Henry Moore in America: Art, Business and the Special Relationship 9780755603800, 9781848858213

Citation preview

List of Illustrations All images of Henry Moore and his work are reproduced by permission of the Henry Moore Foundation. Unless stated otherwise the photographs by the author were taken in July/August 2003. Irina Ironing, Perry Green, undated (photograph: John Hedgecoe). 3 Henry Moore photographing a sculpture in his studio at Perry Green, 1953 (photograph: Keystone Press). 21 Henry Moore with some of his sculptures on the loading bay at Perry Green, April 1972 (photograph: John Swope). 22 Image of pithead, Castleford, from John Hedgecoe, Henry Moore, 1968, p. 13 (photograph: John Hedgecoe). 26 Article ‘Henry Moore at Home’, New York Times Magazine, 23 July 1972, p. 33, showing the sitting room in Hoglands, the small plastic studio and the front view of the house (photographs: Henry Moore Foundation archive). 28 Henry Moore carving the elmwood Reclining Figure 1959–64, Perry Green (photograph: Errol Jackson). 29 Henry Moore sweeping up after a day at work on Reclining Figure 1959–64, Perry Green, 1964 (photograph: Crispin Eurich). 30 Fig. 8 London Vogue, November 1955, p. 103. Photograph of Henry Moore in studio (photograph: Ida Kar. © National Portrait Gallery). 32 Fig. 9 Cover of David Finn’s One Man’s Henry Moore, 1993 (photographs: David Finn). 34 Fig. 10 Henry Moore, Nuclear Energy 1964–6, University of Chicago (photograph: Pauline Rose). 47 Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Fig. 5 Fig. 6 Fig. 7

vii



viii

H enry moore in america

Fig. 11 Henry Moore and Herbert Read at a small exhibition in Paris organised by the British Council, 1945 (photograph: Henry Moore Foundation archive). Fig. 12 Henry Moore with Raymond and Patsy Nasher, Perry Green, September 1967 (photograph: Charles Gimpel). Fig. 13 Cover of Burroughs Clearing House, February 1979, showing Raymond Nasher with Henry Moore, Three Piece No. 3: Vertebrae 1968 (photograph: Nasher Foundation). Fig. 14 Leaflet for the exhibition Dallas Gets Moore, 19 June– 30 July 1977 (photograph: Nasher Foundation) Fig. 15 Dallas Gets Moore, installation view. Published in Dallas Morning News, June 1977 (photograph: Nasher Foundation). Fig. 16 Henry Moore and Perry Rathbone after being created Honorary Doctor of Arts, Harvard, June 1958 (photograph: Henry Moore Foundation archive). Fig. 17 Henry Moore with Curt Valentin in the artist’s Top Studio, Perry Green c.1950 (photograph: Henry Moore Foundation archive). Fig. 18 Museum of Modern Art, New York, July 1946. William Hayter, Anton Zwemmer, René d’Harnoncourt (photograph: Henry Moore Foundation archive). Fig. 19 Photograph published alongside article ‘British Sculptor Henry Moore shocks and pleases in his first big exhibit in U.S.’, Life, Chicago, 20 January 1947, pp. 77–9 (photograph: Henry Moore Foundation archive). Fig. 20 Henry Moore with (left to right) Lord Kenneth Clark, Dominique Bozo and Lady Henderson at the exhibition Henry Moore, Sculptures et Desins, Orangerie des Tuileries, Paris, 1977 (photograph: the Henry Moore Foundation archive). Fig. 21 George Ablah on his private jet, front cover of The Smithsonian, November 1984 (photograph: © Marvin E. Newman). Fig. 22 Henry Moore with Joseph Hirshhorn at Perry Green, November 1962 (photograph: Charles Gimpel).

54

60

62 66

67

75

76

79

82

86

91 110

list of illustrations

Fig. 23 Henry Moore, Working Model for Three Way Piece No. 3: Vertebrae 1968, Hirshhorn Museum Sculpture Garden, Washington, DC (photograph: Pauline Rose). Fig. 24 Henry Moore, Two Piece Reclining Figure: Points 1969–70, outside Hirshhorn Museum, Washington, DC, with the National Gallery of Art in the background (photograph: Pauline Rose). Fig. 25 View from West Wing to East Wing, National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC with Henry Moore, Mirror Knife Edge 1977 in the background (photograph: Pauline Rose). Fig. 26 Henry Moore, Mirror Knife Edge 1977 outside East Wing, National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC (photograph: Pauline Rose). Fig. 27 Dallas City Hall with Henry Moore, Three Forms Vertebrae 1978 just visible in background (photograph: Pauline Rose). Fig. 28 Henry Moore, Three Forms Vertebrae 1978, Dallas City Hall (photograph: Pauline Rose). Fig. 29 Henry Moore, Two Piece Reclining Figure No. 3 1961, Dallas Museum of Art (photograph: Pauline Rose). Fig. 30 Pablo Picasso, Untitled 1967, Daley Plaza, Chicago (© 2011 Estate of Pablo Picasso/Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York) (photograph: Pauline Rose). Fig. 31 Henry Moore, Large Interior Form 1981, Art Institute of Chicago (photograph: Pauline Rose). Fig. 32 Henry Moore, Sundial (Man Enters the Cosmos) 1979, Adler Planetarium, Chicago (photograph: Pauline Rose). Fig. 33 Henry Moore, Three Way Piece No. 1: Points 1964–5, Philadelphia Parkway (photograph: Pauline Rose). Fig. 34 Henry Moore, Reclining Figure 1963–5, Lincoln Center, New York (photograph: Pauline Rose). Fig. 35 Advertising Supplement to the New York Times, ‘Henry Moore in the Parks’, 1 July 1984, showing Two Piece Reclining Figure: Points 1969–70 (owner unknown, ex George Ablah collection) (photograph: David Finn). Fig. 36 Henry Moore, Reclining Mother and Child 1975–6, Brooklyn Botanical Gardens, New York, 1984 (photograph: Waintrob-Budd). Fig. 37 Henry Moore, Sheep Piece 1971–2, Kansas City (photograph: Henry Moore Foundation archive).

112

113

115

120

125 128 132

134 139

140 148 150

158

160 164

ix





H e nry m o o r e in a m e ric a

Fig. 38 The Ruder & Finn Review, 1977, showing Henry Moore, Seated Figure on Circular Steps, 1957, owned by David Finn (photograph: David Finn). Fig. 39 Henry Moore, Reclining Figure 1956, PepsiCo, purchase (photograph: Pauline Rose). Fig. 40 Deere & Co., Moline, brochure showing the arrival of Henry Moore Hill Arches 1973 (photograph: Henry Moore Foundation archive) Fig. 41 Henry Moore, Large Upright Internal/External Form 1981, 3 First National Plaza, Chicago (photograph: Pauline Rose). Fig. 42 Images on invitation to world premiere of Henry Moore, Robert M. Fresno film, Guggenheim Museum, New York, 28 May 1980 (photograph: Henry Moore Foundation archive). Fig. 43 Henry Moore, Working Model for Two Piece Reclining Figure: Cut 1978–80, lobby of Hyatt Corporation, Chicago (photograph: Pauline Rose). Fig. 44 Inside Moore’s Maquette Studio, Perry Green, 2000 (photograph: Pauline Rose). Fig. 45 Henry Moore, Working Model for Locking Piece 1962, National Museum of Romania, Bucharest, 2008 (photograph: Pauline Rose). Fig. 46 Henry Moore’s grave at Perry Green churchyard, 2000 (photograph: Pauline Rose).

179 183

185

186

190

195 199

207 208

Acknowledgements I clearly remember the origins of this book. In the early 1990s I began my undergraduate studies in art history. Before long I realised that most of the work we were looking at was two-dimensional, and my suggestion that I research and write an essay on eighteenthcentury British sculpture was met with some resistance. Even at that early stage in my studies I sensed that British sculpture was on the periphery of the discipline of art history. Much has changed and this subject is now receiving long overdue attention. That first experience was the beginning of a continuing fascination with this most tangible and insistent of the visual arts. At the end of the decade my interest in Henry Moore grew out of another sense of frustration: here was a British sculptor about whom many words had been written but analysis of his practice was routinely restricted to an emphasis on formal issues, his geographical roots in Yorkshire, as well as a reliance on the sculptor’s own words as the explanation of his work and remarkable achievements. As my postgraduate studies continued I became more broadly interested in the support systems for artists, the ways in which they and their work could be co-opted for various agendas, and how in some cases, talent notwithstanding, such artists were ‘in the right place at the right time’. In writing this book I am indebted to many individuals and organisations. Since my research was from the outset deliberately empirical, much pleasurable time was spent in museums, galleries, archives and libraries. In the early stages I spent several periods spent in the archives and library at the Henry Moore Foundation in Much Hadham, Hertfordshire and I am grateful for the Foundation’s hospitality. Other early archival research in London helped to refine the project and here I would like to thank the staff and archivists at the British Council; the British Library; the Hyman Kreitman xi



xii

H enry moore in america

Research Centre, Tate Britain; the London Metropolitan Archives; the National Archives, Kew and the National Gallery. The second stage of my research into major Moore public sculpture commissions in the United States comprised a six-week visit to that country in 2003. During this period I photographed Moore sculptures in situ and undertook interviews and detailed archival investigation. Once again individuals at a number of institutions gave me their time and assistance, enabling me to quickly find material during a very tight schedule. These included: in Dallas, the Public Library, and the archives at City Hall; in Kansas City, the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art; in Chicago the archives at the Art Institute of Chicago, the Regenstein Library at the University of Chicago and the archives of the Adler Planetarium; in Washington, DC, the Archives of American Art, the National Gallery of Art archives, and the Library of Congress; in Philadelphia, the Historical Society of Pennsylvania; in New York, the archives of the Museum of Modern Art, the Neuberger Museum of Art, Purchase, the Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts, the New York Parks Department, the Avery Library at Columbia University and the City Art Commission. Many other individuals in the United States contributed to this project through correspondence and direct discussion and are hereby thanked: George Ablah; Lana Baumeister, John Nicolls, Ed Rabin and Allen Turner of the Hyatt Corporation, Chicago; Professor Carl Djerassi, Stanford University; David Finn, Ruder Finn Public Relations, New York; the late Bruce Graham, Graham & Graham Architecture & Interior Design, Hobe Sound; Laura S. Griffith, Fairmount Park Association, Philadelphia; Billy Hines, NorthPark Shopping Centre, Dallas; Donald M. Kendall, former Chief Executive Officer at PepsiCo, Purchase; Julie Kronick, Neiman Marcus, Dallas; Susan Larson, Larson Associates, Chicago; Dr. Bonnie Lovell; the late Margaret McLeod, formerly of the British Council; Sammie Morris, the Dallas Museum of Art; Kevin Morrison, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, Chicago; Jed Morse, the Nasher Foundation, Dallas; the late Raymond Nasher; Janice Peacock, NorthPark Centre, Dallas; I.M. Pei, George H. Miller, Pei Cobb Freed & Partners, New York; Lisa Spurgeon, Deere & Co., Moline; Henry Stern; the late Ed Stone

acknowledgements

Jr, EDSA, Los Angeles; Jan Toftey, Sara Lee Corporation, Chicago; and Gwendolyn Weiner. For their assistance in either facilitating or directly granting permission to use the primary source material that is a key part of my book I would also like to thank Anthony Barnett, Roger Berthoud, Olga Hirshhorn, William McNeill, Nancy Nasher, Ben Read, Louise Read, Sean Sweeney and John Wyver. Overall, all reasonable attempts have been made to secure copyright clearance. The writing of this book has also been aided by welcome feedback from colleagues at various international conferences including those held at the Victoria & Albert Museum, London; Benares Hindu University, India; the University of Bucharest; the Russian Academy of Arts, St. Petersburg and the Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles. My experience at these conferences, many of which encompassed disciplines beyond fine art, convinced me that my approach to Henry Moore had broad as well as specialist appeal. It was reassuring to receive positive responses not just from art historians and specialists in sculpture studies but also from scholars from the fields of popular culture, film, photography, literature and history, and from truly international audiences. An article based on my research into Henry Moore in Dallas was published in the Sculpture Journal in 2008 and I am grateful to Editor Katherine Eustace for her advice. The Russian Academy of Arts published another essay in 2010 that focused on the ways in which written and visual material on Moore might be regarded as a form of portraiture. The J. Paul Getty Museum’s 2011 online publication of the proceedings of their conference on the relationship between American and British sculpture in the postwar period included my essay on the role played by journalism and photography in expediting Moore’s career in the United States. I am fortunate to have received substantial financial and remission support from my employers, the Arts University Bournemouth. They have enabled me to ‘air’ my Moore research at international conferences and in 2010–11 awarded me a research fellowship in order to progress this book. I am also grateful to the Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British Art who have funded the illustrations. In relation to images I would also like to thank David Finn and the Nasher Foundation, both of whom generously allowed me to reproduce their photographs free of charge.

xiii



xiv

H enry moore in america

Professor Brandon Taylor oversaw the birth and ‘difficult teens’ of this project and I am indebted to him for his patience, incisive advice and continuing support over the years. I also wish to thank Dr Margaret Garlake for her enthusiastic response to my topic, her generosity of spirit, and guidance on the truly challenging task of attempting to make a PhD thesis something people might want to read, and Professor Marcia Pointon for her suggestions and encouragement at the point when I was approaching publishers. Finally, I wish to record my profound gratitude to my husband David Rose whose continuous encouragement and belief in my endeavours has given me the support I have needed. This book is dedicated to him.



1

Introduction

Henry Moore (1898–1986) presents us with a paradox. There is an imbalance between his mass appeal and critical reputation. His considerable financial success may in some quarters have marked him as a populist, not worthy of serious analysis. When he does receive critical attention, the focus is generally on his early work created before the 1960s. In contrast, the focus of this book is on the acquisition by American business and civic bodies of major public works which date from the later period of the sculptor’s career, generally being scaled-up versions of earlier pieces. For these patrons Moore was the first choice amongst British, and often European, sculptors when a non-American was being considered for a prestigious commission. As we will see there are many reasons for this which range from the fortuitous personal contact right through to British governmental imperatives on the world stage and the context of the Cold War. In 1946, after viewing Moore’s solo exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) in New York, an American reviewer visited the sculptor at home in Hertfordshire and described the ‘deep pleasure of knowing the man himself – kind, sincere to a rare degree in a veiled society, alive with ideas and strength, undidactic, in short with all the seldom encountered marks of greatness.’1 This response to Moore was the norm among American journalists, photographers, businessmen, museum personnel, architects and philanthropists, precisely the influential individuals who would be so supportive of the sculptor in the decades following World War II. The timeframe for this book commences with that MoMA exhibition and as it encompasses the period of the Cold War it is striking that this quote explicitly links Moore to contemporary fears within Western society as it emerged 





H enry moore in america

from a major conflict only to be confronted with this new threat, in many ways more alarming in its intangibility. In this context and for American observers Moore’s affable persona would challenge a generalised fear of the ‘enemy within’. His apparent normality countered perceptions in some quarters that most contemporary artists were likely to be communists, and his business-like approach aligned him with the increasing professionalisation of the artistic avant-garde in the United States throughout the period covered by this book. Many artists were making a good living and this has been characterised as the ‘domestication of bohemia … and modernism’s loss of its sub cultural character.’2 Indeed, one aspect of Moore that is striking is the way in which he ordered his life. He structured his working days to accommodate allotted times for meals, dealing with correspondence and so on, and this sense of a pragmatic approach to the job of being a sculptor, coupled with his apparently undramatic life in the heart of the English countryside, clearly resonated with contemporary American audiences. Moore was hugely successful, artistically and financially. His sculpture was familiar to a broad public, even if responses to it varied during his long career, and he was immensely productive. Yet until quite recently writings on him have tended to be closed and repetitive. The fact that the United States contains the greatest number of his sculptures, as opposed to his home country, cannot simply be attributed to superior spending power. Despite this clear concentration of his major sculptures outside Britain, early research for this book suggested to me that accounts of Moore’s career had paid insufficient attention to the ways in which his work was adaptable to various civic and corporate ambitions and to how this was enabled by a network of influential members of the business, civic and artistic communities. A key factor in Moore’s success in America was that there was clear common ground between the aspirations of civic and commercial institutions which could be made visible through the display of one of his monumental sculptures. Moore was a complex figure, seemingly approachable, yet clearly certain of his status – a man who appeared not to court publicity but who was repeatedly interviewed and photographed, and who used

introduction

such means of communication to present himself and his work. Images of Moore, his work, sculptures and his home and studios focused on his nationality, his personality, and his apparently simple way of life, portraying him as a modest, home-loving family man who did not seek the limelight. My first illustration shows him at home with his wife Irina (Fig.1). The photograph was taken by John Hedgecoe (1932–2010), whose 1968 publication Henry Spencer Moore will be discussed later. Many similar domestic images exist, and of course other artists have been recorded with their families although in most cases they are depicted as part of an extended artistic social grouping. As well as having undoubted visual appeal this photograph of the Moores is also somewhat forced. Clearly we are meant to interpret it as evidence of their unremarkable everyday life and self-sufficiency as a couple. Yet it is hard to read it as just this: it is also clearly a collaboration between a professional photographer and his sitters, not a family snapshot.



Irina Ironing, Perry Green, undated.

Fig.1







H enry moore in america

In their encounters with Moore, interviewers and visitors to his home were undoubtedly affected by being in the presence of one of the world’s most famous living artists; the impact of Moore’s presence was likely even stronger precisely because he did not fulfil the expected traits of either the modern artist or the modern celebrity. Instead he appears to have given every interviewer and prospective client alike the impression that he was without pretensions. It is remarkable just how many Americans who met Moore felt the need to comment so favourably on his personality and homely appearance, on his apparent ability to withstand the temptations of fame and financial reward, and on his peculiarly ‘English’ living and working arrangements in the hamlet of Perry Green, near Much Hadham in Hertfordshire. These responses appear to have confirmed preconceptions that were created and circulated through the powerful means of photography and journalism. Although the cult of the celebrity artist would become commonplace in America, the special treatment which Moore received was unusual at the time. Moreover in newspaper and journal articles the sculptor was frequently quoted verbatim and as such was able to contribute to the personal and artistic attributes ascribed to him, as were the visiting interviewers in their selection of photographs of his home and studios for their publications. The result was the presentation of Moore to a broad American audience as an English artist par excellence. Journalism and photography are rich resources; as primary material they provide a sense of immediacy in pinpointing just how Moore was regarded in America. They bypass the pitfalls of the traditional monograph in which an artist may be presented in an overly autonomous manner, divorced from their cultural context, and where accepted, sometimes inaccurate, characterisations of their lives and careers are repeated and thus made fact. The impact of text and of image on perceptions of Moore in the United States is a recurring theme throughout this book. In writing this book I also made the decision not to focus on the formal aspects of the sculptures considered but rather to examine the factors and events which progressed Moore’s remarkable career in America, be these resulting from political, cultural or personal imperatives. Major public works in the United States do not display the diversity of Moore’s smaller work made before World War II.

introduction

It would seem that purchasers of his monumental sculptures were buying ‘a Moore’ as opposed to selecting a work on the basis of what the sculptor might want the work to communicate. This results in the relationship between such sculptures and their eventual site often seeming somewhat arbitrary. I am using the term ‘public’ to differentiate such works from others by Moore held within the private spaces of the corporation and inside museums of art. My one exception is a small sculpture that was used by the Hyatt Corporation to mark the bestowal of the Pritzker Prize for Architecture: in this instance a sculptural prize was thought appropriate to acknowledge major architectural achievement, itself a very public practice. This linking of Moore’s work to architecture is a theme that recurs throughout this book which examines the placement of major examples of his sculpture in civic and corporate locations, including businesses, city halls, urban parks, shopping malls, cultural complexes and outside museums. I was surprised when I started to research in archives – particularly looking at letters, minutes and newspaper articles – just how close a correspondence there was between the expectations of both civic and corporate clients who were considering the acquisition of a Moore sculpture. What was even more interesting was the remarkable similarity between the language used and the aims articulated. Architects, chief executive officers and city mayors alike were keen to demonstrate and realise their civic and corporate credentials. To this end, they shared a need for reliable and dependable imagery – for an endorsement from a cultural icon that would contribute to ‘brand recognition’, and lead to increased public consumption of their buildings, products and ideas. If any reservations were expressed concerning the choice of Moore for such commissions, his presence at preparatory meetings or unveilings would almost without exception quell such misgivings. Trying to unravel events leading up to the choice of a Moore sculpture for a prestigious site was often difficult. There is a shortage of written evidence for precisely who might be in agreement or not with the purchase of one of his sculptures, to what extent Moore had control over their exact placement, and how this network of powerful individuals interacted with each other and affected events.







H enry moore in america

The private letter or the telephone call seem to have been the most common means of communication, and even where letters are lodged in archives their contents are formal and respectful, giving away very little. Similarly any controversy over the choice of Moore rather than an American sculptor is glossed over in records of committee discussions and, tantalisingly, in some cases minutes have clearly been censored. Overall, any public evidence of debate and negotiation has effectively been erased from history. The reality is that the reception of Moore in the United States was ‘a story of professional relationships, fortuitous meetings and deeply held personal commitments nurtured over time.’3 But it is also clear that there existed strong entrepreneurial attitudes, the capability to mobilise influential individuals and a clear recognition of how Moore’s sculptures could bestow prestige on their new owners. Equally evident is a keen sense of how Moore and his work could be presented to a range of ‘publics’, whether this be through journalism and the quoting of the responses of the man or woman ‘on the street’ or through high production art books that showcased Moore’s sculptures around the world. Important here is the often contested and variously defined ‘special relationship’ between Britain and the United States, especially in the period leading up to the end of Communism in the West. Britain may have resented being financially beholden to America but each country’s perceived national characteristics appear to have fascinated the other, particularly in the immediate post-war period. Britain was using written and visual methods of national stereotyping to present itself abroad as a country that had won a major conflict, and had preserved civilisation and (by association) the British ‘way of life’. I will show that although Moore had significant support in his homeland, when it came to ambitious projects and the need for the buyer to move swiftly, America time and again won the race to acquire his prestigious sculptures. In these circumstances it is unsurprising that Moore warmed towards many of these contacts who would turn into lasting friends within America’s political, business and artistic worlds. Maybe the ‘plainspeaking’ Yorkshireman appreciated the customary directness of American approaches – there is plenty of evidence for this as I will discuss. Further, given the generally friendly relations between

introduction

America and the United Kingdom the way was clear for America’s adoption of Moore as an artist who displayed characteristics that aligned to their understanding of Englishness. British responses to Moore were not so positive. However those with the power to shape perceptions of Britain on the international stage were happy to use culture as a propaganda tool; in this instance it could be used to guide American perceptions of Britain. Two examples of this strategy at work were the advertising in America of the Festival of Britain in 1951 and the activities of the British Council. Central to such propaganda was the construction of notions of Englishness. Moore was an ideal vehicle for such cultural stereotyping and so became a significant ‘export’. Clearly America did not experience the same level of austerity following World War II that was endured in Britain, but the latter was also handicapped by its somewhat schizophrenic ambitions. On the one hand the drive was towards progress and the embracing of technology, as articulated by the Festival of Britain. At the same time Britain wanted to celebrate and disseminate her history and traditions, as these were vital for the encouragement of tourism and also helped to displace attention from a dwindling Empire. Such disparate aims were clearly problematic. Many of Moore’s own writings and his responses in numerous interviews stressed (quite understandably) how he wished others to understand his artistic inspirations and antecedents. He encouraged a formal body/landscape reading of his sculptures, and stated a preference for their placement at a distance from architecture and ideally in a grassed park-type setting. The fact that these ideas were repeated so often has until comparatively recently discouraged consideration of what purpose his monumental, non-figurative sculpture might actually serve in plaza-type settings, the usual site for such works. Moreover the web of relationships that enabled such commissions to be realised has also received insufficient attention. Many artists in the past have been protected in this way: the idea of the autonomous creative genius is still a seductive and popular idea, and is of course an asset when mounting exhibitions of their work and seeking large visitor numbers to cash-strapped museums. However to think about where and how an artist’s work is displayed, where and how it is written about and photographed, and to acknowledge the impact of







H enry moore in america

personal and professional relationships in no way diminishes that artist’s achievements. On the contrary, such knowledge enables us to better understand the work, as being created and viewed within a specific cultural context. The only book that has been published on Moore’s career in the United States and Canada is Henry J. Seldis’ out of print Henry Moore in America (1973). Although not explicitly examined this book does hint at the important role of museum directors, curators, dealers, collectors and critics in aiding an acceptance of Moore in America that was in excess of that in his home country, and also the role played in this by the sculptor’s personality. However these aspects are taken as a given and are thus subsumed into a narrative account of Moore’s American career: they are not examined or presented as being of any particular significance. Indeed Seldis (an American journalist) himself succumbed to Moore’s undoubted charm when stating: ‘There have been many moments when the confidence of his (Moore’s) creativity has helped me avoid the temptation to grow cynical in the face of the unprecedented onslaught on human lives and values that has been dominant in the world since my childhood…’4 Seldis’ publication also predates several major Henry Moore exhibitions and commissions in the United States, the majority of which I address in this book. The most recent biography of the sculptor, The Life of Henry Moore, was written by Roger Berthoud and first published in 1997, with a revised edition in 2003. The text is more probing than that of Seldis and examines later commissions, although the geographical scope is broader. However, as with Seldis, the discussion of Moore in the United States does not reference wider debates and issues concerning the contemporary political and cultural climate, sculpture’s purpose in public places and the precise nature of the ambitions of corporations and civic bodies when instigating such commissions with Moore. Nor does Berthoud investigate the particular qualities of Moore that so appealed to Americans – this was not the purpose of his book. A 2001 American publication Some Reasons for a Reputation, Henry Moore: Sculpting the Twentieth Century, produced on the occasion of a major Moore retrospective in Dallas, briefly acknowledges the relevance of the Cold War climate to Moore’s sculpture, as has Margaret Garlake in her work on post-war British art (1998). The

introduction

2003 publication Henry Moore: Critical Essays was the first thematic text on Moore, with valuable contributions that included analysis of the impact on observers of Moore’s combined domestic and studio arrangements. Recognition of this particular aspect of Moore’s image was timely as in 2007 his home Hoglands was opened to the public. However, this latter development will, as has happened elsewhere with other artists’ homes and studios, further embed the notion of an artistic shrine to which one makes a cultural pilgrimage. The essays in this 2003 publication that do address the public nature of Moore’s sculptures largely do so in relation to post-war Britain rather than the United States, and do not discuss the particularities of corporate and civic ambitions. The timespan for the impressive 2010 exhibition Henry Moore held at Tate Britain ended in the 1960s. Thus the exhibition largely focused on the original, often modestly scaled works, not the enlarged and adjusted bronze versions that would become the public face of Moore in America. Finally in stark contrast to the historically closed nature of much writing on Moore I wish to note here an interesting set of audio recordings, copies of which are held in the archives of the Henry Moore Foundation. They provided the material for a controversial 1988 Channel Four film England’s Henry Moore in which Anthony Barnett argued that an explanation for Moore’s success should in part be attributed to the cultural, political, economic and social climate in which he was operating. Such an approach was entirely in line with a shift in emphasis within the discipline of art history itself during the 1980s. Therefore the fact that Barnett felt it necessary to highlight such a fundamental art historical strategy goes to the heart of the problem with Moore research. Even more interestingly these recordings and the resultant film appear not to have been referred to in subsequent publications on Moore and I understand that researchers visiting the Foundation do not investigate this material. It is as if it commits a kind of blasphemy in suggesting that the sculptor’s success could be explained in any way other than entirely through his own abilities. They are remarkable for this alone. Four American cities lie at the heart of this book: Chicago, Dallas, New York and Washington, DC. They clearly reveal the ambitions and common interests of civic and corporate bodies and how these





10

H enry moore in america

often aligned with the aspirations of a major local art museum. In turn members of the business and political communities would usually be represented on such museum boards. Importantly these particular cities highlight the consistent presence of a supportive network for Moore in America, to a far greater degree than was the case in Britain. Woven into this story are other examples of sculptures by Moore where vivid accounts of how such commissions came about can show the breadth and depth of these networks and shared concerns. This all adds up to extensive evidence that acquisition of Moore sculptures for public sites in America was driven less by issues of taste, than by their symbolic use value, and that America offered Moore far greater opportunities than did his home country.



2

Defining and Presenting Henry Moore

The importance of language and photography Henry Moore’s image developed in specific ways that aligned to general American conceptions of ‘Englishness’. National stereotyping – both as created by Britain and as understood in America – presented Moore as simultaneously a down-to-earth hardworking artist and as a gentleman, and thus also avoided the popular yet problematic characteristics of the bohemian artist. National stereotyping was encouraged at the highest level in Britain for a variety of political, cultural and economic reasons. In relation to Moore this development can be seen as operating in more precise ways, and as such clearly affected perceptions of the sculptor in the United States. The British government and associated bodies such as the British Council overtly promoted the supposed civilising nature of the English and the English nation. Moore provided the perfect exemplar of such values, the man and his work being presented as refined, dignified and honest. This construction of Moore’s persona can clearly be seen in written, spoken and photographic form. American journalists defined Moore in very particular ways, focusing on his lack of pretension. His working class origins were emphasised when this suited a writer’s theme, but just as frequently Moore was described as the perfect English gentleman. Visiting journalists were impressed by his domestic setting and family life with his wife and daughter. These characterisations of Moore crossed the spectrum from art journals and documentary films to mass circulation magazines and newspapers. In this way, still photography and film played a significant role in promoting and defining Moore. They could present the sculptor, for instance, as dressed in shirt and tie even when at 11



12

H enry moore in america

work, and could emphasise and exaggerate the monumentality of his sculptures through the position assumed by the photographer: the significance of photography in the representation of sculpture is an exciting new area of art historiography. Major publications on Moore also repay close scrutiny, such as John Hedgecoe’s 1968 Henry Spencer Moore that includes a striking number of images neither of Moore nor of his work, and David Finn’s 1977 Sculpture and Environment, a lavish and large book presenting Moore’s public sculptures across the globe. Nothing has been published on the substantial role played by American David Finn within Moore’s career. As the founding partner of international public relations firm Ruder Finn, headquartered in New York, Finn is a collector of twentieth-century sculpture. He is also a highly successful professional photographer of sculpture who became close friends with the Moore family. British national stereotyping developed in the 1920s and 1930s and was well-established in writings on Moore by the 1940s. The British Council contributed to such ideas, in 1941 publishing British Life and Thought: an Illustrated Survey. Their analysis of supposedly typically British (or English) personality characteristics is strikingly similar to the tone of American commentary on Moore. For example: ‘the ordinary Englishman is not in the common acceptance of the word “intellectual”. He has a great respect for men who are masters of their craft…he pays no attention to…advice which may be given to him by men, however distinguished, who talk about things of which they have comparatively little knowledge.’1 A decade later a report on a touring exhibition of Moore’s work organised by the British Council stated that the sculptor’s work had particular virtues that were only to be found in England, ‘a refined and qualified craftsmanship, a noble repose and cool reserve…’2 Britain in the difficult post-war period was a nostalgic place, seeking refuge in its sense of tradition and of history. The uncertainty over national direction was mirrored in British perceptions of Moore: many of the general public viewed him as a difficult modernist and in artistic circles he was regarded as an outmoded figure. This left a space in support for the sculptor which could be filled by American patrons and commentators. In addition large amounts of modern British sculpture were being installed in American museums as well as in public and private spaces. At

defining and presenting henry moore

the same time, an American understanding of the ‘Englishness’ of English sculpture was being formed.3 The general deduction was that English sculpture represented honesty, quality and democratic values, in other words it stood for the antithesis of the tenets of didactic totalitarian monuments. Another crucial development for Moore was evident in both the commercial and political worlds. This was a growing understanding of the power of the ‘brand’ in promoting a particular ideology. This was not just useful in the advertising and selling of retail products: it could also be mobilised in the presentation of people and of corporate ambitions.4 Thus the ‘Englishness’ of Moore could become an internationally marketable commodity. He was presented as an ambassador of England and of Englishness. An important part of this role was his persona of ‘ordinary Yorkshire man’. This resonated in the United States as can be seen in numerous newspaper reviews of Moore’s American exhibitions. Referring to his 1946–7 touring show The Los Angeles Times characterised his sculptural style as ‘congenial to his northern inheritance.’ It seems that the analogy here was to rolling landscape since the reviewer suggested that the spaces within Moore’s sculptures formed a continuous part with the solids.5 Moore also routinely spoke of his creativity in terms of his working class roots while simultaneously forming relationships with influential individuals within the British ‘Establishment’, who in turn recognised his value in presenting British civilisation abroad. In 1958 an English reviewer suggested that ‘In the raw new towns of England, Stevenage and Harlow, wholly working class and down-right, the people are proud to have Moore’s statues in their public squares … the people know that Moore is no arty exquisite from another social world. He is their own kind.’6 However this reading of Moore in terms of northern working-class stereotypes is misleading. It seems that he disliked being referred to as ‘a miner’s son’ and believed that had his father received a formal education he would have been very successful.7 Equally, Moore’s way of speaking, particularly his habit of referring to himself in the third person, does not sit easily with a working-class persona. Nonetheless journalists persisted in referring to Moore’s background when situating him as ‘one of the people’: as early as the sculptor’s 1928 solo debut at London’s Warren Gallery

13



14

H enry moore in america

his work was connected to the ‘sturdy mining stock from which he came.’8 This was echoed by American Andrew Ritchie (1907–78) who saw a relationship between Moore’s sculpture of the early 1940s and the fact that the sculptor’s father had been a miner. Noting that Moore had come from Yorkshire, Ritchie saw similarities with his own background which had been a mining community near Glasgow. This meant that he particularly empathised with Moore’s approach to sculpting stone, comparing the carving of a figure with digging into the earth and cutting coal.9 As already noted, Moore also benefited from not corresponding with popular perceptions of the modern artist as eccentric and unpredictable. Anthony Barnett has proposed that this was vital for an artist who was to be an overseas ‘ambassador’ for Britain. As such he should not be ‘too weird or have foreign habits.’ Moore was perfect in this role.10 This reference to ‘foreign habits’ provides a clue as to why a prospective American client might choose Moore for a commission rather than approach a European sculptor. Furthermore the sculptor’s modernity was seen as tempered by an English artistic tradition that Herbert Read (1893–1968) believed could be modernised and yet retain its ‘English’ character through Moore. Because the sculptor’s work could not easily be categorised as either figurative or abstract Read spoke of Moore’s sculpture as a synthesis of these two approaches.11 He argued that aesthetic modernity was not ‘a leap into the unknown, but a reassertion of Englishness.’12 Further, his definition of Englishness was seen as rooted in ‘precise observation, particularity, earthiness… an empirical outlook and mistrust of idealism’, characteristics often attached to Moore by American supporters.13 Add to this the fact that Moore’s sculpture was defined by critics, collectors, patrons and by the sculptor himself as created in response to the post-war English landscape14 and the result is an image of Moore, both as man and as sculptor, that encapsulated all that American audiences expected from the ideal Englishman and artist. The construction of Moore’s persona was achieved through a variety of means but essentially can be divided into linguistic and visual forms.

defining and presenting henry moore

Words From the 1950s onwards Moore’s work was even more widely known through the increased publication of art books that became relatively cheaper and thus reached a wider readership. Their impact was growing just at the time when Moore’s career was increasingly linked to powerful supporters. In 1934 Zwemmer’s Bookshop had published the first monograph on the sculptor written by Herbert Read. With Kenneth Clark (1903–83) as the series editor, a 1944 book on Moore was the first in the Penguin Modern Painters series. The following year saw Henry Moore: Sculpture and Drawings, with an introduction again by Read, published in New York through Moore’s dealer Curt Valentin (1902–54). The British Council recognised the significance of publishing and publicity for the promotion of artists such as Moore who were becoming well known through their appearance in nonspecialist, glossy magazines,15 and such coverage in mass circulation publications would be a particular feature of Moore’s career and clearly helped shape perceptions of him. Central to written coverage of Moore’s working life has been an emphasis on consistency that is often related to his domestically stable life. In the sculptor’s six-part catalogue raisonnée his practice is characterised by the reworking of favourite themes such as that of the mother and child. In his later years the steadiness of Moore’s work and life was particularly highlighted. Of central importance was his ‘devoted wife, Irina … and … the faithful circle of assistants and helpers at Much Hadham.’ Moore’s daily routine was presented as comprising a quiet life with an occasional trip to a London museum and a regular drive in the afternoons. Towards the end of his life he was said to enjoy simple pleasures and showed a return to a child’s view of life, ‘a completing of the circle, a rounding off of things, that carries with it a certain satisfaction of the good work having been done.’16 This perception of the man and his life as calm and steady was not limited to his later years but is clearly evident in American responses to him particularly in the immediate post-war period when the sculptor was in his fifties. Henry J. Seldis was deeply affected by Moore’s domestic arrangements, a recurrent theme in American accounts of visiting the sculptor at home. He recalled

15



16

H enry moore in america

his first visit to Moore’s home in the summer of 1962: ‘An air of fertility and tranquillity enveloped us as we drove from the village station of Bishop’s Stortford … to the unpretentious … farmhouse which is the center of the creative and domestic life of Britain’s greatest living artist …’17 Seldis wrote extensively about Moore’s daily routine: this was a frequent subject in American observations of the sculptor. He noted the pattern of domestic life and work, punctuated by regular mealtimes, photographic sessions in his studios, dealing with correspondence and ending the day by having supper in front of the television with his wife.18 Seldis projected this sense of tranquillity and control onto Moore’s sculptures displayed in Hoglands’ gardens. He described how suitable they seemed in the grounds but that they were sure to be equally powerful in a potential collection for a gallery in London or America.19 For Seldis, Moore’s location in the English countryside, full of ‘lush fields of oats and barley’, formed a symbiosis between art and nature. He saw Moore’s home, studios and lawns as forming a whole which encapsulated the sculptor’s achievements.20 Seldis stressed Moore’s resistance to the ‘suffocating materialism of contemporary life’ the result being that his monumental sculptures, made in a landscape which provided a constant reminder of the infinity of nature, evoked a ‘sense of timelessness so badly needed to relieve our bruised spirits in a strident, often homicidal age.’21 James Hall has referred to the ‘Renaissance ideal of the gentlemanartist’ as having been ‘supplanted by the cult of the “worker-artist” who performs down-to-earth tasks…’22 Moore’s character appeared to match both definitions: he was seen as both a gentleman and a physically hard-working, ‘hands-on’ sculptor. Both he and his supporters consistently stressed his ‘ordinariness’, startlingly at odds with his status as cultural hero. In Time magazine in 1959 an article included an often reproduced photograph of Moore in his maquette studio, the caption reading ‘Moore at Work in his Generating Room’. Part of the text reads: Sculptor Henry Moore sits in an aged wicker chair on a crumpled cushion. He is small and compact…with a high-domed face that is benign yet cragged. Thinning strands of greying hair stretch errantly across his head. From beneath brows that jut at least an inch beyond

defining and presenting henry moore

pale blue eyes, he stares intensely at a small plaster shape held in his left hand. The right hand, thick-wristed and broad, with straight fingers that are surgically muscular, holds a small scalpel. In a few minutes, the chunk of thumb-shaped plaster takes on form.23

The rootedness of Moore the man and the presentation of his studio as a ‘generating room’ are vivid and unusual images. They conjure up for the reader a scene of industry but one that is the source of individual creative endeavour rather than of mass produced utilitarian objects. In the following year Donald Hall interviewed Moore for Horizon. He described the hamlet of Perry Green and how he walked with the sculptor ‘in the field of bronzes’, referring to Moore’s face as ‘sculptorly and massive’.24 In 1966 Aline Saarinen interviewed Moore and recalled later for NBC Television the ‘charming little village called Much Hadham – I like the name – it sounds so British.’25 In 1968 The New York Times suggested that every American journal carried an article on Moore, itself adding to the corpus.26 In the same year Fashion magazine described Moore as: Handsome, tough, gentle, beautifully mannered, articulate without being intellectually pretentious…one of the most attractive artistic personalities in the world. For many years, he has lived in a charming old house…he is always ready to receive foreign artists and young people with whom he will discuss his work with modesty and courtesy. No living artist commands such devotion and respect.27

An article in Vogue published on the occasion of Moore’s 1983 exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York was entitled ‘Mighty Moore’. Again the appearance of Moore’s sculptures is overlaid in imagination onto the sculptor himself. The writer described how on her drive to Much Hadham she tried to imagine what it would be like to be in the presence of the most famous living sculptor in the world. She believed that he would be smoothly carved, monolithic…a flinty presence ready to be articulated into powerful motion. In place of his eyes I saw only the mysterious blank with which he so often rendered the head…He would rise from the earth totemically I imagined, seemingly generated as Stonehenge… and possessed of an implacable sense of eternity…I thought…that the sculptor himself would reverberate with power as his work does.

