure that the Dictionary of Women Artists is a very authoritative source for the title, but I've given it a pass as it's at least a general reference. Art History for Dummies is a bit harder to justify, as by definition it's not a scholarly source; imagine if it were the only citeable source for a claim! Since the Britannica is pretty authoritative on its own, I think more than the two sources for the alternative names are unnecessary, unless some of the others carry a significant amount of weight, and Art History for Dummies doesn't, in my opinion.
I had a look at Sex in Space, and found it to be a very recent meditation on the nature of video gaming, virtual reality, and its social context, published in 2013 by the "Discipline & Publish Press", for which I can find no on-line presence. I also found no scholarly reviews or citations of the book. It refers to the Woman of Willendorf several times (and also Venus of Willendorf a few), but doesn't really provide any reason to believe that the author is an expert in art history, nor do the book's primary subject or the author's credentials give much reason to regard this as good authority for the name being widely used in academia or elsewhere. The fifth source I think can be dismissed out of hand. "Venus of Willendorf: Form, Context & Subject Matter" is a brief essay not published outside the internet, and it appears to consist in part of notes for a school lesson plan, with a suggestion that students be encouraged to discuss their own opinions about the statuette. Having five cited sources makes a claim look very well-established, but in fact only the Britannica seems particularly authoritative, while some of the others simply do not pass muster as scholarly sources, and were clearly included solely because they use the phrase.
A more scientific way of establishing the currency of various names is to use the Google Books Ngram Viewer, which lets you search millions of books digitized by Google covering roughly five hundred years. I searched for references to various titles from 1900 (shortly before the statuette's discovery) to 2008 (the last searchable year). The following variations were searched, without case sensitivity:
Here are the results: Venus of Willendorf is by far the most common published term, about eight or nine times as common as all other names combined. The only other widely-used name appears to be "Willendorf Venus", accounting for the bulk of the rest, although "Willendorf Statuette" received some use before World War II.
"Woman from Willendorf" appears in a very small number of published works since the late 1970's, and does not appear to have caught on. There is also a possibility that some of the hits for this title refer to actual (or at least non-sculptural) women, rather than the statuette, since there are two villages in Austria by this name, as well as a fictional kingdom in a popular video game. There are no hits at all for "Woman of Willendorf", which does not mean that the name has no currency whatever, since it appears in the online Britannica, but it is very strong evidence that the name is not broadly accepted. None of the other alternatives were found, also meaning that they are not generally used as titles for the statuette, although they may occur from time to time simply for verbal variety.
Wikipedia policies provide some guidance in this case. I believe the relevant policy is WP:UNDUE, a section of the broader NPOV policy, which explains that views representing a small minority may not be appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia, and that giving equal weight to each alternative viewpoint can create a false equivalency. The following section, on using the "best sources" is also relevant here, given the smattering of sources cited above for the alternative titles. Because the Britannica implies that an alternative title is acceptable (without explicitly endorsing it), I think that the alternative (phrased two ways in various sources) is worthy of inclusion; but because it's not widely used and has never been widely used (finding a handful of uses on the internet, some of which are clearly not authoritative, hardly demonstrates widespread use), it should not be placed in the lead sentence as though it represented more than a tiny minority of literary references to the statuette, and should not be placed in boldface later in the body of the article. Doing so implies that it's generally accepted, when it doesn't appear to be. The proper way to address this disparity is to mention the alternative in a paragraph somewhere in the article discussing the statuette's title. As the title of a work of art, it should be italicized, not placed in boldface (which also looks out of place anywhere but in the lead sentence or as a subsection heading).
There are certainly occasions on which exceptions should be made to official policies. But there ought to be some compelling reason for doing so, and in this case there doesn't appear to be one. No matter how strongly an individual feels that the statuette has been misnamed, no alternative appears to be widely used or generally accepted instead of Venus of Willendorf. Placing alternatives in the lead or otherwise making them more prominent than ordinary body text gives undue weight to what appears to be the view of a very small minority. Fairness demands the inclusion of such titles in this instance, but that in no way implies that they are equivalent to the generally and historically accepted title. P Aculeius ( talk) 13:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Art Historian here - PLEASE change the f-ing name already. I would but I'm sure it would be edited back as who am I? The field no longer uses Venus (nor did its creator, obviously) and hasn't for a generation. If you need a citation, look in every art history survey textbook (I'm looking at Stokstad's brief art history on page 21). Sure, keep a sentence in there about how it had long been called "Venus" due to this and that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:46E2:B748:59EC:D4DE:7F06:8208 ( talk) 12:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
I just had to give a big thank you to whoever included the 3D model of the statue. It made a huge difference to be able to "hold it in my hand" and take a proper look.
