Move over Willendorf, there’s a new woman in town. Technically, it’s an older woman. And while it’s a fact, the lady is stacked (all further Lionel Richie references aside) it’s just been verified that she’s around 5,000 years old than the other well known “Venus.” You can read all about the figure in this New York Times article. I find it a little interesting that the article is posted in the Science section, since I think it’s of extreme importance to arts and culture. I’ve always held that the distinction is a lot fuzzier than many posit, though, so I’m not against its placement – I’d like to see more crossover, not less. Here’s another mention of it at Wired.

Returning to the figure itself though, the images of it are already titled “Venus of Hohle Fels.” I could have sworn that there had been a movement to have the Willendorf figure retitled with something less loaded. So little is known about these figures, and while there is a strong case for the sexual/fertility aspects of them, the title “Venus” may skew the perceptions of the figures. I’m not sure if they should be associated with the classic/mythological connotations of the word. I’m not an expert on this, my specialization being neither in the presentation of women in the arts nor in prehistoric art history, but I know there’s got to be some serious discussion on this somewhere.

Regardless of the title, I think the sexual characteristics are not meant to be subtle. Or as is written in the times:

The short, squat torso is dominated by oversize breasts and broad
buttocks. The split between the two halves of the buttocks is deep and
continuous without interruption to the front of the figurine. A greatly
enlarged vulva emphasizes the “deliberate exaggeration” of the
figurine’s sexual characteristics, Dr. Conard said.

Try getting through that paragraph without flushing. I like to think of Dr. Conard as having one of those subtle accents and a slight stutter when flustered.

One thing of note, is that the bump at the top of the figure may not be designed to be a head – it’s a ring so the figure could be hung, perhaps worn. The NYT article is specific about it not being a head, though personally I feel it could be both a head and functional, but I find it interesting either way. It certainly seems that much early figurative art is meant to be representational of general forms and not individuals.

But perhaps people were simply easily frustrated – god knows I can never get my noses looking right when I work with clay.