BP #4

I visited the MET museum this weekend and found this copper alloy statue of an Indian goddess. The style here is definitely representational, but it is an idealized representational figure. According to the MET museum’s description, the artist tried to portray the Indian goddess Parvati, who was “consort of Shiva and mother of the elephant-headed god Ganesh.” This figure depicts what India viewed as transcending female perfection at the time –small waist, large chest, soft and curvy body outline, small feet, petite face, and covered in jewels. Since the purpose of this artwork was probably to both put a face to the unknown and commemorate Hindu myths, it illustrates the everlasting presence and timelessness of Parvati’s beauty and being.

In Selections, Berger states, “Her own sense of being in herself is supplanted by the sense of being appreciated by herself by another.” How male Indian artists presented their society’s idea of how a woman should physically appear in their art probably influenced some of Indian women’s thoughts of their own body image. Some Indian women at the time might have interpreted this statue as a guideline on how to aesthetically be goddess-like. These women would have measured themselves to this specific standard and in turn, they would have been measuring themselves up to a standard that didn’t even exist – a standard that may have been just a product of a man’s (probably) lustful fantasy and therefore a standard that could never be fulfilled.

It’s interesting how this goddess and the idea of the perfect woman it’s supposed to portray so closely resembles some individuals’ idea of the perfect woman in this day and age.