It immediately struck me that the figure - though exaggerated - looks extremely natural. "Venus" is definitely looking down upon herself, hence the lack of emphasis on any facial features. Furthermore, this is a self portrait of a woman fascinated by her own pregnancy and the changes in her body. The emphasis of her swelling breasts, belly and genitalia is obvious, particularly from the top down angle. Nothing about this strikes me as a fertility fetish. Its pose is very natural, and says self discovery. The 3D model also reveals the otherwise lost detail of the hands, the fingers of which are well sculpted. GM Pink Elephant ( talk) 08:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Eharford.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 12:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 6 December 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Slovett23,
Dominique Ardis.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 12:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
An article referring to a scientific paper (but that paper and the journal in which it was published remains unnamed as far as I can see) discusses research on the geological/geographic source of the limestone from which the Venus (as they refer to it) was carved: https://www.heritagedaily.com/2022/02/origins-of-the-30000-year-old-venus-of-willendo-solved/142920 Kdammers ( talk) 14:50, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
I heard (several times) another version: that she comes from today´s SILESIA. Was it a fake ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:AD90:C400:7135:78BE:2E8F:7A29 ( talk) 12:08, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
In the terrific novel by James McBride, the statue plays an important (fictional) role. Given the success of the novel, this is probably how most people who have heard of the statue have encountered it (though many might not think to check Wikipedia and learn that such a statue actually exists). I think this literary reference should be noted in the Wikipedia article. BekraY ( talk) 21:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Edited article to represent a more honest discussion of McDermott's claim that the figurine's proportions are the result of women carving the figurine while looking down at their own body, and misunderstanding their own bodily proportions. Before my edit, the article mentioned only Bisson's criticism -- it should be noted by anyone who reads the actual paper published in Current Anthropoly that all 14 of McDermott's contemporaries disagreed with his thesis and criticized the logic! McDermott's thesis is not accepted, and never was, even at the time of its publishing. There are several issues with his assumptions that are noted by all commenters featured in the journal, which is clear to anyone who does a little further research, however, the original state of the article seemed to suggest that McDermott's claims are recognized as valid. Let's be honest, here. We should not be leading people to confusing fringe theories as widely accepted or even logically valid. It is only right that there should be an acknowledgement in the article of the vast extent of the criticism levied against McDermott, as well as their superior logic. I invite you all to peruse the article itself which is available on JSTOR for free, I'm sure you will find that his contemporaries make much more sense than he does. 76.97.93.14 ( talk) 03:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
A coxcomb has suppressed the date of the discovery of this statuette. Does that person think such information is irrelevant? The brief aside "akin to Gaia" has also been suppressed. May we be permitted any reference to Gaia in this context, even to deny any connection? Think of the reader. -- Wetman 06:03, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"Others have raised the possibility that it was designed to be inserted vaginally, perhaps as a fertility charm, to become pregnant."
This bit needs a reference! The vaginal insertion really seems vandalism to me, as is.
Giacomo — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
81.208.60.198 (
talk)
09:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
"A possible purpose of this sculpture is far more mundane, indeed. In the paleolithic times, food would have been such a scarce commodity that any excess of weight in the human body would be looked upon with shock. This statue may merely be one artist's recording of such an extraordinary individual."
All we know for certain is that the food supply back then was sufficient (since we're around nowadays, duh), and we also have no idea whether humanity back then was as easily shockable about fat woman as modern society appears to be.
As for the Venus being an 'extraordinary individual' -- I am going to demonstrate to you that this is unlikley:
If you look at the Venus, she isn't that outrageous obsese, just looks like a normal fat woman who has a BMI of about 38 and big boobs of about JJ cup size (boobs are not fat tissue but mainly mammary glands and the size does not change dramatically with weight gain or loss either, but is more determined by genetics and nursing). That together with the raised vulva could possibly point towards it being connected with fertility. It could also be a yardstick to show women how fat they should be before winter starts, let's do some comparions and sums:
The venus looks a little fatter than me, but not by much. In fact, I very much look like the venus when nekkid, so, let's take me as a living example :) I'm 1.56m and weigh 90kg, and I'm 42 years old. My 'fat-free' weight is 58kg, so, I have 32kg extra on my ribs. I need about 2500 calories a day when I'm active. I have spare 32*7700 calories = 246400 calories, which is only 100 days supply if there is complete starvation, 200 days if I have enough stores to provide 1250 calories daily. 100 days is 3 month -- so, I could survive one winter if the supplies were lost (bears, other tribes etc). So, given this, one could claim that the Venus actually has the ideal figure for survival ;) Btw, if the Venus was nursing a babe or small toddler (highly likely back then) her calorie requirement would be far higher, and so, the estimate of 100 days is rather conservative.
