3-4 pages essay to discuss the statues of the Doryphoros, Aphrodite of Knidos and Venus

Codes of (un)dress and gender constructs from the Greek to the Roman world

he

By 6th c. BC: Greek male and female dress codes firmly established

Archaic kouros and kore statues

demonstrate how the body was

used in the naturalization of

gender constructs

The naked male body in the

classical period:

the Doryphoros as a heroic athlete- warrior citizen

Male sexuality: conditions by the patriarchal ideology of domination, it restricted sexual expression and freedom

in homosexual relations

and heterosexual relations

In the classical period,

while the naked male body was idealized and heroized,

the female naked body was always

sexualized and objectified.

Centauromachy (late 5th c. Bassae): the Greek female is defenseless and sexualized (must be defended by Greek men).

Gendered nakedness in mythological scenes: the Greek male is always heroized

Amazonomachy (4th c. Halikarnassos): the non- Greek female is wild and

sexualized (must be dominated by Greek men).

Aphrodite (Roman Venus): at first fully dressed

The gradual disrobing of Aphrodite in monumental statues, late 5th to 4th c. BC (Roman copies)

“Venus Genetrix”, original late 5th c. BC

“Venus of Capua”, original 4th c. BC

Aphrodite of Knidos, original 4th c. BC

Late 5th c. onwards: minor goddesses were also represented sexualized in statues, but only Aphrodite appeared entirely naked by the 4th c. BC.

Nike (Victory), late 5th c., Olympia.

Aphrodite of Knidos by Praxiteles, 4th c. (Roman copy)

Aphrodite “Beautiful Buttocks”, Roman

copy (Greek ca. 300).

Doryphoros and Aphrodite of Knidos (Knidia or Knidian Aphrodite), Roman

copies. What main

differences do you observe?

Was her nakedness really threatening to patriarchy (Andrew

Stewart)? Or, in what ways

was her nakedness aligned with

patriarchal ideology? Could she have been

empowering for women?

The traditional visual presence of a divine

statue at the far end of a rectangular temple

was very different (Olympian Zeus)

Aphrodite of Knidos was displayed in an unusual temple (round plan), so as to be seen from all sides, like a beautiful object.

The original Aphrodite of

Knidos is lost.

Numerous Roman copies of the Knidian

Aphrodite exist (with variations

in details).

“Colonna Venus” Vatican Museums.

“Ludovisi Venus”, Palazzo

Altemps, Rome (only the torso is ancient, the

rest is 17th-c, restoration.)

Capitoline Venus, Rome

Medici Venus, Florence

Variations on the “Venus pudica” type,

Greek Hellenistic originals, Roman

copies.

Are they more modest or also more shamed?

Latin pudore: modesty, chastity, shame.

Greek aidos: shame, modesty

(aidion=vagina)

There is no male “pudicus” type in Greco-Roman

sculpture.

These unequal gender constructs are still around

today,

to the detriment of all of us!

There is no male “pudicus” type in Greco-

Roman sculpture. An effective way to realize

how absurd yet largely unchallenged such

constructed sexist tropes are,

is to imagine them reversed!

Imagine the Doryphoros in the pose of the Knidia

and Aphrodite in the pose of the Doryphoros.

Some reversals of contemporary sexist visual

tropes below…

Petter Lindqvist (from Swedish fashion label byPM) posed like a female model in an American Apparel ad seen in the insert (2013)

Eli Rezkallah reversed sexist ads of the 50’s in his project In a Parallel Universe (2018)

Kevin Bolk has given this Avengers poster a gender

swamp in his

Avengers Booty Ass-emble (2011).

Kevin Bolk said: ”I couldn’t help but notice that in most of the ad

material, the guys are all in heroic stances but Black Widow is almost always in an impractical, curved-

spine “booty shot” pose. Figured I’d flip it around for my lady friends

out there. Seemed only fair.”

Endeavour to create your own images and stories:

challenge –isms and stereotypes by celebrating our wondrous and diverse identities and potential…

Yinka Shonibare CBE, Aphrodite of Knidos (After Praxiteles), 2017. Unique fiberglass sculpture, hand- painted with Dutch wax cotton pattern, custom-made hand-colored globe and steel baseplate. Dimensions: 143.5 x 57.0 x 37.0 cm. From the artist’s website: “Shonibare questions the meaning of cultural and national definitions. His trademark material is the brightly colored ‘African’ batik fabric he buys in London. This type of fabric was inspired by Indonesian design, mass-produced by the Dutch and eventually sold to the colonies in West Africa. In the 1960s the material became a new sign of African identity and independence.”

Up to now we have examined the

construction of gender identities through

ancient Greek monumental sculptures like the Doryphoros and the Knidian Aphrodite.

Below we consider material from the

Roman period.

Periodization of History: conventional and often biased

From the Greek point of view:

“Coming of the Greeks” c. (circa) 2000-1900 BC?

Mycenaean period c. 1700-1200/1100 BC

Syb-Mycenaean or Proto-geometric c. 1100-900 BC

Geometric period c. 900-700 BC 9 th-8th c.

Archaic period c. 700-500 BC 7th-6th c.

Classical period c. 500-323 BC 5th-4th c.

Hellenistic period 323-31 BC 4th-1st c.

Roman period 31 BC to 330 or 476 AC?

Periodization of History from the Roman point of view: Latins (Latini, in Latium, where Rome would be founded): identifiable Italian culture from around 1000 BC.

