Aphrodite review – a trashy way to treat the goddess of love
The Ashmolean Museum's Aphrodite exhibition brings together world-class loans and explores how the goddess has inspired artists through the ages, yet the curatorial approach is disjointed and fails to tell a coherent story. Rather than developing a clear narrative through European art—from Botticelli's influential Venus paintings onwards—the exhibition shifts focus to an archaeological theory that Greek Aphrodite was appropriated from an earlier Cypriot matriarchal deity, leaving significant gaps in art history.
The exhibition jumps between ancient Greek vases, Roman sculptures (including a Crouching Venus from the royal collection), and prehistoric Cypriot totems, presenting them out of chronological sequence. Whilst some rooms, such as the display of ancient Greek depictions, work effectively, the review highlights missed opportunities: there is no exploration of how the Crouching Venus influenced later masters like Rubens and Peter Lely, and the prehistoric origins theory is presented without convincingly explaining the development of the love goddess.
- Ashmolean's Aphrodite exhibition features fine loans but lacks coherent narrative structure.
- Show prioritises archaeology over art history, leaving centuries of artistic influence unexplored.
- Works presented out of sequence, missing chronological development of the goddess figure.
New here? Start with this
Aphrodite, the ancient Greek goddess of love and beauty, has been a central figure in Western art for centuries. The Ashmolean Museum in Oxford is currently hosting a major exhibition exploring how artists have drawn inspiration from this goddess across different periods, bringing together significant artworks from collections around the world.
The exhibition presents sculptures, pottery, paintings and other works spanning from ancient times through the Renaissance and beyond. It combines a traditional survey of how European artists depicted the goddess with a theory that the Greek Aphrodite may have originated from an earlier Cypriot matriarchal deity, weaving together archaeological and art historical perspectives.
Major museum exhibitions influence how the public understands cultural history and artistic heritage. The choices museums make about how to organise and present artworks can shape visitors' understanding, which is why the approach taken in this exhibition has drawn critical attention.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Contemporary curatorial practice increasingly values challenging Eurocentric narratives by exploring overlooked origins and alternative histories. By presenting archaeological evidence for pre-Hellenic influences on Aphrodite alongside classical works, the exhibition engages with important scholarship about how dominant cultures absorbed and transformed earlier traditions. Thematic rather than chronological presentation invites visitors to question received wisdom and recognise how modern scholarship understands cultural appropriation and historical revision.
The case against
An exhibition serves its audience best by developing a coherent narrative that visitors can follow and understand. The established art-historical account—showing how classical Aphrodite inspired Renaissance masters through to later artists—is both historically documented and intellectually compelling. By abandoning chronological development for scattered material across disconnected periods, the exhibition creates confusion rather than insight and wastes an opportunity to explore the goddess's genuine, traceable influence on Western artistic tradition through the centuries.