17



18

H enry moore in america

Instead she found Moore to be ‘small and old, impatient to get on with it, unpretentious, alert, straightforward, energetic, continually curious…There is none of the cranky authoritarian … he doesn’t trade on his enormous fame…He behaves like a…working gentleman, with the emphasis on gentle, and then man.’28 David Finn has described Moore as exceptionally modest and uninterested in the books and articles written about him. He also highlights the fact that Moore rarely made speeches even at events such as the unveiling of one of his sculptures or when he was being honoured in some way. Moore liked to maintain his daily routine without unnecessary interruption.29 Finn was struck by the fact that Moore’s life was so unremarkable that he was able to carry out everyday activities such as shopping for groceries in his nearby small town of Much Hadham.30 He also described Moore as ‘friendly and outgoing…(with) a certain ruggedness. He could easily have been mistaken for a farmer.’31 Such accounts seem at odds with Moore’s extensive public life, his willingness to serve on committees, to travel overseas and to cultivate relationships with wealthy patrons, but they occur consistently in American writing throughout Moore’s career. In contrast, written commentary on Moore in Britain could be inflected with a sense of self-deprecation and cynicism often evident in British culture. This is exemplified by a 1945 article by Geoffrey Grigson in Harper’s Bazaar. However, even here, Moore is held up as the exception that proves the rule. Grigson argued that artists who do find their way into the art establishment and follow their patrons’ wishes, having begun ‘like an angel’, usually end ‘like … a gilded ass, sometimes with a carriage and pair, or Rolls-Royce; sometimes with R.A.…after his name, sometimes with a knighthood.’ In contrast to this generalisation Moore was described as a rarity in the English art world, a man who had kept to his artistic principles and had not bowed to the preferences of the public. He was described as the quintessential representative of current English art: ‘He is a man of forty-six. Short, stocky, sensible, sensitive, and unaffected, married to a Russian wife, also sensible and unaffected…I dare say Moore has his connections, but he has not got them by every possible means. He is about the least self-advertising artist that I know.’32 In the light of such general admiration it is refreshing to see a less benign

defining and presenting henry moore

Henry Moore occasionally emerge. John Hedgecoe interviewed him extensively and on one occasion asked whether he enjoyed being famous. Moore said that he never sought fame because he did not believe that the general public could ever understand sculpture. Hedgecoe asked Moore whether he believed that public approval of his work meant that they appreciated and understood it more than in the early days. Moore replied that he did not know about this and that in any case an artist of any ability had to be ahead of the general public, otherwise they were no damn good…If somebody were just repeating what the ordinary person wants…then public approval is valueless…One can work and live without it. I did for a long time…except for a very few enlightened people…to have the approval of Herbert and K. Clark meant more than the approval of a hundred thousand ‘nobodies’.33

Images Photography played a significant role in creating and supporting Moore’s persona, defining readings of his work, and advertising his sculpture to international audiences and potential clients. This is important because photography can simultaneously romanticize the artist as well as suggest to the viewer that what he or she is seeing is truthful documentation. Images of the sculptor’s studio encourage us to seek relationships between the objects on display: if the sculptor is also present then an additional set of relationships is established. In the early years of photography the use of sculpture as subject allowed the photographer to experiment, to both record and create ‘time and space as an artist might shape marble or plaster.’ Because of this, the two media have been described as having much in common.34 The wide dissemination of television documentary films on twentieth century artists demonstrated the use of photography in supporting the idea of the artist as heroic individual. Such representations appear to have particularly resonated for American audiences and the still photograph or film about an artist had more impact than was the case with earlier painted portraits. They also regularly appeared in mass media journals like Life, Look and Vogue and so their impact was considerable.35

19



20

H enry moore in america

The role of still photography and film was critical in presenting Moore to American audiences in very particular ways and took place over a considerable period of time. His sculptures situated on public sites have been extensively photographed under optimum conditions: in good weather, with clear sight-lines and minimal human presence. Such images often show a sculpture close to the viewer – the background is thus diminished – or a low viewpoint is adopted. Both approaches increase our perception of the sculpture’s size and of its separation from its surroundings. The result has been a vast corpus of images that has been continually reproduced, allowing for Moore’s insistence on a body-landscape reading of his work to go mostly unchallenged, even though the majority of his larger sculptures are located in urban sites.36 As early as 1942 architect J. R. Leathart wrote in Building magazine about examples of Moore’s sculptures reproduced in the current issue. He noted that the photographs did not convey the small size of the works – instead they appeared to be of ‘heroic proportions’.37 Since criticisms have been made about Moore’s sensibilities concerning the scale of his sculptures, it is possible that the type of photographs that he and others were producing influenced both his own judgement and what others expected from his work. In the earlier part of his career Moore usually photographed his own work as shown in Fig. 2. Fig. 3 shows him literally placed within the centre of his sculptures in a striking 1972 photograph taken at Perry Green. This conflation of sculptor and sculptures was a constant theme regularly recurring throughout Moore’s lifetime, presenting the sculptor and his work as equivalents, as interdependant. Still photography and film reinforced Moore’s alignment with the contemporary notions of Englishness being conveyed in feature and documentary films. In 1944 Robert Manvell noted in Britain Today that film already had a broad public; its visual appeal was perfect for conveying particular perceptions of Britain to an international public who could be shown ‘British life, British thought, British character, British eccentricity, British speech, and even British shyness and reticence.’38 The British Council made many films for overseas consumption that reinforced such ideas.39 These continued to be made into the period of the Cold War, a time when Britain

defining and presenting henry moore

and America perceived themselves as the guardians of civilisation. Film could be the perfect vehicle for such ideas, visually and verbally stressing the importance of civic life that was so crucial to Moore’s career. The BBC also played an important role in representing Britain to American audiences and like the British Council was significant in the promotion of Moore. The ability of the Corporation to create and retain a captive audience who could be both entertained and informed was key and it was clearly understood that broadcasting was a significant propaganda medium in the dissemination of British culture and foreign policy.’40 John Read (1923–2011) made a number of BBC films on Moore. In fact his first professional film was Henry Moore made in 1951 to coincide with the Festival of Britain. It was distributed in America by the British Information Services in New York. An American review noted that it naturally concentrated on Moore’s Festival sculpture but suggested that there seemed to be too much emphasis on the technical aspects of



Henry Moore photographing a sculpture in his studio at Perry Green, 1953.

Fig.2

21



22

H enry moore in america

producing the sculpture. The inference was that the film betrayed a concern to demonstrate that Moore’s work met the usual high standards of British craftsmanship. The critic felt that this made the film lifeless and with little visual excitement: ‘One feels that the artist and his work have been toned down a bit in this presentation.’41 As usual with visual representations of Moore there was much emphasis in this film on his hands and tools.42 In fact resentment in Britain about Moore’s official patronage came to the fore when this film was transmitted. Hitherto art films had comprised stills: this was the first BBC all-film documentary on any subject and it was seen as uncritical and over-reverential.43



Henry Moore with some of his sculptures on the loading bay at Perry Green, April 1972.

Fig.3

defining and presenting henry moore

In comparison no such compunction in praising Moore and his achievements was displayed in American films. An early example was made in 1947 in the context of the sculptor’s MoMA exhibition. The Museum’s Director of Painting and Sculpture James Johnson Sweeney (1900–86) provided the commentary, describing Moore as modest,44 and a review applauded the film for being ‘unusually beautiful and perceptive …’45 In 1958 the Institute of Contemporary Art, Washington, DC showed five art films by Read, including one on Moore that was especially well received. A collaborative effort between the BBC and the Educational Television and Radio Centre of the USA a series of eight films was produced under the title British Art and Artists. The first programme A Sculptor’s Landscape was described by Read as ‘a poetic interpretation which reveals the work of Henry Moore in a series of striking visual studies with a simplicity and directness which may surprise some people who feel that apparently abstract art is unrelated to humanity and the world about one.’46 Read discussed the making of this film: ‘I never knew sculpture had so many angles’, so said a charwoman who saw an earlier film that I had made about Henry Moore in 1951. I think she understood at once what art films set out to do. I do not make films on art for people who habitually go to art galleries … My films have been made for people who are interested in films or who regularly rely on their television set for a great deal of their information, interest and entertainment.47

Once again Moore’s work is presented in relation to ‘everyman’, or in this case ‘everywoman’. John Read’s 1967 BBC film Henry Moore: One Yorkshireman Looks at his World suggested that what really mattered at this time was an emphasis on human relationships and values.48 When Read’s 1978 film Henry Moore at 80 was released he could state that three-quarters of Moore’s work was now sold abroad, mostly to North American buyers.49 In 1983 Read talked about the sculptor’s growing output as his fame and income increased, with Perry Green having effectively become a small country of its own. Moore was likened to the Managing Director of quite a large enterprise and Read wondered when the sculptor found the time to do his own creative work since he liked showing round visitors and making films, and was good at both. Read recalled that he had made six films on Moore and it was

23



24

H enry moore in america

not until the fifth that he got a drink from him. He was fond of the sculptor but said that Moore was very much the ‘canny’ Yorkshire man, referring to: the gramophone record bit. You can’t get him away from the set pieces. He rations himself to giving one or two little gobbets of new information each time. It’s very difficult to get behind Henry…won’t be drawn on his contemporaries, Sutherland, Nicholson etc. He takes refuge behind Michelangelo and Rembrandt. Right from the start he knew he was going to be number one. He is very traditional, very serious, very down to earth, very hard-working.50

Read believed that Moore was very careful not to publicise his traditional leanings at one time and to emphasise them at another. From an early stage in his career Moore also understood the power of film. In 1939 he wrote to Kenneth Clark congratulating him on his appointment as head of the Ministry of Information’s Films Division. Moore believed that this would be the most interesting and important of jobs, particularly since film was ‘the most powerful and effective medium for propaganda of all.’51 It was the norm for an American film to be made when a significant Moore sculpture was due to arrive in the United States. A notable example marked the installation of Moore’s Nuclear Energy at the University of Chicago in 1967. In fact the first film on the sculptor shown in the United States had been screened as part of a University programme at the Art Institute of Chicago and also at a dinner connected with the arts in the city. Included was the BBC’s Face to Face interview with Moore and later John Read’s A Sculptor’s Landscape.52 At John Deere & Co., Moline, Illinois, a film was made to record the arrival of Moore’s Hill Arches in 1975. A recording of Moore speaking was incorporated into the 12-minute film. Against a view of a sunrise the narrator describes how ‘for most people there is a world of beauty and a world of art’ but that at Deere & Co. no distinction is made between living and making a living. Hill Arches is not relegated to a gallery but is an artwork to be lived with, to heighten and widen the world of human sensibilities.53 Moore’s 1978 Large Two Forms bought by Gould Incorporated of Chicago also generated filmic opportunities. Two were produced: the first contained footage of Moore with Kenneth Clark and the second mostly comprised

defining and presenting henry moore

Moore speaking. It was suggested that seeing the sculptor talking about his work enabled viewers to get close to the artist, as close in fact as his friends and family. The films were described as dominated by Moore’s creative imagery and once again his appearance was characterised in sculptural terms, such as a reference to his ‘chiselled features’. Moore was described as engaging the viewer ‘in a special dialogue’. He was shown touring American museums, and unusually Moore’s worldwide business interests were also highlighted. Finally the viewer’s attention was drawn to the impact of Moore on the contemporary art world and on society in general as witnessed by the numerous recent books and articles on the sculptor.54 Many of the books on Moore also presented the sculptor and his work in very particular ways. The early exhibition catalogue Henry Moore, Sculpture and Drawings, published by Curt Valentin, was praised for its quality, given that it had been produced in wartime Britain.55 Over the years Moore collaborated on a number of books with professional photographers: seven with David Finn, three with John Hedgecoe and three with Gemma Levine. This reiteration of images of Moore and his sculptures is central to the construction of his reputation, and the presentation of Moore’s body positioned ‘within and against the work in progress or complete’ has been described as fundamentally modernist.56 John Hedgecoe’s 1968 book Henry Spencer Moore, published in New York and London, was the first major text on the sculptor that was overwhelmingly pictorial. However, many of the illustrations depict neither the book’s subject nor his work. Instead much of the emphasis is on visual material suggestive of Moore’s birthplace in the north of England, realised through cultural and social stereotypes as in Fig. 4 that shows an unidentified street in an industrial area with a pithead in the background. Writing about the photographing of sculpture Roxanna Marcoci has noted that photographers wishing to tell a specific story will adopt the approach of the filmmaker and suggest a linear reading through the layout of their images published in book form.57 We can see a striking example of this in Hedgecoe’s book. His treatment of Moore is cumulative: one image relies and builds on another. Other photographs by Hedgecoe show the ruins of Rievaulx

25

26

H enry moore in america

Abbey which are close to Moore’s birthplace, as well as a beach and a fragmented nude female body. These are all formal conceits intended to reinforce the connection between Moore’s vision, the natural world, his north of England origins and the recurrence of a landscape/reclining figure motif in his work. Moore wrote the text that accompanied Hedgecoe’s photographs, and referring to the first image in the book, a grainy photograph of a slag heap, Moore is quoted thus: ‘As a small boy these slag heaps seemed much larger than the Pyramids …’58 In a review of the book for The Sunday Times Bernard Meadows (1915–2005) described it as highly authoritative and complex. However, he was less happy when the Hedgecoe photographs were not of Moore’s sculptures. He believed that the photographer’s vision was inappropriate in this instance – it was how such objects were seen by the sculptor that mattered.59 Robert Hughes was less complimentary, describing the publication as ‘a monument … a seductive book … which begins

Image of pithead, Castleford, from John Hedgecoe, Henry Moore, 1968, p. 13.

Fig.4

defining and presenting henry moore

with a double-page spread inside the flap … Moore extending his seamed and calloused palms towards the lens … the images pile up: a slag-heap at Castleford silhouetted against a hardly less black and granular sky, a Romanesque corbel shot to look like an early Moore.’ Hughes argued that this was clearly intended to encourage the reader to feel that he ‘knew’ Moore through such a photoessay. He acknowledged the quality of Hedgecoe’s photography but argued that such a presentation was of little value ‘except in a society which responds to the work of its artists largely in terms of glamour, personality and market … A book on Moore without roots and flintstones would be as precious an escape from metaphor as a film on Barbara Hepworth without those St. Ives seagulls creaking obstreperously on the soundtrack …’60 Certainly many photographs in the book are darkened and of traditionally romantic subjects such as an abbey, a winding lane, a silhouette of a solitary tree and a railway track under snow. An image of a pile of workmanlike shoes inevitably prompts comparison with Van Gogh’s paintings of boots, the archetypal symbol of the artist as artisan.61 Another photograph shows a blurred image of an assistant: in contrast Moore is always recorded as defined and monumental.62 Images of Moore’s home and studios were of particular importance in articles about him, a notable example being ‘Henry Moore at Home’ published in the New York Times Magazine in 1972. The text emphasised the solidity of Moore’s house – the lack of plants around it making the house appear as if it were growing from the surrounding stone paving, the implication being that even his home had been created from the earth, as marble for sculpture is quarried from the land.63 Fig. 5 shows Hoglands and other photographs in this feature article about Moore. In studio images Moore was often shown working alone rather than with his assistants as in Fig. 6. Here we are presented with Moore hard at work, framed by his sculptures. He appears to be working on one of the Elmwood reclining figures, with other sculptures behind him. Clearly visible in the foreground are Moore’s chisels and other tools. Our eye level is that of the sculptor and there is a compelling sense of being as close as is possible to the act and results of creative labour. Fig. 7 shows a 1964 photograph depicting Moore sweeping his studio floor. Reclining Figure

27

Article ‘Henry Moore at Home’, The New York Times Magazine, 23 July 1972, p.33, showing the sitting room in Hoglands, the small plastic studio and the front view of the house.

Fig.5



Henry Moore carving the elmwood Reclining Figure 1959–64, Perry Green.

Fig.6



Henry Moore sweeping up after a day at work on Reclining Figure 1959–64, Perry Green, 1964.

Fig.7

defining and presenting henry moore

(1959–64) is clearly seen and the plinths behind are (now) empty. When placed against Fig. 6 there is a sense that we have come to the end of that day’s work and have shifted our focus to the right and downwards in order to follow what Moore is doing. Despite the sense that these photographs give us exceptional access to the workings of the sculptor’s studios, it is clear that they are carefully composed. In itself this is unsurprising since all photography ‘frames’ its subjects and we would expect nothing less from a professional photographer. The issue here of course is when such images are presented as documenting Moore’s activities through a neutral eye. This was always the illusion suggested in the early days of documentary photography and the source of its power. In the case of Moore it has been argued that photographs taken of him in an Italian marble quarry with a chisel in his hand appear to have been staged purely for photographic effect since the majority of his late marble works were made by his assistants working from models.64 This has important implications since these images were commonly reproduced in mass circulation journals, such as a full page photograph by Ida Kar (1908–74) published in Vogue in November 1955 (Fig. 8). Here Moore is shown in his studio, wearing a plaster-spattered overall, and positioned at the end of a line of carvings. Our eye is led along the row of sculptures to the somewhat stern figure of Moore. There is a suggestion of the production line here and yet the sculptures seem almost alive and there is an intimacy between them and their maker. Unusually, Moore’s head is lower than those of the most clearly visible figures. Yet through the proprietorial placement of one of his hands on a sculpture’s knee and the careful direction of the lighting, he is still clearly the ‘master’ here. Images of Moore and/or his work appeared with great frequency in non-specialist magazines, demonstrating his heightened profile in the United States and also the assumption that he and his sculpture would be recognised by a broad audience. His work was even used in advertising which underscores the familiarity and fame of his art. Referring to Moore’s 1972 Florence exhibition John Read perceptively described the sculptures as having been photographed as if they were ‘film stars, religious relics, or fashion models’.65

31



32

H enry moore in america

In 1978 Gemma Levine published With Henry Moore: the Artist at Work with the aim of producing an intimate portrait of Moore. It was suggested that art history would have been much richer if the camera had been able to similarly record Michelangelo or Donatello.66 Two decades later Henry Moore at Work: Photographs by Errol Jackson was published. Jackson had met Moore in 1961 and worked with him continuously until the sculptor’s death in 1986. The text reveals Moore’s attachment to the photographic image. It is described how he would get Jackson to photograph branches, roots and so on and then the sculptor might draw from them. If Jackson brought him an actual piece of wood, Moore would draw it but would still insist that it be photographed in order to most completely preserve it in visual form.67 This indicates some



London Vogue, November 1955, p. 103. Photograph of Henry Moore in studio.

Fig.8

defining and presenting henry moore

important points. Firstly it suggests that Moore was sensitive to the camera’s ability to frame and compose. I also believe that this habit of photographing found objects might well have influenced the decisions that Moore made when working on a sculpture and considering how the finished work should look, and even how it might appear when photographed. We can see David Finn’s expertise in his photographs of Moore’s sculptures from the late 1960s onwards. Finn has collaborated with many art historians in books on major historical and contemporary sculptors. He believes that photography can often match the power of the sculpture that it records, and in some instances even supersede the original.68 He claimed to know what Moore wanted from a photograph and tried to find this for himself when looking through the camera lens.69 In 1967 Finn wrote to Moore fondly recalling the time that the two families had spent together. Enclosing a booklet from Ruder Finn’s poster series Conference Room Quotations he told Moore that the company was putting together a new corporate publication and wanted to include photographs of three of his sculptures. This was agreed.70 Finn also produced a photoessay of one of his own Moore sculptures Reclining Figure; Bridge Prop, with the intention of revealing the multi-faceted nature of the sculptor’s works. This project was published under the title As the Eye Moves (1973). Moore was given a bound copy and was apparently surprised to see the various shapes captured by Finn’s camera.71 For his ambitious publication Henry Moore: Sculpture and Environment (1977) Finn decided to take advantage of overseas business trips to photograph Moore’s work around the world. He told Moore that Kenneth Clark had admired his photographs, particularly noting how easily Finn moved between Donatello and Moore. Finn felt this implied equivalence between the two sculptors’ qualities of greatness. Some of the book’s text was supplied by Clark. Unarguably Finn’s photographs played their part in shaping American perceptions of Moore’s work and in reinforcing the sculptor’s importance. Reviews of the 1977 book were numerous, one describing Finn as a worldtravelling paparazzo in his photographic pursuit of Moore’s sculptures in 16 countries.72 Another reviewer likened the publication to a travel book with Moore adding some informal comments printed

33



34

H enry moore in america

alongside the pictures ‘even though they sometimes say little more than “This is nice.”’73 A more serious observation in the same review was that the photographs were of such high quality as to become works of art in their own right: ‘This is surrogate creation. We are left with works of art twice removed. The danger is that the choice of particular views makes the sculpture seem too picturesque.’74 Another reviewer commented that Finn’s photographs were so skilfully composed that they made every location for Moore’s sculptures look ideal. Elements that did not contribute to the perfect representation of the sculpture in situ were avoided in the composing of the images.75 Fig. 9 shows the two men together on the jacket cover of Finn’s 1993 publication One Man’s Henry Moore. On the front cover we have Moore’s head positioned close to a towering sculpture and he faces a photograph on the back cover which repeats this sense of connection established by the positioning of the two friends. In 1977 the arrival was imminent in Dallas of Moore’s monumental sculpture Three Forms Vertebrae that was to be positioned in front of the new City Hall



Cover of David Finn’s One Man’s Henry Moore, 1993.

Fig.9

defining and presenting henry moore

(see Chapter 7). To publicise this important occasion an exhibition of Moore’s sculptures and of Finn’s photographs titled Dallas Gets Moore was staged in the city’s NorthPark Shopping Centre. On the first day Finn discussed and autographed Sculpture and Environment at the Neiman-Marcus department store in NorthPark. The perfect timing and effect of this book was noted in the local press where Finn’s text was described as ‘both chatty and informative’. This definitive coverage of Moore’s work was seen as most welcome, placing it in its historical perspective and highlighting the Dallas piece as the latest addition to the highly prestigious series of major Moore sculptures located across the world. The accessibility of the book was seen as important in reaching a broad public and this was enhanced by the display of Finn’s photographs in the Dallas Gets Moore exhibition.76 The book’s publication was thus perfectly timed to give the citizens of Dallas an insight into what they might expect from the City Hall installation and was described as being as ‘powerful as the sculpture it celebrates.’77 From these examples we can see the various ways in which words and images could be juxtaposed in order to encourage wide interest in Moore and his sculpture. In addition to feature articles, books and films, many exhibitions of Moore’s work were accompanied by photographs of his sculptures and quotes from him. Such strategies were significant in mobilising and defining Moore’s career. Of course, other major artists have, to differing degrees, been presented in such ways; the distinction with Moore I would argue is the precision and consistency of such communication. The persistent use of still photography and of film as a means to ‘know’ an artist is now treated with some caution: it is likely that in the early decades of Moore’s American career such images would have been taken more at face value. Moreover sculpture (and its maker) lends itself to the medium of film in a way that painting does not. Sculpture’s threedimensionality allows for dramatic treatment, for distortions of scale, for the moving view as the camera pans around it. Overlay this with Moore’s voice and the effect is powerful. From this perspective the promotion of English painters in the United States was bound to be less compelling. As one of the most interviewed and photographed artists of the twentieth century, Moore was also one of the first 35

35



36

H enry moore in america

modern artists to collaborate with mass media in developing himself into a household name – in constructing what might, in later years, be known as a brand. The nature of Moore’s personality, his appearance, his living situation, and his steady and continuous creative output could vividly be conveyed through words and images, and the effect on his reception in America was profound.



3

The Special Relationship and the Cold War

Moore’s career undoubtedly benefited from the British government’s use in the years immediately before and after World War II of ‘soft’ propaganda to convey to America notions of ‘Englishness’ and to promote the idea that the values of a civilised society could be demonstrated via the visual arts. A substantial part of Moore’s career in America took place against the backdrop of the Cold War, a context in which sculpture could loosely be characterised as symbolising Western democracy and civilised values. However in this political climate contemporary art was often perceived as synonymous with Communism but it appears that Moore’s English origins and his homely personality reassured his American contacts that he was not of this persuasion. Britain and the United States: the Special Relationship The idea of the ‘special relationship’ was proposed by Winston Churchill (1874–1965) on 5 March 1946 when speaking to a group of businessmen in Fulton, Missouri. Over the years the phrase has chiefly been used in a political context, although of course trade is often aligned with political decisions. Indeed the official origin of the phrase is an important example of just how business and political relations between Britain and the United States were from the outset conceived as two sides of the same coin. Churchill envisaged this alliance to be one of equals but this was not to be. After World War II America entered a period of economic growth whereas Britain had invested a quarter of her wealth in the war effort and was suffering the consequences.1 The history of relations between Britain and the United States is complex and variable, although in the face of 37



38

H enry moore in america

international threats the two countries consistently have presented a united front. In the pre- and post-World War II period Britain was able to look to America for military and financial support. In turn Britain’s history, traditions and culture proved valuable to the United States in defining what might constitute transatlantic ‘civilised’ values. This became a priority with the emergence of European totalitarian regimes, strengthening a sense of the two countries standing ‘shoulder-to-shoulder’. British governments regularly considered Anglo-American relations as politically expedient in the cause of maintaining world stability and protecting an essentially humanistic code of values, and so they and other official bodies clearly recognised the actual and symbolic value of cultural exports to the United States.2 This affiliation was fundamental in enabling Moore’s American career since Americans perceived Britain as a friendly nation with the same language and a similar political structure. I am convinced that Moore was fully aware of the opportunities for him across the Atlantic: indeed in 1961 it was suggested that his achievements in the United States were a product of his being ‘in tune with the zeitgeist; in a restless age of wars, when populations and ideas were on the move, Moore’s massive dynamic calm was immediately appealing and inspirational. It is difficult for us in Britain to understand … just how much Moore is revered abroad: he is considered quite simply as the greatest living sculptor.’3 The overt promotion of Britain to an American audience started early in the twentieth century. After World War I the head of British Intelligence in the United States favoured approaching that country primarily through cultural means such as lecture tours and visits by important individuals.4 Following the Great War the term ‘propaganda’ was discredited through its inextricable association with overbearing political regimes. Unsurprisingly it was claimed that Britain dealt with the ‘truth’ whereas it was other nations who indulged in ‘propaganda’. Despite the semantics the word propaganda was openly used in government circles, to the extent of appearing in such key documents as Cabinet minutes. By the 1930s controlling Britain’s image overseas, including within the United States, was seen as an imperative in order to maintain a positive perception of civilised British values. In fact the phrase

the special relationship and the cold war

‘the Projection of England’ was used in a 1932 pamphlet bearing the same title.5 The British government took the stance of openly challenging Germany’s self-presentation in the interwar years. If the latter’s aims were ‘to secure an Empire and dominate Europe’, then Britain wanted to ‘preserve and develop what we already have … to make our institutions, mode of Government, arts and sciences, known and understood.’6 The construction of a range of positive national stereotypes was encouraged through such initiatives as the formation in 1928 of the Travel and Industrial Development Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It was argued that tourism would enable visitors to ‘see John Bull at home’ and to discover that ‘he is really a good natured person of simple tastes.’7 This characterisation completely matches the recurring descriptions of Moore by Americans, and it is interesting that such generalisations provided a perfect template for his image, not the least because they arose out of British national policy several years in advance of the sculptor’s first American successes in the 1940s. With the advent of World War II references to an assumed triumvirate of Britishness, civilisation and the arts abounded. In 1939 it was argued that Britain had made outstanding contributions to ‘the arts of peace and the achievement of civilisation.’8 In the same year the New York World’s Fair, with the theme Building the World of Tomorrow, gave Britain the possibility to ‘conduct trade and tourist propaganda’ as well as to ‘initiate a policy of national projection in the United States essentially for the first time.’9 The notion of ‘publicity’ or what might be termed ‘soft’ propaganda was reflected in documentation concerning the Fair where the British Pavilion and its exhibits were, simply by their existence, regarded as ‘a form of publicity …’10 Kenneth Clark was part of a special committee for this event and proposed that sculpture in the Fine Art exhibit be offered to New York’s Museum of Modern Art.11 Thus the connection between art establishments in the United Kingdom and United States was clear and Clark’s warmth towards MoMA, and his close friendship with Moore, surely did no harm to the latter’s subsequent reputation with the Museum. In relation to the War it was proposed that American people believed that they and the British shared the same values,

39



40

H enry moore in america

Americans recognising that ‘the British Empire was fighting for all the democracies, including that of the United States …’12 A gradual increase in publishing between the world wars also aided the presentation of Britain’s image overseas. Picture Post was selected by the Ministry of Information as an ideal medium through which to disseminate abroad aspects of British culture, even propaganda, albeit of the least strident variety. In December 1939 it carried a supplement entitled The Power of Britain that its editor Maxwell Raison openly intended to function as propaganda.13 It was acknowledged that sentimentality would be at the heart of the ‘message’ and indeed this recurs in post-war presentations of national characteristics, of a country struggling to reconcile progress with its undoubted cultural asset, that of a deep and rich history. One example of how the country might be characterised can be seen in the October 1940 issue of Picture Post. Kenneth Clark was at that time employed in the Ministry of Information and persuaded the magazine’s proprietor Edward Hulton to produce a special issue concerned with post-war Britain. Under the cover title A Plan for Britain there appeared ‘a photograph of six happy naked children on a playground slide … the entire contents similarly milked the reader’s emotions with a skilled journalistic hand …’14 Significantly Picture Post’s editor described the response from the public as having been unprecedented and having included requests from America for permission to reprint the Plan in the form of a pamphlet.15 Although apparently innocuous, such images nonetheless presented a romanticised image of Britain as a safe and happy place with wholesome values. For Moore, this transatlantic understanding enabled him to be seen as both a major international artist and a typically ‘English’ man. This especially resonated in America where an understanding of Britain’s ideological combination of renewal and tradition would prove a potent force in creating positive receptions of the English sculptor.

the special relationship and the cold war

The Cold War: Nationality, Freedom and the Defence of Civilised Values During the period of the Cold War the exact purpose of sculpture in public was in the spotlight and Moore’s work was often referred to in this context. In 1946 a multidisciplinary conference was held at Princeton University under the title The Humanistic Tradition in the Century Ahead. There it was argued that the artist was probably the only person in society who could represent and continue such values.16 This was an aspect of Moore that his supporters could promote and that found a ready outlet in America. It could be articulated through a general American understanding of Englishness and a specifically American perspective on Moore. However it remains interesting that it was in the United States that Moore found his work most closely aligned to such concerns, rather than in his home country. Importantly for this book American civic and corporate bodies in the post-war period were sensitive to the climate of the Cold War. Moreover their ambitions were remarkably similar and could be made visible through the display of public sculpture, including Moore’s monumental pieces. His sculptures clearly satisfied a demand for works that had no overt didactic content and therefore were amenable to a variety of locations and contexts. With the Cold War as backdrop the choice of such work was particularly timely at a moment when a public expression of Western values of freedom and democracy became a priority. The onset of the Cold War encouraged both Britain and the United States to consider carefully the ways in which monumental sculpture might prove invaluable in the promotion of Western democracy and civilised values. It is clear from British government committee minutes that the use of art as an ideal vehicle in the post-war battle for hearts and minds was a priority. However if such a connection were openly articulated in Britain it was often in an implausible and humorous manner. For example George Melly insisted that, because they were capable of accommodating three or four people, Moore’s immense reclining figures installed outside galleries and banks functioned as listening places for MI5 and the CIA.17 Furthermore, in the United Kingdom perceptions of Moore appear to have been more closely related to his work than to his personality – it was his

