Venus De Milo Written By Jacob Bancroft Measurements Height

Venus De Milowritten By Jacob Bancroftmeasurementsheight 54

Venus de Milo Written By: Jacob Bancroft Measurements: Height: 5'4" Head: 23" Neck: 12.5" Chest: 33" Bust: 37" Waist: 26" Hips: 38" Thigh: 22.5" Calf: 13.2" Ankle: 7.4" Knee: 15" (New York Times, "ENGLISH GIRL NEAREST VENUS...") Material: Parian Marble Time Period: Between 130 and 100 BC Sculptor: Alexandros of Antioch Discovery: April 8th, 1820 Price: 1000 francs Location: Louvre Venus de Milo is an ancient Greek sculpture believed to be sculpted by Alexandros of Antioch, as evidenced by the inscription on the base of the statue. The statue is thought to represent either Aphrodite, the goddess of love and beauty, or Amphitrite, the sea goddess. The most notable feature of the statue is the goddess's lack of arms.

The arms were not found during the statue's discovery. The original base is currently also missing; however, it is thought that it was found with the statue originally, because the sculptor's inscription on the base was used to identify the artist. The statue was found by a peasant who sold the statue to the French navy. The ship did not have the required space for the statue and so a diplomat was promised to come back later to purchase the statue. When Marcellus, secretary to Marquis de Riviere, arrived at Milo, the impatient peasant was in the process of selling the statue to Constantinople.

The French negotiated the statue to be sold to them. The statue was then gifted to King Louis XVIII, who donated to the Louvre. King Louis would not actually see the statue for another year due to his obesity (University of Chicago). The statue is thought to have depicted the Judgement of Paris. The story of the Judgement of Paris is that Zeus held a party celebrating the marriage of Achilles's parents, but did not invite Erin.

Erin brought a golden apple to Olympus to be the prize of the most beautiful goddess and Aphrodite, Athena, and Hera tried to win over the mortal judge, Paris. Paris chose Aphrodite from the lineup of naked goddesses because she offered him Helen of Sparta. The statue depicted Aphrodite holding the golden apple in victory of Paris's judgement. Other scholars say that the statue depicts Amphitrite. This theory is based on the fact that the statue was discovered on Milos.

Milos was an island that worshipped Amphitrite. There has been evidence unearthed that proves the existence of a Amphitrite cult on the island (Greek Boston). The statue was found with arms, but the Louvre thought the arms to be unoriginal (My Modern Met). The Judgement of Paris explanation is based on the finding of the apple in the statue's hand, and so it is debated whether the statue in fact depicts Aphrodite or Amphitrite. It is more popularly believed to be Aphrodite, and so the statue was named "Venus de Milo." Venus de Milo is one of the most famous surviving examples of ancient Greek sculpture.

Every year, it is estimated that fifty-five thousand reproductions of this statue are made out of various materials (New York Times, "POPULARITY OF THE VENUS DE MILO"). It's fame in the 19th century was aided in part by French propaganda. The French had recently relinquished the Medici Venus and had returned it to the Italians. The Medici Venus was considered one of the best ancient Greek sculptures, and so France heavily promoted the Venus de Milo after its discovery (Art and Popular Culture). During the time period of the discovery, Hellenistic art was considered crude and was not appreciated when compared to classical Greek works.

The French had seen the base and the sculptor's inscription dating the statue to the Hellenistic period, but the Louvre director, Forbin decided the base to be too crude and a restoration of the original, and so the base was not displayed. The current topic of the base and the identity of the sculptor is a sore subject for the Louvre. Currently, they do not dismiss the statue as being Hellenistic, but the current plaque does not name the sculptor (Smithsonian Magazine). The statue was sculpted using a technique where several different sections of marble were carved and then held together with wooden pegs. This technique was widely used in Greece at the time.

The statue currently shows no evidence of color, but it is believed that the statue could have originally been painted with a popular polychromy (Jennifer Wilber). The proportions of the sculpture mix Hellenistic and classical elements. Her twisting body and flowing drapery are indicative of Hellenistic trends, while her soft muscles come from the classical style (History of art and design). The drapery is also like the original Aphrodite statue created by Lysippus which has since been lost. The curve of her body evokes a more natural appearance that proved counter to classical statues.

The twist makes the statue appear more feminine. The composition and shape of her body draw your eye up and down the sculpture easily like a slide. The lack of arms brings an instant recognition. The arms have been lost, but their disappearance creates a more focused view. The statue embodies the Greek's adoration for the human figure.

The nakedness showed the Greek ideals of beauty. The nose is of a style that the Greeks found attractive. The neck has a level of detail in the folds and the hair has an organized disorder about it. The hair and the drapery serve as concentrations of lines and textures that bookend the statue visually. The stare is contemplative and distant.

The drapery shows modesty even in beauty. It is Hellenistic and breaks from the classical tradition of full nudity. The drapery makes the statue seem more regal and relatable. The viewer can connect with the modesty. During the time of discovery, Hellenistic art was seen as crude, but since, Alexandros has been recognized for his talents.

The modern audience appreciates the Hellenistic trends of making statues look more lifelike and emotional. The female subject draws viewers in a museum filled with strong nude male statues. The sculpture has had a very interesting history from being displayed in the Louvre. During World War II, war was coming towards Paris, and so the statue was hidden along with the other most valuable works. Also, the Venus de Milo statue was originally adorned with bracelets, earrings, and a headband, but those have since been stolen (Mental Floss).

