Although it is difficult to locate the origin of the image, there have been many historical accounts that appraise the realistic quality of the image in representing the object. Then, we may raise the following questions: Can realism be an important criterion in judging the quality of the image? What does reality in the image mean? How important is realism in art? What is the relationship between realism and the truth of the image? We can think of various examples of images, where realism is selectively employed to serve a particular purpose.

Even living in the age of digital reproduction, we are still amazed by an image that shows the likeness of the object in nature. Capturing the likeness of nature seems to have been the utmost task of the artist. There are some stories about painters whose realistic technique has lured the viewer. The Ancient Greek painter Zeuxis, was popular in the late 5th century B.C., he was one of the best-known painters for his trompe l’oeil (eye-fooling) technique. Zeuxis is said to have painted a bunch of grapes that looked so real, that a flock of birds flew down to eat them but could only peck at their picture. As to the eye-fooling technique, there is an anecdote on the contest between Zeuxis and Parrhasius. While acknowledging Zeuxis’ great skill to fool the birds with his picture, Parrhasius showed Zeuxis his painting. Then Zeuxis asked Parrhasius to pull away the curtain so that he could see the latter’s painting. It turned out that the curtain was the painting. While Zeuxis deceived the birds, Parrhasius deceived Zeuxis.

There was also a Korean painter, who was famous for his naturalistic painting. Shilla painter Sol-guh is said to have painted an old pine tree, on whose branches the birds attempted to perch but only fell to the ground.

Yet, if we assume that the primary goal of art is to translate nature into the image, we would be puzzled or disappointed by the lack of likeness of a numerous artworks. Why don’t we take a look at a small female figurine discovered in Willendorf, a village west of Vienna. [Fig.1]  The so-called Venus of Willendorf, a limestone statuette, about 11 centimeters in height, is said to be a figure of fertility goddess. Her shape shows a bold decision of its carver to emphasize her reproductive power. While her torso is depicted with exaggerated breasts, belly, buttocks, hips, and thighs, the hands and arms are folded across the top of the breast, the feet are omitted, and the face is blank. The selective exaggeration of particular parts, along with the complete misrepresentation of others, suggests that the likeness of a female body was not the main concerns of the carver. The diminutive size of the figure with no feet suggests that this figurine was supposed to be carried along in the nomadic culture of the period, and not for a public view. 

We may want to turn to another Venus, The Venus de Milo [Fig.2] since the title of the work reminds us of the Hellenistic skill and beauty of their sculptures. The Venus de Milo is one of the best sculptures to show the realism of Greek art at its maturity. Every part is in harmony with the others and ultimately with the whole, which embodies the aesthetic goal of classical antiquity. She looks very realistic, articulating all the parts of her body, idealized in form and ratio. If we compare her with a real human body, she may look too perfect and solid to be real. Her body is elongated and her head is rather small. Despite its seeming realism, the monumental figure of the Venus de Milo is based on the artist’s idealized rule of harmony. Inevitably it involves a selective ‘distortion’ to make the body look perfect. Compared to the figurine of a fertility goddess, this goddess of love is a larger-than-life-size marble statue found on Melos in Greece together with its inscribed base (now lost), signed by the sculptor. In addition, this Venus suggests subtle eroticism, though her body is not entirely exposed as is the fertility goddess. The modestly draped Venus embodies the sensuous quality of sculpture in the Hellenistic period. Her left hand (separately preserved) holds the apple that Paris gave her as an award for being the most beautiful goddess of all. Her right hand may have clasped the edge of her drapery near the left hip, trying to keep it from slipping farther down her body. The sculptor revealed his intention to tease the spectator by imbuing the monumental form of the Venus with sexuality.     

Then we become curious about the two different artists’ choices for their representation. Is the Venus de Milo a better work of art than the Venus of Willendorf because it shows more realist skills and a more rational rule of harmony? As to the truth depicted in the two figures, we cannot judge which one is truer to nature since both involves distortion. Both Venuses stray from reality as the artists made bold choices, playing with emphasis and omission of the form. The two different examples of the representation of the female body invite us to look into the different contexts, in which they were created. The reality in art can vary depending on the different time period, culture, and society. Thus, the apparent realism of the form cannot be the primary criterion, by which the quality of the work should be judged. The work of art invites us to explore a new world and excavate various memories from diverse cultures.

▲ Fig.1 The Venus of Willendorf, limestone, c.11cm in height, c.20,000-22,000 B.C.	▲ Fig.2 Alexandros of Antioch-on-the-Meander, Aphrodite (Venus de Milo), marble, 6'7" in height, Greece, c.150-125 B.C.

Kim Hee-Young(Professor, Dept. of Fine Art)

hyaroma@hotmail.com