41



42

H enry moore in america

sculpture that raised comment, rather than the man himself. This meant that his work was open to attack from those who found it to be incomprehensibly modern, the ideal butt of the cartoonist’s art, or from those who saw him as an artist who in the years following World War II had allowed the power of his sculptural expression to become weakened through inflated scale and unsympathetic positioning. The political climate of the period subsequent to World War II, through to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, coincided with Moore’s most productive years in the United States. The Cold War enabled Britain to redefine its status in the world by presenting itself as America’s ally against Communism.18 However Britain had a problem. In Chapter 5 I will discuss how the country was following divergent, if not contradictory, aims. The focus was simultaneously on looking to the future, to the creation of a modern and dynamic country, whilst also arguing for the maintenance and publicising of Britain’s historical tradition. However for Moore’s promotion overseas, and particularly in the United States, this view of Britain as the bedrock of ‘civilised’ values proved to be highly productive. Aside from his nationality, it appears that Moore’s affable character, homely appearance and willingness to attend interminable dinners and private views, was regarded by Americans as a mark of his politeness, and this quality was also linked to American perceptions of the quintessential English gentleman. As well as being personally well regarded, Moore’s sculpture also was viewed as expressing intrinsically humane qualities. A limited number of terms were used when referring to Moore’s work, the most familiar being ‘humanistic’, a freely used and loosely defined expression. Dorothy Kosinski has proposed that ‘Moore’s arguably neutral subject matter made his sculptures ideal vessels for the ideological content of cold war diplomacy, and he rapidly assumed the mantle of pre-eminent artist of western democracy.’19 In the context of the Cold War and the associated climate of suspicion, abstract art caused fewer problems than did figurative work, by reducing the likelihood of overt political content and thus ‘the possibility of ideological conflict.’20 As already suggested, in the United States the political tensions resulting from the Cold War frequently led to contemporary art and artists being characterised

the special relationship and the cold war

as ‘un-American’. This was largely due to an extreme conservatism that regarded contemporary art as more than difficult, rather as being a direct challenge to accepted American values. American debates about modern art were more politicised than in Britain where responses were driven more by issues of taste, the legacy of academic traditions and an emphasis on craft and skill. Thus any objections were largely concerned with formal matters and the perceived competence or otherwise of the artist. Probably the most infamous expression of antipathy towards modern art was the speech made by Alfred Munnings (1878–1959) on 28 April 1949 at a banquet that preceded that year’s Summer Exhibition at the Royal Academy. This was broadcast to a huge radio audience and Munnings later claimed that he was unaware the broadcast was going out live. He criticised fellow members of the Academy for ‘shilly-shallying. They feel there is something in this so-called modern art…Well, I myself would rather have a damned bad failure, a bad, muddy old picture where somebody has tried to do something, to set down what they have seen, than all this affected juggling, this following of … the School of Paris’. Within this speech, which came across as dismissive and uncontrolled – Munnings himself admitted to have drunk rather too many toasts at the banquet – a wide range of individuals and artworks were attacked. These included Moore’s Madonna and Child at Northampton.21 In August of the same year the Chicago Tribune reported on American Senator George Dondero’s naming of the artists whom he disliked and his statement that ‘Abstractionism aims to destroy by creation of brainstorms.’ Although Dondero was critical of both Moore and Barbara Hepworth (1903–75) his usual targets were American artists.22 James Hall has discussed the post-war placement of large amounts of modern British sculpture in American museums, plazas, parks and private homes, noting that ‘One of the most interesting and pervasive factors in all this is the way that American critics have sought to define the ‘Englishness’ of English… sculpture …”23 The customary deduction was that it represented democracy, honesty and quality, and in all cases was the converse of sculpture produced under totalitarian regimes. Moore was explicitly situated within this Cold War context by a broad spectrum of political, journalistic and

43



44

H enry moore in america

aesthetic commentators. For example the minutes of a 1961 British Council meeting referred to the current Moore show touring Europe as ‘a symbol of western unity and cultural life.’24 The sculptor’s close friend Philip Hendy (1900–80) wrote a paper entitled Henry Moore on Freedom in which he proposed that ‘When we may be on the brink of a third war which must result in the victory of one idea of life or the other, every man must think clearly where he stands … Art is …the great means of communication between human beings at their highest level…’25 In 1960 John Russell described Moore’s themes as ‘particularly welcome to humanity at a time when it is, for one reason or another, at war with itself…’26 Anthony Barnett’s retrospective analysis of Moore’s career argued that the sculptor’s strong connections with American investors was in itself a version of the special relationship, and one that increased both the scale and price of his sculptures placed near corporate and civic buildings. As a result he believed that Moore was the most characteristic artist within the post-war context.27 The Archives of MoMA hold a substantial and fascinating set of files entitled Political Controversy the contents of which span the period from the late 1940s to the 1960s. Here a museum clearly presents art as having a central role to play within the contemporary political climate. In Britain any such purpose was usually articulated by governmental bodies rather than by museums and would normally be couched in more covert terms, along the lines that art was (unquestionably) a ‘civilising’ instrument. In contrast a 1950 joint Statement on Modern Art was issued by the Institute of Contemporary Art, Boston, the Whitney Museum of American Art, New York, and MoMA. It argued for ‘the humanistic value of modern art even though it may not adhere to academic humanism with its insistence on the human figure as the central element of art … We … reject the assumption that art which is esthetically an innovation must somehow be socially or politically subversive …’ This rejection of ‘academic humanism’ and ‘the human figure’ may also explain why Moore’s biomorphic forms could present an acceptable modernisation of this tradition.28

the special relationship and the cold war

Nuclear Energy (1964–66) University of Chicago Moore’s Nuclear Energy was unusual in his oeuvre as his only sculpture that met the criteria of the traditional monument since it directly commemorates a major scientific breakthrough – the first controlled nuclear chain reaction – that was to have enormous implications for world stability. It was also remarkable in that contemporary American audiences interpreted it directly in relation to the current political and international sensitivities of the Cold War period. On 2 December 1942 Italian-born American physicist Enrico Fermi (1901–54) carried out the first controlled nuclear chain reaction in a converted subterranean squash court on the University of Chicago’s campus. Moore’s commission marked the twenty-fifth anniversary of this controversial event. The realisation and naming of the sculpture proved to be particularly challenging. Originally referred to as Atom Piece the title was subsequently changed to Nuclear Energy in order to emphasise the affirmative rather than unpleasant aspects of the scientific breakthrough. This lack of clarity between the positive and negative concepts of atomic/nuclear energy/bomb is apparent everywhere in the history of the commission. It caused uncertainty as to just what was being celebrated or commemorated. This was not helped by Moore’s explanation of the sculpture’s form as having been inspired by an elephant skull given to him by his old friend Julian Huxley. In reality Moore’s original maquette for Nuclear Energy was shown to a delegation from the University in December 1963 and the skull from Huxley was not received until the spring of 1964.29 Nonetheless, Moore’s account has been much repeated and was further complicated in October 1970, three years after the unveiling, when Moore arranged to be photographed by Errol Jackson. The resultant images showed the sculptor working on a plaster cast of Nuclear Energy’s maquette, with the elephant skull clearly in shot. Thus Moore’s explanation of the sculpture received apparent visual confirmation.30 In this way photography was not being used to record reality, but rather to create a new reality. Also problematic is Moore’s actual opinion of nuclear weapons since he supported the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. An ambiguity in Moore’s own position might therefore be read as made visible

45



46

H enry moore in america

in Nuclear Energy. Is this sculpture celebratory or is it a warning? (Fig. 10). This is how events unfolded for this important commission. Gaylord Donnelley, Chairman of the Campaign for Chicago at the University, requested $200,000 from the Ferguson Fund for Sculpture towards the cost of a bronze sculpture by Moore. It was hoped that the balance would be raised by public subscription.31 Benjamin Franklin Ferguson had been a wealthy Chicago businessman who made a fortune in lumber. On his death in 1905 he bequeathed a $1 million endowment fund for the erection and maintenance of public sculptures in Chicago. Having travelled through Europe he was impressed with the statuary that he saw in fountains and squares, and wanted to see the same in Chicago. Apart from the symbolic aspect of encouraging sculpture, Ferguson was also interested in fountains as a means to refresh the people who pulled horses and worked on the city’s streets. Thus there was a social as well as a civic aspect to his legacy. At its inception in 1905 the Ferguson Fund was recorded as the largest such bequest made to any city in the world and thus it was expected that within a generation Chicago would become the most beautiful city in the world.32 In 1907 the Chicago Tribune commented that previous memorials in America had often lacked artistic merit. In contrast it was believed that Chicago’s art commission would ‘not allow the parks and other public grounds to be disfigured by bronze or stone monstrosities.’ The newspaper was further reassured that the Ferguson Fund would be administered by the directors of the Art Institute of Chicago ‘who will insist that artistic merit shall mark each memorial to be provided out of that great endowment for beautifying Chicago.’33 In Chapter 7 I will discuss the scandal that surrounded the perceived misuse of the Ferguson Fund. There were links between Chicago’s University and Art Institute since many chairmen of various University Boards were also members of the Art Institute’s Board of Trustees. It is possible that these formal and informal links between such influential men could have resulted in someone on the Ferguson Committee suggesting that Gaylord Donnelley approach them for funding. William McNeill (b. 1917), then Professor of History at the University, was chair of the



Henry Moore, Nuclear Energy 1964–6, University of Chicago.

Fig.10



48

H enry moore in america

committee established to commemorate Fermi’s achievements as the twenty-fifth anniversary approached. He recorded the tortuous route undertaken before the sculptural commission was realised: Fund raising difficulties…were immensely various and in the end slightly hilarious. Basically President Beadle agreed to go ahead and authorize the committee. I headed to say Yes to Henry Moore on the occasion of a CBS special that showed him at work on the plaster cast of the statue, and a chance to have the narrator declare this was for the University was offered to us.34

Initial instalments were arranged from University funds. However, there was still debate since a Pablo Picasso (1881– 1973) sculpture was being planned for the city centre, and would require more money than the Fund could supply. At a meeting of the relevant University Board convened to ratify payment to Picasso for his sculpture ‘one of the ladies asked, was P not a Communist? She would never vote such money to a Communist. With that, the enterprise collapsed.’ Instead, the funding for the Picasso sculpture was raised instead from three charitable foundations.35 We have already seen that the political situation in post-war America allowed for a favourable view of a British artist in the context of anxieties concerning Communism, and it appears that the historical and political ties with Britain placed Picasso in an unfavourable position if the choice for a commission were between him and Moore. The Ferguson Fund could now consider paying for the Moore sculpture although even this did not proceed smoothly. Firstly there was a problem with precisely who owned the land where the sculpture would be placed. McNeill said that the solution would be to deed this piece of ground to the City of Chicago. In the light of the earlier Ferguson Fund scandal McNeill recommended that the will be observed to the letter, with the sculpture being unarguably sited on public land. This was settled only about a week before the unveiling.36 Since the Ferguson Fund’s remit was to pay for sculptures in public places, this final difficulty was overcome by a formal deed that gave ownership of the area beneath Moore’s sculpture to the City of Chicago Park District.37 McNeill believed strongly in the need for a fitting commemoration of Fermi’s achievements and he especially deplored the state into which the site had fallen:

the special relationship and the cold war

It was…a piece of waste ground, the original shelter having been torn down owing to radiation pollution on the walls. Weeds grew and a chain fence carried a plaque – well worded mind you – in bronze: and that was all. I had just returned from Vienna where old imperial monuments abound, and remarked more than once that they did it better: here we had a world historic site and adorned it with a chain fence and weeds.38

Official documentation concerning this Moore sculpture is even more scant than normal. Indeed the minutes of Trustee committee meetings for the period 1963–7 contain no mention of Nuclear Energy. However Moore had a strong reputation in Chicago, having many sculptures in various collections.39 He was also attracting a high level of publicity through the screening of several films about him in the city.40 Thus it may well have been the case that he was an obvious choice. What is certain is that William McNeill wrote to the sculptor in November 1963 stressing the project’s potential: ‘Properly carried through, the monument can become a place of pilgrimage for all the world; holy ground in the true modern sense; a monument to man’s triumphs, charged with high hope and profound fear just as every triumphant breakthrough has always been.’41 At this time Moore was busy with a commission for New York’s Lincoln Center, but McNeill wanted to push ahead with the Chicago sculpture. Writing in 1964 he informed Moore that the University had approved the committee’s recommendation to invite him to create ‘a statue that might body forth the awfulness of the event … I mean awful in its proper sense: of inspiring awe … a sense of greatness, power and danger all at once.’ McNeill said that the sculpture would be located about half a mile away from the actual place where the first chain reaction happened. It was to be sited on the Midway, a broad park-like thoroughfare dividing the University campus into its northern and southern halves.42 In fact the sculpture is sited on Ellis Avenue which crosses the Midway; it is not in a particularly prominent position, being set back from the road. However it is close to the Regenstein Library, built at the same time by architectural firm Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, and it is possible that Nuclear Energy was seen as also providing an artwork for that project. The base for the sculpture was built as part of the

49



50

H enry moore in america

Library and paid for by the University.43 In February 1965 Moore sent the University photographs of the four-foot working model. The Fermi Memorial Planning Committee was concerned over public criticism of the final sculpture but believed that this could be countered by ‘an appropriately-worded plaque’ hung nearby and care being taken with the language used in the dedication ceremony.44 Whether a negative response was feared because of the sculptor or the sculpture’s subject is unclear – however the latter seems more likely given the sensitivity of the event being commemorated. After the inauguration of his sculpture at Lincoln Center, Moore made a brief visit to Chicago in September 1965 to look at the site. A University press release noted the demand for Moore’s work in America45 and so a sense of civic rivalry was engendered in order to expedite and publicise the project. At some point a potential donor had appeared, a Mr Palevsky, however this fell through due to his experiencing financial problems.46 Later McNeill informed Moore that he had approached Phyllis Lambert as a potential donor. She was a wealthy heiress and an architect who worked for Mies Van der Rohe in Chicago, but she had not replied to his letter. McNeill had also invited her to submit a design for the immediate surroundings of Moore’s sculpture.47 Moore replied that he knew and liked Phyllis Lambert, and in fact had hoped to create a sculpture for Mies Van der Rohe’s Seagram building in New York.48 In September 1967 McNeill wrote to Moore saying that they had still not found a donor. He suggested that it might be necessary for Moore to meet with the University’s fund raisers and that television and press interviews might also be helpful. He had noticed that subsequent to the recent unveiling of Picasso’s statue at the Civic Centre ‘Chicago has become quite conscious of modern art.’49 Finally in November 1967 McNeill could tell Moore that the Ferguson Foundation would finance the sculpture.50 An exhibition of 70 Moore sculptures and about twenty-five drawings sourced from local private collections was also being organised. Entitled Chicago’s Homage to Henry Moore it would be held at the University for three weeks in December.51 It was claimed that the size of this show demonstrated that Moore was the greatest represented sculptor in Chicago art collections.52

the special relationship and the cold war

At Nuclear Energy’s unveiling in late 1967 Moore did not make an official statement, preferring to let his sculpture speak for itself.53 Instead Professor Harold Haydon said: Since ancient times men have set up a marker…to hold the memory or a deed…There is something that makes us want a solid presence…We still choose stone or metal…and for these solid, enduring forms we turn to the men who are carvers of stone and moulders of metal, for it is they who have given lasting form to our myths through the centuries. One of these men is here today, a great one…Nuclear Energy…is a magnet for conflicting emotions, some of which inevitably will attach to the bronze form…some will feel the joy and sorrow of recollection, some may dread the uncertain future, and yet others will thrill to the thought of magnificent achievements that lie ahead…By being here in a public place the sculpture ‘Nuclear Energy’ becomes a part of Chicago, and the sculptor an honored citizen…54

Local newspaper coverage set out the challenges the work presented: Moore champions symbolism. Some scientists see in the atomic cloud the menace of destruction. They believe this to be the wrong interpretation to be placed on the work of Fermi. Humanists concede the militaristic aspect of the design but point to its cathedral effect and its suggestion of a hopeful future … Thus, Henry Moore touches a sensitive nerve.55

It was noted that Moore likened the Carrara marble mountains in Italy to cathedrals and that now he had ‘embodied the cathedral theme as part of his “Nuclear Energy” work, counterpointed against a mushroom cloud to reflect hope and despair in the nuclear age.’56 Despite the controversial use of the atomic bomb during World War II ‘Many members of the academic community and the more sophisticated members of Congress … expressed concern and offered ideas on how the atom might be tamed, at least politically.’ This parallels Moore’s description of this particular sculpture in an article in The Independent newspaper in which he acknowledged the visual likeness to a mushroom cloud but claimed that ‘in deference to the public nature of his commission he made it a very friendly atom bomb …’57 Nuclear Energy’s later physical state and surroundings deteriorated. When viewed in 2003 the sculpture looked cramped due to subsequent building work. However it apparently remains

51



52

H enry moore in america

an important focus for various protests and people have come from all over the world to see it.58 It is widely known that Moore had reservations concerning atomic weapons, being a signatory to a joint 1950 letter sent to The Times on this subject where it was argued that ‘without sacrifice of our honour or security, our Government should take the lead in a new and realistic endeavour to resolve by mutual agreement the international conflicts which now imperil the peace of the world and human civilization itself.’ Thus despite, or perhaps because of, the dangers raised by the Cold War, this protest against nuclear weaponry was overtly linked to the survival of a civilised society, a familiar trope in commentary on Moore’s public sculptures.59



4

Trading Culture: Systems of Patronage

Culture and Politics: the British Council and Henry Moore Early in the twentieth century the notion of cultural diplomacy was a new departure for British foreign policy. It was intended to be seen as the open and honest face of propaganda. The creation of the British Council in 1934–5 was presented as a democratic riposte to European totalitarianism. The somewhat disingenuous distinction made between the British Council and the Travel Association was that although both were responsible for propaganda, in the former instance this was cultural and in the latter it was in the cause of tourism.1 The drive by Britain overseas was to present a ‘correct’ version of its institutions and way of life. This was seen as the British Council’s area of expertise and the Foreign Office defined the Council’s role as cultural, to emphasise education rather than publicity.2 However this role was openly linked to economic imperatives since it was stated that the British economy would benefit from the use of propaganda, in that publicising the British way of life would lead to increased exports.3 Philip Taylor has noted how the British Council took over the cultural work and related activities that previously had been the remit of the News Department. In return the Foreign Office provided the Council with access to diplomatic channels and facilities.’4 Nonetheless it is clear that the government remained anxious about possible adverse public reaction to the methods used in presenting Britain abroad. One strategy was to disguise the actual sources of propaganda through the use of ‘intermediary channels of communication which had no ostensible connection with that source.’ To this end much emphasis was placed on establishing and maintaining personal links and thus often 53



54

H enry moore in america

avoiding more official channels where such interactions might be placed on record.5 Moore’s supporters in his native country were part of this network of influential individuals. In 1935 The Times unapologetically supported the establishment of the British Council to carry out cultural propaganda. It was argued that there was nothing wrong with propaganda so long as ‘the work associated with it is openly performed and the principles spread are honestly held and are not insinuated into the minds of readers or listeners, but are provided as a contribution to thought and experience for those who wish to learn them.’6 This sleight of hand meant that both the use of culture as a type of ‘stealth’ export, and information/ propaganda as a way of conveying national interests, were unapologetically discussed at this time.7 Moore’s relationship with the British Council fully got underway shortly after World War II and the Council supported his work



Henry Moore and Herbert Read at a small exhibition in Paris organised by the British Council, 1945.

Fig.11

trading culture : systems of patronage

throughout his life and after his death. Fig. 11 shows Moore and close friend Herbert Read at a 1945 exhibition in Paris organised by the Council. Read is shown at the left of this photograph. As Margaret Garlake has argued, such displays of Moore’s sculptures were ‘most effective propaganda’ since no ‘ideological claims’ were made for them. In addition the Council now had an ‘unofficial ambassador in the form of a popular and internationally respected figure’ happy to travel frequently in the cause of cultural diplomacy.8 After Moore’s death in 1986 the Chairman of the Council’s Fine Arts committee paid tribute to the sculptor as ‘the Council’s greatest friend …’9 The Council did not have an official remit in the United States and it is unclear to what extent they directly supported Moore there. In an interview with photographer John Hedgecoe, Moore was insistent that the Council did exhibit his work in America even though they ‘didn’t have a foothold’ there.10 The Council’s importance to Moore deserves far greater and more detailed analysis that is beyond the scope of this book. The usual explanation for the strength of the relationship is that Moore’s work was (simply) used as a wholesome and ‘pleasing’ aspect of British art.11 When Moore won the International Sculpture Prize at the 1948 Venice Biennale a British Council report described that even though the sculptor disliked the resultant publicity he ‘did all he could to help on the success of the pavilion by submitting to interminable interviews, photographing and even filming! He had the wonderful gift of being able to make himself understood without knowing the language, his enthusiasm enabling him to put across what he wanted to say.’12 This aspect of Moore’s character would acquire mythic status, especially in America. The success of his sculptures within the British Pavilion was demonstrated by their purchase by MoMA and by private collectors. Thus the ground was laid for a positive American response to Moore and his work.13 Philip Hendy noted in the 1960s that for the past 20 years the British Council had almost continuously supplied a Henry Moore exhibition ‘at the urgent request of the countries which it has visited.’14 Certainly the conflation of political, cultural and economic aspirations was and remains at the heart of the Council’s work. This is highly significant given their promotion of Moore: this

55



56

H enry moore in america

was as much to do with national ambitions within the political and economic arenas as it was to do with art. As was the case with Picture Post, the Council’s journal Britain Today is a vivid witness to contemporary viewpoints.15 It had an influential role in promoting a way of life that emphasised the virtues of civilisation and history. Launched in 1939, its stated aim was to report factually on recent British events and to freely distribute this abroad ‘to people important in finance, commerce, industry, administration and politics’.16 In its first year of publication the Englishman was defined thus: ‘determined to defend … the English way of life. Wherever the Englishman goes…he takes with him his way of life. He is the most experienced and… successful coloniser of the modern world and perhaps the real secret of his success lies in the paradox that no matter where he goes he changes his outlook on life so little.’17 Of course, this comment locates its author in the twilight years of colonialism, but it also aligns with descriptions of Moore’s steady character and secure sense of self.18 However, there was a marked gap between the claims made for Britain’s status in the years following World War II and the reality of the country’s situation. Correlli Barnett has argued that the ‘dream of a New Jerusalem’ manifested itself in a belief that ‘morality and reason could prevail over ruthless pursuit of material interest’ and that ‘faith and dedication could build an ideal society at home and a new world order abroad’. Central to this would be ‘a cult of the knightly “gentleman” dedicated to the service of others; a belief in the British Empire as a civilising mission in the Greek and Roman mould …’19 As ever, the harnessing of civilisation and art was a recurrent theme for the British Council, it being claimed that the battle to preserve Western civilisation would also provide a stimulus to artistic creativeness.20 The concept of Moore as a ‘knightly gentleman’ would undoubtedly have appealed to an American audience. Despite the rhetoric, the fundamentally political nature of Britain Today was confirmed in 1947 in the context of discussion concerning the transference of the journal from the British Council to the Central Office of Information, at the heart of Westminster rule.21 A 1953 paper entitled The British Council and Industry openly acknowledged the Council’s unofficial role, as opposed to its

trading culture : systems of patronage

official remit of the dissemination abroad of English culture: ‘From its inception the British Council has received the support and encouragement of leaders in industry and commerce. Trade considerations … were partly responsible for … (its) formation … and for many of its early actions.’22 Elsewhere this was stated even more explicitly in referring to the contrast between public perception of the British Council as an ‘independent … cultural body’ versus ‘what is indeed a fact, that the Council comes here and goes there at the behest and directive of Foreign Office policy … endeavouring to find out what foreigners are doing and thinking, to incline them to think and act in some desired direction …’23 Moore’s work was undoubtedly part of this ‘trade following the flag’ imperative, supported by an equally committed political imperative. In his 1968 biography of the sculptor American John Russell said that with the ending of World War II Moore became ‘the Englishman who comes top of the list when living art is in question … Moore’s particular position springs from the fact that in life, as in art, he can move easily and unaffectedly from the private to the public role (and back again). He is a natural ambassador.’24 In the mid-1950s a British Council meeting heard that American journalists were being sent to Britain to report on a renaissance within British art.25 The Council was keen to capitalise on this interest; despite their lack of an official remit within the United States they did tour and support exhibitions there. They were able to use such opportunities to promote Moore. Britain was successful in the post-war period in exporting culture and specifically modern British sculpture. The Council was reliant on this for their touring exhibitions and through Moore’s sculptures they were able to dramatically raise the profile of British art on the world stage.26 One example of their influence was the fact that their booklets and films were distributed in America via the British Information Service.27 In 1940 the Council organised an exhibition, Contemporary British Art, which went to the Toledo Museum of Art, Ohio, and the Museum’s Director made a point of stressing the links between America and Britain in the intellectual spheres.28 Moore had three drawings in this show. However the Council’s frustration at not being able to widely show British art in the United States

57



58

H enry moore in america

was also evident. It was seen as fundamentally flawed to omit such an important country from the overall drive to publicise British art globally, not the least because of America’s importance as an art market but also because of the impact it could make on artists’ reputations.29 It was emphasised that the international standing of contemporary British artists was now second only to those of the United States. The British Council clearly felt that this situation should be consolidated through formal and organised support for British exhibitions in America, and that they were clearly the most appropriate organisation to do this.30 In 1948 Britain Today added its voice to the frequent commentary on notions of national identity and of Englishness as the guardian of civilised values. An editorial referred to the ‘good citizen’ who apart from ‘national citizenship’ should be an ‘intelligent and loyal member of the world community.’31 In this context Moore’s family groups particularly suited the prevailing ideology of promoting the traditional family as the bedrock of such a national community. However post-Empire Britain was experiencing real difficulty in defining a new role for itself. Philip Taylor has described how a reliance on tradition could promote the illusion that all was well: when Queen Elizabeth II ascended to the throne it was clear that Britain had a ‘genuinely marketable product in terms of national projection. But the product consisted of monarchy, ceremony, tradition and culture rather than a vital, forward-looking economy … The past, or better still an illusion of the past … provided Britain with its most profitable propaganda opportunity.’32 For Moore’s promotion overseas, this focus on marketing tradition and culture resulted in a convergence between the ambitions of political, business and artistic institutions. Anthony Barnett, in his highly contentious 1988 film on Moore, argued that Britain was trying to be a great country: in pursuit of this there was a drive to diminish class difference and in this cause Moore was given the role of cultural ambassador, his working class background and success making him an ideal choice. Barnett suggested that artists were seen as ‘a kind of commercial for the country … Britain needed someone to represent its stature in capital cities around the world. They found this man in Moore.’33 Roger Berthoud’s 1987 biography of Moore did not

trading culture : systems of patronage

produce the hostile response that followed Barnett’s television programme but he too argued that Moore’s increased reputation in the United States after World War II would have pleased the British Establishment as ‘a home-grown success story.’ Whilst Britain was losing its centrality within the international political arena Moore’s international artistic prominence was ‘a source of pride; to proclaim his greatness (was) a patriotic act …’34 Unsurprisingly the outcome of such perceptions of Moore and his art was that both achieved an almost quasi-religious status, placing them beyond criticism. Apparently in the late 1950s John Berger (b. 1926) made a negative comment on Moore’s recent work and a widely circulated story was that a representative of the British Council telephoned Moore to ‘apologise for this outrage’.35 Culture and Capitalism: Raymond Nasher and NorthPark Shopping Centre, Dallas, Texas If the British Council used culture in the cause of political expediency, a different form of patronage can be seen operating in America in relation to Moore. Here culture was harnessed to capitalism and to business expediency. Henry Moore had several influential friends in Dallas. Most significant was his friendship with businessman Raymond Nasher (1921–2007) who played an important role in paving the way for Moore’s important sculptural commission at a new city hall that was unveiled in Dallas in 1978. Fig. 12 shows the sculptor with Nasher and his wife Patsy who wrote to Moore in 1967 about the couple’s first visit to Hoglands and how much she had enjoyed their discussions about sculpture.36 They saw Moore working on Two Piece Reclining Figure No. 9 (1968) and the large Three Piece No. 3: Vertebrae (1968) and later bought both sculptures. The latter would be displayed in front of Nasher’s NorthPark National Bank in Dallas. An example of the depth of their friendship is evident in a 1980 letter from Patsy Nasher to Moore: ‘if you had received every mental letter I had composed, you would have been inundated with mail … We are organizing the placement of our outdoor sculpture. I am keeping in mind your thoughts about overcrowding. I am working with the garden plan and trying to

59



60

H enry moore in america

place each piece so that it alone will fill the eye …’ She thanked Moore for giving his plaster version of Mother and Child (1979) to the Dallas Museum of Art and briefly mentioned the creation of a new art museum in the city.37 Documentation concerning the new City Hall and its associated Henry Moore sculpture clearly shows a link between this commission and the new museum. I will discuss the City Hall commission and its connection to Dallas Museum of Art in Chapter 7. The Nasher Sculpture Collection is one of the greatest private collections of modern sculpture in the world. It was begun in the mid-1960s and from the outset included works by Moore. Patsy Nasher died in 1988 and her husband continued to build a collection that by the mid-1990s amounted to more than 300 works. Nasher wanted to share his collection with as diverse a public as possible, achieving this through exhibitions, loans, and installing works in various public locations ranging from ‘museums to commercial and



Henry Moore with Raymond and Patsy Nasher, Perry Green, September 1967.

Fig.12

trading culture : systems of patronage

government settings.’ His career commenced with the design of residential developments, growing to encompass construction of industrial, office and shopping complexes. He also held positions in the public sector, notably in governmental areas of urban and foreign affairs. His core business, however, was in real estate development and he believed that within such commercial projects sculpture had a stronger presence than painting. More prosaically he found that sculpture cost less than paintings of comparable quality.39 He also believed that his public service positions had attuned him to art’s social and educational potential and that he had been able to test these ideas within his bank and shopping centre. He maintained that art in a commercial context encouraged productivity and enhanced human relationships. There was also the possibility to educate people: to this end he had major sculptures from his collection constantly on display at his NorthPark shopping mall. He recognised that this was where many people would see art for the first time. He also believed that more people would have the opportunity to see quality art in his shopping centre during a month than would visit museums during a year. He wanted people to see art on a daily basis, and by exposing them to it in commercial spaces he believed that this would capture their interest and they would return with their family and friends. ‘Exposure is crucial…often you will see them come back, talk about a Henry Moore…and learn something about the nature of art.’40 Fig. 13 shows the cover of American business journal Burroughs Clearing House which in 1979 published an article on Nasher. He is shown here with one of his Moore sculptures. Nasher has also been described as likening himself to an artist, saying: ‘A building is like a piece of sculpture – it’s very good, mediocre or bad. The problem with a building is that it’s there. You see it every day and there is no way to get around it. Therefore, it’s the most important art form.’41 Nasher considered it vitally important that society be exposed to the arts as often as possible: ‘I have always felt it was extremely important we consider the arts almost as a utility – a basic need for the community, like water, air and gas…it is essential that we have the opportunity through the art around us to be influenced in our everyday thinking by the world’s great creative minds.’ Moreover such enlightened thinking need not conflict with business aims: 38

61



62

H enry moore in america

as a businessman, Mr. Nasher insists that creative and aesthetic considerations must be compatible with the profit motive … only through careful business management can society be truly ‘uplifted’ through business support of the arts. ‘If you build something better, and it’s unprofitable, you haven’t advanced human progress. Profitability is a tool for creating a better environment. Practicality and idealism must go together … We must provide a human environment



Cover of Burroughs Clearing House, February 1979, showing Raymond Nasher with Henry Moore, Three Piece No. 3: Vertebrae 1968.

Fig.13

trading culture : systems of patronage

as well as a physical and commercial environment. If this turns out to be good business, as it has at NorthPark, that’s just the fallout.’42

During an interview in 2003, Raymond Nasher confirmed that David Finn was an old friend and that they spent a lot of time together talking about art and its importance in urban areas.43 His fondness for Henry Moore was clear: ‘He really couldn’t have been nicer. He was very intellectual.’ When asked for his thoughts on Moore’s longlasting appeal Nasher said: Of course he had excellent public relations…when one was thinking of sculptors of that particular period of time he was always considered by the critics and by other public relations areas. He had placed pieces in wonderful places so that he was totally global, and I think that that was really one of the reasons that he was so well liked, because he was seen by more people than most sculptors.

He described Moore’s work as ‘very comfortable, comforting…He was really a popular figure because people…felt that he related to them as individuals and that he basically was someone they could understand.’44 Nasher was determined that his Dallas shopping mall would be unlike any other in existence. He wanted art spread throughout the entire complex. As well as responding to the needs of the approximately 200 retailers it was necessary from the outset to plan for large display spaces for sculpture and painting. All elements of the design had to be considered in order to create the correct environment – from interior water features to lighting and signage.45 NorthPark Centre, originally a one-million-square-foot mall, expanded several times subsequent to its August 1965 opening, when it was the largest climate-conditioned retail complex under one roof in the world. Part of the complex housed Nasher’s NorthPark National Bank, to become the biggest independent bank in Texas.46 This was the first American bank where the public business areas were designed to show major works of art, with high ceilings, uncluttered open areas and brick walls, intended by Nasher to suggest ‘museum-like qualities…’47 When NorthPark opened, shopping centres were a relatively new idea in America and Nasher was sufficiently informed to know that they could be unattractive. So he wanted to create a space that combined aesthetic values with a democratic shopping experience, with stores ranging

63



64

H enry moore in america

from J.C. Penney to Neiman-Marcus. He envisioned NorthPark as unified, likening it to ‘a piece of sculpture, a single material and form…which would strengthen with age rather than depreciate rapidly.’48 The original concept set a consistent standard of quality in materials, architectural detailing and use of natural light, was the first shopping centre to be constructed using one major building material and the first to initiate a policy of controlled signage. Within this carefully monitored environment the imported ‘natural’ elements such as the trees are given more prominence than commercial aspects such as store signs.49 The interior is spacious and grand, comprising a series of walkways and courts softened by year-round plantings. The mix of linked pavilions avoids monotony through variations in exterior and interior heights, shoppers being able to see half-mile views down the ‘streets’. Because of its extensive landscaping, indoor art and outdoor sculpture, it was unique among shopping centres, and when opened was described as being ‘superbly conceived…breathtaking in beauty and size and several leaps ahead of anything like it in the United States.’50 It has been likened to a town square where people go to pass their leisure time as well as to shop. Thus the symbolism of the city, and the organising effect of architecture, comes together in the visitor’s experience.51 Janet Kutner, who would later report extensively on the Moore sculpture at Dallas City Hall, covered NorthPark’s progress. In 1976 she referred to the role of artworks in shopping centres as ‘image builders’, thus underscoring how businessmen were deploying art to encourage customer loyalty.52 In this vein, a Moore sculpture could be used to confer quality and ‘brand identity’. In 1979 a banking journal reported that NorthPark Bank had now entered ‘the elite of banking art, along with Chase Manhattan and Citibank in New York City and First National in Chicago.’ An employee was quoted as saying ‘People come to see the art; an employee asks whether he can help, and, frequently, they start banking here.’53 Nasher proposed that he was trying to create: ‘…almost a university…an alumnus instead of a consumer. If you don’t create an alumni association, then those consumers will be here today and gone tomorrow.’ He believed that the link to NorthPark provided by Dallas’ Dart Railway would allow it to become ‘a great urban place, a Rockefeller Center.’ The implication was

trading culture : systems of patronage

that the mall could outlive the automobile should the latter fall from favour.54 Defining shopping malls as public or private space is complex, since they are usually built on privately owned real estate. Malls may encourage the assembly of a large group of strangers in one place but they are in reality controlled by the mall owner and their staff. Elegant American out-of-town shopping centres have been characterised as serving those who live in suburbia and as enabling city officials and developers ‘to trade on nostalgia for the gaudy urban past…The history of merchandising and commercial architecture seemed an opening into a larger story of urban sentimentalism and a search for acceptable contemporary monumentality.’55 This re-working of the notion of the monument is of interest in the context of an analysis of Moore and the United States. In 1977 a Henry Moore sculpture was commissioned for I.M. Pei’s (b. 1917) Dallas City Hall. As a close friend of City Manager George R. Schrader, Raymond Nasher offered to show Moore’s work to the general public who visited NorthPark. So an exhibition was organised comprising some of Moore’s sculptures and graphics. Dallas Museum of Art loaned their Moore sculpture Reclining Figure, and Nasher’s Vertebrae and Reclining Figure No. 9 were included. Also shown were ten maquettes and 20 lithographs from the Wildenstein Gallery and the Lillian Heidenberg Gallery in New York. Entitled Dallas Gets Moore this exhibition was a striking example of co-operation between the artistic, civic and corporate worlds. Photographs by David Finn were included in the exhibition to show the truly international context for Moore’s sculpture, the implication being that Dallas would be added to this august company. Visitors to the exhibition could also watch two films – Henry Moore: Art and the Art of Living and Henry Moore: Master Sculptor – which were shown twice daily. The City Mayor declared: We are very excited that the people of Dallas are going to have the unique opportunity to become familiar with the work of this great artist. With Dallas’ continuing financial growth, with plans being laid for our new fine arts center, with the city becoming an international crossroads for aviation, the installation of the sculpture of Henry Moore and the opening of our new Municipal Buildings are truly going to mark Dallas as one of the great cities of the world.’56

65

65



66

H enry moore in america

There were numerous comments of this sort that showed the high expectations for the Moore City Hall sculpture. Nasher praised the cooperation between the private sector and city government but believed that this was natural in a great city such as Dallas. Looking to the future a spokesman for Dallas Museum of Art believed that the installation of Moore’s sculpture would ‘enrich all our lives. We are honoured to be able to participate in a preview of the work of this master sculptor. Dallas is a truly great city, and with the installation of the new Henry Moore sculpture and plans for a new fine arts center, we are becoming the cultural center of the Southwest.’57 Fig. 14 shows the publicity leaflet for the NorthPark exhibition and Fig. 15 a view of the installation. A comparison between the British Council’s approach to patronage with that of a businessman such as Raymond Nasher is telling in terms of how Moore’s career would unfold in the United States. The British Council was a large organisation and thus by definition unwieldy and unable to respond swiftly or intuitively. A highly successful American businessman



Leaflet for the exhibition Dallas Gets Moore, 19 June – 30 July 1977.

Fig.14

Dallas Gets Moore, installation view. Published in Dallas Morning News, June 1977.

Fig.15



68

H enry moore in america

like Raymond Nasher had no such constraints. He admired Moore and his work and reacted accordingly. The British Council was operating as a quasi-political organisation; Raymond Nasher was a wealthy and influential individual who had the freedom to act as he wished.