Cinnamon
Ps.: The article is rather judgemental about what constitutes 'ugly' -- please let people decide for themselves if they think it is ugly or not! (I'm here because a customer ordered a pendant that looks like her, so, someone somewhere is still enjoying the art enough to order one at great expense from my studio, so don't knock it! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.218.135 ( talk • contribs) 16:27, 12 September 2006
Could we get sources for all the interpretations of this figure? A lot of the commentary seems to be wiki-editors opinions and the article provides no indication as to how accepted each interpretation (art/fertility/goddess, etc) is. Ashmoo 05:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I could be wrong, but after looking I can't actually see any reference to Venus of Willendorf, or any palaeolithic art at all, in the source cited as the basis for the Venus being seen as a fertility figure, 10:'Lawrence Cunningham; John J Reich (2006). Culture and values : a survey of the humanities'. Otziiiceman 08:19, 06 May 2024 (GMT)
This was not the name for the piece before it was found. Someone named it Venus simply because it is female. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenlight ( talk • contribs) 21:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
In all my art history classes my teachers insisted that modern scholars are careful to call this the "Woman of Willendorf", as the word "Venus" invites too many assumptions about this being a goddess, when in reality nobody knows exactly what it is. I suggest calling the article the "Woman of Willendorf" and having "Venus of Willendorf" redirect here. It's more accurate and contemporary. Rglong 02:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
No further comments since Rglong 10 years ago!? As Rglong states, "Venus" is an after-the-fact Eurocentric assumption. The piece should be listed as Woman of Willendorf with a redirect for Venus. Glenn irs ( talk) 21:04, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
It looks like the feet were carved to insert into a wooden base. To have sat on some ancient mantlepiece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.21.203 ( talk) 22:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Reminds me of a pregnant woman with steatopygia. 24.36.78.185 ( talk) 21:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I like David Brin's suggestion in his novel Kil'n People that the Woman of Willensdorf was in fact pornography. Has anyone considered this seriously? Adambrowne666 ( talk) 04:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that no woman would ever carve this as a self portrait. If a young woman wanted fertility they might very well be carving an attractive young man, not an obese woman. I believe this was carved by a man as a type of prehistoric Penthouse magazine. He was trying to create his ideal of a woman - young, pretty hair, submissive attitude, immense breasts, obese short stature and thick thighs. It could be prehistoric visualization; if he carved her and prayed to her, maybe she would select him. Joanlutz ( talk) 07:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)joanl
It also reminds of an Onge woman (African) with the characteristic negrito "peppercorn hair". That is we can conclude saying that this figurine belong to Africa's continent. Davedawit ( talk) 20:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I added a brief discussion of and link to an article that, imho, explains this figurine and several of its analogs more logically and instructively than any of the other theories I've examined over the last two decades. If anyone has a problem with this addition, I'd appreciate discussing it with me before he or she redacts or removes anything in it. Thanks very much in advance. Berlant ( talk) 13:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)Berlant
This was raised before, see above, and an editor changed the lead a few hours ago. I can find sources saying 'Woman of Willendorf' is the term used by archaeologists usually, and [1] agrees with other sources saying the 'Venus' label is absurd. Which raises NPOV issues. Dougweller ( talk) 05:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
The two photos on this page are of self-evidently different sculptures. Which one is real? If not the Venus of Willendorf, what is the other one? User:Jonwilliamsl( talk| contribs) 03:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
The following was the end of the introduction:
"The Willendorf figure was named following a model already over fifty years old, and shares many characteristics with other figures."
However nowhere else on the page notes the word “fifty” and what that clause means is completely mysterious and unexplained.
I am guessing the intent is to communicate that female sculptures have been named “Venus” for the last 50 years before this particular statue was discovered, but I am at a loss for why this was not, you know, 'said' instead of awkwardly hinted-at.
-- X883 ( talk) 20:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
The current edit now has conflicting dates for the age of the figurine in the OP and the infobox/first section, each with its own references. They can't both be correct. nagualdesign ( talk) 04:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
This is sort of a "crapshoot" speculation, but in a group I frequent on Facebook, someone pointed out that, from the top down, the Venus of Willendorf's proportions look much more realistic. Knowing that mirrors were not widespread (or even really extant) at this point in prehistory, and so an artist's view of themselves would be entirely reliant on what they could see of themselves from their own eyes (and in murky reflections), perhaps this was an attempted work of self portraiture? (Or, if it is a fertility idol, perhaps the artist modeled it after themselves?)
