As the only major oil painting by Rossetti to feature a nude figure, the eye of the male, Victorian consumer would settle on the sumptuous body of Venus. Only the highly conservative critic Ruskin seemed particularly repelled by Rossetti's representation. Though appalled by the sexual tones of the piece, he was perhaps too puritanical to voice the precise subject of his complaint, instead focusing on the flowers; 'awful in their coarseness'. Victorian society in the mid nineteenth century was well acquainted with the ability of flowers to evoke sensual symbolism. Floriography, or the study of the Language of flowers was a common interest. Equally by 1865 the sexual system of plant classification was also common parlance, thus eroticising flowers in the eyes of many viewers. Rossetti has amplified these tendencies in the honeysuckles right in the foreground of the picture plane - according to David Bentley they are nothing if not representations of 'sexual organs'.
In fact, most critical studies of Rossetti's painting have revolved around female sexuality, aided by both the title and the depth of symbolism that was really a prerequisite of Pre-Raphaelite art. As well as honeysuckles, the roses surrounding Venus act as metaphors of sexuality, a flower often accompanying the goddess. It is likely that Rossetti referred to John Lempriere's Classical Dictionary (1788) for his portrayal of Venus, which records 'the rose...and apple were sacred to her', both appearing in the depiction. The apple alludes to the Judgement of Paris, but also the temptation of Eve in the garden of paradise. Further religious undertones are presented in the halo hair, a reference to the Madonna. The golden halo is further illuminated by the yellow brimstone butterflies that seemingly flutter about the painting in pairs. Butterflies often symbolised the soul, and the pairing of butterflies could imply the joining of lover's souls both temporary and permanent. The golden halo is also surrounded by mulberries, symbolism that has been difficult to deconstruct. Perhaps it is a reference to Ovid's Metamorphosis and the tale of the star-crossed lovers Pyramus and Thisbe, where Thisbe finds her mortally wounded lover under a mulberry tree. Equally, the blue bird in the right hand corner of the painting has not been identified. It is not a swan, dove or sparrow, the birds that traditionally are associated with Venus. Thus a plethora of symbols and metaphors accompany this painting - it becomes much more than a simple study of female sexuality, more than a portrait of a beautiful goddess.
Interestingly, the sitter was not of high class, but apparently was a cook who worked at Portland Place in London. The face was later retouched to resemble Alexa Wilding, a usual model of the Pre-Raphaelites which is perhaps why she seems so recognisable to us today. Undeniably with her porcelain skin, luscious red lips and surrounding erotic foliage this is a sensual piece. But there is also a sense of distance. The flowers in the foreground create a barrier between the spectator and sitter, as does her blank, expressionless gaze. With the arrow of Cupid poised at her heart, she becomes the image of a femme fatale,a deadly woman, suggesting that with love comes pain, and ultimately death. Equally the connection of Venus to Eve and to the Madonna with the halo presents a very ambiguous depiction of a woman. She is erotic, yet a symbol of chastity. The paradoxes and ambiguities that are wound up in the piece are perhaps best expressed by the Victorian art critic Frederic George Stephens in 1865; 'her ways are inscrutable; there is no more of evil than of good in her; she is victorious and indomitable'.
Comments
Post a Comment