5

Looking Back – Looking Forwards

A crisis of confidence Apart from his support from the British Council a systemic conservatism within British society hampered the speed at which Moore was presented to a broad public in his home country. In contrast, the United States showed less hesitancy. The immediate post-war period posed many contradictions for Britain both in terms of their external relationship with the United States as well as the nature of their own society. The call to modernise could unify a variety of debates, particularly since it was an inherently positive term that signalled progression, regeneration and suggested a way in which Britain could remain ‘Great’. However, Britain had a rich history which since at least the early half of the twentieth century had been recognised as a positive factor in promoting tourism and trade. The Festival of Britain typified the contradictions in official representations of nationhood during this period, demonstrating a drive towards the future whilst being concerned with (re-)establishing (Great) Britain. Nonetheless, national and international aspirations merged when ensuring widespread coverage of the Festival in the United States. The British Travel Centre opened in New York in January 1949 and was responsible for publicising the Festival in America. By September it was reported to be handling many daily enquiries, to the extent that it had attracted interest from the makers of the notable March of Time film series.1 There was also good publicity in Life magazine.2 The British Council promoted the Festival via Britain Today where it was argued that the Festival year could be pivotal in ‘the long frustrated search for civilization…’3 Nostalgia prevailed: ‘Everybody knows about the Battle of Britain…It seems…a glorious 69



70

H enry moore in america

peg on which to hang very many notions about the British and at the same time to work in…points…concerning British history, British character, British skills…’4 Speeches made in relation to the Festival set the tone and reveal its disparate aims. Director-General Gerald Barry described its purpose as ‘a corporate act of national reassessment, and of reaffirmation of faith in our future…’5 Propaganda was at the heart of Festival publicity, committee minutes recording that initially the focus would be on ‘general indoctrination: a hard campaign would start later … to reach a peak about a month before the Festival in…America.’6 This attentiveness to American audiences is interesting particularly since travel to Britain at this time was no small undertaking. A remark made by Sir Hugh Casson concerning the relationship between Festival architects and artists is revealing in view of Moore’s subsequent success in America. He described how the architects and display designers at the Festival were asked to propose the names of sculptors and painters with whom they would like to work: ‘It is a sad comment…upon both architects and sculptors that the results of this appeal were so unadventurous. Nearly every architect would suggest, first, the name of Mr. Henry Moore, and then his ideas ran out.’ The result was that the majority of the sculptors who received commissions for display on the South Bank did so through being recommended by the Festival Office to the individual architects, rather than the reverse.7 In fact it was suggested that the Festival ‘seemed at times to be almost a Festival of Henry Moore…’8 This highlights how Moore’s reputation in Britain seemed to shift relatively suddenly after World War II from that of an innovative artist appreciated by the cultural elite to one whose work held few surprises. Moore’s first British retrospective was held at the Tate Gallery in the Festival year, five years after his solo MoMA exhibition in New York. An article in Britain Today commented that Moore’s work had received little attention in London in the interval between these two exhibitions and that this was in contrast to American art audiences’ familiarity with the sculptor.9 British reviews of the Tate show were lukewarm. Some noted a lack of consistency in Moore’s work and one particularly sour review noted that ‘the prophet is at last given honour in his own country’ but that he was ‘an artist who likes stylisation for its own sake.’10 For the Tate Gallery show

looking back – looking forwards

MoMA’s Alfred H. Barr Jr (1902–81) and others at the Museum organised the collection of loans from the United States including three pieces from MoMA itself. A further opportunity for modernising British sculpture after World War II occurred when Patricia Strauss, Chairman of the London County Council (LCC) Parks Committee, and a collector of Moore’s sculpture, approached the Arts Council in order to initiate a series of open-air sculpture exhibitions. Battersea Park was suggested for the first venue, and for this 1948 event both Kenneth Clark and Moore were members of the ad hoc committee.11 Once again the desirability of encouraging tourism from the United States was a concern.12 Moore’s 1948 Three Standing Figures was shown at that year’s LCC exhibition and it appears to have encouraged debate on the content and purpose of public art. Three Standing Figures became part of a proposition for a new type of monument, one that was neither overtly celebratory nor a memorial, yet which kept a symbolic content. Critics who favoured modernism saw public sculpture as able to reach across the gulf between the contemporary artist and the general public. In the United States similar ideas were being debated, although somewhat earlier. Moore’s name often occurred in such contexts. In 1938 Stanley Casson correctly predicted that ‘once American patrons have got rid of the commemorative idea in sculpture the chances of being the sponsors of a new age of sculpture will grow’ and he believed that American businesses, as well as governmental and public bodies, were all offering the contemporary sculptor great opportunities.13 This was certainly the case for Moore and his relationship with MoMA and the Museum’s response to the political and cultural climate in the years immediately following World War II were both significant. However it is clear that in Britain the attitudes towards public sculpture were more idealistic than in the United States and the various bodies involved in promoting such sculpture frequently seem to have been at odds with each other. By the 1960s the success of post-war British sculpture in America was unarguable and it was largely Moore who was credited with the fact that sculpture ‘no longer needs to fight for its audience; it can now be supported from America, if not at home…”14 However, this type of sculpture, which did not commemorate in the traditional sense, ran the risk of becoming inoffensively bland, differing

71



72

H enry moore in america

little in formal and conceptual terms from the artist’s smaller works, a criticism often levelled at Moore. For this reason many sculptors resisted making public works if doing so would require a shift in their normal practice.15 The LCC exhibitions saw the production of several reports submitted by those who guided the public at the exhibitions. Over the years Moore’s sculptures attracted more than the average share of heavyhanded humour. One guide described the ‘many intelligent questions… almost everyone wants to know…what is the meaning of the Moore group and “why do we like it”. The dissenters are usually labelled “intellectual.”’16 Another recorded that his audiences could be divided into three categories: ‘the reverent listeners, the disputative ignorants (who go angry or poke fun), and the Quoters or Misquoters from “Horizon” and other impressive sources of aesthetic information…the interest concentrated upon the “difficult things”, mainly…Moore… Epstein is no longer revolting, not even difficult…’17 A third report stated that the two Moore sculptures exhibited in 1948 attracted the most interest: ‘Those who did not like them were usually the people who said they were “lovers of beauty” …Several psychiatrists, attending the conference on Mental Health, were at great pains to prove, according to their lights, that (a) Henry Moore was schizophrenic and that (b) Henry Moore was not schizophrenic, both of which they did entirely to their satisfaction…’18 This type of observation, which betrays a sense of unease being deflected or diluted through humour, is much less prevalent in American commentary. Kenneth Clark’s support for this event, as Chairman of the Arts Council, was useful in promoting Moore’s work, but Clark too was aware of the problems associated with public sculpture. He pointed out that contemporary audiences were used to seeing sculpture located in museums whereas in reality the majority of historical sculpture had been positioned in the open air, usually incorporated with architecture. He argued that since the language of architectural ornament was no longer fashionable, sculpture could take on this role, but acknowledged that such ‘quasi-architectural sculpture must have a special character. It must be polite.’19 Given that Moore’s public sculptures in the United States were often presented as humanising antidotes to modernist architecture, this requirement for sculpture to display such a human characteristic is striking. After the

looking back – looking forwards

1948 LCC exhibition MoMA wanted to buy Moore’s Three Standing Figures but withdrew when they discovered that the Contemporary Art Society wished the sculpture to remain in Britain.20 Surprisingly, given his involvement, Moore said that the London open-air sculpture exhibitions were initially a good idea but became a ‘gimmick’. Even though they were only temporary he felt that the exhibitions had become museum-like. He favoured a more ad hoc approach, moving sculptures around so that the city ‘lives’.21 Success in New York In contrast to a rather muted public reception in Britain, responses to Moore’s early successes in New York are notably more engaged. The importance of New York to Moore’s career is clearly articulated by the city’s journals and newspapers. At the start of his American career the sculptor and his work were positioned in relation to both perceived threats and desired values. In 1935 the American Magazine of Art carried a lengthy article on seven sculptors, amongst whom Moore was referred to as ‘England’s white hope in the field of sculpture, and justifiably so…’22 Most accounts of Moore’s career state that it was launched when he won the sculpture prize at the 1948 Venice Biennale under the auspices of the British Council. In reality the momentum began with exhibitions in New York in the early 1940s culminating in Moore’s major 1946 touring exhibition that originated at MoMA and travelled to Chicago and San Francisco. Significantly this was the Museum’s first solo show for a British artist. This had been preceded in the 1930s by strong interest in Moore’s work from key figures in the American corporate and museum worlds. Galleries in other American cities were also supporting the sculptor. The Albright-Knox Art Gallery in Buffalo had consistently been acquiring Moore’s sculptures since 1939. In that year Gordon Washburn (1904–83), director of the Gallery between 1931 and 1942, purchased one of the first of six Elmwood reclining figures. Roger Berthoud drily commented: ‘it took an American to summon the necessary nerve and resources’.23 This was the first of Moore’s sculptures to enter a United States public collection.24 Later in 1958 Washburn, then at the Carnegie Institute, wrote to Moore congratulating him on

73



74

H enry moore in america

winning the second prize in the Pittsburgh International Exhibition of Contemporary Painting and Sculpture, only regretting that his ‘magnificent’ sculpture had not won first prize, which was awarded to Alexander Calder (1898–1976).25 Moore also had a strong supporter in Andrew Ritchie, another director of the Albright-Knox Art Gallery, between 1942 and 1949. Major figures in the business world also sought out Moore sculptures at an early stage in his American career. For example Ted Weiner (1911–79), a Texan oil operator, art collector and patron, bought his first Moore in the early 1940s. Another key advocate Philadelphian lawyer R. Sturgis Ingersoll (1891–1973) met Moore in London in 1934. In 1951 Ingersoll told Moore that he had just entertained at his home members of the Association of American Museum Directors, as well as artists and collectors, and that the presence of Moore’s Reclining Woman in their garden had given the party ‘great distinction’.26 In the following year Ingersoll wrote to Moore, referring to the forthcoming opening at Philadelphia Museum of Art of an exhibition of twentieth-century sculpture where five Moore works would be on show. He believed that sculpture was a most distinguished art, and that Moore was one of the few artists who had produced both great work and had inspired others.27 Film mogul Taft Schreiber (1908–76) bought his first Moore work, a drawing, in London in 1957. In 1964 the Marlborough Gallery offered Schreiber a cast of Knife-Edge (bone) Figure. Schreiber saw the potential of this sculpture if placed in the lobby of his Universal Studio headquarters, recently completed in Universal City. He described it as the most visually striking artwork in the building and one that provoked much discussion. The company produced a booklet about it and thousands of copies were given away.28 Such claims for responsiveness to employees’ wishes, and concern for their education and well-being, would become commonplace when Moore’s sculptures were placed in corporate locations. Architect Philip Johnson (1906–2005) also admired Moore and his work. Johnson was a key speaker at a 1951 MoMA symposium Relation of Painting and Sculpture to Architecture where he quoted Jacques Lipchitz (1891–1973) as believing that a building could only become architecture if accompanied by sculpture. Johnson later spoke of the time when Moore declined the opportunity to produce a sculpture for placement outside Johnson’s Seagram Building in New

looking back – looking forwards

York as it coincided with his 1965 commission for the city’s Lincoln Center. Johnson did not know Moore well but said that they had been ‘the most cordial of friends; that type of acquaintance at which he was most adept…’ He regretted not having used a large Moore sculpture within his architecture.29 A major figure in Moore’s American career was New York dealer Curt Valentin who first became interested in the sculptor when Perry Rathbone (1911–2000) showed him Moore’s stone Reclining Figure at the 1939 New York World Fair.30 Fig. 16 is a particularly engaging photograph of Moore and Rathbone after the sculptor was made an Honorary Doctor of Arts at Harvard in June 1958 and Fig. 17 shows Valentin with Moore at Much Hadham around 1950. Moore’s first show at Valentin’s gallery seems to have been an encouragement to MoMA to mount their full retrospective in 1946.31 Valentin first wrote to Moore in 1942 asking for some drawings to exhibit in his Gallery which the British Council despatched by



Henry Moore and Perry Rathbone after being created Honorary Doctor of Arts, Harvard, June 1958.

Fig.16

75



76

H enry moore in america

diplomatic courier.32 Reviews of the subsequent 1943 exhibition were generally favourable if at times unnecessarily elaborate. Art Digest noted that Moore had not hitherto been considered in the United States alongside artists such as Picasso but that he should be, adding ‘England has not added a leaf to the flowering tree for so long, one forgets to look for foliation from that direction.’33 In 1943 Henry McBride wrote a mainly sardonic review but nonetheless utilised what would become familiar tropes concerning Moore’s appeal to an American audience: It’s a bit of a test for the Entente Cordiale…for Mr. Moore is British and we all, naturally, wish to love British art, but Mr. Moore is also abstract. This is not a test for me…I hasten to add, for I got used to abstract art long ago, but it is for you, Mr. Average Citizen. The average citizen in this country refuses to take abstract art seriously. But…with a war going on, we really ought to make an effort. It’s all the easier because…Mr. Moore is not quite abstract. You can tell, partly, what some of the drawings are



Henry Moore with Curt Valentin in the artist’s Top Studio, Perry Green c.1950.

Fig.17

looking back – looking forwards

about…All this is accomplished in admirable taste. Good taste is Mr. Moore’s middle name. It is his chief asset…Picasso, on the other hand, is not much noted for good taste…When he is at his best, even I…am as much repelled as pleased by the reverberations from his thunderbolts. Mr. Moore is much more discreet. He does not hurl thunderbolts…That is the English [sic] of it, I suppose. It is gentlemanly.34

In 1945 another exhibition was held at the Gallery and James Thrall Soby (1906–79), who held various posts at MoMA including that of Chairman on an interim basis during 1947, wrote the introduction to the catalogue. He noted the strength of current British art and that Moore was at the head of this as one of the greatest contemporary sculptors.35 Jane Wade who helped to continue the gallery after Valentin’s death in 1954 argued that unlike established New York dealers Valentin’s enthusiasm and commitment enabled him to do something that others were not willing to risk. This was ‘to sell sculpture and push sculpture not only for the marble halls of the museums but for the private home – a concept practically unknown before Curt.’36 Valentin’s role was pivotal in that he was seen as an unprecedented champion of modern sculpture in the United States.37 Moore got to know Valentin in person when he went to New York for the MoMA exhibition, spending a month in the city during which the two men were in touch every day. From then on they saw each other at least twice a year and corresponded regularly. In 1951, in response to a query from Valentin, Moore wrote to the dealer about a new sculpture Animal Head (1951) and enclosed some photographs.38 Valentin had heard about this sculpture from a contact who had been in London and clearly felt sufficiently confident in his friendship with Moore to reply quite sharply, calling him ‘a bad boy; you know you should tell me whether you have new things available and send me photographs without my asking for them. However the damage is done, but please reserve the one cast which is left for me.’39 In the same year Valentin had enough of Moore’s work to put on a significant exhibition at his gallery. This appears to have prompted critic Henry McBride to write about the rising status of major European artists in America, singling out Moore as in the lead and stressing how everyone who met the sculptor during his visits to the United States had been ‘captivated … with

77



78

H enry moore in america

his sweetness, simplicity and decency.’40 Moore also had a friendly relationship with Jane Wade as can be seen in a 1959 letter from her: ‘Hi! Have meant to write sooner; especially after reading the article in Time. You are now a “Man of Distinction”, my dear. Are you ever coming to these shores again? … The Penroses are here, now.’41 Wade stated that Valentin had regarded Moore and Rodin (1840–1917) as the greatest artists whose work he dealt in and that he ‘always spoke of Moore in terms of adoration and affection.’42 Valentin was instrumental in bringing Moore’s work to the notice of major collectors such as Joseph Hirshhorn (1899–1981) and this happened broadly in the period surrounding the crucial 1946 MoMA exhibition. MoMA’s Alfred Barr first heard of Moore in 1927 through an introduction from a curator at the Victoria and Albert Museum.43 He visited Moore in London in the 1930s and would become a strong supporter of British sculpture in general. Recalling the controversy over his work in the early exhibiting years of the 1930s Moore remarked that events such as Barr’s first visit to his studio far outweighed the negative reactions he was receiving.44 Barr had included Moore’s Two Forms (1934) in MoMA’s 1936 Cubism and Abstract Art exhibition, the piece subsequently being bought by the Museum. The catalogue referred to Moore as participating actively in international abstraction and the sculptor is placed in the biomorphic category of Barr’s famous classifications of ‘non-geometrical’ and ‘geometrical’ modern art.45 Moore was also represented in the Museum’s 1939 Art in Our Time exhibition which coincided with the New York World’s Fair. The catalogue in Moore’s library at Perry Green is warmly inscribed by Barr. It appears that it was James Johnson Sweeney who wrote to Moore in 1944 proposing the major solo exhibition at MoMA46 and later described it as the largest show for a living British artist ever held in America.47 Fig. 18 shows key figures involved at MoMA. Here the style of photography is similar to that often used in recording Moore’s sculptures, with the adoption of a low angle – our eye level is roughly that of the reclining figure’s head. She is the focus of both our attention and that of the influential men who stand behind her. In the press Moore and his work were explicitly linked to

looking back – looking forwards

contemporary American perceptions of Britain and the British. Art Digest linked Moore’s success with British stoicism in the face of war: ‘It has been said that England loses every battle except the last. Could it be that Henry Moore personifies his country’s El Alamein in the history of modern art expression, which was originally conceived from the brushes of Constable and Turner?’ Once again Moore is positioned in opposition to Picasso:



Museum of Modern Art, New York, July 1946. Left to right: William Hayter, Anton Zwemmer, René d’Harnoncourt.

Fig.18

79



80

H enry moore in america

There is more aesthetic vitality in a single drawing by Henry Moore at the Modern Museum than in the entire crop of post-war Picassos now exciting controversy in New York. Age and success appears to have banked the fire of Picasso’s periods. Beautifully installed, the Henry Moore exhibition provides a tangible thrill to all who vibrate to the strains of modern design and the entire concept of art constructed as an architect builds a building. When it comes to the validity of modernism as an artistic outlet in an age faced by mechanical tyranny, the response to the Moore show can only be, ‘This is it!’48

A 1947 article in Art in America raised the same issue as had Geoffrey Grigson two years earlier concerning the perils of success for an artist. Here Moore’s achievements were attributed to his holding to steadfast aims and not compromising to suit public taste. This was contrasted with other English artists who had ability and promise but had been ruined by ‘official patronage and public acclaim’ since this compromised their artistic independence. Moore was characterised as being courageous, inventive and direct.49 The 1946 MoMA catalogue, with text by Sweeney, quoted Philip Hendy and Herbert Read on the sculptor and defined him as an artist of ‘courage… personal sympathy, humility and integrity.’50 However not all American critiques of Moore were positive. Writing in Art News Thomas Hess was consistently critical of the sculptor, in 1954 claiming that Moore had been over-flattered, and that he had taken on architectural commissions that were ‘far beyond the capacities of his dainty, eclectic style and his neat but limiting concepts of the work of art.’51 Clement Greenberg accused Moore of ‘tastefulness’ and ‘attachment to the past’52 and dismissed his work as being ‘about halfway between the classical and the new.’53 However Greenberg’s writings on Moore were not consistent. Reviewing the sculptor’s 1946 MoMA show he wrote that Moore possessed ‘no mean talent, and some of his later work…will surely outlast the transient orders of that informal contemporary taste upon which Moore’s art is now making what I feel is an exaggerated impression …’, although he argued that a problematic aspect of Moore’s work was that it conformed too closely to contemporary ideas of what modern sculpture should look like.54 In a 1965 essay Greenberg’s opinion of Moore seemed to have softened further as he attempted national

looking back – looking forwards

stereotyping: ‘A grand, sublime manner has been a peculiarly English aspiration since the eighteenth century. Henry Moore and Francis Bacon are possessed by it in their separate ways…’55 The easy mix of the American art and business worlds was demonstrated by a formal dinner held in honour of Moore before the opening of his 1946 MoMA exhibition, hosted by Nelson Rockefeller (1908–79), and to which Daniel Catton Rich (1904–76) of the Art Institute of Chicago and other influential individuals were invited.56 Moore was to become friends with such men who were no doubt charmed by his personality. Henry McBride perceptively described the appeal of Moore’s own words, referring to the information panels at the MoMA exhibition: ‘he knows how to write, and he probably knows how to talk…’57 The New York Times quoted Moore at some length and it was suggested that his direct words, available to visitors to the exhibition, ‘should make less baffling the average spectator’s task of appreciation.’58 Unusually for an American publication, Moore’s work was treated with gentle humour. Lester Markel of The New York Times wrote to MoMA’s Sarah Newmeyer concerning the opening of the exhibition: That was a good show…it is too bad I did not get a chance to see the sculpture. I shall come around some time when your contributors do not clutter up the place. There were…priceless bits that I pass on to you… A lady next to me said to her companion, after looking over your gala crowd, ‘Now I see where Moore got his ideas!’…Would it be all wrong to do a piece on the audience on a First Night, instead of the show? I am certain it would be something phenomenal…anyway, I am impressed with the Moore stuff, even though I still believe in ‘expression of beauty’ rather than ‘expression of power’…I contend that statuary is designed for the first and Boulder Dam for the second.59

The exhibition attracted extensive press coverage, Moore’s personality and appearance often forming the focus. Fig. 19 shows a photograph which was published in a four-page article in Life magazine in January 1947: typically positioned close to one of his sculptures, untypically Moore here wears a suit. The article described Moore as ‘soft-spoken but highly articulate … short, brown-haired, tweedy and married’.60 The physical closeness of Moore to his sculpture, the way in which both heads are aligned

81



82

H enry moore in america

and the seamless fit between both bodies is particularly striking. It makes the visible section of the reclining figure almost lifelike. It thus plays down the modernity of the work and the inanimate sculpture becomes Pygmalion-like. This myth resonates through many such photographs of the sculptor placed next to his numerous reclining female figures.



Photograph published alongside article ‘British Sculptor Henry Moore shocks and pleases in his first big exhibit in U.S.’, Life, Chicago, 20 January 1947, pp.77–9.

Fig.19

looking back – looking forwards

The New Yorker described Moore as ‘a short, alert, friendly man of forty-eight, with a ruddy face and an easy conversational style.’61 The New York Daily Worker noted that Moore had hitherto been little known to the American public, suggesting that this might be because both he and his work were ‘reticent’ but that the exhibition would have a huge impact on his reputation.62 Another reviewer ignored Moore’s work altogether: instead what was of interest was that Moore was ‘a man of middle size with…regular features and flat silky hair.’63 Art Digest did give more attention to the sculptor’s work but still could not resist cultural stereotypes when referring to Moore’s confessed influences from a variety of cultures. This eclecticism was noted in positive terms as ‘a sprinkle of salt and pepper on a dish indigenous to Britain long before roast beef and suet pudding. Beneath the surface … is a force elemental and universal on one hand, and frighteningly a part of the primeval history of that tight little island at the same time.’64 At this time the importance of Kenneth Clark’s and Herbert Read’s support was noted, especially the latter’s book Henry Moore, Sculptor, An Appreciation which was on sale at the Buchholz Gallery.65 Life magazine featured an article on the exhibition for a readership of twenty million, and in 1947 published a letter from James Thrall Soby who wrote: ‘One of Moore’s many distinctions … is that he is able to describe his own aims with rare clarity and eloquence. I know that a number of ordinary citizens visiting his recent exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art were particularly impressed by Moore’s simple and coherent words of self-explanation.’ Another contributor argued that Moore’s work was ‘simple and honest in its abstract form and has more meaning for ordinary people than the classic Greeks ever could…’66 Moore was informed that attendance figures were running much higher than those for a major Chagall exhibition a year ago: ‘what an inspiration and pleasure it was for us all to have you here. You were loved by everyone you met…’67 After the exhibition René d’Harnoncourt (1901–68) told Moore that everybody was still talking about him and they were missing him: ‘I can honestly say that I have never seen anyone make so many friends in so short a time.’68 I have already shown how in the context of Anglo-American relations explicit links were made between Moore’s work and the values for which the two countries fought during World War II. These

83



84

H enry moore in america

found their way into exhibition literature and thus to the heart of the art world: a 1948 exhibition Painting and Sculpture in the Museum of Modern Art displayed four Moore sculptures. The catalogue defined the Museum and its collection as being significant during the war in the cause of protecting America’s cultural life, its economy and political structures. The catholic nature of the collection, drawn from artists from many countries during wartime, was presented as symbolising individual freedom as well as the freedom of nations to value the art of all cultures in the furtherance of international understanding and cordial relations. It was argued that art could help defeat the ‘international hatred against which we are now fighting on the field of battle.’ Despite recent military victories, freedom and world peace were still in jeopardy. There was intolerance, arising from fear and insecurity. Opposition needed to be mounted against totalitarian states that rigidly controlled creative expression and in this regard it was seen as America’s duty to defend the avant-garde artist from ‘invective and ridicule’.69 What is apparent is that post-war America had ambitions and values highly suited to a positive reception for Moore’s work. Britain was less sure of its direction and less wealthy. Although Moore had influential British supporters, the individuals who most facilitated commissions and purchases for him were overwhelmingly in the United States. As Beckett and Russell have noted ‘if before 1939 “Englishness” had been understood as an inhibitor to, and contrarily as a component of, the formation of modernism, after 1945 a rewritten “Englishness”, with Moore as its representative, became a commodity which could…be marketed in an international arena …’70



6

The Support Network

Moore had supporters in his home country; these individuals were well regarded in the United States and should be acknowledged as enhancing the sculptor’s artistic credentials. These men can be characterised in various ways. Herbert Read influenced perceptions of Moore overwhelmingly through publications, whereas much of Kenneth Clark’s backing was on an interpersonal level. Some of Moore’s friendships could be characterised as pragmatic, notably that with Clark. Other supporters of Moore were much closer friends of the sculptor but they did not necessarily wield the same degree of influence in shaping his career. E.C. ‘Peter’ Gregory (1887–1959), a British collector, patron and philanthropist, was Chairman of Lund Humphries who published early catalogues raisonnée on Moore, crucial for promoting his work. Having met in 1923 they spent much time together, including occasional overseas travel. Moore characterised their friendship as ‘the closest … of my life …’1 However David Sylvester (1924–2001) stated that Sir Philip Hendy was Moore’s warmest friend.2 Formerly at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston, Hendy was director of the National Gallery, London from 1946 to 1967. Also Chairman of the British Council’s Fine Arts Committee between 1956 and 1959, Hendy made many visits to the United States including an extensive tour in the autumn of 1948 which included New York, Chicago, Kansas City, Washington, DC and Philadelphia, all to be key cities for Moore’s public sculptures.3 In 1948 Hendy stated that Moore’s work enabled Britain to place itself within an international artistic arena.4 With regards to Kenneth Clark a 1958 article in the Observer characterised him in the following terms: ‘With quite exceptional gifts of speaking and writing, wide cultural erudition, a combination 85



86

H enry moore in america

of traditional social tastes and advanced aesthetic ones, an easy manner and the entrée to all the right people, he is unrivalled as a propagandist for British contemporary art.’5 Fig. 20 shows Clark with Moore at a 1977 Paris exhibition Henry Moore, Sculptures et Dessins. Clark entered Moore’s life in 1938; aged 34, he was five years the sculptor’s junior and had already been director of the National Gallery for four years.6 Roger Berthoud has suggested that these two very different men complemented each other. Clark appeared to place Moore in a grand European sculptural tradition going back to Michelangelo and thus saw Moore as someone who could continue and safeguard such values in an uncertain world. This contrasted with Read’s positioning of Moore as a pioneering figure who was extending the language of modern sculpture.7 There has been some debate concerning any negative effects Clark might have had on Moore’s career. Clark stated that he had not influenced the sculptor at all. Moore’s opinion was more nuanced: ‘Not enough to change one’s course … But one knows



Henry Moore with (left to right) Lord Kenneth Clark, Dominique Bozo and Lady Henderson at the exhibition Henry Moore, Sculptures et Desins, Orangerie des Tuileries, Paris, 1977.

Fig.20

the support network

what an expert he is and one does take notice of people whose opinions one values.’8 Berthoud has noted that some of Moore’s friends believed that Clark’s influence was clear in the sculptor’s habitual reference to major artists such as Michelangelo when responding to questions.9 Anthony Barnett believed that Clark offered Moore the prize of becoming the nation’s greatest public artist and that Moore accepted the offer. Bernard Meadows agreed with this analysis, adding that Clark was an impresario, knew how to present people and what was needed to achieve success. Meadows believed that Clark’s motives were essentially materialistic and that for Moore Clark’s friendship was ‘useful in the line of business …although he quite liked Clark.’10 David Sylvester, who curated exhibitions and wrote about Moore from the early 1950s, said that Clark’s approval mattered more to the sculptor than anyone else’s as he appreciated opinions from men within the art establishment rather than from representatives of the contemporary art world. Certainly Moore’s presentation of himself and of his work invariably placed his practice within an historical lineage, rather than as marking a new beginning.11 This would also go some way to explaining his ability to get on with architects, collectors and museum directors in the United States, rather than with his fellow artists. It appears that Clark led the relationship: in a 1941 letter to the sculptor Clark referred to a public discussion between the two men due to take place the following day. He enclosed a rough script outline: ‘I have left blanks for your answers but guessed at what you would say in order to make the discussion continue. In your first answer I would like you to repeat what you once said to me that all your work has some kind of human reference …’12 The situation was similar when the two men delivered a public conversation at the Oxford Playhouse in 1962, when Clark ‘did most of the talking’ and Moore’s comments were ‘brief.’13 The American link that Clark provided for Moore can be seen in a variety of ways. In 1939 Clark told the sculptor that he wanted to buy a drawing to donate to MoMA: the Museum had wanted to buy the drawings on display at the World Fair but Clark did not want to part with these.14 Like Read, Clark also travelled extensively in America, including fulfilling a 1936 invitation to give a series of lectures at Yale University. New York in particular made a great impression on him.15

87



88

H enry moore in america

In 1939 he addressed the American Federation of Arts and in 1951 lectured on Moore at MoMA. The script for the latter includes an interesting passage: Sculpture in stone or wood is a slow process, and the pressure of Moore’s ideas…and perhaps that of the sculptor’s admirers – has led him to do what he would probably have refused to do in earlier years: cast his small models in bronze. Collectors have become the richer and Moore’s inventiveness is so great that his work so far has suffered no dilution. But it is a dangerous practice.

It is unclear whether this last comment was in fact included in Clark’s delivered speech as it has been crossed through on his manuscript.16 By 1970 Clark was on the Board of Trustees for the Institute of Fine Arts, New York University, as was J. Carter Brown (1934–2002) of the National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, who would also have an important role in Moore’s American career.17 Given the two men’s status within their respective art worlds it is entirely likely that this would have assisted Moore’s activities in America generally and in New York and Washington in particular. In addition, Clark was friends with Alfred Barr: writing to Clark on the occasion of MoMA’s twentieth anniversary Barr stated that he was asking ‘a few distinguished persons…to appraise our achievement…Word from you would, of course, count heavily in our favor.’18 Clark responded warmly, applauding Barr’s work at the Museum.19 Kenneth Clark’s immensely influential 1969 television documentary series Civilisation was shown in America with a grant from the Xerox Corporation.20 Previewed at the National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, 24,000 people tried to attend this event held in a theatre that seated 300.21 In 1970 the 13-part series was aired on America’s Public Broadcasting Service and received very high ratings. Apart from Civilisation Clark was also involved in presenting Moore on film in America, in 1980 introducing and narrating Large Two Forms: a Film about Henry Moore. Here Clark described Moore as the greatest sculptor alive, but of particular interest for this book is Clark’s assertion that many people, especially in America, regarded Moore as the greatest Englishman. For Clark the ‘bursting vitality’ of Moore’s sculptures provided an effective contrast to modern architecture.22 He approved of locations such as at PepsiCo where there was plenty of surrounding grass and trees, and where the sculptures would be seen daily by

the support network

many people. Clark believed that Moore had become the leading contemporary civic sculptor and that his sculptures were suitable in any setting, particularly if the sculptor was involved in their exact placement. He believed that these works were equally appropriately placed against either landscape or architecture: ‘No wonder Henry Moore’s sculpture is wanted all over the world…When we encounter it in…the USA we are filled with pride – and I hope the Inland Revenue authorities feel equally gratified.’24 Herbert Read also had connections with key British institutions, being a member of the British Council’s Art Advisory Committee after World War II. A 1931 article on Moore in The Listener was reprinted in Read’s The Meaning of Art, both pieces of writing contributing to the spread of Moore’s fame abroad. Read has been described as disposed towards universality, an idea frequently associated with responses to Moore.25 By the time he wrote the Introduction to the second volume of Lund Humphries’ Henry Moore: Sculpture and Drawings 1949–1954 Read was describing Moore as being the foremost sculptor in the world, referring to ‘an almost unanimous agreement among the world’s leading art critics…that Moore … was … an artist whose images were…peculiarly apt to express a specifically modern range of consciousness.’26 In the 1930s Read’s sphere of influence was mainly in Britain but after 1945 it became worldwide as he travelled extensively, lecturing in Europe and in the United States. A review of Moore’s 1943 show at New York’s Buchholz Gallery mentioned Read’s support as a factor in shaping Moore’s reputation, specifically noting his book Henry Moore, Sculptor: An Appreciation.27 For example Daniel Catton Rich owned a copy of Read’s first book on the sculptor.28 Read’s earliest visit to America was in 1946 and in 1954 he delivered his six Andrew Mellon lectures at the National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, which formed the basis of his 1956 publication The Art of Sculpture in which Moore was mentioned frequently. In 1956 Read undertook an extensive visit to America and Canada which included commitments for the British Council.29 He met many curators, patrons and academics but clearly did not warm to Americans in the way that Moore did. He felt that the friendships they initiated were ‘superficial, warm but skin-deep’ and ‘as fluid as the cash.’30 However he did recognise the importance of America for 23

89



90

H enry moore in america

Moore: commenting on Moore’s 1946 show at MoMA he stated that this was the event that brought Moore appropriate recognition.’31 In complete contrast to the restraint and reserve commonly exhibited by Moore’s English colleagues such as Clark and Read we can look at a very different and completely uninhibited approach to establishing a relationship with Moore. It is fair to make the generalisation that Moore’s most significant British supporters were university educated men who were art historians, writers, publishers and so on. In contrast Kansas-born businessman George Ablah (b. 1929) made his fortune in oil and property and started an art collection in middle age. He had not experienced the level of education as the likes of Clark, Read, Hendy et al. Rather Ablah was described as having: stumbled – late and untutored on the life-enhancing joys of art and the glories of acquisition. When he began to collect, Ablah set upon the activity with the same adventurous energy he has spent on the accumulation of means. By the time he got around to outfitting his 14passenger plane this year, nobody even tried to talk him out of finding and installing $3 million worth of sculpture in it…Ablah…doesn’t enjoy bargaining. He works by a set of heartfelt rules, the first of which is that minutes are always worth more than money.32

Ablah’s Gulf-Stream G-II jet cost $10 million and contained eight sculptures. Fig. 21 shows Ablah on his plane that was lavishly fitted out with cream coloured leather, with fixtures trimmed in gold in order to ‘create a mood that would be a background for the sculpture and would have an understated elegance.’ This photograph appeared on the cover of the November 1984 edition of The Smithsonian and was linked to an article in that issue by Helen Dudar entitled ‘Art is looking up with a sculpture gallery in the sky.’ The Smithsonian article described how Rodin’s marble Fauntus was placed near the entrance; in the restroom at the rear of the plane was Giacometti’s Femme de Venise, and in between these two were sculptures by Brancusi, Marini, Arp, Botero and two Henry Moores ‘all securely but unobtrusively anchored.’33 Another article described how Ablah claimed that when he began collecting he believed that Monet was the name of a French perfume. He developed a set of art acquisition techniques: he would never buy art that was not in the top 10 per cent of an artist’s work,



George Ablah on his private jet, front cover of The Smithsonian, November 1984.