I looked at a 3D replica of the statue here. http://www.123dapp.com/Scenes-and-Props/123C-3D-Model-Venus-of-Willendorf-Fertility-Statue/595811
Not sure if this is the right place to discuss it, even, but I think people might find it interesting. Sphecidae ( talk) 14:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello! I am a college student and working on this article for a class project. Please let me know if this is acceptable information for the main article.
"The sac-like breasts, bulging belly, and padded hips conflate woman with her procreative function. She symbolizes health and abundance. But the masked face and withered arms disturbingly show that she has no sight, speech, or reach--no identity as an individual."
"It's an overtly sexual, earthy style: Many of the intricately carved figurines share features such as large, pendulous breasts, huge buttocks, and chubby legs with no feet...Moreover, during the Willendorf period, male figurines, many anatomically correct with penises and detailed facial features, also appear frequently, and occasional sculptures depict men and women side by side."
"[The Woman of Willendorf] is assumed by most archaeologists to have been the product of artistic fantasy. There is no way, they say, that a real woman in a hunter-gatherer society could have gotten that fat. But Barbara Calogero, of the University of Connecticut, who comes to archaeology by way of hospital nursing, begs to differ. Look closely at how the figure's fat collects behind the shoulders, drapes over her knees, and at the way her derriere rises nearly to her waist, and you'll see, Calogero argues, a particularly accurate portrayal of female plumpness."
Eharford ( talk) 01:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
References
I never heard of such a stupid theory. No woman in her right mind would make herself out to look like a pregnant mammoth with no face. LOL! No, this is a man's depiction all the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.135.55.229 ( talk) 03:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
There seems to be consensus that Venus of Willendorf is the usual title of this sculpture in most literature, although clearly different editors still disagree on whether Woman of Willendorf or other variations are widely-used alternatives or merely rare exceptions. The most recent attempt to suggest that they're now preferred came with no fewer than five citations: one very good one (Encyclopaedia Britannica), and four others of varying usefulness: I'm not sure that the Dictionary of Women Artists is a very authoritative source for the title, but I've given it a pass as it's at least a general reference. Art History for Dummies is a bit harder to justify, as by definition it's not a scholarly source; imagine if it were the only citeable source for a claim! Since the Britannica is pretty authoritative on its own, I think more than the two sources for the alternative names are unnecessary, unless some of the others carry a significant amount of weight, and Art History for Dummies doesn't, in my opinion.
I had a look at Sex in Space, and found it to be a very recent meditation on the nature of video gaming, virtual reality, and its social context, published in 2013 by the "Discipline & Publish Press", for which I can find no on-line presence. I also found no scholarly reviews or citations of the book. It refers to the Woman of Willendorf several times (and also Venus of Willendorf a few), but doesn't really provide any reason to believe that the author is an expert in art history, nor do the book's primary subject or the author's credentials give much reason to regard this as good authority for the name being widely used in academia or elsewhere. The fifth source I think can be dismissed out of hand. "Venus of Willendorf: Form, Context & Subject Matter" is a brief essay not published outside the internet, and it appears to consist in part of notes for a school lesson plan, with a suggestion that students be encouraged to discuss their own opinions about the statuette. Having five cited sources makes a claim look very well-established, but in fact only the Britannica seems particularly authoritative, while some of the others simply do not pass muster as scholarly sources, and were clearly included solely because they use the phrase.
A more scientific way of establishing the currency of various names is to use the Google Books Ngram Viewer, which lets you search millions of books digitized by Google covering roughly five hundred years. I searched for references to various titles from 1900 (shortly before the statuette's discovery) to 2008 (the last searchable year). The following variations were searched, without case sensitivity:
Here are the results: Venus of Willendorf is by far the most common published term, about eight or nine times as common as all other names combined. The only other widely-used name appears to be "Willendorf Venus", accounting for the bulk of the rest, although "Willendorf Statuette" received some use before World War II.
"Woman from Willendorf" appears in a very small number of published works since the late 1970's, and does not appear to have caught on. There is also a possibility that some of the hits for this title refer to actual (or at least non-sculptural) women, rather than the statuette, since there are two villages in Austria by this name, as well as a fictional kingdom in a popular video game. There are no hits at all for "Woman of Willendorf", which does not mean that the name has no currency whatever, since it appears in the online Britannica, but it is very strong evidence that the name is not broadly accepted. None of the other alternatives were found, also meaning that they are not generally used as titles for the statuette, although they may occur from time to time simply for verbal variety.