Rome founded: 753 BC Roman Monarchy: 753-509 BC

(Etruscan influence)

Roman Republic: 509-27 BC

Roman empire: 27 BC-476 AC?

The Roman Empire 1st c. BC-2nd c. AC Horace: Greece captured its captor (with its culture)

The Romans were a patriarchal warrior culture. They embraced Greek myths and visual traditions because they could serve their own social and cultural values. This wall-painting from Herculaneum, 1st c. AC depicts the Greek hero Herakles, Roman Hercules, as a model fighter-heroe and father of heroes. He discovers baby Telepheus whom he fathered with Auge (Arcadian princess). Both the myth and its visual rendering support the patriarchal values of the Greek and Roman warrior cultures.

Characteristic Roman tradition of the Late Republic (1st c. BC):

“Pseudo-athlete of Delos”, 1st c. BC

What is the point of this combination of features?

idealized “Greek” body combined with veristic “Roman” portrait (Latin veritas=truth).

Which type of Greek statue does the pose and body of the Pseudo-athlete imitate?

“Pseudo-athlete of Delos”, 1st c. BC

A copy of the Diadoumenos by

Polykleitos was found in the same

house in Delos (same pose as Doryphoros).

Another example of the “Pseudo-athlete” tradition: the “Tivoli General”, dedicated to the Temple of Hercules at Tivoli, 1st c. BC.

Another characteristic Roman tradition (of the imperial period):

Mythical (heroic or divine) figures combined with portraits of specific

individuals (imperial or not).

Venus and Mars, 2nd c. AC, Louvre Museum, Paris, France

The Venus and Mars type is based on the combination of two pre-existing Greek types: “Venus of Capua” (4th c. BC) and “Ares Borghese” (5th c. BC).

Their “Greekness” was appealing to wealthy Roman patrons. They were adapted to serve Roman values.

In Greek and Roman mythology, Aphrodite (Roman Venus) was forced

to marry Hephaestus (Roman Vulcan).

Ares (Roman Mars) was her lover.

So why did the Romans choose this adulterous couple as a worthy

subject?

Venus and Mars, 2nd c. AC, Louvre Museum, Paris, France

Venus and Mars were particularly important to the Romans, as their progenitors:

Venus and Mars, 2nd c. AC, Louvre Museum, Paris, France

Mars: the father of Romulus and Remus (founders of Rome).

Mars was particularly venerated as the god of military might and virility.

Venus: the mother of Aeneas (another Roman ancestor and founder).

The family of Julius Caesar and Augusts traced their lineage back to Venus.

Caesar dedicated the temple of Venus Genetrix.

Augusts dedicated the temple of Mars Ultor.

Mars and Venus groups could have political and cultural significance for all Romans.

Fragment of a Venus and Mars sculpture from the Temple of

Mars Ultor, Forum of Augustus, late 1st c. BC

2nd c. AC: the adulterous Mars and Venus are given portrait features and are meant to symbolize marital love. How could this be considered appropriate? Oral tradition, flexible and selective use of myths, adaptations in pantomimes which were familiar to all classes. Symbolizing the values, virtues and identities of the people portrayed: • Beautiful, desirable, loving wife. • Valorous, brave, virile husband. • Affectionate relationship according to

Roman cultural values. Message appropriate for funerary and domestic contexts.

Venus and Mars, 2nd c. AC, possibly from a home, Louvre Museum, Paris, France

It seems the sculpture has reversed the literary description…

What gender roles are articulated through differences in pose, clothing, expression, gaze, etc.?

Lucretius, “On the Nature of Things”, 1st c. BC: Mars reclines on the lap of Venus, conquered, breathless, gapping at her…

Venus and Mars, 2nd c. AC, Louvre

Venus and Mars, mid-2nd c. AC, Musei Capitolini, Rome, Italy. Possibly from a tomb. Similar gender dynamics seen in the Louvre group.

Sarcophagus with Venus and Mars, ca. 200-250 BC. Munich, Künstlerhaus. Confirmation that Venus and Mars statues were also used in funerary contexts.

Venus and Mars, second half of the 2nd c. AC, Palazzo Chigi, Rome, Italy. Similar gender dynamics.

Venus and Mars, 2nd c. AC, Louvre and Palazzo Chigi.

Dupondius of Faustina Minor (wife of emperor Marcus Aurelius), with portrait of empress on the obverse and Venus and Mars on the reverse, ca. 162-175 AC. Faustina Minor (Younger) and Marcus Aurelius had a loving relationship. She followed him in his campaigns and was respected by the soldiers. Aurelius gave her the title “Mother of the Camp” (Mater Castrorum). Later sources accuse her of corruption and adultery. In light of the above, how should we interpret her dupondius Venus and Mars group? Consider the intentions of the imperial couple and the views of the public.

Perhaps in Roman eyes these statues spoke of proper conjugal affection,

in which the wife is more emotionally attached in comparison to the husband.

19th-c. statues of Mars and Venus present a different emotional relationship between the two gods.

Leopold Kiesling, 1809. Antonio Canova, 1815-22.

Roman wall-paintings from Pompeian houses (1st c. AC): House of Mars and Venus (left) and House of Meleager (right), National Archaeological Museum, Naples.

In domestic paintings, the interaction between Mars and Venus is more intimate, unlike the public roles embodied in the sculptural group. Mainstream gender roles are upheld once more. In paintings, Mars actively desires irresistible yet “passive looking” Venus. His attention on her is sexual. His focus is her beauty and sexuality. Disarmed Mars, enjoying life: harmony and peace at home? Fertility of marriage (especially when pictured with children, always male).