Fig.21



92

H enry moore in america

the criteria presumably being to acquire works that had unequivocal international status.34 It is unclear exactly how Ablah was introduced to Moore’s work but it happened some time in the late 1970s/early 1980s. He began buying his sculptures towards the end of this period despite having been advised that purchasing a large group of monumental Moore sculptures would be hugely expensive.35 However Ablah had reluctantly accompanied his daughter on a cultural trip to Rome where he saw Michelangelo’s Moses. Disappointed at being unable to purchase this, he started to explore art galleries when he returned to America. Larry Shar, a New York art conservator, helped Ablah by assembling several hundred books on fine art. These were sent to Ablah’s home in Wichita where according to The Smithsonian article Ablah ‘advanced his education by studying the pictures and ignoring the text.’ The wide range of books and photographic sources for Moore’s work by this time must surely have played a part in Ablah’s enthusiasm for the sculptor’s work, and it is highly likely that reproductions of Moore’s sculptures would have been contained in the collection of texts put together by Shar. Moreover Ablah was friends with David Finn and thus likely to have seen the latter’s photographs of Moore’s work. Thus either Shar or Finn could have been responsible for alerting Ablah to Moore’s work. After Finn produced a photographic book recording the sculptures on board Ablah’s jet, the two families became good friends. After discovering Michelangelo and Rodin, Ablah came to the conclusion that Moore was one of the greatest sculptors. He knew his work was admired around the world and was well represented in museums and squares. Ablah was surprised to discover that abstract art offered the most possibilities for interpretation by the viewer. He saw in this an opportunity to share his new found enthusiasm with others: One day I came to a conclusion that no one in the art world shares with me. I decided that Henry Moore’s sculpture was one of the greatest teachers of all to carry you over the gap from figurative to abstract art…Art historians say that’s bullshit, but they say that because they are already there (i.e. can bridge the gap themselves). When I realised that I made a clear-cut decision – that Henry Moore sculpture was the perfect format to put great art in public areas and expose it to those who don’t normally go to museums.36

the support network

As a businessman it is interesting that elsewhere Ablah described the Moore sculptures in public places as functioning as ‘loss leaders’ since he hoped that people would see the sculptures in parks and then want to go into a museum to see more.37 David Finn was to be closely involved in Ablah’s loan of works for a major Moore sculpture exhibition in New York’s parks in 1984. Before that he assisted with Ablah’s Blue Hill project in Rockland County.38 Blue Hill was a suburban office complex into which Ablah had invested about $40 million to improve its interior and grounds. He wanted to emulate the sculpture collection at PepsiCo in New York State.39 In his book One Man’s Henry Moore Finn described Ablah’s plans for Blue Hill, to create a park that would comprise a lake with sculptures set amongst trees.40 This could easily be a description of PepsiCo’s grounds and speaking to the author Ablah agreed that business rivalry with that company might have played a part in his plans for Blue Hill.41 Knowing of his friendship with Moore, Ablah asked Finn for his advice. But Finn warned against placing the sculptures at Blue Hill in case Ablah sold the business at some future date, leaving the fate of the sculptures uncertain. After the 1984 Moore in the Parks exhibition only four bronze sculptures remained at Ablah’s Blue Hill Office.42 There exist some fascinating letters that say much about Ablah’s enthusiasm for Moore, his belief in the power of capital and his lack of inhibition. It is particularly the latter that makes it tempting to stray into the area of cultural stereotyping; despite his willingness to mix in well-connected circles, there was clearly another facet of Moore that responded to a ‘no-nonsense’ approach, and he must have at times grown weary of protocol and deference. Finn took Ablah to meet the sculptor, travelling by Concorde, after which visit ‘Ablah was ready to buy …’43 No doubt the effect on Ablah of Moore’s personality, along with his domestic and working situation, would have been marked, as is borne out by this entertaining account by David Finn: ‘George sat down on the floor – literally at Henry’s feet – and talked about his plans. He described how he had wanted to buy Michelangelo’s “Moses”, and…was sure there must be a price. When he discovered he was wrong, he decided that the next best thing was to buy Henry Moore sculptures. As far as George was concerned, Moore and

93



94

H enry moore in america

Michelangelo were in the same class. Henry was not displeased.’44 Ablah wrote enthusiastically to Moore in 1983: Dear Henry: I was absolutely elated to meet you. You are exactly the type of man I had hoped you would be. As of May 6, I had started writing checks to acquire 20 major Moore pieces of sculpture, 10 working models, and 20 maquettes. It is my hope and intention to have a permanent Moore sculpture garden which represented each of the major types of sculpture which you have produced in your career. I have asked Doug Walla from the U.S. office of Marlborough to inform you of the specific pieces we have purchased and the additional pieces we need. I sincerely hope you can help us round out this magnificent Moore collection. Now that we have met I will stop in and see you anytime I am in London.45

After his visit to Moore, Ablah sent agents all over the world and found 100 pieces that were for sale which were all bought within ten minutes to avoid raising the market price. Out of the 100, he described about thirty as being monumental and intended these to go to Blue Hill where they were exhibited in 1983/1984. Although not recorded as a prelude to the 1984 New York Parks exhibition it is interesting to see the familiar pattern of a smaller exhibition prefacing a major event – the arrival of a Moore commission – or, in this case, a major public exhibition. The New York Times described the Blue Hill show as ‘something akin to a small, 35-piece museum retrospective of Moore’s bronze work’, referring to a ‘primordial nature strain’ in Moore’s work that ‘seems very British, and his ability to touch this primitive chord may account for the thorough-going nature of his humaneness…Moore would appreciate that building tenants make casual and repeated contact with his work every day.’46 By 1985 Ablah owned 102 Moore sculptures including about twenty monumental pieces. His only reason for curtailing his collection at about 100 sculptures seems to be that it was a substantial and round figure and he could tell himself ‘A job well done, George!’47 It does appear that Moore and his work could ignite extreme responses: at the other end of the spectrum from George Ablah’s admiration lie the contents of a neglected letter in a New York archive. The severity of its author’s reaction against Moore is striking in the display of sheer rage. For its preservation we have to thank Alfred

the support network

Barr who was clearly a man with a keen sense of humour since he established an archive at MoMA entitled Anti-Modern-Art files. The existence of this was known outside the confines of the Museum as can be seen by a letter to Barr from Charlotte Devree, Arts Editor at LOOK magazine. She enclosed the irate reader’s letter about Moore and offered it to Barr for his files. She added that the magazine rarely received ‘this type of letter’ and that this was surprising for a journal with such a large circulation. ‘The most we have ever received is about 40 …But when they do come, they are very horrid. When one like this arrives, I always feel I have had a nasty look into an abyss.’ She asked Barr to file it ‘in such a way that LOOK’s name doesn’t appear in some article some time, in this connection?… just noting it came from a mass-circulation magazine and referred to a feature on wall designs by Henry Moore and Henri Matisse.’48 This original letter appears to have been removed from the Archives of American Art in Washington, DC. However a copy exists in MoMA’s archives and it is highly entertaining: How in Hell can any sane editor permit the creator of this foul ordure to be labeled as a ‘great artist’ in his paper? This isn’t a matter of “taste” or opinion. It is a question of sanity or mental derangement. The quack who “created” this monstrosity is simply trading on the assininity of a credulous public. Any man or woman who claims to like or admire this sort of thing is either a lunatic or a god-damned liar. Any normal man or woman dining in the present of this sort of “decoration” would vomit into his plate! If the son of a bitch who “painted” this abortion is really “England’s greatest artist”, then it is precisely what I, personally, have always wished the English!49

Attached to the vitriolic letter was a photograph of a Moore wallhanging placed behind a dining table set with candles, evidently taken at the 1949 Matisse and Moore textiles show at the Buchholz Gallery. Barr thanked Devree for the letter saying that it would be ‘one of the chief jewels’ in his collection of anti-modern documents.50 Why LOOK’s editor should have wished to distance the journal from this letter is intriguing as is the evident censoring of the archives in Washington. One can only speculate as to whether this was due to an extreme sensitivity where Moore’s name was concerned, and that a prominent American magazine, and subsequently a major archive

95



96

H enry moore in america

wished to distance themselves from such an attack. Barr clearly enjoyed such dissent, writing to Moore some years later, in 1965, regarding MoMA’s purchase of Large Arch (Torso). Barr expressed his delight with this acquisition, suggesting to Moore that since he was so good with words he would like him to write something about the sculpture that could be incorporated into publicity material and other publications. Barr added ‘We are all looking forward with great joy to the unveiling of the big figure for Lincoln Center especially as many of us were involved in the triumph over philistia.’51 This latter comment related to some fairly low-key dissent over Moore being awarded that particular commission. In 1973 a reception for Barr was held at MoMA and Moore wrote to him since he was unable to attend: ‘I wanted to tell you, Alfred, how much I would have liked to be there…to thank you for all the wonderful work you have done. You are a great man, all of us are incalculably in your debt … I am very grateful…for your part in my life…for your deep devotion and love of art, for your great scholarship, and for being the man you are.’52 There were transatlantic links between Moore’s friends and supporters: Sweeney was on good terms with Herbert Read and Soby also knew English advocates of the sculptor. Moore himself acknowledged that these early connections with Barr, Sweeney and Valentin, and the resultant exposure in New York, had been far more instrumental in enabling his future international reputation than most people had recognised.53 Echoing my earlier suggestion Moore also firmly believed that this recognition in America was instrumental in his winning the 1948 Venice Biennale sculpture prize, observing: ‘I doubt that one would have won…without the real groundwork and … impetus that the Museum of Modern Art retrospective provided … Now…a good three-quarters of my work is in America. At least twothirds of what I consider to be my most successful earlier drawings were all disposed of to Americans by Curt Valentin.’54 In return Barr singled out Moore as the greatest British sculptor, conceding in 1949 that American sculpture might not be quite as good as that of France and Italy, and that in Great Britain it was Moore who provided the challenge to American sculptors.55 James Johnson Sweeney believed that Moore’s nationality was a factor in his success. ‘At the time of the Moore show here, he was still some sort of avant garde figure … But

the support network

he was an Englishman. He was not a Frenchman. And Englishmen give an impression of conservative experimentation when they are being experimental and they never seem to stir the excitement a French explorer does…’56 ‘His venturesome appeal doesn’t go too far for the average person to accept. There is enough of the traditional to be reassuring – it encourages people to go further … Henry’s been … serious and quiet – no fireworks.’57 By the 1960s Moore was probably better represented in the United States than anywhere else. Because of the initial support from Curt Valentin and later from MoMA personnel, New York was pivotal to the early reception and display of Moore’s sculpture. Finally a consistent supporter of Moore, both within the business world and through his secondary career as a professional photographer, has been David Finn. He owns an impressive collection of Moore sculptures and others by major twentieth-century artists. When he and his wife travelled to England on business they would always visit Moore and, like others before him, Finn too commented on the sculptor’s location: ‘I remember that first drive out to Much Hadham, a lovely village set in the idyllic English countryside …’ He described having tea in a room with large windows on three sides, giving the feeling of being outside in the natural surroundings that Moore so loved (see Fig.5).58 He met Kenneth Clark for the first time in connection with Henry Moore: Sculpture and Environment.59 He persuaded Clark to contribute some text because he had been impressed with Clark and also because Moore had talked about their friendship. Every time Finn visited Moore he would take photographs of the sculptor who would sign the print which Finn would then hang in his own kitchen.60 Finn remains concerned about perceptions of his relationship with Moore as revealed in a Ruder Finn journal article published in 2002. Here he wrote at length about the sculptor, denying that he assisted Moore with his ‘public relations skills’. He has acknowledged that he is interested in fame as a subject and has considered writing a book on this topic. However he believes that since Moore employed only a small number of staff, no one was directly involved with approaching the press or acting in a concerted manner as a publicist for the sculptor. On the other hand he acknowledges that it would be natural for museums that hosted

97



98

H enry moore in america

exhibitions of Moore’s work to employ public relations people, as did publishers and broadcasting companies. Even business and city institutions would have similar publicity mechanisms. He believes that ‘all their efforts added up to extensive press coverage about him and his work over the years. But I don’t believe that was responsible for the renown he achieved…he had an instinct for making friends with influential people in the world of art, and… his widespread circle of friends helped him become a familiar figure in important circles.’61 There is no doubt that Finn was able to facilitate the smooth-running of Moore’s visits to and within the United States: ‘I try and protect him from the public, help ward people off…’ When Moore needed to visit several cities in America to look at potential sculpture sites it was normal that Finn would arrange the necessary internal flights. On at least one occasion this was through the use of a company plane, such as that provided by Gould Inc., a business represented by Ruder Finn.62 In 1983 Finn taped a conversation with Moore in the context of the sculptor’s exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum. Finn asked Moore to thank his ‘very good friends in America’. Moore duly obliged and agreed with Finn’s suggestion that this exhibition would be his greatest so far. Finn referred to the fact that corporate sponsorship of exhibitions was more prevalent in America than in Britain and Moore said that this was ‘a marvellous thing … If their name is connected to something, it does a company’s image good.’63 David Finn’s role in Moore’s American career was significant, through his expertise in public relations and as a highly regarded and gifted photographer of sculpture.64 Moore must have been disappointed by the relative lack of commissions forthcoming in Britain. One particularly difficult moment occurred in 1967 when he offered the Tate Gallery between 20 and 30 of his major works; the construction of a Moore gallery, incorporated into a rebuilding programme, was a possibility. The Tate’s indecision and subsequent decline of this offer was criticised by many including Terence Mullaly who described Moore’s gesture as the most generous made by a British artist since the Turner Bequest. He deplored the Tate’s response, particularly since it did not come as a surprise to members of the art world. He noted that London had been slow to recognise Moore’s genius and that there was only one of

the support network

his sculptures prominently displayed in the capital, on the Time-Life Building, and this had been a private commission. The sole Moore sculpture that could be described as a public work was ‘buried away in Battersea Park.’65 Toronto’s Art Gallery of Ontario would benefit from the Tate’s equivocation with the opening in 1974 of its Henry Moore Centre. This followed the 1966 placement of Moore’s The Archer outside Viljo Revell’s newly opened City Hall, coming some ten years before Moore’s similar commission for Dallas City Hall. Despite the controversy caused by the Tate Gallery’s lacklustre response to Moore’s generous offer, celebrations for his seventieth birthday in 1968 were based at the Gallery. However at the celebration dinner it was American Joseph Hirshhorn who presented the Gallery with a $30,000 cheque as a mark of his friendship with Moore. This train of events is a vivid example of how Moore’s disappointment with institutional support for him at home must have been sharpened by the enthusiastic welcome he was receiving in North America at the highest level. This was to be critical in shifting the focus of his public career to that continent. Post-war America had ambitions and values highly suited to a positive reception of Moore’s work. Britain was less sure of its direction and less wealthy. Although Moore had important British supporters, it is the case that the individuals who facilitated commissions and purchases for him were overwhelmingly in the United States. This institutional infrastructure was more pro-active and effective than any in Moore’s home country.



99



7

Displaying Civic Virtues: Sculpture and the City

The majority of Moore’s monumental sculptures have been positioned in the city. Such publicly sited works were often regarded during the post-war period as visualisations of an advanced society. Historically the city has been expected to represent rational, civilised and entrepreneurial behaviour. American cities especially were often conceived as sites of cultural and civic ambition, and such ideas were explicitly discussed through initiatives such as the City Beautiful Movement. Therefore Moore’s monumental sculptures, placed alongside outstanding examples of modern architecture, could be used to activate the city plaza into expressing such values. A 1950 touring exhibition was organised by MoMA under the title Architecture of the City Plan. Here the city was again described as ‘the symbol of civilization. The planned city is the mark of the most advanced form of cooperative culture; its orderly pattern represents the physical and intellectual organization of an elaborate social structure.’1 The direct link between the city and notions of civilised values were clear: ‘The city denotes civility. The word “civilization”, first coined in the middle of the eighteenth century, meant at first simply the civility and urbanity that one could expect to find in the company of town dwellers.’2 Regard for the arts and for artists developed within the Greek city and it was believed that powerful and wealthy citizens should repay their debt to the city through underwriting appropriate embellishment.3 In subsequent periods civic improvements were articulated through municipal buildings, railway stations, public parks and statues, all of which were conceived out of a desire to create order and beauty in city spaces.4 In his seminal 1961 book The City in History Lewis Mumford characterised ‘monumental’ architecture as an expression of power, 100

displaying civic values : S culpture and the city

demonstrated through expensive building materials and the incorporation of artworks. This supported the symbolic purpose of the city which was to ‘convert power into form, energy into culture, dead matter into the living symbols of art …’5 The city has been characterised as the highest achievement of mankind and as such embodies the best of human knowledge, displayed in a complex and visually powerful manner.6 It is the focus of cultural excellence that in turn attracts tourism and gives each city its ‘unique, competitive edge.’7 The powerful members of the city are those who ‘through a combination of philanthropy, civic pride, and desire to establish their identity as a patrician class, build the majestic art museums, parks, and architectural complexes that represent a world-class city.’8 The Moore commissions examined in this book were all intended to support such broad ambitions. A striking development in post-war America was the co-option of beauty as a political directive, seen in microcosm in Philadelphia and in macrocosm in the City Beautiful Movement. The latter was instigated in the early twentieth century to refashion the city and comprised a cultural agenda based on beauty and harmony. Urban design, public buildings, park systems and civic centres were all the focus of making improvements to the environment. It was believed that such physical improvements as well as institutional reform would encourage those who lived in cities to become more committed to their community and their civic duties.9 In view of the profile of Moore’s supporters it is interesting that those who advocated the City Beautiful agenda were usually business leaders, especially newspaper editors and the managers of industry and retail outlets.10 They were accompanied by political figures at the highest level; for example in May 1965 The White House Conference on National Beauty took place, chaired by Laurance S. Rockefeller (1910–2004) working on behalf of President Lyndon B. Johnson (1908–73). Here the promotion of natural beauty as national policy was seen as crucial in influencing the use of land and the building of cities.11 Buildings and cities have been described as backdrops for the location of public space, in both a literal and symbolic sense: indeed it can be argued that a city’s open spaces define its public realm.12 Moore’s sculptural output in the 1940s and 1950s coincided with

101



102

H enry moore in america

discussion about the nature of public space, about how to improve the quality of city life and how sculpture might play a central role in these endeavours. Contrasting the romanticism out of which European cities grew Yi-Fu Tuan has argued that in America there was a ‘respect for urban values…The American dream is compounded of profoundly ambivalent and even contradictory elements. Nowhere is the dream’s dichotomy more evident that in the desire to combine, in the nineteenth century, the antithetical images of an urban empire and an agrarian nation.’13 Nonetheless the interwar years saw the promotion of sculpture in Britain as well as in the United States as a civic symbol, capable of embodying and unifying a number of important ideas. For example in 1937 Carola Giedion-Weicker argued that the increasing status of sculpture was a sign of a growing demand for more pageantry and emotional expression in public life…sculpture…has always been closely identified with public life… The growing interest in…public art…to give life both to the public buildings and the open spaces which embody the corporate life of the municipality, will also increase the importance of sculpture.14

In 1943 the Royal Institute of British Architects published Rebuilding Britain in which criticisms were expressed about over-urbanisation and the argument was made for ‘the infiltration right into the heart of the city, of continuous parks and open spaces…’15 However, it was in the United States that this ideal was more forcefully pursued and achieved. There are numerous examples: Philadelphia’s Fairmount Park was a spectacular demonstration of this concept fully realised, and the construction of Central Park in New York makes British responses to the negative aspects of urban life look hesitant. Moreover both these American parks were conceived at a much earlier date than similar small-scale provisions in the United Kingdom. The ideal of blending landscape with the city had been at the core of plans for Harlow new town in the 1940s, the location of Moore’s 1956 Family Group. Somewhat unrealistically the intention was that Harlow’s Civic Centre be viewed from a distance, across open landscape: in other words it should become a ‘view’ or a ‘prospect’.16 But again, this synergy between architecture and landscape was more successfully realised by large corporations in the United States who worked on a grand scale to position monumental

displaying civic values : S culpture and the city

sculptures in extensive landscapes surrounding their corporate headquarters. At Harlow it had been intended that the focal point of the new town would be the town hall contained within a civic square, ‘the most important building related to the most important space…the equivalent of the Piazza San Marco, Venice … a place for exhibitions and sculpture and the principal open-air meeting place.’17 As I will discuss later the location of Moore’s sculpture for the city hall in Dallas (1978) would also be compared with this most archetypal of city squares. An architectural sensibility for sculpture can be seen in many writings before and immediately following World War II, and the relationship between public sculpture and architecture was clearly bound up with the symbolism of the city. In 1932 Henry-Russell Hitchcock and Philip Johnson proposed that art should be used with modern architecture to introduce a ‘more human scale’. Implicit here is the notion that art could in some way make up for what was apparently lacking in a building style increasingly viewed as barren and sterile.’18 In his 1934 book Art as Experience John Dewey suggested that the sole statue in a public place was incongruous, and that such sculptures were much more successful when they were ‘massive, monumental, and have something approaching an architectural context.’19 Nonetheless, the relationship between twentieth-century architects and sculptors in the West has frequently been an uneasy one. This is typified by American architect James Wines’ infamous comment that sculpture such as Moore’s was a ‘turd in the plaza’, apparently having been deposited randomly without serious consideration of its relationship with the location.20 In 1938 R. Myerscough-Walker described the relationship between architecture and sculpture, stating that most contemporary architects disliked sculpture adorning their buildings or even being placed nearby. However he argued that ‘abstract’ sculptors such as Moore provided a way forward since their work was aligned to that of the modern architect in seeking ‘an architectural expression…’21 He believed that because contemporary architecture was a product of the machine, installing art that ‘expresses the nature of its birth’ was incongruous.22 In the same year Stanley Casson wrote of the appeal that Moore’s sculptures held for modernist architects. He described crucial

103



104

H enry moore in america

issues that would inhibit the public career of Moore in Britain whilst simultaneously expediting it across the Atlantic. He characterised the relationship between sculptors and architects in Britain as an uneasy one and proposed that this was regrettable since The gauntness of many modern buildings and estates can be vastly diminished by the addition of well-placed statues, figures or groups, which need in no way be commemorative or symbolic…In America Sculptors are widely encouraged…and adequately subsidised. In this, England is far behind America…The American architect…is more sympathetic to the sculptor than the architect in England.23

The accessibility of sculpture to the viewer was implicit in Casson’s further observation that ‘A painting makes us a “spectator”, but a sculpture a “participant”’.24 This is a persuasive argument for the popularity of Moore’s work in that, unlike a non-figurative painting, a sculpture of broadly the same formal approach still remains a physical object, something that inhabits our everyday world. In other words ‘abstract’ sculpture can never be as ‘abstract’ as ‘abstract’ painting. It is difficult for sculpture to escape being associated with something.25 In 1944 Herbert Read highlighted the important role for public sculpture in a civic context, particularly in relation to current political suspicions: ‘The sculptor must come out into the open, into the church, and the market place, the town hall and the public park; his work must rise majestically above the agora, the assembled people.’ James Hall has described this as ‘statuemania in Welfare State clothing: coming out “into the open” would have rung all the right political bells. Here and now, in the free world, there was no need for secrecy.’26 Surprisingly, a similar use of language and historical references is evident when American shopping centres such as NorthPark in Dallas are characterised as providing ‘the need, place and opportunity for participation in modern community life that the ancient Greek Agora, the Medieval Market Place and our own Town Squares provided in the past.’27 The 1950s saw a concentrated debate in both the United States and Europe concerning the integration of art within the city: Harriet Senie has argued that after World War II ‘cities desperately needed symbols of civic pride, and establishment institutions badly needed some good public relations …’28 She pointed out that public art glorified its patron and that in terms

displaying civic values : S culpture and the city

of being ‘manifestations of the establishment, government and big business were not far apart. Therefore, it is not surprising that they often use the same architects and sponsor the same kind of art’. She characterised the renewed interest in public sculpture in the 1960s as resulting from ‘the forced marriage of large-scale sculpture by already world-famous artists with modern corporate architecture and/or urban renewal projects.’ Commenting specifically on Moore’s monumental sculptures she suggested that much of their appeal lay in their stylistic contrast to their urban location. The biomorphism of a typical Moore sculpture would soften the lines of the streamlined skyscraper. She argued that ‘Blue-chip corporations via blue-chip architects…chose blue-chip artists…to create symbols of identity, prosperity, diversion, and, perhaps, hope. The motivation behind this patronage was no different from that in centuries past.’29 This increase in public sculpture in America coincided with Moore’s most notable commissions and purchases. Indeed, the sculptor spoke about the concept of art as ‘furnishing’ a city, a statement that appears at odds with his dislike of sculpture as a decorative addition to architecture. However, speaking in general terms, he argued that ‘as a house is the home of a family, so is a city the home of its inhabitants, and should be furnished with works of art, just as you would furnish your own home.’30 More prosaically Moore believed that architects called in a sculptor when ‘the building is completed yet still looks “as if it needed something”…in practice they (architects) want the sculptor to be a last minute humanizer.’31 Monumentality is often equated with the memorial or the commemorative sign. In Moore’s work we do not have the usual historical monument, commemorating great deeds and individuals. However what is remarkable is the success his sculpture achieved, particularly in the United States, in ‘memorialising’ and thus visualising and preserving civic and corporate aspirations. Although the traditional memorial sculpture, having become associated with oppressive regimes, was now in question, the need for focal points in the urban landscape seemed to endure. It is the case that sculptures can function as tangible ‘markers’, places at which to pause, to absorb the surroundings and to integrate with the urban complex. Even on the scale of a major city, post-war public art could visually

105



106

H enry moore in america

and symbolically give urban areas a sense of community and visual coherence, and encourage a sense of place and personal identity for those who interacted with them. However the placement of Moore’s large sculptures in the vicinity of tall buildings complicates the question of monumentality. Many such sculptures appear surprisingly small when viewed in situ. The sculpture increases the impact of the architecture, rather than the reverse, and this despite the fact that Moore’s aim was to produce sculptures ‘so large in scale that they will, in effect, be non-utilitarian forms of architecture.’32 So Moore’s sculptures ‘produce’ monumentality, not in themselves, but through the creation of a sense of scale relationships, between plazas, sculptures and skyscrapers, resulting in a monumentally spectacular experience. For some commentators this resulted in work that was unchallenging. Many have argued that Moore’s most successful work was produced in the 1930s when the size was modest. The scaling up of his work in the post-war period has been seen as responding to a need for sculpture that was both modern yet benign, embodying an ‘authentic and accessible lyricism’ which did not challenge the viewer or ‘threaten to turn their world upside down or make importunate demands on their reason or their civility.’33 The outcome for Lucy Lippard is that such works are ‘false monument(s)’, being enlarged versions of smaller, domestic-scaled, sculpture, and in reality many are not placed on streets or within residential areas, but instead placed in ‘museum gardens, bank plazas and country estates.’ She proposes that this is not an altruistic gesture, but concerns ‘property, ownership, and fashion’. It is the product of the ruling classes and therefore is imposed on the rest of society. ‘When banks, corporations, institutions, municipalities risk money by erecting a “monument” to their success, they are even more conservative than when they are playing the stock market. They buy the kind of art that reflects their relationship to the public – aloof and superior…In the United States, only the work of Alexander Calder and Henry Moore is wholly acceptable as public art …’34 In 1967 Kenneth Clark expressed the opinion that Moore had become the great civic sculptor of the age…among the gigantic meccano sets of New York, his figures look equally in command of the situation…When we encounter…(Moore’s sculpture) in…the USA

displaying civic values : S culpture and the city

we are filled with pride – and I hope the Inland Revenue authorities feel equally gratified. Henry Moore must be our greatest dollar-earner, next to whiskey…35

The city as the site of cultural and civic ambitions is exemplified in the United States. Strong cultural policies allied to urban regeneration were particularly successful in the 1960s and 1970s, the broad time span for most of the monumental Moore installations discussed in this book. There was a convergence of interests, with arts bodies seeking funding at the same time as city mayors were trying to rejuvenate downtown areas and counter the trend of emptying city centres.36 Frequently such aims were not realised, in part due to the ubiquity of the motor car and the trend towards living in suburbs with their own neighbourhood facilities. Those who have experienced the bustling life of Manhattan are often shocked by the void at the geographical heart of many other, more typical, American cities such as Los Angeles and Dallas. It was hoped in the post-war years that the arts could be used to attract people to these city centres and thus make them safer places within a revitalised economy and more pleasant surroundings. Such plans were rarely completely successful. One example of how Moore’s sculpture was explicitly used within a discourse on the ideal city dates from 1963 when Dr. Franklin D. Murphy, the Chancellor of University College, Los Angeles, initiated a garden at the University. Four years later David E. Bright donated Moore’s Two Piece Reclining Figure No. 3 (1961) to the Franklin D. Murphy Sculpture Garden. Moore was informed of plans to make a film about their ‘Sculpture Court’, the aim being to show the Court as ‘one example of the city’s possibility – the city of life. This comes full circle from the city’s origin as the necropolis, the cemetery whose edifice was a memorial of death…the creative design of the environment, especially the use of art, is one of the only ways to prevent the modern city from decaying into a stagnant reflection of its origin as the city of death.’37 This Sculpture Garden has been described as reinforcing the perception of the city of Los Angeles as an open air and public art gallery, with sculptures to be found in pedestrianised areas and outside company headquarters.38

107



108

H enry moore in america

The Nation’s Capital: Henry Moore in Washington, DC In the capital of the United States Moore’s monumental sculptures could be employed to express civic and enduring values. The layout of the city around the National Mall is articulated by the placement of such works outside the Hirshhorn Museum and the East Wing of the National Gallery of Art. This punctuates the way in which Washington’s major buildings are carefully related to each other. A 1966 Act of Congress established the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, Smithsonian Institution. At the time President Johnson described Washington as: ‘a city of powerful institutions – the seat of government for the strongest nation on earth, the place where democratic ideals are translated into reality. It must also be a place of beauty and learning…in the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture garden – we have the elements of a great capital of beauty and learning, no less impressive than its power.’39 Across the Mall I.M. Pei’s East Building extension to Washington’s National Gallery was carefully positioned so as to relate to the geometry of Washington’s urban design: ‘A line bisecting the galleries (sic) triangle…continue(s) the West Building’s axis, and the building defers to the physical and symbolic elements of its key site where the Mall ends and Capitol Hill begins.’40 Thus the new wing, as with the Hirshhorn Museum, was interpreted in terms of its articulation of the political heart of Washington. The presence of Henry Moore’s sculptures outside both of these buildings would overwhelmingly have been seen in terms of their dignity, acceptability and international status. At the inauguration of the Hirshhorn Museum on 1 October 1974 Joseph Hirshhorn said that he was honoured to give his art collection to the people of the United States, and that this represented small recompense for the opportunities that had been provided to him and other immigrants who arrived in the country. He believed that what he had achieved ’could not have been accomplished anywhere else in the world.’41 The enclosed sculpture garden at the Hirshhorn Museum is distinguished by its formal landscaping and the provision of trees to offset the heat generated within the extensive sunken courtyard. Sculpture gardens have been described as having illustrious ‘predecessors in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia…Many cultures… have constructed formal public spaces for ceremonial purposes and

displaying civic values : S culpture and the city

have used sculptures to illustrate or symbolize the religious, political, and artistic ideals of their societies.’42 In the 1930s such gardens were intended to work as outdoor museums and MoMA in New York took the lead in establishing a courtyard for sculpture in the heart of the city.43 The Sculpture Garden at the Hirshhorn is far larger than that at MoMA and has a Mediterranean ambiance in its hard-landscaping and the choice of plants. Joseph Hirshhorn has been characterised as having a similar attitude to both business and art: ‘In business, he will listen, at least for a split second, to engineers, geologists, lawyers, politicians before he makes a decision. In buying art, he acts entirely on his own.’44 In 1952 Hirshhorn was involved in the formation of the Rio Tinto Mining Company of Canada Ltd. Thus he was a businessman first and art collector second. This characteristic was typical of many of Moore’s American supporters such as David Finn and George Ablah in New York, and Raymond Nasher in Dallas. On one occasion Moore was invited to a company meeting in London where Hirshhorn introduced him to the other executives and spent the whole time discussing Moore’s latest work.45 At another such meeting Hirshhorn went to the nearby Hanover Gallery and returned with eight Moore maquettes for the board members.46 Barry Hyams has argued that ‘The appellation Brooklyn Medici fits Hirshhorn, in style and fact, to the extent that he shared with the Renaissance bankers a passion for painting and sculpture…’47 Hirshhorn was known for doing his own work in acquiring art, visiting exhibitions, galleries and artists’ studios, and often buying in bulk.48 He had a certain reputation within the art world, as noted in a 1969 interview: Hirshhorn has had a bad press, partly of his own making. He was once incautious enough, for example, to blurt ‘I buy art the way some men buy neckties’ to a European journalist, a writer with no ear for the nuances of American self-mockery. The remark had been taken at face value, got a big play in the papers and eventually found its way into the folklore of the international art world…Myth would have it that Hirshhorn acquires art as omnivorously and indiscriminately as a whale ingests nourishment; that the man is shrewd enough in a business way, but is otherwise an insensitive clod who has flung so much money in the general direction of art that some of it had to land on good stuff…49

109



110

H enry moore in america

Hirshhorn had civic ambitions and had wanted to create a town in his name in Canada. He was thwarted in this due to resistance from the citizens of a neighbouring town. Having hired Philip Johnson for the project he stated ‘This is going to be an esthetic town … It’ll have a big square – like in Italy – with sculpture. I’ve got a big Henry Moore and I’m getting an Epstein, a big one. I’ll have a museum there, too. Paintings belong to the public.’50 Hirshhorn’s widow Olga recalled that her husband knew many artists but was particularly close to Moore, greatly admiring ‘his way of life, the family man, the sweet gentleness of his nature, the persistence of his working life, and his normality compared with some of the far-out artists he had got to know.’51 Fig. 22 shows Moore with Hirshhorn at Hoglands. Curt Valentin sold Hirshhorn his first Moore sculpture in the year before Moore’s MoMA retrospective and Hirshhorn affectionately recalled meeting Moore soon after. The sculptor told him how important American museum personnel and also the American



Henry Moore with Joseph Hirshhorn at Perry Green, November 1962.

Fig.22

displaying civic values : S culpture and the city

general public had been in establishing his international reputation. In 1954 Hirshhorn bought Moore’s King and Queen from Valentin’s Gallery.53 When he first saw the sculpture Vera G. List (1908–2002), who would later fund a sculpture by Moore for New York’s Lincoln Center, was considering purchasing it. Hirshhorn bought it straight away.54 In the ten years ending 1967 Hirshhorn probably spent about $5 million on sculpture and according to one report was ‘keeping the sculpture world solvent almost single-handedly.’55 By the 1970s Hirshhorn had more than 70 Moore sculptures and drawings, and was complimented by Herbert Read who said that he had seen many collections but never one that could rival Hirshhorn’s in terms of its ‘completeness…quality and…display.’56 The inaugural exhibition at the Hirshhorn Museum presented a range of Moore’s works from the collection. One source claims that Hirshhorn had previously received many international offers to house his collection, including one from Queen Elizabeth II whereby he would be offered ten acres of Regent’s Park, London – as well as a mansion, at a total cost of $7 million – ‘the equivalent of being situated in the middle of Central Park’.57 Then he was approached by S. Dillon Ripley, Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution which had wanted to create a national museum of contemporary art as early as the 1930s.58 Gordon Bunshaft (1909–90) was the architect of Hirshhorn’s Museum and wanted Moore’s Three Way Piece No. 3: Vertebrae (1968) to be placed outside the building, believing it to be the greatest of the sculptor’s works (Fig. 23).59 Started in 1954 Bunshaft’s own art collection included sculptures by Moore. In the 1980s there was a Moore helmet head in Bunshaft’s New York flat and three large sculptures outside including Reclining Figure: Archleg and Seated Woman: Thin Neck. His taste has been linked to that of MoMA, New York, where he was a trustee.”60 Recalling his first encounter with Moore Bunshaft described how: ‘We seem to have hit it off. I must have had a lot of brass or something at the time, as I asked him if he could sell me … Helmet Piece No. 1, 1950, and he did … I’ve admired him ever since.’61 This 1961 meeting came about when Bunshaft went to speak to Moore about a possible sculpture for the plaza at Chase Manhattan Bank, New York. This did not develop into a 52

111



112

H enry moore in america

commission as I will discuss later. Bunshaft’s ongoing commitment to Moore’s work was demonstrated in 1969 when he wrote to the sculptor concerning the receipt of his latest purchase Oval: Points, expressing his pleasure at having so many of Moore’s works: ‘We have three of your sculptures in New York. All the other pieces … are in East Hampton and we feel as if we were living in a small Henry Moore Museum … we plan to give all your pieces to the Museum of Modern Art when we both “kick the bucket …”’62 Bunshaft knew other key Moore supporters: he was interested in Kenneth Clark’s writing and Moore sent him a copy of Clark’s book on the sculptor’s drawings63 and in turn later thanked Bunshaft for sending him an article from American Vogue about Clark.64 Bunshaft also knew David Finn. Commenting on those who liked Moore’s work, Bunshaft suggested that it was ‘kind of fashionable for people with money, usually new money, to have a reclining figure of some sort, often at twice the money than a piece which is to me much more



Henry Moore, Working Model for Three Way Piece No. 3: Vertebrae 1968, Hirshhorn Museum Sculpture Garden, Washington, DC.

Fig.23

displaying civic values : S culpture and the city

exciting.’ Bunshaft’s architectural practice Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM) frequently incorporated paintings and sculptures into their designed interiors and it was probably no coincidence that several of the partners collected contemporary art. In turn this encouraged collaboration with many of SOM’s most important clients, such as David Rockefeller (b. 1915) of Chase Manhattan Bank, who were themselves major art collectors.66 Bunshaft has been seen as key in setting the ideology of his architectural practice ‘which in turn set the standards of corporate architecture.’ Whilst Bunshaft was with the firm there was a coherence of design which has been seen as aligned to the inventiveness and formalist characteristics of modernism.67 At the inauguration of his Museum, Hirshhorn gifted four new sculptures including Moore’s Two-Piece Reclining Figure: Points (1969–70) that had been featured at the sculptor’s retrospective exhibition in Florence two years earlier. Fig. 24 shows this sculpture 65



Henry Moore, Two Piece Reclining Figure: Points 1969–70, outside Hirshhorn Museum, Washington, DC, with the National Gallery of Art in the background.