Wikipedia policies provide some guidance in this case. I believe the relevant policy is WP:UNDUE, a section of the broader NPOV policy, which explains that views representing a small minority may not be appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia, and that giving equal weight to each alternative viewpoint can create a false equivalency. The following section, on using the "best sources" is also relevant here, given the smattering of sources cited above for the alternative titles. Because the Britannica implies that an alternative title is acceptable (without explicitly endorsing it), I think that the alternative (phrased two ways in various sources) is worthy of inclusion; but because it's not widely used and has never been widely used (finding a handful of uses on the internet, some of which are clearly not authoritative, hardly demonstrates widespread use), it should not be placed in the lead sentence as though it represented more than a tiny minority of literary references to the statuette, and should not be placed in boldface later in the body of the article. Doing so implies that it's generally accepted, when it doesn't appear to be. The proper way to address this disparity is to mention the alternative in a paragraph somewhere in the article discussing the statuette's title. As the title of a work of art, it should be italicized, not placed in boldface (which also looks out of place anywhere but in the lead sentence or as a subsection heading).
There are certainly occasions on which exceptions should be made to official policies. But there ought to be some compelling reason for doing so, and in this case there doesn't appear to be one. No matter how strongly an individual feels that the statuette has been misnamed, no alternative appears to be widely used or generally accepted instead of Venus of Willendorf. Placing alternatives in the lead or otherwise making them more prominent than ordinary body text gives undue weight to what appears to be the view of a very small minority. Fairness demands the inclusion of such titles in this instance, but that in no way implies that they are equivalent to the generally and historically accepted title. P Aculeius ( talk) 13:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Art Historian here - PLEASE change the f-ing name already. I would but I'm sure it would be edited back as who am I? The field no longer uses Venus (nor did its creator, obviously) and hasn't for a generation. If you need a citation, look in every art history survey textbook (I'm looking at Stokstad's brief art history on page 21). Sure, keep a sentence in there about how it had long been called "Venus" due to this and that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:46E2:B748:59EC:D4DE:7F06:8208 ( talk) 12:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
I just had to give a big thank you to whoever included the 3D model of the statue. It made a huge difference to be able to "hold it in my hand" and take a proper look.
It immediately struck me that the figure - though exaggerated - looks extremely natural. "Venus" is definitely looking down upon herself, hence the lack of emphasis on any facial features. Furthermore, this is a self portrait of a woman fascinated by her own pregnancy and the changes in her body. The emphasis of her swelling breasts, belly and genitalia is obvious, particularly from the top down angle. Nothing about this strikes me as a fertility fetish. Its pose is very natural, and says self discovery. The 3D model also reveals the otherwise lost detail of the hands, the fingers of which are well sculpted. GM Pink Elephant ( talk) 08:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Eharford.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 12:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 6 December 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Slovett23,
Dominique Ardis.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 12:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
An article referring to a scientific paper (but that paper and the journal in which it was published remains unnamed as far as I can see) discusses research on the geological/geographic source of the limestone from which the Venus (as they refer to it) was carved: https://www.heritagedaily.com/2022/02/origins-of-the-30000-year-old-venus-of-willendo-solved/142920 Kdammers ( talk) 14:50, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
I heard (several times) another version: that she comes from today´s SILESIA. Was it a fake ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:AD90:C400:7135:78BE:2E8F:7A29 ( talk) 12:08, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
In the terrific novel by James McBride, the statue plays an important (fictional) role. Given the success of the novel, this is probably how most people who have heard of the statue have encountered it (though many might not think to check Wikipedia and learn that such a statue actually exists). I think this literary reference should be noted in the Wikipedia article. BekraY ( talk) 21:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Edited article to represent a more honest discussion of McDermott's claim that the figurine's proportions are the result of women carving the figurine while looking down at their own body, and misunderstanding their own bodily proportions. Before my edit, the article mentioned only Bisson's criticism -- it should be noted by anyone who reads the actual paper published in Current Anthropoly that all 14 of McDermott's contemporaries disagreed with his thesis and criticized the logic! McDermott's thesis is not accepted, and never was, even at the time of its publishing. There are several issues with his assumptions that are noted by all commenters featured in the journal, which is clear to anyone who does a little further research, however, the original state of the article seemed to suggest that McDermott's claims are recognized as valid. Let's be honest, here. We should not be leading people to confusing fringe theories as widely accepted or even logically valid. It is only right that there should be an acknowledgement in the article of the vast extent of the criticism levied against McDermott, as well as their superior logic. I invite you all to peruse the article itself which is available on JSTOR for free, I'm sure you will find that his contemporaries make much more sense than he does. 76.97.93.14 ( talk) 03:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)