Page 22 - Studio International - October1968

THE EFFECT OF THE EXHIBITION as ever, was of would ask if it is necessary. The protective fury who have worked for him have gone on subse-
sheer mastery: of an artist who never, or hardly aroused by Anthony Caro's Observer article and quently to make original statements of their own.
ever, makes a bad sculpture. It was Moore's the recent letter from a group of younger artists These artists clearly felt they had something to
Seated Warrior in the Holland Park exhibition of to The Times, indicate that it is impossible to dis- learn from Moore: what was it, and how has it
1956 that decided me on a career of sculpture. I cuss Moore's position and achievement without affected their work? What is it that distinguishes
had never looked seriously at sculpture before, yet being accused of disloyalty, even treachery. In the sculpt ors who have worked for him from those who
that piece looked so complex and yet so assured, so long term Moore's reputation cannot be enhanced have not? In general, there is a reticence about
masterful, so right, as to make all the work around, by the absence of any debate on the importance of Moore's use of assistants that seems unrealistic in
mostly of a far more obvious expressive appeal, his work. If it has the quality that is claimed for it, view of the facts: Moore certainly could not have
such as Clatworthy's Bull, figures by Frink, Butler it can surely protect itself. My own feeling is that carried out the great volume of public work in late.
and Chadwick, seem somehow too simplified, too what Moore has unselfishly given to British art, by years without help : surely there must have been
accessible. setting his ambitions and standards higher than some sort of dialogue between him and his assistants,
Even after twelve years of thinking about and any English artist for a century, and achieved by if the experience was to be of value to either party.
working at sculpture I find it impossible to rid raising the whole level of aspiration and effort of What one really asks for, on an occasion like
myself of this first impression. Mastery. Things British artists, has been, in the last account, at the this, is not that Moore should change his persona-
stick in one's memory, like an interview with John cost of his own contribution to the evolution of lity—indeed he is capable of a self-renewal that
Russell some years ago in the Sunday Times, in modern art in general. continually surprises, as in the beautifully ordered
which Moore said something to the effect that 'he The unreality of Moore's present position, the Bridge prop reclining figure of 1963, and the most
could turn anything into sculpture'. absence of communication between him and other recent polished bronze Vertebrae reclining figure—but
And yet—this mastery over matter, the degree of artists, except through the filter of a respectful that the way in which the artist and his work are
control over visual and tactile reality—knowing so audience, also tends to obscure the exact nature of presented could be a great deal more varied and
well in advance how an object will turn out, its his contribution to British art. For example, we are less pious. For example, where does Moore stand,
presence and effect—all this seems to me now at given, in the catalogue introduction by David by comparison with Brancusi, Calder, Arp, Lip-
variance with that concept of 'innocence' estab- Sylvester, instances of the correspondence of his chitz, Gonzalez, Smith, Laurens, Giacometti? To
lished for modern art by Cezanne and Monet. work, previous to 1939, with Picasso, Brancusi, me his achievement seems comparable with that of
Paradoxically, in this context, the mastery of a Arp, Giacometti; but nothing since the war. How Lipchitz: both solid and workmanlike careers of
medium, and real achievement in it, are in conflict : has his work influenced, or been influenced by, artists whose approach to sculpture was physical
what is needed is the ability not to know: to prevent successive generations of British sculptors? Surely and :intuitive, rather than conceptual; who both
the physical consequences of an idea modifying the transition from the textured, directly figurative during the course of their careers produced work
that idea while it is still in the mind. images of the 50s to the present abstract or near- that ntroduced new elements into modern sculp-
Perhaps Moore's present identification with abstract smooth carvings and polished bronzes ture; but the general tendency of whose work has
Michelangelo may be based on an awareness of needs more explanation than the pressures of his been toward the renewal of a public, monumental
this problem: that in sculpture it is possible to own development. No artist works in a vacuum: (and for our time, rhetorical) tradition, rather
control reality to a far greater extent than is pos- there is a sense in which modern art is a conversa- than re-thinking the basis of sculpture itself.
sible in either painting or architecture. For tion between artists. Moore's early and acknow- In terms of opening up something new for sculp-
Michelangelo a sense of dissatisfaction with his ledged debt to Picasso in no way belittles his ture, Moore's re-discovery or at least re-affirmation
own mastery in sculpture might explain both his achievement in that area—in fact the 'anatomy% for modern art of the horizontal axis has been his
involvement in painting and architecture, where type pieces, the stringed sculptures, and the Three most fruitful contribution. Whereas for Moore this
the problems and stimulus were greater, and the points of the pre-war years, in the period when has largely meant laying the block horizontally and
almost wilful failure to complete certain sculptures, Moore was finding his way in modern sculpture, opening it up, various pieces, such as the Composi-
as though he had set himself problems of expression and was challenged and stimulated by what was tion (reclining figure) of 1934, point to the possibility
that were in effect insoluble. going on in Paris, contain a far higher proportion of a freer form of horizontal articulation that has
The myth of the sculptor's heroic struggle with of really strong and inventive pieces than anything notably been developed by Anthony Caro from
material resolves itself as the artist's struggle with he has achieved since. One artist states a theme; 1960 on.
himself, with his own facility. another develops it; a third turns it on its head; Meanwhile, disappointingly, physical comparison
No one can doubt the sincerity of Moore's engage- and so on. This is the way art grows and changes; of Moore's work with other masters in the Tate
ment with the past, especially with Michelangelo— it is a natural and necessary process, and artists must wait until the gallery has rectified the
to which such pieces as the clumsy elm-wood gain and do not lose their identity by taking part balance of its modern sculpture collection. One
Reclining figure of 1959-64 are a monument—but in it. Those who would isolate Moore from it have unimportant piece each by Brancusi and Laurens,
one can surely question whether the degree to done neither him, nor art, a service. nothing by Gonzalez or the pre-war Giacometti,
which he has separated himself from the main Moore's most direct source of influence on the hardly give one the opportunity to measure
current of modern art since the war has resulted in development of English art in recent years has been Moore's stature against the standards he himself
an achievement that, while it appears heroic, is so through the generations of young sculptors he has has set.
in terms of the past and not of our own time. successively employed as his assistants. This exhi-
It is not easy for a young English sculptor to bition, nor the catalogue introduction, does
evaluate Moore's work and I suppose many people nothing to illuminate this subject. Several sculptors

Moore at the

Tate

William Tucker, the sculptor,
discusses the recent Moore
retrospective