Fig.24

113



114

H enry moore in america

outside the Hirshhorn Museum. Behind is the Mall, on the far side of which can be seen the West Wing of the National Gallery, thus a visual and symbolic link is created between the two buildings. The monumental bronze is placed centrally in front of the Hirshhorn Museum’s entrance. It is clear that apart from its role as an art museum, the construction of the Hirshhorn also served broad civic ideals and offered a great opportunity for the chosen architectural practice. Indeed reports were in circulation that commented on the ambitions of SOM’s founding partner Nathaniel Owings (1903–84) to construct a ‘third axis’ across the Mall at Eighth Street. Even before the necessary legislation was passed for the Museum’s creation Owings, as Chairman of the President’s Council on Pennsylvania Avenue, was known to have plans concerning the site, its role in a redesign of the Mall and the choice of his practice as the commissioned architects.68 They informed the Smithsonian that a great art museum on the Mall would be pivotal in implementing a plan for a major axis running across this central thoroughfare and it does appear that the commission had gone to SOM even before legislation was passed. The Hirshhorn Museum’s circular design has been described as lacking in ‘surprise’, as displaying culture whilst referencing architecture and the monument. Observers have commented that the galleries that surround a central open court allow visitors to consume culture ‘quickly and efficiently.’69 However both the government and the Smithsonian benefited from this new cultural provision and appropriate monument for America’s capital city. Moreover ’Joseph Hirshhorn got a memorial to himself and to his fulfilment of the American Dream.’70 On the other side of the Mall I.M. Pei’s East Wing to the National Gallery of Art opened in 1978, four years after the Hirshhorn Museum. The response from architecture critics and the public alike to this example of American Modernist architecture was remarkably positive.71 Pei collected sculpture and was therefore regarded as an architect with a developed sensitivity to this three-dimensional art. His client for the East Wing was Paul Mellon (1907–99) who has been described as being ‘as close to the aristocratic ideal of a gentleman, and a scholar as the United States is likely to produce’ and was thus a perfect client for Pei.72 In return Pei offered Mellon the

displaying civic values : S culpture and the city

ability to organize buildings that could accommodate large numbers of people. Indeed one comment that the architect made on his design was held against him when he was reported as aiming from the outset to design for a ‘“mob scene. We needed to make the visit a pleasant one, so we built a circus.”’73 The building’s organisation was described as focused on ‘a now-famous central atrium intended as flypaper to attract not only the cognoscenti but ordinary people who may never before have set foot in a museum of art…’74 The main challenge facing Pei was the difficult triangular site and the necessity of relating the new building to the neoclassical West Wing. The Museum’s Director J. Carter Brown wanted there to be a sense of small museums within a large one so that people did not develop ‘museum fatigue.’ Fig. 25 shows the view from the West Wing across the extensive space between it and the newer East Wing, with Moore’s sculpture just visible by the entrance. The exact sequence of events leading to the arrival of Moore’s sculpture at the East Building is extremely difficult to follow from material in the Museum’s archives, as there appear to be two parallel accounts referring to the eventual sculpture chosen and to another



View from West Wing to East Wing, National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC with Henry Moore, Mirror Knife Edge 1977 in the background.

Fig.25

115



116

H enry moore in america

entitled Spindle Piece. The point at which the latter sculpture was rejected in favour of Knife Edge Mirror Two Piece is unclear. Pei was a member of an informal committee established to determine the nature of commissioned art for the front of the building, although in reality Carter Brown was in charge with his first assistant, David Scott, the National Gallery’s Planning Consultant.75 Carter Brown was conscious of the way in which Moore’s sculpture could ‘become architecture at civic scale. It also works very well against architecture; so well, in fact, that its use there threatens to become a cliché. We agonized over this in selecting a great work of art for the main entrance of Pei’s East Building… Yet we were drawn inexorably to Moore as the ideal artist to exhibit in that place of honor.’76 Carter Brown wrote to the sculptor in 1973 stating that construction of the new Wing was progressing well and he wished to discuss with Moore the commissioning of a sculpture for the Pennsylvania Avenue façade. He described the importance of the Avenue as ‘the great symbolic way joining the White house with the Capitol and Supreme Court, thus linking the three branches of the Government. It is down this avenue that all State funerals, inaugural parades…process, and a Presidential Commission is currently working on ways in which the ceremonial character of the avenue can be enhanced.’ He informed Moore that Pei’s new building at the axes of Pennsylvania Avenue and the Mall, drawn up in the eighteenth-century city plan, was positioned at a ‘pivotal point’ and he hoped that the new building would prove to be a major achievement in twentieth-century architecture.77 Soon after, Carter Brown made a note concerning a telephone conversation with Harry Brooks of Wildenstein who had said it was difficult to get a unique piece from Moore. The memorandum also mentioned a large white marble sculpture shown in Moore’s solo 1972 exhibition in Florence, Brooks believing that this might be available.78 This was probably Large Square Form with Cut (1969–71). Indeed it was in 1972 that references occur to I.M. Pei ‘sounding out’ Moore for the Washington commission when he saw him in Florence.79 It seems that in 1972 Moore suggested an existing sculpture Spindle Piece for the East Wing commission. However when the placement site was changed in 1976 to the front entrance on 4th Street the choice of sculpture changed as

displaying civic values : S culpture and the city

well since it was felt that Spindle Piece would not work at the main entrance. Instead Gordon Hanes, who was a member of the National Gallery’s Collectors Committee and a trustee at the North Carolina Museum of Art, decided to buy Spindle Piece for the latter museum, saying ‘the textile industry plays a very important role in the economy and daily life of North Carolina and this sculpture would be very appropriate there.’80 When Moore saw the original site he apparently rejected it because his sculpture would be out of the sunlight. Pei said he had never liked Spindle Piece, but he did not know whether the change of sculpture and the rejection of the original site coincided, but said that Moore did not mind the change of work. Pei told the author that the change of sculpture was made by Carter Brown and the committee, although when pressed on this point he said that he recommended Knife-Edge Two Piece and knew nothing about the Spindle Piece being considered.81 In 1973 Moore told Carter Brown that he would undertake the sculpture for the Pennsylvania Avenue site82 and the donors, the Morris & Gwendolyn Cafritz Foundation, Washington, DC, were notified.83 Moore believed that this sculpture would need to be on a very large scale, otherwise it ‘would only look like somebody going in and out of the gallery.’ In the 1970s Moore was in great demand to supply sculptures for civic plazas and for such commissions he made enlargements of existing works. So the sculptures were in no sense site specific and in Washington the identity of Pei’s new East Building was not a concern for Moore.84 In May 1974 he visited the city and J. Carter Brown was enthusiastic about the proposed sculpture, even though it was going to cost more than anticipated. A letter to J. Carter Brown from Moore dated 5 July 1974 indicated that the sculptor believed that he now had a better idea of the new site, which he much preferred, although this raises an anomaly in that all other material indicates that the placement site only changed when Moore visited the Museum in 1976 and not during his earlier 1974 visit.85 In December 1974 Moore informed Carter Brown that he had an idea and had finished ‘a quite largish and rather massive sculpture’ that was being cast in Berlin, after which he would consider whether it would be right for the National Gallery although he thought it might be slightly too small.86 Moore wrote ‘From my memory of the site and its surrounding architecture, I think it needs a strong and

117



118

H enry moore in america

powerful sculpture, and something with bulk (rather than being spatial or ‘elegant’). The idea which I think could be right is…Spindle Piece.’ He sent photographs of a 3 foot working model: it should be at least fifteen or sixteen feet high without its pedestal, – which in itself could be three or four feet high, and circular…The sculptural idea in Spindle Piece is a variation on the ‘points’ theme which I have used in several sculptures…but here…the points move outward…suggest(ing) the hub of a wheel. (A rather literary connection might be made as an argument for its appropriateness to Washington … ‘the hub of the world’. Sometimes people need a literary reason as a start to look more favourably on sculpture).87

Carter Brown told Moore that Pei felt strongly about the importance of scale and expressed the hope that when Moore was in Washington they could drive to the Mall the way so many of Washington visitors come to it…the Pennsylvania Avenue façade and the Henry Moore will be the first thing they see. It is the introduction to the whole Mall experience, with all of its museums and monuments…it gladdens my heart that the clarion call of a visitor’s experience to this sacred piece of national property should be the visual arts in general, not to mention a Moore in particular.88

In November 1975 Carter Brown informed Moore that they had just had the first meeting of the Collectors Committee who would largely be funding commissioned artworks for the new museum. He reported that they were very enthusiastic about Moore’s sculpture (presumably Spindle Piece). He also stated that Gordon Hanes wanted the 11-foot version89 and Hanes himself wrote to Moore saying how much he admired the sculpture and that he understood that it was about 12 feet high but that Moore would do a double size version for Washington. Hanes believed that 24 feet approximately would be ideally proportioned for the National Gallery. In relation to the smaller cast he told Moore about its appropriate textiles link: ‘The company of which I am Chairman buys cotton, spins it, knits it, and makes underwear.’90 Moore agreed to visit the new North Carolina Museum and said he believed that Spindle Piece might indeed be too small in its present size for Washington and if so, then he was happy for it to go to North Carolina.91

displaying civic values : S culpture and the city

Spindle Piece arrived in New York on 7 April 1976 and Moore visited the new East Wing on 16 April. The sculpture had not yet arrived in Washington but according to the majority of accounts this was the point at which Moore decided he did not like the site, rather than during his May 1974 visit. By the same afternoon arrangements had been made for the sculpture to be diverted from Washington and to continue to Hanes in North Carolina.92 Rather than a lack of sunlight being the problem, David Finn said that Moore objected to the original site for the sculpture because he thought it ‘would be too busy for a quiet contemplation of its forms.’93 Disappointingly records do not reveal a satisfactory answer for the change of work since Spindle Piece could have been made larger, nor is there any record as to what Carter Brown or Pei felt about this change. Also in April 1976 Moore wrote to Pei referring to meetings in Washington and Dallas, praising both of Pei’s new buildings in those cities and tantalisingly adding: ‘For the Washington problem I am sending you these few transparencies … of the Three Piece Vertebrae sculpture … and … of the Knife-Edge: Two Piece, for you to choose which transparency to blow up to any size, to experiment with and try out, as suggested, on the building.’94 Carter Brown said he preferred Knife Edge, ‘perhaps modified sufficiently to make it a unique piece … I am envisioning a golden form bathed in the level rays of the sun, and believe that what with the scale and the prominence of that location, tied to an institution of esthetic purpose, we may be on to something very major.’95 After some consideration he and Pei agreed that Knife Edge Two Piece would be the right sculpture if sufficiently enlarged; if turned round so as to form a mirror image of itself it would be more appropriate for the museum’s entrance, because people could walk through it on their way into the gallery.96 In due course Carter Brown informed Moore that the recent annual meeting of the museum’s Collectors’ Committee had responded very enthusiastically to Knife Edge.97 There was no comment made on the change of work or of site. The Acquisitions Committee accepted the model for Knife Edge in January 197798 and in November the Morris and Gwendolyn Cafritz Foundation confirmed their donation of funds to purchase the sculpture99 which

119



120

H enry moore in america

arrived in Washington on 9 May 1978 (Fig. 26). When asked why the work was inserted into the museum entrance, flush with the building line and not out on the spacious sidewalk, Pei told the author that he had never considered this option and that Moore had not had much time to walk around and think through other possible permutations. This explanation is puzzling, not the least since a



Henry Moore, Mirror Knife Edge 1977 outside East Wing, National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC.

Fig.26

displaying civic values : S culpture and the city

September 1974 letter from I.M. Pei & Partners to the National Gallery noted that the sculpture would now be placed beyond the building line.100 Pei did agree that giving more space around the sculpture would have made it more distinctly an object rather than a part of the building.101 Several years later Carter Brown recalled that the Museum’s intention had been to ‘go after the old masters of twentieth-century art while they were still alive and I’m glad we did.’ At the time that the Moore sculpture was planned for installation on Pennsylvania Avenue, Dubuffet’s (1901–85) The Welcome Parade (1974) was the preferred work for siting on 4th Street in front of the main entrance to the Gallery. However, the Museum lost its nerve. Carter Brown described the Dubuffet sculpture as: the most off-putting set of personages. They were just wonderful Dubuffet thumbing his nose at the kind of people who come into the National Gallery…we risked having the whole impression of the East Building rise or fall on whether people really warmed up to the Dubuffet. I admired the Dubuffet tremendously…Henry Moore was one of the toughest bargainers you’ll ever run into…He was not going to be playing second fiddle to anybody. I thought it was such a cliché to have a Henry Moore out in front of a building, and I was resisting like mad having a Moore in front of the East Building…I didn’t like the Spindle Piece that he came up with…I thought it was not a great Moore…Moore didn’t like…the north side. I.M. saved the day by selling him on the Knife Edge Two Piece, which is organic in form as a foil to the hard-edged geometry of the building, and Moore got his place in the sun out front. That worked fine. I think it’s a great success.102

Pei agreed that there was the possibility of political pressure being applied when the Dubuffet sculpture was under consideration; as Carter Brown pointed out to him, they were dependent on Congress for annual funds. Congressmen from all over the United States would come to see the new Wing and if they did not like the Dubuffet sculpture there could be problems. Carter Brown said that many of them could be very conservative, and in the end Pei believed that Carter Brown had made the right choice and that he personally had been ‘too optimistic’ in considering the Dubuffet who was much more controversial than Moore.103 Pei enjoyed the ‘whimsy’ of the Dubuffet sculpture but had to accept that:

121



122

H enry moore in america

Washington is so staid…The building was also…very restrained because we have to be part of Washington, and we’re permanent…Carter was less sure…he opted for Moore because Moore is safer…As Dubuffet’s proposal seemed to get less and less support, Moore, on the other hand, was quite certain to be accepted. But Moore came…and…did not like the site we chose for him. In fact with very good reason…‘There’s no sun on that side’ (Moore). It was the north side…It was then we offered him the front because by then Dubuffet was already rejected as a possibility.104

However there does remain the possibility that Moore’s change of mind concerning the site may have had as much to do with artistic rivalry as any other consideration, particularly since the Museum’s records do not provide a definitive answer. Pei knew Dubuffet and appears to have believed that the Englishman was the more amenable personality. He evidently felt able to tell Moore that he did not really like Spindle Piece but that a reconfigured Knife Edge would be very good. But speaking to the author in 2003 he said that one of the reasons why he chose Knife Edge was because of the sharp edge to the building, in that the latter had a ‘knife edge’: ‘so when I went through Moore’s entire catalogue and I saw Knife Edge I liked the name of it. It somehow seemed to be correct.’105 David Finn was tangentially involved, accompanying Moore to Washington and photographing the sculpture at the inauguration ceremonies. He also told Moore that the sculpture was adversely minimised by being placed under the Wing of the gallery, but Moore replied that he had chosen the position himself. Finn told the author that a Moore sculpture in front of a building gave cachet to an architect and thus supplied a competitive need.106 In the final analysis the National Gallery, Washington commission is not entirely clear in all its detail. The lack of precision seems to be the result of the decision-making processes not being fully recorded and the vagaries of individuals’ memories over time. However what is ultimately confirmed is that the choice of Moore for such commissions was beyond serious debate.

displaying civic values : S culpture and the city

The Rehabilitation of a City: Henry Moore in Dallas Dallas vividly demonstrates the web of relationships at play within Moore’s American career and the ways in which the interests of business, politics and art converged. The origins of his major sculptural commission for Dallas’ new City Hall in the late 1970s can be traced back to the political and national trauma caused on 22 November 1963 when John F. Kennedy (1917–63) was assassinated in the city’s Dealey Plaza. The latter was the site of the city’s foundation in 1841 by John Neely (1810–77), and as a result it became deeply problematic, emblematic of both a ‘cradle’ and a ‘grave’.107 Dallas was now characterised as: A tormented town…When…Kennedy was assassinated…Dallas’ pride in her civic center was in jeopardy. The proud cradle of the city’s history suddenly became a murder site recognized throughout the world. Public opinion polls, conducted shortly after the assassination, indicated over 80% of Americans had indicted ‘the people of Dallas’ for the crime…After the assassination, Dallas residents were harassed – telephone operators disconnected long-distance calls and restaurants refused service.108

Ironically Kennedy had set up the President’s Advisory Council on the Arts in the year of his death and made a statement that perfectly aligns with the rhetoric that was to accompany the placement of Moore’s sculpture at I.M. Pei’s City Hall: ‘After the dust of centuries has passed over our cities, we will be remembered not for our victories or defeats in battle, or in politics, but for our contributions to the human spirit…Art is political in the most profound sense … as an instrument of understanding…Art is…a civic necessity.’109 At the time of Kennedy’s assassination J. Erik Jonsson (1901–95) was president of two of the three organisations that acted as official hosts for the Presidential visit and soon afterwards became City Mayor. He proposed a programme entitled Goals for Dallas that resulted in a number of public declarations setting out the city’s hopes for its future. This initiative lent additional weight to plans that Jonsson had already set in place for a new city hall. The original building had clearly been presented on television across the world as a murder site. Lee Harvey Oswald (1939–63) had been temporarily placed there

123



124

H enry moore in america

following Kennedy’s assassination and was subsequently shot in front of the building by Jack Ruby (1911–67) as he was being moved to the county jail. This took place in full view of the international press.110 The Goals for Dallas initiative was announced in November 1964 and was described as having involved ‘brain-storming by thousands of Dallasites from all sectors to establish common goals …’111 One of the declarations stated ‘We demand a city of quality with beauty and functional fitness to satisfy both eye and mind.’112 Another goal was to create a central business district that would incorporate ‘commercial, governmental, educational, cultural, recreational and residential use.’113 It was argued that ‘The city is our greatest material accomplishment. There is no reason why it should be disorganized, inefficient, unpleasant or ugly. It should, indeed, be our greatest work of art.’114 In 1979 a further publication Achieving the Goals for Dallas 1978–83 highlighted a central aim as being the encouragement of public and private funding for the placement of high-quality sculpture, fountains and other art forms in public places.115 Jonsson intended the City Hall to be symbolic of Dallas citizens, to be ‘the best city hall in the world for a city that proposed to be one of the best cities in the world.’116 Thus much more than a building was at stake when planning began in 1965. I.M. Pei was awarded the commission in June 1966 and he has described how he set out to discover the ‘personality’ of the city and how his building could best represent the people of Dallas. To do this he talked to residents and observed meetings of the city council.117 He too said that more should be expected than mere efficiency: ‘A rich and rewarding urban life for Dallas people requires the environmental necessities of order, cleanliness and beauty … The City of Dallas should take the lead in seeing that its buildings and facilities represent the highest attainments in civic and design excellence …’118 Another factor that Pei considered was the growth in high-rise buildings owned by the banks and corporations that had appeared in downtown Dallas in the 1950s and early 1960s. He believed that the public sector – represented by his city hall – needed to be symbolically strengthened to offset this concentration of commerce.119 In order to provide a horizontal response to the downtown towers, the City Hall was designed to be

displaying civic values : S culpture and the city

wider at the top than at the bottom, thus appearing to lean towards the city centre. Later the architect would compare this relationship between the city government and Dallas citizens to that between his building and Moore’s sculpture on the plaza.120 The concrete building is 113 feet high, slopes forward at a 34 degree angle and is 560 feet wide. Fig. 27 shows its extreme tilt; Moore’s sculpture can just be seen from this angle, partially hidden in trees to the right and at some distance across the plaza. Pei chose a warm coloured concrete designed to be in sympathy with the light tones of the dry Dallas region. The building is undoubtedly monumental and impressive, the effect having been enhanced by the clearance of rundown areas that originally fronted the site. These were replaced by a six-acre



Dallas City Hall with Henry Moore, Three Forms Vertebrae 1978 just visible in background.

Fig.27

125



126

H enry moore in america

plaza that is about twice the size of Piazza San Marco in Venice. The building has been described as ‘serious … one that … seems to frown under the load of municipal responsibility it contains.’121 However by the time of the dedication ceremony on 12 March 1978 any criticism of the building’s appearance was subsumed by civic pride. The Times Herald announced that it was appropriate that the building, as the site of Dallas’ municipal government, be simple yet ‘majestic’ in order to ‘avoid any suggestion of extravagance or aristocratic decadence … The dedication ceremonies on Sunday were for a building but just as easily can be looked upon as reaffirming the dedication of a people to building a city which cradles an advancing civilization.’122 Another report was more prosaic in tone: ‘Last Sunday, in Dallas, a part of the country where ranch houses have been known to resemble the Palace at Versailles, a new city hall was dedicated. No one huffed about its being big or beautiful, because Dallas has turned into a town where even cowpokes, along with culture-pokes, think that beauty is something to bank on.’123 The building was gradually accepted by the public, George Schrader believing this stemmed from a public understanding of the benefits bestowed on Dallas by this major structure.124 Mayor Jonsson praised the building, saying that Pei’s aim to represent the people of Dallas had been achieved: ‘It’s made of one material. It’s strong, and the people of Dallas are strong … Concrete is simple, and they are simple people – in the best sense of the word, plain people. So the monolithic structure was entirely appropriate.’125 The new City Hall would provide Moore with one of his most prominent sculptural commissions. Its genesis is complicated, as is often the case with Moore’s public works, although the influence of his supporters is clear. George Schrader was familiar with Raymond Nasher’s Vertebrae piece, and I.M. Pei had long admired Moore’s work.126 The sculptures that Moore produced for the architect’s buildings have been described as forming an ‘antidote’ to the architecture, a ‘formal counterpoint to the hard edges of the building, suggesting that the architect does respect humanist values and that he does seek to have them present in his work.’127 What is clear is that the Dallas Museum of Art invited Moore to the city as their guest and this visit was the catalyst for a possible sculpture for City Hall.

displaying civic values : S culpture and the city

The official reason for the visit, which took place in April 1976, was in line with the Museum’s regular invitations to distinguished artists. During his time in Dallas Moore went to the plaza with Schrader and Mrs Margaret McDermott (b. 1912), a key Dallas art patron.128 She was later contacted by a friend, Dallas businessman Fritz Hawn (1910–95), who wanted to honour his late wife whose favourite artist had been Moore. Mildred Hawn had also been on the Board of the Museum of Art. Hawn’s offer to finance a sculpture was accepted and Schrader and Pei were tasked with selecting the work. Prior to his Dallas visit Moore had been in Washington, DC for the dedication of the National Gallery’s East Building where he had been ‘feted, wined, dined, interviewed at the British Embassy where they were guests. Mr. Moore, a no-nonsense man, obviously did not care for the life style, the protocol that went with the embassy.’ This must have provided a vivid contrast for Moore when in Dallas he attended a private dinner given by Mrs McDermott, as well as the reception at the Dallas Museum of Fine Arts.129 After his visit to Dallas Moore wrote enthusiastically to Pei, full of praise for the new City Hall, and saying that he would be delighted to provide a sculpture: ‘I have just stuck a notice on my studio wall, – THINK OF I.M.’S CITY HALL SCULPTURE, – 30 FEET HIGH, + or –.130 Pei replied: ‘The generous praise you gave the City and the project has done much to boost Dallas’ pride in itself. I feel certain a commission will be proffered to you very shortly.’131 He believed that the sculptor was the ‘natural’ choice for the City Hall commission.132 In one interview he said that he did not propose Moore for a sculpture on the plaza, rather he ‘assented’ to this, believing that Dallas art people may already have had Moore in mind.133 However he told the author that he did choose the sculpture, but confirmed that the start of the process was Mrs McDermott’s interest in Moore’s work which resulted in Pei going to visit Moore to discuss a choice of sculpture.134 Before Moore’s visit to Dallas in 1976 and whilst the City Hall was being built, Pei had already discussed Three-Piece Sculpture: Vertebrae as a possible piece; he had also chosen the site – one that he believed created the correct relationship with the building entrance, a big circular pool and a group of oak trees, the latter not surviving the harsh Dallas climate.135 The biomorphic and anthropological aspects of the sculpture can also

127



128

H enry moore in america

be read as an ‘antidote’ to Pei’s uncompromising City Hall design, although the angles of the main forms do echo the leaning profile of the building’s façade, whether by design or not. Fig. 28 shows the sculpture when viewed against the enormous City Hall. The more overt reference to bones and thus to skeletons locates the work within an archaeological, primordial framework. Thus the work alludes to time, history and the power of living creatures, be they human or animal. This is probably the one aspect of Moore’s work that would ‘speak’ to a varied audience. The sculpture is approximately 40 feet long and one of Moore’s intentions was that the viewer be able to move through its forms. This was denied when it subsequently had to be fenced off as protection against vandalism. It is also a sculpture that invites viewing from all angles: because of this, and its placement at some distance from City Hall, its dialogue with the latter is more evident in photographs, such as Fig. 28, than on the ground.



Henry Moore, Three Forms Vertebrae, 1978, Dallas City Hall.

Fig.28

displaying civic values : S culpture and the city

Additional money had to be found to pay for the sculpture, Moore offering to make it for $500,000, twice the amount that had been donated. He said that the sculpture he had just made for the National Gallery of Art in Washington, DC had been the same price, but that the Dallas piece would be much larger.136 The project was never in jeopardy because more donors came forward. The City Council had no part in directly funding the work but there was still some opposition from that quarter. In particular Councillor William Cothrum’s remarks were carried round the world through the Associated Press.137 The New York Times reported on Cothrum’s opinion of the proposed sculpture that had been officially authorised at the City Council meeting of 6 July 1976. He feared that it might be too avant-garde for Texans: ‘“The few works I’ve seen by the man…I’m not very impressed with…They’re a little too abstract to me and probably for the average Dallas citizen…I like things with a little more straight lines and rectangles, but that’s probably just my background in civil engineering.”’138 The Dallas Morning News reported Cothrum’s criticism of the constituency of the City Hall Arts Committee appointed by the Mayor, believing that this unelected group, mostly comprising wealthy art patrons, should not be deciding ‘what art is appropriate for a building constructed by the residents of Dallas.’ He claimed that all members of the committee ‘had a preconceived idea about art, which might have little to do with the thoughts of the average man on the street.’ He argued that a taxi driver should be a member of the committee in order to supply other points of view. Current Mayor Robert Folsom responded: ‘“Willie, if I’m going to get my appendix taken out, I don’t want the guy driving a taxi to do it. If I want someone to pick art, I want someone who is qualified.”’ Cothrum’s response was that this analogy bordered ‘“on the ridiculous…Not everyone knows how to take out an appendix. On the other hand, everyone knows what is pleasing to their tastes, and that’s what I’m talking about.”’139 Dallas art patrons were reported as believing that Cothrum was: making political hay at the expense of those who are working for the cultural enrichment of Dallas … ‘We had hoped that a major work by Henry Moore would begin a whole new attitude about the arts in Dallas,’ one local art dealer said. ‘But instead, the city has become a laughing stock in New York. The art critics are writing comedy

129



130

H enry moore in america

pieces about us. It’s not like the City Hall was going to get a Claes Oldenberg or some radical design … Henry Moore’s work is considered conservative by most standards.’140

However when Cothrum found out that Hawn was the donor he was apparently ‘stunned’ as they were well acquainted. Furthermore, Mayor Folsom got Cothrum to take Henry and Irina Moore to a Texas Rangers baseball game with the result that the councillor warmed considerably to the sculptor and was quoted as saying ‘I think Henry Moore is a super person…Just getting to know him has made me look at his work from a new standpoint.’ The councilman had expected Moore to be ‘an aloof artist’; instead he ‘joined the long list of other Dallas residents who were captured by the charm of the 80-year old Yorkshire, England, native during his brief stay.’ Cothrum commented that Moore ‘was so down-to-earth and interested in everything around him.’141 The sculpture was dedicated in May 1978. Its installation was carefully organised and recorded and its arrival characterised as ‘a cultural milestone for Dallas.’142 A December 1978 news report stated ‘Folks Just can’t Keep Their Hands off Henry Moore’s Powerful Sculpture.’ George Schrader claimed that following its placement the monetary value of the sculpture had at least doubled ‘because the site was so intricately tied to the sculpture’s creation.’143 The citizens of Dallas responded variously: I really like it…I don’t know what it is…That is some hunk of gold. I’m glad we have it. A pretty classy pigeon perch.

I don’t know anything about art, so I don’t want to comment. But I’m coming back for another look. I want to like it.

It looks like the future, like it’s sitting upside down. I think it’s great, and I’m glad it’s here.144

Film-maker Jim Murray recorded the sculpture’s journey from England. He had been in Dallas when Kennedy was assassinated and took many photographs in Dealey Plaza. Having heard about the sculpture in 1976 he telephoned a contact at the City Hall asking him to lobby the council to cover this significant event. He was dubious as to whether he would be successful since he was of the opinion that the City would not be enthusiastic, being more

displaying civic values : S culpture and the city

concerned with ‘street paving, garbage collection, and things like that…’ The contrast between the enthusiasm of the business and art world for the Moore sculpture and the apathy or hostility from certain quarters within the City Hall does seem to have been genuine. However since the work was a gift the Council was not well-placed to obstruct its installation. They awarded Murray $3,000, the money coming through in instalments over a period of nearly four years. Interestingly it was channelled through the Dallas Museum of Art, apparently to maximise donors’ tax benefits. In 2002 Murray spoke of the difficulty in obtaining funding for the film: ‘until recently, Dallas operated a bit differently than other cities…A relatively small group of civic leaders decided the direction the city would go – what projects were worth supporting. You can – or could – do much more if you’re blessed by the so-called art Establishment. I had no credentials in those circles…until Schrader got behind it.’145 Following the usual pattern with such major installations, a Moore exhibition ran concurrently at the Dallas Museum of Art. When Moore was in Dallas for the unveiling of the sculpture he attended a party hosted by Margaret McDermott and on that occasion was taken by the Nashers to see their cast of Vertebrae outside NorthPark National Bank. Later, Stanley Marcus (1905–2002) sent photographs to Moore, showing the sculptor and his grandchild at the dedication ceremony in Dallas: ‘Your visit to Dallas was a great event; and daily, hundreds of people are becoming acquainted with the sculpture and loving it.’146 Pei also hoped that the City Hall would be a catalyst for Dallas, a city that he characterised as being ‘in motion. One really has to look at the City Hall and its plaza, its open space, not today but in terms of ten years from now.’147 However Henry N. Cobb of I.M. Pei & Partners believed that Dallas was not a city ‘that’s really a pleasure – an exciting place to be once your business is over’, referring to it as ‘hard nosed’ and arguing that there had been too much insensitive development of large buildings with too little concern for the community in which they were placed.148 Certainly it appears that the rhetoric that had preceded the construction of the new City Hall and the placement of Moore’s sculpture was not fulfilled. Vandalism has been an ongoing problem. In 1993 a committee was formed to oversee restoration. The Dallas Foundation and the municipal government were willing to

131



132

H enry moore in america

spend at least $200,000 to restore the sculpture and provide security lighting and video cameras. However it was argued that restoration of the sculpture would not ‘restore the missing Dallas pride that has allowed this travesty to occur. Other cities display important outdoor works of art without the constant threat of vandalism. Why should it be happening in Dallas?…When people are allowed to trash such an asset in the heart of the city, Dallas’ reputation is defaced as well.’149 About one-third of downtown office space was vacant in 1991 and the park plaza that had been designed for huge crowds of people to enjoy themselves was usually completely empty: in fact Dallas was described as ‘the American city that had done the most to kill off its streets…with tunnels and sky bridges.’150 Support for Moore from the Dallas Art Museum was also important in consolidating his reputation in that city. In 1965 the Museum had acquired his Two Piece Reclining Figure No. 3 (1961), purchased by the Dallas Art Association (Fig. 29). The Museum’s



Henry Moore, Two Piece Reclining Figure No. 3 1961, Dallas Museum of Art.

Fig.29

displaying civic values : S culpture and the city

Director stated that the acquisition of this work established a new standard for sculpture in Dallas. He hoped that it would be the first in a growing collection of monumental sculptures secured by the Museum and that it would ‘stimulate the placement of truly significant sculpture in many public buildings throughout the city.’151 Thus a decade before Moore’s City Hall commission, his work was perceived in Dallas art circles as able to confer status on the city’s community. In 2002 local historian Bonnie Lovell conducted a series of interviews with individuals associated with the acquisition of the sculpture for City Hall and remains convinced that a Moore sculpture for this location was definitely being talked about before Moore visited Dallas as a guest of the Museum and to see City Hall.152 In 1982 the Chairman of the Henry Moore Film Committee of Dallas Museum of Fine Arts, wrote to the sculptor to inform him that the film Henry Moore: the Dallas Piece was on schedule and would be presented during the 1983 opening of the new Museum. He described the latter as positioned in the centre of Dallas and as intended to be the focal point in a newly created arts district. He believed that positive responses to Moore’s sculpture for City Hall had been critical in the realisation of the new Museum.153 The latter has been characterised as owing much to the example and success of MoMA in New York. Yet this report betrays Dallas as a city that presents the complete opposite of New York’s pedestrianfriendly streets: In Dallas a wide and generous ramp…leads grandly from the parking lot to the curiously empty streets on the city’s height, where the teeming corporate towers block out the sky. Under those blank and shining giants a pedestrian mall will soon connect the new museum with other buildings of a similar nature, the whole conceived as the cultural complement to the world of big bucks on the hill. Here in Dallas, a last holdout, the corporate world has been reconciled to modern art with a vengeance.154

Chicago, public sculpture and the Ferguson Fund scandal In the first half of the twentieth century Chicago was famous for its architecture, but from the 1960s onwards the city’s sculpture became the subject of critical attention and comment, there being

133



134

H enry moore in america

many notable commissions for public sites and corporate lobbies.155 Chicago’s first public statue, a soldier’s monument, was erected in 1876.156 Its sculptor Lorado Taft (1860–1936) was the first in the city to receive widespread recognition and many commissions.157 However, not all such installations received unanimous approval. In the same year that Moore’s Nuclear Energy (1967) was unveiled at the University of Chicago, Picasso’s Untitled was placed in the new civic square, Daley Plaza (Fig. 30).158 Subsequently it was suggested that the Picasso sculpture be moved and replaced by a memorial to the late Mayor Richard J. Daley (1902–76). However it was argued that even if the Picasso might not be particularly liked, during its ten years on this site it had become ‘the most instantly recognized symbol of Chicago the world around…Displacing it would stamp Chicagoans – who already have an image problem abroad – as barbarous ingrates.’159 Thus once again civic pride was at issue, even if at odds with public taste. The following comment reveals the nature of contemporary debates in relation to public sculpture and these are pertinent to the momentum of Moore’s American career: Picasso was…the most celebrated artist of the day. Whatever else the piece was, then, it had to be Art – sculpture, that is, hardly just a statue – if for no other reason than that there was no history to be recalled



Pablo Picasso, Untitled 1967, Daley Plaza, Chicago.