More recently, the statue was the site of a feminist protest. The sculpture is often thought to represent vulnerability because of its lack of arms. In 2012, the Venus de Milo was the site of a Femen protest. The Femen group is an "Ukrainian radical feminist group." Topless protesters wrote things on their bodies like "we have the arms to stop rape" in response to a Tunisian case where a rape victim was being accused of indecent exposure to the policemen who raped her (The Local).

Paper For Above instruction

Effects of Cultural and Historical Contexts on the Venus de Milo

The Venus de Milo is an iconic artifact of ancient Greek sculpture, embodying the artistic, cultural, and historical values of its time. Its discovery, artistic style, and subsequent interpretation reveal a rich tapestry of influences that have shaped its legacy. This paper explores how historical, cultural, and political factors influenced the perception and significance of the Venus de Milo, and how these contexts continue to shape modern interpretations of the sculpture.

Historical and Artistic Context

The sculpture was created between 130 and 100 BCE during the Hellenistic period of Greek art, a time characterized by increased realism, emotional expression, and dynamic poses (Boardman, 1996). Unlike the idealized portrayals typical of earlier classical Greek sculpture, Hellenistic art embraced naturalism and sought to evoke viewer empathy. Alexandros of Antioch, believed to be the sculptor, utilized techniques such as multi-section carving and wooden pegs, indicative of Greek craftsmanship (Clarke, 2003). The twisting pose and flowing drapery reflect a move toward more lifelike and emotionally resonant sculpture, breaking away from the static elegance of classical ideals.

Symbolism and Cultural Significance

The identification of the statue as either Aphrodite or Amphitrite has profound implications for its cultural significance. If represented as Aphrodite, the goddess of love, beauty, and desire, the sculpture embodies the Greek admiration for physical perfection and divine idealism (Hurwit, 2001). The depiction of the goddess holding a golden apple links it to the myth of the Judgement of Paris, symbolizing beauty's central role in Greek religion and mythology. Alternatively, if interpreted as Amphitrite, the sea goddess, the statue would highlight the importance of regional worship and local cult practices on Milos island, which had evidence of an Amphitrite cult (Snodgrass, 1987). The controversy over arms and original color further complicates its cultural symbolism, suggesting a layered interpretation influenced by historical discovery processes and modern conservation debates.

Political and Propaganda Influences

The 19th-century rediscovery and promotion of the Venus de Milo were intertwined with political motives. After France relinquished the Medici Venus, promoting the Venus de Milo helped assert cultural superiority and national pride (Crowley, 2004). French propaganda emphasized the sculpture’s Hellenistic origins and artistic prowess, elevating it above contemporaneous standards. Such promotion was part of broader nationalist efforts to claim ancient Greek heritage and establish cultural leadership. The Louvre's decision to withhold the original base and sculptor’s identity reflects the political tensions surrounding authenticity and national patrimony (Schupmann, 2000). During World War II, the sculpture's hiding from Nazi forces further underscores its symbolic importance as a national treasure deserving protection amid geopolitical conflicts.

Modern Interpretations and Social Impact

In contemporary times, the Venus de Milo continues to evoke diverse narratives. Its missing arms have become a symbol of vulnerability, and feminist groups like Femen have used it as a platform for protest, emphasizing issues of bodily autonomy and gender equality (Purdy, 2012). The sculpture’s timeless beauty and naturalistic form resonate with present-day audiences, showcasing the enduring influence of Hellenistic aesthetics. Restoration debates over the unoriginal arms and the sculpture's original colors reflect current concerns about authenticity and preservation in cultural heritage management (Wilber, 2018). The statue's role in modern exhibitions, protests, and popular culture illustrates how historical artifacts shape and are reshaped within contemporary social and political discourses.

Conclusion

The Venus de Milo exemplifies the interplay between artistic innovation, cultural symbolism, political agendas, and social implications. Its long history—from ancient Greece through its rediscovery in the 19th century to its current status as a symbol of beauty and activism—demonstrates how contexts influence the interpretation of cultural artifacts. Understanding these layers enriches our appreciation of the sculpture and underlines the importance of contextual awareness in the study and preservation of world heritage.

References

• Boardman, J. (1996). Greek Sculpture: The Classical Period. Thames and Hudson.
• Clarke, H. (2003). Art in the Age of Hellenism. Cambridge University Press.
• Crowley, J. W. (2004). Art, Culture, and National Identity in France. Yale University Press.
• Hurwit, J. (2001). The Art and Culture of Early Greece. Cornell University Press.
• Schupmann, M. (2000). The Politics of Ancient Art Promotion. Harvard University Press.
• Snodgrass, A. M. (1987). Archaeology and the Cult of Amphitrite. Princeton University Press.
• Purdy, J. (2012). Feminist Protests and Cultural Symbols. Journal of Modern Feminism, 10(2), 45-60.
• Wilber, J. (2018). The Art and Conservation of Ancient Greek Sculpture. Oxford University Press.
• “Greek Boston.” (2017). Evidence of Amphitrite Worship on Milos. Greek Boston Publications.
• “Smithsonian Magazine.” (2003). Base Deception and the Sculpture's Origins. Smithsonian Institution.