Fig.30

displaying civic values : S culpture and the city

from looking at it, no civic lessons to be learned, neither a hero to be remembered nor a saint to be revered…From the summer of 1967 onward the Picasso head has been the steady object of…debate, while becoming a civic fixture…more significantly…it cleared the way for the appearance of many more objects like itself: large, often mammoth works executed in the ‘modern manner’ (seldom definable as somebody or something), erected in public spaces at considerable public expense, and accompanied by public fanfare.160

However, the absence of narrative, historical or literary references in sculpture such as Moore’s would enable its absorption into the urban landscape, whereas the figurative aspect of the Chicago Picasso sculpture challenged and disrupted the genre of historical urban monuments to great men and deeds. As a city Chicago provides a vivid example of the interrelationship between commissions for the corporate and civic spheres. Key individuals also interacted through their shared membership of various city committees. This was a consistent factor behind Moore’s career in the United States. The acquisition of a major Moore sculpture for the University of Chicago had taken place in the context of a notorious local scandal, that of the alleged misuse by the Art Institute of Chicago of the Ferguson Fund for Sculpture. Moore’s later work Sundial (1980) was also financed by the Ferguson Fund and its placement outside Chicago’s Adler Planetarium visually connects the museum with the corporate and civic heart of the city. Significantly for this book it was a group of businessmen who established the Art Institute of Chicago in 1879,161 the oldest and largest art museum and art school in the American Midwest. Through their administration of the Ferguson Fund for Sculpture in Chicago the trustees of the Institute have been the catalyst for placing sculpture in the city. The Minutes of the Ferguson Fund are confidential. However we can observe the strong link that was established in the early years of the twentieth century between the Art Institute and Chicago commerce, and the Institute has maintained strong links with Chicago businesses as demonstrated by its acquisition in 1983 of Moore’s Large Interior Form (1981), a part of the monumental sculpture Large Upright Internal/External Form (1981–82) placed at the Chicago city centre business complex Three First National

135



136

H enry moore in america

Plaza. Many corporate leaders have been members of the Institute’s boards and also serious art collectors in their own right. In the event, the early faith that had been placed in the Art Institute’s handling of the Ferguson Fund was severely tested when on 22 May 1933 the Institute controversially sought a reinterpretation of Ferguson’s will.162 It wished to undertake a major building project, drawing on the Ferguson Fund’s income, and successfully argued that the word ‘monument’ could be interpreted as an extension to the Institute itself. The resultant judgement was ‘that arches, bridges or memorial buildings – things of “definite practical utility” – were to be preferred to spending sums on the erection and maintenance of statuary in public places.’ Newspaper coverage commented that this represented ‘the low ebb of appreciation for sculpture in public life.’163 As one commentator noted ‘Thus, in less than an hour the income of a great public charitable trust for the City of Chicago was quietly channelled into the coffers of a private corporation.’164 Over the following 23 years the funds accumulated and no sculptures were commissioned. In 1955 the Art Institute asked the court to consider a five-storey administration building to be paid for from the Fund and in 1958 the Benjamin F. Ferguson Memorial Building, including a ‘comfortable lounge for our members only’ and costing $2,300,000, was opened.165 An even more precise stipulation in Ferguson’s will had been his wish for the creation of public sculpture that commemorated important events in American history. However it was noted in the early 1980s that the recent funding of abstract sculptures, such as those by Moore, clearly demonstrated that the donor’s wish ‘had been winked at as surely, if not as audaciously, as it was in the construction of the Art Institute’s Ferguson Wing.’166 The will stipulated that the land on which any funded sculptures were to be sited must be public, that is owned by the City or the Park District, and that the sculptures would thus belong to the people of Chicago. The use of the Ferguson Fund for the placement of Nuclear Energy at the University of Chicago had fulfilled these criteria, being the first sculpture to be commissioned after the controversy over the Institute’s extension and 35 years after the previous Fund commission. Nonetheless it was commented that ‘Sculptors and civic-minded individuals and groups, embittered by the Ferguson episode, were

displaying civic values : S culpture and the city

not soon to forget it.’ The disapproval of the Art Institute’s use of the Ferguson Fund to pay for an extension was compounded in 1963 when their trustees decided that Lorado Taft’s Fountain of the Great Lakes (1913) should be moved from the South wall of the main building to the West wall of the new Morton wing.168 The Chicago Heritage Committee protested that ‘the relocation of this fountain raises a question of morality as well as of taste… If the blank wall of the new wing needs sculpture, would it not be more nearly in accord with Ferguson’s intent to have a new work created for this site?’ The Fountain was moved with the result that ‘a bronze portrait of the donor on the backside, beneath it the request from his will stating that his fund must be used for erecting and maintaining enduring statuary and monuments, and in addition the words “There will be memory of us yet in days to come”, are now hidden from view.’169 However in general terms the outrage felt by many observers in the 1950s had now been mitigated by the installation of several sculptures, one writer proclaiming that ‘Chicago is in the midst of an artistic renaissance that could make it the Athens of America.’170 The Art Institute owns three sizeable Moore sculptures. The first acquisition was the UNESCO Reclining Figure: External Form (1960). In 1958 Moore wrote to Mr and Mrs Arnold H. Maremont concerning a cast he was making for them of this sculpture’s working model. He was considering giving the Tate Gallery a cast, believing this reclining figure to be ‘about the most important, and most representative piece I’ve done in recent years.’ He believed that the existence of a cast in the Tate would raise the value of the remaining casts, the majority of which would be located in museums, and thus the Maremonts’ version would probably be the only one held privately.171 Subsequently the Maremonts gave the sculpture to the Institute in 1960 in exchange for a Georges Braque (1882–1963) painting Nude (1925) which they had donated to the museum in 1954. Details on this switch are scant and do not explain why this took place so soon after the Maremonts acquired Moore’s sculpture.172 Moore presented his Large Interior Form to the Art Institute as a gift and its Director, James Wood believed it should be placed (at least initially) in the north sculpture garden on Michigan Avenue where it would be seen in the context of the major sculptures by Picasso, Alexander 167

137



138

H enry moore in america

Calder and Joan Miró (1893–1983) elsewhere in Chicago’s Loop.173 Wood described this Moore sculpture as ‘a splendid addition to the Art Institute, giving us at long last a major example of his late, polished bronze style in a truly monumental piece.’174 Moore in turn expressed his pleasure in giving the cast to the Institute, confirming that it was the interior of the Large Upright Internal/External Form that had been bought by Gerald Hines (b. 1925), the developer of Three First National Plaza, and that shipping would be paid for by SOM’s Bruce Graham (1925–2010).175 Thus here was a direct link with another sculpture being installed in a commercial location in the city. Originally the plan was to site the sculpture in a pool to be designed by SOM who might assist with its funding but this was not realised. Fig. 31 shows the location of the sculpture in 2003 in the Stanley McCormick Memorial Court. A dinner honouring Gerald Hines was mooted for 6 May 1983 and the Institute was considering a ‘Moore Gala’ in conjunction with the unveiling of its Large Interior Form. They gave press information to Hines, requesting that the connection between the Institute’s and Hines’ sculptures be made explicit in any publicity. Bruce Graham’s role in successfully getting the gift for the Art Institute was noted, and as architect of Three First National Plaza he was involved in making the sculpture’s base.176 Hines felt it important that there be a small Moore exhibition at this time177 and a concurrent Institute exhibition displayed some of his smaller sculptures.178 Large Interior Form was donated, with the cost of transportation and installation alone being borne by the Institute, sourced from the Mary Louise Stevenson Fund.179 The third significant sculpture by Moore in the Institute’s possession is Falling Warrior (1956–57). This was part of the 1999 Millennium Gift of 12 artworks from the Sara Lee Corporation of Chicago. The Moore sculpture had been acquired by former Sara Lee Chief Executive Officer Nathan Cummings (1896–1985). When the company art collection was de-accessioned the largest part of it went to the Institute. Moore was the only British artist represented in this donation. In 1965/66 Moore had designed a 22-inch sundial for his home. In 1977 a monumental version was erected for The Times newspaper in Printing House Square, London: this work is now at IBM in



Henry Moore, Large Interior Form 1981, Art Institute of Chicago.

Fig.31



140

H enry moore in america

Brussels. When a version was made for the Adler Planetarium in Chicago the work’s golden colour and its subtitle Man Enters the Cosmos were linked to key years in the history of astronomy (1930– 80) when man’s knowledge of the universe advanced significantly.180 The sculpture was the eighteenth work to be financed by the Ferguson Fund.181 The strong link between the Art Institute, the University of Chicago and now the Planetarium is clear. The University is represented on the Planetarium’s Board of Trustees, and a University committee annually inspects and advises the Adler on its educational programmes. Indeed, the links between these latter two organisations may have been strengthened because of the existence of Moore’s Nuclear Energy, this perhaps resulting in the University being represented on the Adler’s Board of Trustees. Moore’s sculpture at the Planetarium was moved in 1999 when building alterations were put in place. Formerly on the South side of the Planetarium, it is now to the North side with spectacular



Henry Moore, Sundial (Man Enters the Cosmos) 1979, Adler Planetarium, Chicago.

Fig.32

displaying civic values : S culpture and the city

views behind of the Chicago skyline (Fig. 32). It is thus visually related to the corporate and civic heart of Chicago. The Chairman of the Adler’s Board of Directors, Kenneth Nebenzahl is credited with obtaining the Moore sculpture. He was also a member of the Art Institute Board which administered the Ferguson Fund. Adler Board member Mrs Webster and her husband, who was the Board’s Secretary, were asked to suggest a sculptor and type of work. They appear to have located some images of Moore works that related to sundials and presented these to the Board in a folder, placing on the cover the version they liked the best. The Board chose this one without looking at the rest.182 Nebenzahl wrote to Moore in 1978 referring to a recent enjoyable visit to Moore’s home and studio when Moore had agreed in principle to make a sundial for the Planetarium. He promised to send Moore some photographs of the location.183 Moore confirmed the price for Sundial as £50,000.184 In 1979 Nebenzahl informed Moore that he would be approaching the Ferguson Fund.185 The proposal stated the wish to: add aesthetic character to the lake-front area…Placed in this conspicuous and attractive setting, it would also enhance Chicago’s growing reputation for impressive sculpture…the sculpture must be comparable in artistic merit to the public sculptures which have made Chicago famous across the United States and…throughout the world. Second, the sculpture… should convey the message that the Planetarium…is dedicated to aesthetic concerns as well as to science…The Moore sculpture is a uniquely satisfactory solution to the problem of creating a work of art which is also a perfectly functional scientific instrument.186

The money was provided and the sculpture was unveiled on 7 May 1980. Nebenzahl informed Moore how successful the work was proving to be and of the interest shown in it by visitors, and said that he was pleased to hear rumours that Moore was creating further works for Chicago.187 Moore replied that he was working on a large sculpture in collaboration with Skidmore Owings & Merrill to be placed in the atrium of the Three First National Plaza.188 Thus once again, corporate, civic and museological ambitions were in accord, and coalesced around Moore’s sculpture which in this instance also helped to lay to rest the controversy that had swirled around the Art Institute and its handling of the Ferguson Fund.

141



8

Sculpture for the People: the Symbolism of City Parks

In this chapter I want to examine the social functions claimed for Moore’s sculptures when they were placed in American urban parks and cultural centres. Routinely it was stated that such commissions activated these open spaces and engaged the casual passer-by, who of course would not necessarily be someone who visited art galleries. New York’s Lincoln Center was intended to provide a regenerated cultural hub and civic amenity in a rundown area of the city. A monumental Moore sculpture was positioned at its heart. In Philadelphia the sculptor’s Three-Way Piece No. 1: Points was purchased for placement on the Benjamin Franklin Parkway. As the country’s first capital city Philadelphia’s sense of patriotism and pride is clearly expressed in civic form and its public sculptures have been encouraged by powerful leaders in the financial, industrial and commercial arenas. As well as looking at these two placements of single sculptures I will examine a major display of Moore’s work in the parks of New York. I will end with an account of the tortuous and frankly bizarre ways in which a suitable form of language was sought in order to persuade the citizens of Kansas City that the acquisition of sculptures by Moore could reflect their pioneering image. A city park is rich in symbolism – it stands for freedom of movement and for respecting the human need for open spaces. As such, it has long been embedded in the ideology of the city. Moore repeatedly stated his preference that his sculptures be placed in a pastoral setting, and it was commonplace for him to evaluate the suitability of large sculptures destined for public urban sites by temporarily placing them in the fields surrounding his studios in Hertfordshire. However this did not reflect the reality of the sculptures’ eventual destinations. Although Moore’s works broke from the tradition of the monument 142

sculpture for the people : the symbolism of city parks

as statue, they nonetheless remained ‘monumental’ and also public, which in practice would usually mean an urban placement. Anthony Barnett has highlighted this contradiction within Moore’s practice by asking ‘Which previous century sought to establish solitary statues in the middle of a field?’ Barnett suggests this could be viewed as an artistic ‘urbanisation of the countryside…the incorporation of nature into a manmade – a sculpted – zone. In which case Moore’s romanticism would be at least as modern as romanticism itself. His English identification with landscape was a continuation of a national tradition that seeks to make nature safe – to civilise the wilderness.’1 This ‘management’ of nature has of course manifested itself in the creation of national parks in the United Kingdom but it developed on a significantly larger scale in the United States. Indeed, the integration of the park with the town and the creation of open, public areas have a substantial history in that country.2 In 1844 William Cullen Bryant, editor of The New York Evening Post, recommended the protection of a large area of undeveloped land next to the city. Central Park was the result of a clear vision of the benefits it would bring to New York.3 It was foreseen that the city would eventually surround the park, bringing with it a significant increase in population: the role of the park, therefore, would be to act as a counterpoint to the surrounding street grid pattern. It would offer the opportunity for citizens to relax in an apparently rural setting.4 In 1850 Frederick Law Olmsted (1822–1903), the creator of Central Park, visited Birkenhead Park in England that had been designed by Joseph Paxton (1803–65). Olmsted returned to America with ideas that would be realised on a grand scale, stating in 1852: ‘I was ready to admit that in democratic America, there was nothing to be thought of as comparable with this people’s Garden. Indeed, gardening had here reached a perfection that I had never before dreamed of.’5 Olmsted’s work has been seen as the predecessor of the City Beautiful movement that has been defined by its ‘enthusiastic welcome of the city…If the city became the locus of harmony, mutual responsibility, and interdependence between classes, mediated by experts, then it would be a peaceful, productive place…the City Beautiful partook of a revived civic spirit.’6 Aligned to the development of the great national parks of America was ‘the desire for romantic landscape as a contrast

143



144

H enry moore in america

to the growing cities’ which as in England resulted in ‘public parks and private, leafy suburbs.’7 The construction of Central Park was one of New York’s biggest public works projects in the nineteenth century and Olmsted’s vision has been characterised as not simply bringing nature into the heart of the city, but that more importantly he was calling on the political and economic leaders of civic America to establish parks in order to produce many public benefits.8 Through their use in attempts to control the consequences of urbanisation, and as tools to maintain so-called ‘civilised standards’, parks can tell us much about a society and its attitudes towards urbanisation.9 Perceptions concerning the health and restorative nature of the countryside, as opposed to the unpleasant aspects of city life, played a role in encouraging the development of urban parks. Americans believed they had a ‘refining effect’; this is where American parks differed from European city models in betraying a fear of urbanisation and its consequences.10 Urban parks were seen as ‘the ideal antidote to the highly artificial American city…’11 Many businessmen were involved in the American parks movement. The rhetoric concerning the early parks might have been largely philanthropic; now businessmen saw how selfinterest could be served by their involvement in civic culture.12 The establishment of Central Park and the publication of tourist guides showed that this had become a major visitor attraction and tourism was mainly of benefit to businessmen.13 In 1965 New York Mayor John Lindsay (1921–2000) incorporated the subject of parks and playgrounds into his election campaign.14 Ironically the middle classes by now were avoiding the parks which were considered dangerous, ‘part of the urban crisis rather than its cure.’ The need for parks in cities still existed but mainly for their symbolic function in terms of ‘imagery and inspiration.’15 Part of the change in demographics regarding the city park was the significant move of the middle classes to the suburbs after World War II. At this point those professionals involved with urban parks started to believe that in order to bring about their revival, the city itself would need to be regenerated. In other words, the public park was a reflection of the health of the city.16 To complete the required symbolism of such parks, monumental sculpture could be incorporated, as it had been alongside city architecture, to both adorn and humanise such

sculpture for the people : the symbolism of city parks

places. By the mid-1960s many saw the city as a work of art in itself, with the forms arising from industry and commerce being assessed on an aesthetic level. With this new appreciation of the city as an artefact, Central Park became significant in a new way, in that it was the only place ‘from which the dream of Manhattan is wholly visible because the eye has room to embrace it and the heart the distance to love it.’17 Three-Way Piece No. 1: Points (1964) Philadelphia Typical of the type of sculpture commissioned for such parks in the twentieth century was Moore’s Three-Way Piece No. 1: Points (1964). This was purchased in 1967 and placed on the Benjamin Franklin Parkway in Fairmount Park. When Philadelphia became America’s first capital it commemorated important figures, historic events and patriotic ideals. The concomitant sense of patriotism and pride focused attention on the public realm, and Americans’ ‘fondness for portraiture…moved from a domestic context to the public domain and from painting to sculpture.’18 Of significance for Philadelphian public art was the fact that at the beginning of the twentieth century American public art generally reflected an idealised vision of life. However, with the emergence of powerful business leaders Philadelphia began to erect sculptural monuments that would make visible and permanent their contributions to the growth of the city.19 Indeed, Philadelphia would become the paradigm for forward-looking American city planning, uniting art, landscape and architecture, most memorably in the Benjamin Franklin Parkway plan which was drawn up in 1907.20 Philadelphia’s Fairmount Park, the largest urban park in the world, covers over nine thousand acres, a city-wide and city-run park system, comprising 63 differently sized parks. As a product of the City Beautiful movement the Parkway provided impressive rows of trees and public plazas to form a suitably grand entranceway to the Park. In the twentieth century international tensions and threats to freedom could be cited as important justification for the existence and development of the Park and its like. A 1940 Report by the Park’s Commissioners stated that in the context of current threats to democracy, it was vital to fully realise the centrality of an asset such

145



146

H enry moore in america

as Fairmount Park to the ‘American way of life’ and to connect it to the country’s foundation on the principles of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.21 The creation of this outstanding parks system and associated placement of significant sculptures is a valuable case study within the story of the commissioning of Moore’s sculpture for public locations. The Fairmount Park Art Association of Philadelphia (FPAA) bought Moore’s Three-Way Piece No. 1: Points. The Association attributed Philadelphia’s impressive collection of public sculpture to the city’s outstanding and sustained engagement with civic values.22 The 1947 Annual Report of the FPAA included comments from R. Sturgis Ingersoll concerning the Philadelphia Museum of Art. The two institutions had close ties. Ingersoll was intermittently a Vice President of the FPAA from 1943 onwards and, given his interest in Moore, this continuity is interesting. In 1963 John Canaday, Art Critic of The New York Times, spoke to the FPAA on Art in Cities. He believed that when speaking about architecture and sculpture the two most pertinent cities were New York and Philadelphia. He acknowledged New York’s vitality but raised the problematic question of siting sculpture there. Ground space to create a plaza was expensive and precluded use of the space above it. The crowded streets meant pedestrians did not see the sculpture or else works were dwarfed by the huge scale of the city. Referring to the forthcoming Moore sculpture for the Lincoln Center, he questioned whether this would be successful, believing its concept to be isolationist. In contrast Philadelphia was ‘downright pastoral’ when compared with New York and that ‘in adopting the most modern of civic adventures – a city plan … Philadelphia is a city where modernism has not meant chaos … sufficiently intimate from part to part to be adaptable to ornamentation by sculptural monuments and by fine buildings that already exist …’23 However not all responses to the public art programme in Philadelphia were unequivocally enthusiastic. A 1966 article An Athens It Isn’t questioned the quality of the work being put in place, perhaps as an uncomfortable response to comments made by the Director of the Dallas Museum of Art that sculpture in Philadelphia was ‘clearly big business …’24 In 1972 Kenneth Clark joined the FPAA’s centenary celebrations and was

sculpture for the people : the symbolism of city parks

presented with the Medal of Honour. The Philadelphia Inquirer referred to Clark as the author of Civilisation and as functioning as ‘a kind of Minister of Culture from Britain’.25 In Clark’s address to the FPAA he referred to: one of the dreams of Renaissance man which would seem still to be related to your own activities – the citta ideale – the ideal city…since the very earliest times…they have felt the need for their cities to have a central area, or several areas, the shape of which was not dictated by purely utilitarian needs…The worship of mammon is generally considered less admirable than the worship of God; but at least it is a worship and has behind it the kind of confidence that is necessary for the construction of great buildings…people want to live in cities…they are…proud to belong to their cities.26

Moore’s Three-Way Piece No.1: Points was originally placed in the centre of a walkway at J.F. Kennedy Plaza. This is a very prominent site: however David Finn has commented that people were in too much of a hurry to look properly at the sculpture.27 In 1990 it was relocated to the north side of the Parkway Triangle between 16th and 17th Streets (Fig.33). Here it is difficult to find, being placed on a small section of grass, bounded by roads and partially hidden by trees. When visited in 2003, the homeless were sleeping around it and no one else was looking at it. Strangely the current poor location of the sculpture was to be its original site. There is no indication in the Association’s Minutes why the infinitely better setting of the J.F. Kennedy Plaza was chosen, or why the sculpture was subsequently relocated in 1990 to its present unsatisfactory, but originally planned, site. There was no ceremony when the sculpture was installed and Ingersoll made some revealing comments suggesting that the apathy of city managers and the current state of politics in the city would affect official response to a sculptural installation: ‘I feel that very few of our membership would attend – the Mayor would probably be late – and I do not think he would be able to make very pertinent remarks about this advance guard piece. Moreover, as you know, endless questions would be asked as to the cost of the sculpture. The fact that election is approaching also influences my thinking.’28 As has been seen in Dallas individuals who were standing for mayoral election were vulnerable to controversy when it was assumed that public money was being spent

147



148

H enry moore in america

inappropriately, and the acquisition of a Moore sculpture, regardless of the source of funding, could generate such problems. On the other hand, the close relationship between art museums and the city in which they were located would often produce an unequivocally positive response to the arrival of a Moore sculpture. In 1967 Moore received a letter from Robert Montgomery Scott, Chairman of the Friends of the Philadelphia Museum of Art, referring to their excitement about forthcoming shows of Moore’s sculptures, drawings and graphics.29 These exhibitions appear to have been similar in purpose to those organised in Dallas’ NorthPark Shopping Mall and at Chicago’s Art Institute, to be informative and persuasive exercises in advance of the arrival of a major, publicallysited Moore sculpture. Although outside the remit of this book another instance of political expediency in relation to Moore’s work occurred with his 1972 Florence exhibition, organised and financed



Henry Moore, Three Way Piece No. 1: Points 1964–5, Philadelphia Parkway.

Fig.33

sculpture for the people : the symbolism of city parks

jointly by the City of Florence and the British Council. Florence was suggested to Moore as a good venue by Gordon Bunshaft on the basis of photographs that Bunshaft had recently seen of a major Miró retrospective in Spain. He was so impressed with these images that he suggested to Moore that for his seventy-fifth birthday he ought to have a major retrospective: ‘You love Michelangelo … Florence is the centre of sculpture…it’s the most natural thing for you to have this great show.’ According to Bunshaft, Moore was excited by this idea, as was the mayor of Florence. However the latter insisted that the exhibition would have to celebrate Moore’s seventy-fourth birthday as this would coincide with the mayor standing for re-election.30 Such an accommodation of local priorities was not unusual. However Moore was particularly pleased with the ‘strong and powerful’ architecture that Florence provided and related the placement of his sculptures with key architectural landmarks. This approval is striking given his declared preference for non-urban locations for his work: presumably the fame and cultural capital represented by Florence made such considerations seem less important.31 Reclining Figure (1965), Lincoln Center, New York Gordon Bunshaft was one of several architects employed to create New York’s Lincoln Center where Moore gained a major commission in the 1960s. The sculpture was Reclining Figure (1963–5) which Harriet Senie has characterised as the ‘safe choice of “establishment modern”; offering the same reassurance of a brand name. If you order a Moore…you pretty much know what you will get’ (Fig. 34).32 That may well be true but tensions between city organisations nearly stalled this commission. The Lincoln Center Art Committee organised the siting of Moore’s work between the Vivian Beaumont Theatre and the Metropolitan Opera House. However it did so without consulting the New York Art Commission, the body that approved the permanent placement of art on public property, or the Parks Department that had specific jurisdiction over the Lincoln Center. When the plans became known the Art Commission almost rejected the project, apparently it being the sculptor member who objected to the choice of Moore.33 At this point Moore had long been sought by major art

149



150

H enry moore in america

museums but his Lincoln Center commission survived only through ‘intense behind-the-scenes lobbying.’34 The concept for the Lincoln Center had originated in 1955.35 The aim had been to transform ‘a slum area into avenues for limousines, and opera and grand symphonic music, and theatre …’ and to create ‘a complex of buildings that would have seemed praiseworthy even to a high Renaissance Venetian doge.”36 Unsurprisingly the slum clearance



Henry Moore, Reclining Figure 1963–5, Lincoln Center, New York.

Fig.34

sculpture for the people : the symbolism of city parks

was controversial. In 1956 the Center’s location was discussed, it being stressed that for proper enjoyment of the arts and music the visitor needed to be able to do so in a quiet, special place.38 The several architects involved in the project were each responsible for individual buildings. Although current international tensions were not overtly discussed, the Centre’s President, William Schuman (1910–92), argued that the project existed because ‘leaders of the arts, education, business, labor, the professions, philanthropy and government do … believe that the arts are a true measure of a civilization.’39 Writing many years later, architect Max Abramovitz (1908–2004) recalled that the precise location had been chosen because it was large, near a subway and due to its depressed nature, qualified for purchase by Government agencies, and was then sold at ‘a write-down price’. He believed that the Centre had a very positive effect on the immediate area and thus on both businesses and residents.40 The archival papers on the Lincoln Center are interesting in terms of what material is accessible and what is not, the Art Committee papers having been heavily censored. However oral histories carried out by Sharon Zane in the 1990s are useful, with the proviso that they took place after the passage of some 30 years. In one interview Abramovitz stated he was impressed with London’s Royal Festival Hall in that people could go there directly from work and was clearly conceiving of Lincoln Center in similar terms.41 John D. Rockefeller III (1906–78), chairman of the Greater New York Fund Drive, controlled the project, which was characterised as partly echoing his father’s work at the Rockefeller Center.42 The project was financed by businesses as well as the Ford Foundation.43 At a 1960 meeting landscape architect Dan Kiley (1912–2004) presented a model for landscaping the Plaza. Kiley would later be the architect for the Moore Sculpture Garden at the Nelson Atkins Museum of Art, Kansas City as well as be involved in the National Gallery, Washington, DC project. Philip Johnson also worked on the Lincoln Center complex and spoke of an original idea to have bridges linking the plaza to Central Park. However he acknowledged the impossibility of this: ‘who’s going to condemn all that property for a private park!’44 In initiating a Moore sculpture for the plaza once again his personality was a factor. Vera G. List, a close friend of David Finn, 37

151



152

H enry moore in america

was the sculpture’s donor. John D. Rockefeller III had approached her husband to make a financial contribution45 although Finn has claimed that it was he who encouraged Vera List to make the donation. Her recollection was that she met with Bunshaft and agreed on Moore. Her husband Albert was one of Finn’s clients. In an entertaining account Finn has recalled: One day Albert List…an extraordinarily successful businessman came home and said [to his wife] ‘Honey the most wonderful thing happened to me today.…My friend John D. called me…( John D. Rockefeller III) and said ‘Albert, I want you to give $1m to Lincoln Center’, and I said to him ‘John D., I grew up as a poor boy, in Rhode Island, and never in my wildest dreams would I ever imagine that John D. Rockefeller III would ask me for $1m. John D, you got it’. ‘Isn’t that wonderful, honey?’ So Vera said ‘No, I don’t think it’s wonderful, I think it’s ridiculous’. He said ‘Why…Lincoln Center…we like going to concerts.’ She said ‘Listen, you like buildings – it’s your money, do as you want, but I’m not interested in that and I think it’s silly’. So he was like a hurt puppy dog. So I said ‘Listen, why don’t Vera and I go to see John D. Rockefeller together and decide how the $1m would be used?’ He said ‘Yeah honey, why don’t you go with David and decide’. So she said ‘O.K.’ So we went to see John D. Rockefeller III and they had a whole list of things that contributors could support, and one of them was $300,000 for a major sculpture somewhere in the middle of the Lincoln Center. I said to Vera ‘Wouldn’t it be wonderful to have a Henry Moore there?’ and she said ‘Yes, that’s true, O.K. I’ll agree to that.’46

Vera List visited Moore and described him in familiar terms as an ‘Exceedingly pleasant, warm person … he had a simpleness. Wonderful.’47 She believed that these qualities showed in Moore’s work in ‘honesty and a directness that was very easy.’48 The proposal for the siting of Moore’s sculpture in the reflecting pool was made by Eero Saarinen (1910–61) and Bunshaft.49 The censored Minutes of the Arts and Acquisitions Committee record that at the 22 November 1961 meeting Bunshaft described his concept for the ideal sculpture as being a massive bronze, with strong horizontal and vertical dimensions. He believed that Moore would be ideal. Key figures at New York’s MoMA were also involved with the project. René d’Harnoncourt was brought in by Nelson Rockefeller to coordinate the six architects50 and Alfred Barr was still an adviser

sculpture for the people : the symbolism of city parks

to John D. Rockefeller III at this point, thus the choice of art for the Centre could be seen as representative of a MoMA ‘aesthetic’.51 Philip Johnson felt that commissioning art constricted an artist and with hindsight did not believe that the Moore sculpture at the Lincoln Center was one of his best works.52 Concerning the controversy over the sculpture, he believed that this would not have happened if the issue had not entered the world of committees.53 It is certainly the case that for the majority of Moore sculptures discussed in this book the chance of committee debate and thus possible dissension did not arise. Events appear to have unfolded in this sequence. Kevin Roche (b. 1922), Eero Saarinen’s head designer and successor after the latter’s unexpected death in 1961, has described how Rockefeller’s representatives, including Gordon Bunshaft, went to England to visit Moore and look at possible sculptures.54 William Schuman also described visiting Moore and showing him a model of the pool. He has stated that many people in the art world felt that one of the major commissions should not have gone to a foreigner, but that this opinion did not last long.55 At a Board of Directors meeting in summer 1962 the Moore sculpture was agreed.56 Schuman was alerted to the possibility that Moore might be offered commissions at the Seagram Building and at Chase Manhattan. The sculptor was also considering a commission for the new Columbia University Law School Building which in fact was realised in October 1967. In the light of these developments the Committee immediately began to consider alternative sculptors. Schuman recalled this as a ‘most discouraging exercise. While Moore had been selected unanimously and enthusiastically, finding a replacement was just the opposite.’ They found it impossible to agree on a single sculptor. Frank Stanton (1908–2006) was an American broadcasting executive, a member of the Lincoln Center Board of Directors and chair of the Art Committee. He was also very close friends with John Rockefeller III. He persuaded Moore to visit New York to see the proposed setting at the Lincoln Center. He remembered everyone doing all they could to encourage Moore to accept the commission and not take on another work in the city. He wryly observed that it had been interesting to see the architects and

153



154

H enry moore in america

Committee members ‘work on’ Moore.57 He said that the sculptor was unknown to most members of the board, including John Rockefeller who apparently said something along the lines of ‘“Is he the man who puts holes in women where their breasts should be?”’ However, Stanton believed in Moore’s ability to ‘charm the birds right out of the trees.’58 In the event Moore was talked out of the Seagram commission by Bunshaft who characterised Philip Johnson’s vision of a sculpture for each pool in front of the building as being like ‘two candelabras.’59 In 1964 Stanton wrote to Schuman concerning a recent meeting with Moore: this was not the definitive session we had both hoped it would be. This was my sixth pilgrimage to Perry Green. Each visit has been pleasant as hell, but it’s difficult to get things pinned down… I set out to get hard facts on delivery dates, cost…siting…Moore cannot give us even a ball park figure for the finished sculpture until the West Berlin foundry head visits Much Hadham this week or next…60

Unlike William Schuman, Stanton’s recollection was that initially the architects were not in agreement about which sculptor should produce the work for the north plaza pool. Nonetheless, after some discussion it was decided that Moore would be their first choice, and if he declined then they would approach Jacques Lipchitz.61 Stanton believed that it was Bunshaft who proposed Moore and this was accepted without argument. Stanton also believed that Moore was right to decline the Seagram commission in favour of the Lincoln Center, describing the former as an ‘unattractive backdrop’ for one of his sculptures.62 However, when the Lincoln Center sculpture arrived Stanton received a telephone call from Newbold Morris (1902–66), Head of the Parks Commission, who said that ‘he wanted that junk out of there the next morning! I…told him who the artist was. Didn’t make any difference. That was on city property and he wanted it out. He threatened to have it removed the next day.’ Stanton replied that he would have every television station in the city there.’63 The matter was dropped. The New York Times published a special supplement on the Lincoln Center in September 1962 that included an advertisement by Bankers Trust who proposed an ideological alliance between business and art:

sculpture for the people : the symbolism of city parks

We’ve heard it said that New York is a money-minded city. Yes, this is a business center without parallel. But only because New York is a city that likes to lead – in finance … and especially in the arts … There has never been greater proof of New York’s culture-mindedness than Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts … Bankers Trust is, of course, money-minded. This is our function, and how we serve people and business in New York – including our many good friends in the arts.64

The supplement also included an article The Nation’s Culture: New Age for the Arts in which it was noted that ‘Everyone knows that the arts in America are booming…Men and women are building … cities on a scale never hitherto believed practicable… In … these vast … enterprises, the arts are bound to play a crucial role. They alone can humanize the great community of tomorrow, can provide a focus for the free days and years of leisure…’65 At the dedication ceremony on 21 September 1965, Mayor Robert F. Wagner Jr (1910–91) presented Moore with the City of New York’s Handel Medallion for Cultural Achievement, stating that the inauguration marked the first public display in New York of a work by this renowned contemporary sculptor.66 An hour-long CBS News Special on Moore was broadcast on 5 October. Henry Moore: Man of Form covered Moore’s commissions for the Lincoln Center and the University of Chicago. The viewer was told that the Lincoln Center piece would encompass the ‘total experience of the total man.’67 Frank Stanton referred to the choice of Moore as being based on ‘the almost instinctive recognition that, as Michelangelo had no peer in the Renaissance and Rodin none in the nineteenth century, Henry Moore has no equal among sculptors of the twentieth century.’68 He argued for great sculpture as speaking to all generations, as a sign of man’s humanity passed down from generation to generation, and defined Moore as being a great humanist as well as a great sculptor.69 Henry Moore: In New York City: From the Ablah Collection (1984) George Ablah’s acquisition of sculptures by Moore and his personal fondness for the sculptor underpinned his wish to allow as many people as possible to view quality art. He organised some research and

155



156

H enry moore in america

discovered that only 10–15 per cent of people ever went to a museum. He wanted to give ‘truck and cab drivers’ the opportunity to see art and estimated that about 200,000–300,000 people a year would visit his Blue Hill complex even though it was a long way from New York. However he wanted to do more and so he talked to David Finn and suggested loaning his sculptures to New York City. The two men went to see the Mayor, Edward Koch (1924–2013) and suggested an exhibition in the parks of New York’s five boroughs.70 Mayor Koch responded favourably to the proposal but said that guards and fencing would be necessary and costly as art in the parks was being destroyed. Ablah did not want fencing as he wanted people to be able to climb on the sculptures. Koch felt that insurance would also be a problem but agreed to start the process which would take about two years. Several public groups would have to work together and they had control of the money. His estimate for all costs was $2 million. Ablah was not prepared for such delays and so paid for all additional costs. In January 1984 he wrote to Larry Shar saying how he envisaged Moore’s sculptures being placed in the public parks that had a high visitor count. He wanted minimum security but realised that this was a risk, knowing that significant damage to the sculptures would be very bad for New York’s reputation, and would ‘prove once and for all that all of its open, public places are jungles, and therefore, New York itself is literally a jungle.’ In contrast, a successful exhibition throughout the five boroughs without major damage would be ‘an event worthy of a standing ovation. The media would materially dramatize a positive effect. It could very well be one of the first steps towards some sort of revival for the character of New York’s public places.’71 As ever, just who instigated this project is debatable. Some letters suggest that the idea came from the Parks Commissioner Henry Stern. In a March 1985 letter to Stern, Ruder Finn’s Caroline Goldsmith wrote: ‘From the beginning, when you suggested to the Ablahs…your vision of all the parks…I knew we had a winner when I saw the gleam in George’s eye.’72 However, in David Finn’s book One Man’s Henry Moore, he stated that he and Ablah talked to Bess Myerson of the New York Cultural Affairs Department about a possible show, which implies that they suggested the idea to her73 and in fact publicity material for the exhibition does credit Myerson

sculpture for the people : the symbolism of city parks

with proposing the project. Whatever the facts were, Myerson was an old friend of Finn’s and it is likely that all the above were involved in some measure. Finn and Stern visited the proposed sites in the five boroughs to pinpoint the exact locations for the sculptures and to decide on the right dimensions for their pedestals.74 Finn told Ablah that a special insert for The New York Times would provide good publicity. It could include photographs of all the sculptures as well as a map showing their location, and for this Finn photographed all the sculptures in situ. Whilst he was doing this he found that people asked him what was happening and that they appeared interested in the project. ‘There were no slurs made about the works, unlike the time I photographed the marble carving of “Large Arch” that Henry gave to Hyde Park … “Using public space to promote his own ugly work!” said a passerby in disgust. “It’s criminal.”’ A paperback book containing all Finn’s colour photographs of the sculptures was published with an introduction by J. Carter Brown.75 For its title they borrowed André Malraux’ phrase Museum Without Wall.76 Fig. 35 shows the David Finn photograph used on the cover of The New York Times supplement for the exhibition.77 The sculpture is Two Piece Reclining Figure: Points (1969–70) which was placed in Central Park’s duck pond. Roger Berthoud has described the exhibition’s accompanying film Museum Without Walls (1984) – which also showed Moore on the eve of his eighty-sixth birthday – as comprising ‘Predictable but touching quotes from people saying how interesting and stimulating it is to see …the sculptures there, they make you wonder what they are, just love them etc – a few token hostile ones. One says, spontaneously or otherwise, that it’s like a museum without walls.’78 Certainly the film was intended to demonstrate the importance of displaying art in a public urban location to a large audience. It was hoped that after viewing the film other city governments would be encouraged by the project’s ‘pioneering spirit’ to undertake something similar in the visual arts.79 Virginia Ablah said that the New York parks provided a ‘natural’ setting and it is the case that the film does not give the impression that Moore’s sculptures are at the heart of a city. Instead its focus is on panning shots, on individual works being installed and children enjoying themselves. With a celebratory tone, complete

157



158

H enry moore in america

with brass bands playing, the film was underwritten by Ablah and broadcast on public television. In accepting the loan of the 25 Moore sculptures Mayor Koch pronounced: ‘This act goes beyond philanthropy. The loan to a city of one work by the world’s foremost living sculptor would be an event of major importance. The loan of 25 Henry Moore sculptures is an extraordinary tribute to New York City as the great center for arts and commerce that it is. We take pride



Advertising Supplement to the New York Times, ‘Henry Moore in the Parks’, 1 July 1984, showing Two Piece Reclining Figure: Points 1969–70.

Fig.35

sculpture or the people : the symbolism of city parks

in calling our city the cultural capital of the world.’ Bess Myerson enthused ‘It is turning the whole city into a museum.’81 There was some discussion of the social benefits of the sculpture exhibition with the argument that acceptance of the sculptures by the community would engender a sense of pride and ownership. Thus the sculptures would be respected, with parents discouraging their children from acts of vandalism. Therefore it was felt important that sculptures placed within a particular locality should be chosen for their ‘ability to adapt and be accepted by the host community.’82 It would seem that once again the non-specificity of the Moore sculptures, and their perceived relationship to natural and organic forms, would make them ideal for such a role, particularly since there is no further evidence as to how individual sculptures were designated to particular areas. Henry Stern has also said that there was no negative response in the outer boroughs and that the fame of Moore appeared to have been interpreted as a compliment to local citizens, even if they had to be told that Moore was indeed a famous artist. Concerning whether there was anything particular about Moore’s work that lent itself to public, urban display, Stern believed that it was ‘less ugly, not offensive to the eye’ as compared with other art and he was of the opinion that Moore’s work inevitably ended up ‘as the Norman Rockwell of the art world.’83 The iconic status of Moore’s sculpture prompted the type of response seen when people pose for their photographs in front of famous landmarks. Fig. 36 goes further in its ‘doubling’ effect – undoubtedly this image has more to say about the photographic impulse and the nature of fame than it does about this particular sculpture. Despite Ablah’s enthusiasm it appears that the practicalities of accommodating his offer to loan the Moore sculptures caused some difficulties for the New York bodies involved and it is probable that this undertaking would have run considerably more smoothly had Philadelphia been offered the same opportunity. However, the parks authorities were impressed by the success of the exhibition. There had been a minor amount of graffiti, but this had been far outweighed by the scale of the project and the numbers of visitors.84 Mayor Koch was quoted as saying ‘Isn’t it wonderful? Now if we can only do that for the trains.’85 Even The Philadelphia Inquirer commented on the unusual absence of vandalism in ‘a city where statues and subways serve as graffiti artists’ scratch pads…’86 Educational 80

159



160

H enry moore in america

events were organised, including a free lecture tour through Brooklyn Botanic Garden, and screenings of Henry Moore: the Sculptor produced by the Encyclopaedia Britannica Educational Corporation. Exxon had also provided financial support.87 At the end of the exhibition the Ablahs donated to the City Moore’s Two Piece Reclining Figure: Points (Fig. 35) which was estimated to be worth $1m. This took place on 28 March 1985, a press release from the Mayor’s Office describing the sculpture as ‘a new landmark and a lasting legacy. We will cherish this beautiful addition to our panoply of public art.’88 The New York Times reported that more than 500 New Yorkers responded to the request from Stern and the Ablahs for suggestions as to a suitable permanent



Henry Moore, Reclining Mother and Child 1975–6, Brooklyn Botanical Gardens, New York, 1984.

Fig.36

sculpture or the people : the symbolism of city parks

site for the sculpture. There were many votes for Battery Park and a lot for somewhere in Brooklyn to show that New York City was comprised of more than Manhattan. Another suggestion was to place the sculpture at the end of a tunnel or bridge coming into Manhattan in order ‘to ease the disillusionment of arriving in a city that appears magical from afar but dingy up close.’89 However, in the following year The New York Times had to report that the sculpture’s raft had come loose and floated to shore. Attempts would not be made to place it in its original site as it was now beyond the six month period that the Art Commission had given permission for the sculpture to remain in the duck pond.90 Ablah had felt that this was the most suitable permanent location; however apart from having come adrift from its moorings the sculpture was covered in bird droppings. This situation continued for several years and Ablah was concerned that the sculpture was not being maintained in the way Moore would have wished. Writing to Finn in 1989 he said that he would like to remove it from the park and find another suitable site.91 This sculpture proved both difficult and controversial for the New York authorities although the Art Commission did approve the removal of the work in 1989.92 There is no further documentation concerning this sculpture in the city files and so the trail goes cold. David Finn does not know of the sculpture’s whereabouts.93 It is clear that before the New York Parks exhibition took place Ablah had been seriously considering selling his Moore sculptures to a major museum, and attempted to organise this with the National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC where Carter Brown suggested a Moore Sculpture Garden be built. Ablah was very interested and loaned the Gallery several sculptures to be placed outside the East Wing, agreeing to pay for the landscape designs for the garden.94 However, a very unfortunate episode occurred when Ablah thought he might have a home for his sculptures in Washington. He wanted to have a cast of King and Queen or a Family Group. Moore would not be able to make another cast since all the current owners would have to agree to this, which would be unlikely. So David Finn contacted D.J. Morris, Headmaster of the Barclay School, Stevenage, the owner of an early Moore Family Group, concerning the possibility of Ablah purchasing this sculpture. In view of a subsequent exchange of letters between 161

161



162

H enry moore in america

Moore and Finn it appears that there had been a misunderstanding as to Moore’s wishes and it has to be remembered that the sculptor was in the last few years of his life. Finn described to Moore Ablah’s plans for an exhibition in Central Park. He emphasised that the Metropolitan Museum of Art was close by and that there might be a possibility of ‘a special wing’ being created, specifically to contain some of Ablah’s sculptures. Finn told Morris that Moore had asked that he and Ablah act as his ‘personal representatives’. Ablah felt that to be comprehensive, the collection needed a cast of Family Group, and was offering to pay £500,000 for the sculpture. An alternative offer made to the Barclay School in July 1983 was that Ablah give the School a cast of a later Moore sculpture of a similar size, as well as £250,000.95 Two days later Moore wrote to Finn saying he would be pleased if Finn ‘would look after my interests in advising Mr. Ablah to make sure that whatever is done is realized in the way I would like.’96 Later, in August 1983 Moore wrote to Finn, clearly showing either a change of mind or a breakdown in communication between the two men: I’ve come to the conclusion that it would be very wrong for me to attempt to persuade the school to sell the sculpture…especially at such a high price which might tempt the school to agree to sell it. Therefore, I think we should drop all negotiations over the sculpture…since I feel that this would be a betrayal of the agreement I originally made with the school.97

Finn has recalled that:

When I had been to the Barclay School to photograph the Family Group the head of the school hadn’t seemed fully aware of the importance of the sculpture and even wondered why I had come all that way to photograph it…So I thought perhaps the promise of a substantial amount of money that could be used for school improvements, plus a replacement, might appeal to him…Henry…was impressed by the generosity of the offer, and said that if the head of the school was interested, he would agree…Something must have happened between the time I spoke to Henry and the time he received a copy of my letter. He called me up on the telephone with a tightness in his voice and said that under no circumstances did he want the Family Group removed from the school…the matter was dropped.98

In the event the 1970s oil crisis and changes to the tax laws meant that Ablah could not finance his plans for a permanent home for

sculpture or the people : the symbolism of city parks

his Moore sculptures. He could not even afford to give them to the National Gallery ‘because some of his banks had been his partners in their purchase.’99 After the 1984 New York Parks show Ablah was approached by the owner of the Hakone Sculpture Park in Japan who wanted to make purchases and who estimated that his park had about two million visitors every year. Ablah had this figure verified and agreed to sell about 15 of the large sculptures, on condition that they would not be sold on and would always be placed outside and be free to view.100 David Finn had to visit Japan on business, and so he visited Hakone and had dinner with owner Mr Shikanai who agreed to buy about half the collection for well over $10 million.101 The rest of the sculptures were bought by Donald Hall of the Hall Family Foundation. These sales came almost within a month of Moore’s death. Roger Berthoud has given some figures for the sales: 16 sculptures to the Hakone Museum and 57 to the Hall Family Foundation, the original 100 Moore sculptures having been acquired for $22 million. With the sale, Ablah made an $8 million profit, still retaining 27 sculptures for himself.102 The 57 works that went to the Hall Family Foundation reportedly fetched about $20 million. The Foundation, a long-term patron of the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art in Kansas, would lend the sculptures to this Museum. At this time, three of the large sculptures that would go to Kansas City were still on loan to the National Gallery in Washington, DC but the possibility of the works being gifted to the Gallery by a donor had not transpired and Carter Brown commented that ‘the price was pretty steep’. He and Ablah had tried to find a donor for the works to belong permanently to the National Gallery, The New York Times reporting on provisional plans for the sculptures to be the catalyst for a National Sculpture Garden on the Mall. Under this plan other Moore works would also have been circulated throughout the country to various museums and municipalities.’103 The purchase by the Hall Family Foundation was reported to be its first art acquisition and their President Bill Hall believed that the collection was so important that it needed to remain in the United States, but would also be a great asset to Kansas City.104 Discussions around the arrival of the Moore sculptures at the Nelson-Atkins reveal interesting intersections between the concerns of the Museum and those of the City.

163



164

H enry moore in america

Kansas City and the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art (1970s–80s) In the 1970s a major Moore sculpture Sheep Piece (1971–2) was acquired by Kansas City (Fig. 37). In 1973 Ralph T. Coe (1929– 2010), the Museum’s Assistant Director, wrote to Moore expressing everyone’s pleasure at its imminent arrival, comparing it favourably with Moore’s Lincoln Center commission.105 Jane Wade also wrote to Moore concerning Sheep Piece. The fluidity of meaning attached to Moore’s sculptures according to their locality is interesting and in this instance becomes somewhat comedic. She wrote: Since Kansas City wants a piece that they can present as a symbol of Pioneer Spirit sic), they feel they must have it Unique (only one) because how could the same cast, representing the Pioneer Spirit of Missouri, exist in other countries!…Call it what you may but please try to imply in the title something about a ‘Forward’ or ‘Westward’ or ‘Developing New Spirit’…I am sure, should you wish, you could make slight variations on this cast No. 1 and it would be a different piece with a different title. 106



Henry Moore, Sheep Piece 1971–2, Kansas City.

Fig.37

sculpture or the people : the symbolism of city parks

The sculpture would be funded from a trust established by N. Clyde Degginger107 a Kansas man who had been successful as a farmer, store manager and on the stock market. He died in 1967 and his trust was due to terminate in 1976, at which point any remaining funds would revert to the Kansas State Historical Society to pay for a commemorative sculpture in Topeka. So in order to benefit from this legacy Kansas needed to act quickly. The will specified a sculpture to be sited close to an art gallery or some other public building.108 Wade wrote to Moore: I know it may be a bore to you but it isn’t to Kansas City!…may I give you ideas about what the “Pioneer Spirit” means today to Kansas City? To the intelligentsia…you as an artist represent that pioneering spirit which stirs their own ancestral pride…Henry Moore’s sculpture will… forever symbolize achievements of their 19th century frontier breaking forbearers as well as your own. That’s just one reason this piece belongs in K.C. Can you name it?109

Moore responded: I’ve been thinking for some time past about my large sculpture for Kansas City, and its relevance to the pioneering spirit of that great town. In the sense that I believe my career as an artist has been one of exploring new possibilities in the art of sculpture…I hope that most of my work has shown and contained the ‘Pioneering Spirit’.… could we not call this sculpture just Henry Moore’s ‘Sculpture for Kansas City’ or Moore’s ‘Kansas City Monument’…or ‘Kansas, Missouri, monument’ or ‘Moore monument for Kansas City’ or ‘Two Forms’ Monument for Kansas City’. The sculpture is in two related forms. One form is solid and passive, resting firmly on the ground and strongly resistant – the other form, slightly larger and more active and powerful, but yet it leans on the lower form, needing it for support. If one wants to find a symbolic interpretation…then one form could represent the…wives of the early pioneers, who gave the necessary basis for the men’s more active determination and perseverance, but both depending on each other!110

There were differing opinions concerning where the sculpture should be sited. A possible location was in a park with plenty of space, or possibly in a downtown location.111 Moore favoured a landscape setting, considering Sheep Piece to be a ‘rural’ rather than ‘urban’ sculpture. Therefore his preference would be for the park setting and

165



166

H enry moore in america

as a second choice the Nelson-Atkin’s garden.112 Brian Dunning of the Kansas City Star wrote to Moore in 1975 describing the controversy in Kansas and the newspaper’s involvement in the debate. He also underscored the citizens’ perception of Kansas as the ‘capital’ of the old ‘Wild’ West. He described several possible locations in the City and believed that if the Museum were chosen this would be rather predictable and orthodox since the sculpture would be seen by regular gallery visitors rather than by a broader public.113 Moore visited the suggested sites in April 1976, arriving on a private flight from Dallas. His visit to the United States had commenced on 12 April when he had advised on the placement of his sculpture at Washington’s National Gallery of Art and he then went to visit friends in Dallas.114 In the event the Kansas City Council passed a resolution on 7 May 1976 to place the sculpture in the grounds of the Museum. The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art had opened in 1933, funded by William Rockhill Nelson (1841–1915), founder in 1880 of the Kansas City Star, and by the estate of Mary McAfee Atkins (1836– 1911) who was a Kansas citizen. Nelson’s house, Oak Hall, was pulled down in 1928, the site to be the location of his art gallery. His legacy was continued by his heirs and so substantial funds accrued.115 The opening of the neoclassical museum was regarded as recognition of the City’s ambitions to create ‘a temple to art and culture that would inspire and uplift all.’116 From the outset the Kansas City Star had crusaded for civic improvements117 and ran lengthy articles on the achievements of other American parks. Thus the idea of an art museum situated in extensive parkland was strongly advocated. Peggy Collins of Hallmark Cards wrote to the Director of the Department of Parks and Recreation in early 1987 setting out the Foundation’s intention of assembling a group of experts to decide on the siting at the Museum of the sculptures and the landscaping of the grounds.118 I.M. Pei’s landscape architect William Dan Kiley, along with architect Jaquelin Robertson, won the commission. Kiley also worked on the placement of Moore’s sculpture at New York’s Lincoln Center and at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, DC. The final selection advisory board included Finn as well as Bernard Meadows who was then at the Henry Moore Foundation.119 On a visit in 2003 the author saw 12 Moore sculptures on display in the

sculpture or the people : the symbolism of city parks

Museum’s 17 acre garden, and when the exhibit opened on 4 June 1989 it was characterised as a collaboration between the Museum, the Hall Family Foundation and the Board of Parks and Recreation Commissioners. Ten of the sculptures are part of the nearly 60 works acquired by the Foundation in 1986 from George Ablah, with advice from David Finn whose firm had been hired to advise on a suitable landscape architect.120 Finn has recalled that some of the sculptures were tried out in different locations in Kansas as ‘a sort of miniature Ablah project’. This was the by now familiar concept of preparing citizens for a subsequent permanent installation. Finn photographed each sculpture in its temporary location and a small pamphlet entitled See Moore in Kansas City was published as information for both local residents and tourists. Finn recalled that people were sorry to see the sculptures leave their neighbourhoods when they were moved to the Museum but the scheme had succeeded in generating enthusiasm for the Moore Sculpture Garden.121 The two remaining sculptures located outside were already in place when the Sculpture Garden opened, one being owned by the Museum and the other by the city. Maquettes and working models are permanently exhibited inside the Museum in the Rozzelle Court Gallery. Donald Hall believed that the sculpture collection would provide a sense of civic pride122 and it was proposed that Moore’s sculptures would be an inspiration to the community, and that he ‘perhaps more than any other modernist sculptor, is appreciated by a diverse audience. He seems to capture the imagination and affection of the general public and not just that of art aficionados … Moore’s work would notably enhance the city’s image …’123

167



9

Good Public Relations: Sculpture and Business

I want to explore the similarity between American civic and corporate aspirations in the post-war period, and how these could be visualised through Moore’s monumental bronze sculptures. I will examine the relationship between sculpture and the American corporate world where businesses used Moore’s monumental works to convey notions of initiative and leadership, as well as to position themselves as responsible corporate ‘citizens’ through their art patronage. I draw extensively on journalism which vividly illustrates this situation and it is clear that in the post-war period a massive expansion in corporate publishing allowed the relationship between art and business to be widely exposed. The concept of modern art as adornment and the importance of its integration into contemporary life, both private and public, were ideas strongly promoted by influential American individuals such as Alfred Barr and Nelson Rockefeller. In 1939 Rockefeller declared ‘We are all concerned in having our presentday surroundings more attractive. And that in the broadest sense is modern art.’ One aspect of MoMA’s role has been described as ‘selling’ modernism in order to ‘incorporate it in the American home’1 and of course the taste that was being encouraged for the domestic sphere could easily be transferred to the working environment, the ‘home’ for most people for the greater part of their day. Aside from his business and political activities Rockefeller was a key figure at MoMA, where Alfred Barr shared Curt Valentin’s wishes that modern art be seen as a key component of modern life. A 1949 show Modern Art in Your Life, celebrating MoMA’s twentieth anniversary, was intended to demonstrate a visual link between ordinary everyday objects and modern painting and sculpture, and that modern art could therefore be integral to modern living.2 One page in the catalogue dealt with 168

good public relations : sculpture and business

designs that were characterised as ‘Organically Stylized Form(s)’ and included a reproduction of a Moore reclining figure. The impact of such influential men in New York and international art and business circles was important in encouraging collectors to purchase Moore’s sculptures for their homes and offices. During World War I several major American artists had produced material that would be used as propaganda. The success of this initiative was noted by businessmen ‘some of whom were deeply involved with wartime mobilization’ who ‘could not help but notice the impact of clever design on public opinion. They stored the lesson away for future use.’3 In addition there were tax incentives encouraging American corporations to sponsor the arts; after the Revenue Act of 1935 such sponsorship consolidated a business’s claims for social responsibility as the Act effectively introduced a ‘wealth tax’. The American corporation was now answerable to its ‘country as well as …its shareholders. The business of America was not only business, but also good giving.’4 The alliance of business and culture improved a company’s competitive potential; the display of artworks in corporate offices represented more than the exercising of good taste – it was now a marketing tool, linked to the company mission statement. In some quarters these activities were described as indiscriminate and that the wealthy American businessman inevitably developed ‘a gluttonous appetite for “Art” and “Culture”’, perceiving ‘art collecting and sometimes fledgling art patronage as one of the many validators of his newly found nobility … the new plutocracy of railroaders, financiers and industrial conglomerates had in common with Maecenas…their seeming fondness for conspicuous consumption…’5 Indeed Harriet Senie has argued how corporate art acquisition mirrors the culture industry: ‘A blue-chip art collection outside corporate headquarters is a sign of prestigious respectability. By transferring a museum aura to the corporation, it changes corporate identity in a subliminal way. It also transforms art into an advertising tool, an enhancer of the corporate image, and as such potentially neutralizes its power…’6 Analysis of the relationship between art and business has been sporadic; where the subject has been addressed (most notably Eells 1967, Jacobson 1993 and Wu 2002) the emphasis has generally been

169



170

H enry moore in america

on the acquisitions made by individual corporations rather than on individual artists who have seen their works most frequently placed in such contexts. Businesses who amass corporate art collections can powerfully affect both consumers’ responses to their products as well as more widespread perceptions of that company’s contribution to society. More precisely, investment in contemporary art can be interpreted as a demonstration of initiative and leadership, exactly those qualities valued by the corporation itself. If we view businesses as microcosms of society, it is reasonable that they share the same desire for objects that signify taste, discernment and wealth, both cultural and financial. In fact the enthusiasm that corporate leaders have frequently demonstrated for the collection and support of art has been described ‘as a locus of social distinction to which their elite status and class aspirations are anchored.’7 In post-war Britain there was some anxiety concerning the impact of American culture which, given the timing, contrasted vividly with the enthusiastic and concurrent purchase of Moore’s sculptures by American businesses. For example a 1951 article in Arena suggested that powerful families such as the Rockefellers were attempting to ‘impose their way of life on other countries and…therefore threaten British culture…The centre of world imperialism has shifted…from Britain to the United States…From this has come the vision of an “American century”…ruled by the American trusts.’8 More extreme was the view that the importation of American popular culture was deemed to be ‘a valuable means of converting other peoples to the ideas of American big business.’9 A major response to this was to turn the Festival of Britain into ‘a kind of shop window for earning American dollars. It is meant, with its glitter and glamour, to hide from the British people the fact that Britain, with all its achievements, is being sold piece by piece.’10 Negative appraisals of Moore’s career originating in Britain were explicitly linked to the business and political worlds in which he was achieving his major American sales. For example, his apparent distance from the contemporary art scene and the increased size and editioning of his sculptures prompted one observer to state that Moore ‘relied on momentum. Everything was editioned…Every piece was exploited…over the last 20 years or so…the great sculptor…along with bankers and real estate men,

good public relations : sculpture and business

presidents and the like…was operating in orbit.’ Coexistent with the economic and political imperatives of the special relationship as driven by the country’s leaders was a more widespread conservatism amongst the British general population towards America and the style of that country’s political, corporate and cultural leaders. In contrast, Moore appeared to have appreciated the openness, enthusiasm and entrepreneurship of his American patrons who were happy to use his sculptures to symbolise ‘political harmony and economic strength’, particularly within the business sectors.12 In addition European art was becoming increasingly popular in the United States and of course Moore benefited from this trend. America was described as having become a ‘storehouse’ of such art, ‘accomplished in the full light of publicity, as newspapers, magazines, and fiction of the day revealed. Journalists, novelists, and critics found the international competition for art, like the race for empire, a spectacle of considerable significance.’13 Journalism can vividly convey how companies used art for social advancement, supplying clear evidence of the ambitions of company chairmen and chief executive officers, often through direct quotation. In addition it can show the interaction between these men, across companies, through joint directorship of various corporations, participation in business societies, being active within exclusive social clubs, and serving as trustees for charitable and cultural bodies. This elite group naturally wished to confirm their dominance within the business and social arena: their involvement in artistic activities could be a powerful public expression of such aims. American businessmen who were keen to acquire art would find time to visit artists’ studios as well as going to galleries and auctions. Part of the appeal of such activities was that they might be seen as on a higher plane than the day-to-day activities of the corporate world.14 In such ways corporate economic capital was transformed into personal cultural capital, completely in harmony with the core aims of a business.15 In the 1940s American businesses also saw the benefits to be reaped from expanding their publishing activities. In 1946 an article in the Magazine of Art noted that corporations were not only purchasing art for their offices but were also producing in-house journals full of high quality colour reproductions of artworks. These were disseminated free of charge and in large quantities, reaching 11

171



172

H enry moore in america

many people who never visited galleries or museums and thus were promoting the appreciation of art on a hitherto unknown scale.16 In this same issue of the Magazine of Art there was an advertisement by the Container Corporation (a manufacturer of cardboard containers) that made use of one of Moore’s Shelter drawings. This image had also been reproduced on the cover of ARTnews in September 1944, accompanying an article that discussed how fine art was currently accepted as an ‘efficient advertising medium’. It was argued that the use by the Container Corporation of the work of major artists might not make the consumer focus on the containers themselves but that they would respond favourably to the daring of the company in using such imagery.17 Along with PepsiCo, later to purchase some significant Moore sculptures for the company headquarters, the Container Corporation was singled out as being at the vanguard in using the most modern examples of art for its advertising campaigns.18 General interest journals also enjoyed increased sales in the immediate post-war period. American Vogue doubled its circulation between 1939 and the mid-1950s, and carried regular stories and photographs concerning modern art and artists, including Henry Moore. A feature article in Harper’s Magazine in 1947 described how the use of art for commercial reasons had taken it to new outlets such as calendars produced by Pepsi-Cola, advertisements and feature articles in prestigious publications such as Life and Vogue, onto the walls of post offices and into the collections of new corporate art patrons.19 By the 1960s artists were benefiting from the general economic boom in the United States and the effects of the expanded mass media, their names becoming as familiar as those of politicians.20 An understanding of the role of publicity and the power of image is clear throughout the period of Moore’s consolidation within the American corporate world. In 1956 Art in America published a special issue entitled Art and Industry where it was stated that ‘the modern corporation is still quite surprised (and in many cases not a little pleased with itself ) to find its members meddling in the affairs of culture…’21 The clichéd perception of the artist as beyond the constraints of bourgeois society could also be aligned with business aspirations. A former Chairman of the Board at the Sinclair Oil Corporation stated in 1969 that:

good public relations : sculpture and business

The artist is the prototype of the free-questing individual…in his works we find the nearest reflection of the human condition, its tensions and its direction. Where there is a vigorous artistic life, innovation, experiment, and challenge irresistibly communicate themselves to every other segment of society. Without these qualities, business would lose its forward thrust.22

Such an attitude explains why corporations might be interested in the ‘treacherous ground’ represented by the acquisition of contemporary art as opposed to that of the old masters. The innovation of avantgarde art supplied companies with a model for the promotion of themselves as progressive organisations.23 As early as the 1940s American industry was said to have adopted the same role as that played by the church in the Renaissance, and as having the financial resources and the commercial ambitions prerequisite for major corporate art collecting.24 In Philip Hendy’s papers there is an untitled and undated American journal article in which it is argued that: ‘Art is our new religiosity…art is also big business…And art is status…You got art, you got class…Art, finally, is immortality.’ MoMA’s Alfred Barr was referred to here as a ‘high priest offering communion, salvation in the form of Visual Sensation, absolution of sins.’25 More precisely, major sculptural commissions operated as ‘logos’ for corporations and thus helped to convey the desired image to potential consumers.26 Moore was particularly well placed since the post-war period also saw a shift towards corporations favouring abstract over representational art – a major reason for this appears to be that the lack of specific imagery or narrative made such works less likely to excite controversy.27 Thus the meaning of much contemporary non-figurative art became subsumed by the act of corporate purchase and by its new display location and function. As ‘décor’ such works would be selected on the basis of attractive formal attributes.28 Another key aspect that affected the corporate display of art by American business was the legacy of the world’s fairs held in that country. These acted as a focus for consolidating municipal identity and thus supported the developing relationship between the American city (in relation to both corporate and civic aspirations) and art.29 The fairs attracted enormous crowds and because of their scale and broad appeal have been characterised as legitimising ‘the principles of historical continuity and moral gentility which official urban culture

173



174

H enry moore in america

enshrined.’30 Thus the signification of the city as the site of cultural, corporate and civic excellence was explicitly validated through such events. For the corporation, as well as for the city in which it was located, engagement with art could promise world-class prestige and confer a sense of cultural respectability. The culture of display enshrined in these massive events can also be linked to the realisation on the part of businesses and civic bodies that forging relationships with major art museums could prove fruitful for both parties. This alliance of business, civic institutions and art museums was crucial to the progress of Moore’s career in the United States. John S. Harris has written on the conflation of American art, collecting and museums on the one hand, and American business, patronage and promotion on the other.31 He has proposed that prior to World War I, the broad public mass would view the American art landscape as ‘a giant triptych: museums in the center flanked by fairs on one side and great retail establishments on the other.’ These were different organisations but all operated in ways that upheld the respect for traditional old masters. In the years between the two world wars a shift took place. The formerly powerful art museum became outstripped by the increasingly sophisticated display capabilities of the fairs and department stores. It was less able to stamp its values on the public, and lost its power to the growing influence of commerce. Particularly interesting is Harris’ argument that developments in modes of display and styles of architecture on the part of business and retailers also undercut the impact of the museum on public taste.32 He writes about a president of the Metropolitan Museum of Art who ‘actually told a group of department store executives to remember that their influence was far greater than that of all the museums combined … urging them to become missionaries for beauty.’33 This link between business and the art museum became more pervasive as demonstrated in 1946 by a request from the Art Institute of Chicago that it exhibit 89 designs from the Container Corporation’s advertising campaign referred to above. The Institute’s Director Daniel Catton Rich believed that the dynamic principles of modern art could be used in other fields and argued for a shared ethos between contemporary art and the forward-looking corporation.34 After World War II the distinction between the art

good public relations : sculpture and business

gallery and the shopping mall lessened further as both functioned as ‘culture industries’.35 In 1952 the Dallas Museum of Fine Arts, with the encouragement of local art patron and businessman Stanley Marcus, organised an exhibition entitled The Pictures Businessmen Buy, displaying individual corporations’ collections. A comparable and highly successful exhibition was held in 1960 at the Whitney Museum of American Art entitled Business Buys American Art.36 A further example of the seriousness with which the relationship between art and business was being taken in America was demonstrated in 1978 when Princeton University hosted a conference The Corporation and the Visual Arts. This was attended by about 150 individuals with an interest in corporate art, including artists, museum directors and influential businessmen who were described as having ‘large gobs of greenbacks to keep those artists and museums out of the red …’37 David Finn was present and his close friend George Weissman of Philip Morris was quoted as stating that sponsoring exhibitions was ‘a lot cheaper than taking out ads saying how great we are.’38 Harris has argued that even though some people were concerned about the artistic tastes underpinning corporate art collecting there was no doubt that ‘Big Business remain[ed] fascinated, like an elephant transfixed by mice.’39 It became commonplace that business premises took on the character of the museum, that corporations present themselves as enlightened patrons, that artists be aware of the power of publicity and that galleries and museums become more like corporations.40 The exhibition at the Whitney also demonstrated that some corporate art collections were superior, both in terms of quality and quantity, to those of regional museums. The Rockefeller family vividly demonstrates the overlapping of cultural, political and business concerns so prevalent in the United States. Nelson Rockefeller praised the activities of the British Council in facilitating cultural exchange ‘as a subtle yet powerful means of propaganda.41 He also struck up a long-lasting friendship with Moore at the sculptor’s 1946 MoMA exhibition: Rockefeller had been the Museum’s President at that time. The national Business Committee for the Arts was established in New York to provide a focus for encouraging corporate leaders to support the arts in the United States, and in his 1966 Founding Address David Rockefeller stated that

175



176

H enry moore in america

‘Bankers and businessmen from the Medici to the Mellons have often been enthusiastic patrons of the arts’. He maintained that the current expansion of the arts was a vital sign of a civilised society, the success of which would be assessed largely by that culture’s artistic activities. The modern corporation had a key part to play, having developed ‘ideals and responsibilities going far beyond the profit motive. It has become…a full-fledged citizen, not only of the community in which it is headquartered but of the country and indeed the world.’ Such displays of social and cultural responsibility were also beneficial to the economic success of a business by enhancing its public image and thus profitability.42 Key figures in Moore’s career held important posts on the Business Committee for the Arts such as David Finn (Director Emeritus) and Raymond Nasher (Secretary).43 From a broad perspective the commercialisation of Moore’s practice, as opposed to the buying and selling of his art, started early in America and has rarely been discussed. In 1947 the Bertha Schaefer Gallery and the American British Art Centre in New York presented exhibitions of head scarves and printed fabrics produced by English company Ascher, with designs by contemporary artists including six by Moore, described by a reviewer as ‘the most outstanding in the exhibit.’ The Gallery argued that the scarves were suitable for presentation in a gallery that normally displayed contemporary painting because ‘They are well drawn…but at the same time they can be subordinated to objects of art, whereas cabbage roses are apt to run all over the place and there is nothing you can do to control it.’ The Gallery’s owner was described as a decorator…(who) likes to compose color schemes consisting of several shades of one color with small accents in one vivid contrasting hue…As an example she suggested using one of the Henry Moore designs in cerise on gray for draperies in a room with gray walls and floor covering. She might then introduce a vivid yellow in the upholstery fabric for a chair or sofa.44

The catalogue for the 1949 Buchholz Gallery exhibition Léger, Matisse, Miró, Moore: Panels and Sculpture, which had so infuriated the writer to LOOK magazine, emphasised the novelty of having large textile panels designed by a great painter such as Matisse and a great sculptor like Moore. The two artists’ designs were seen as fundamentally different, those by Matisse being ‘purely decorative

good public relations : sculpture and business

in the restricted sense of the word. Moore’s are pictorial and come therefore much closer to tapestry conceptions.’45 The American Federation of Arts (AFA) circulated exhibitions of Moore sculptures, particularly in the early 1960s. The AFA had a close relationship with the American business world with private, usually corporate, lenders to AFA exhibitions being commonplace. The name of Ruder Finn appeared frequently. A 1960s exhibition with the theme Mother and Child in Modern Art was sponsored by Clairol Incorporated, a company represented by Ruder Finn. Clairol’s Director of Fine Arts claimed that the idea for the exhibition came to her from looking down at her five-year-old son.46 At the exhibition’s opening in New York Clairol’s President stated ‘Of all the possible subjects upon which the artist can draw for inspiration, none has more universal appeal than that of “mother and child”. The universality of this theme applies to the advertising arts as well – and for Clairol it has become an important part of our corporate identity.’ A lithograph was available from a Moore print, Figures on a Blue Background, which was in the Clairol Collection. In the catalogue Moore’s mother and child sculptures were referred to as ‘a monument to a theme that he has lovingly created most of his artistic life; all maternal curves and gentle swells.’47 In the 1950s Clairol had attempted to demonstrate its commitment to art by establishing an amateur finearts contest for hairdressers. This competition had run for two years, but Clairol executives had then decided that they wanted to sponsor a major art project that would reflect the company’s good taste.48 Over 20 years later the accessibility of Moore’s mother and child sculptures was clearly evident when Johnson & Johnson in New Brunswick in 1986 acquired Draped Reclining Mother and Child (1983– 84). The sculpture was described as complementing the construction of the company’s new world headquarters in 1983, designed by I.M. Pei, who had recommended that the company acquire a sculpture by either Moore or Dubuffet. A Moore Mother and Child was chosen in order to make reference to the baby and child care products which formed the core of the company’s business.49 It was felt that the theme of the Moore sculpture was suitably aligned to their corporate ideals: ‘There is no better expression of our humanity than the mother and child…The idea of a mother and child is more important than a matter of fact depiction of the figures…Moore strives to escape a particular time (20th century)

177



178

H enry moore in america

and place (the western world), thereby making his work universally understood by peoples of different cultures and times.’50 Writing for the business community in 1976 David Finn published Art for Business’s Sake, Art for Art’s Sake in which he advocated the placement of sculptures in front of corporate buildings. He believed that it was fitting that Moore should be the choice of contemporary corporate collectors, even though in one company headquarters some employees puzzled over a new Moore sculpture for weeks but finally came to the conclusion that ‘the boss always chooses the best, so if he picked it, it must be good.’51 Finn explicitly relates quality in corporate matters to outstanding art, believing that business leaders have seen the wisdom of including art within their company in order to enhance the quality of life for both their employees and the wider community.52 His company was able to demonstrate this through a variety of means. Early in the company’s history they created a portfolio of posters that comprised photographs of sculptures accompanied by quotations from well-known artists, writers, philosophers or other types of leaders in their field. Entitled Thoughts and Images these posters were hung in the company’s offices across the world and also given to clients, hospitals and universities. Finn believed that the posters encouraged creative thinking: ‘It is a source of personal gratification when employees tell me they decided to work at Ruder Finn because our offices are filled with works of art.’53 In addition Ruder Finn published a regular inhouse journal Conference Room Quotations. Fig. 38 shows an example of how text was presented alongside an image of a Moore sculpture (also owned by Finn) in order to conflate text and image with the rationale of public relations. The co-option of fine art by American business as a means by which to directly lay claim to a common purpose between business ethics and art’s creative and humanistic concerns became increasingly overt from the 1940s onwards. In particular a corporation’s display of monumental sculptures would become a mechanism by which to reassure and entice current and prospective customers, placate new neighbours when relocating premises, and enhance the company’s public relations profile. By the same token art museums were indebted to commerce: in 1987 the Director of the Guggenheim stated that ‘Individual and corporate support has kept us in the black.

good public relations : sculpture and business

Not to mention cobalt blue, cadmium yellow, and burnt sienna.’ The potential decorative, commercial and contextual cachet of Moore’s work had been noted at an early stage in the United States. A 1959 article in Time commented on his great commercial success and described him as a ‘good businessman’ who could sell work as fast as he produced it.55 Eight years later Hilton Kramer argued that Moore was the first choice when American institutions were searching for a monumental sculpture to place in or alongside new buildings. He believed that the appeal of Moore’s work lay in its ‘massive but gentle forms, its bronze glitter and high-style rhetoric, its quality of being at once eminently modern and yet vaguely traditional.’56 For American businessmen Moore became the acceptable face of modern art as will be seen by the following examples. 54



The Ruder & Finn Review, 1977, showing Henry Moore, Seated Figure on Circular Steps 1957, owned by David Finn.

Fig.38

179



180

H enry moore in america

The Human Face of Commerce: PepsiCo, Purchase (1970s) Multinational company PepsiCo Inc. is a major example of an American corporation that publicly claimed to be concerned with more than making a profit. It stated that industry should display the same commitment to good citizenship as any individual, and that it should be active in community life in order to ‘protect and develop this civilization under whose rules and laws it operates…’57 As part of its mission to win over the local citizens PepsiCo worked hard on its image and clearly stated its wish to contribute to community life. This notion of the good corporate citizen was critical for PepsiCo’s acceptance within its new location, when in 1970, it moved its world headquarters out of New York. Its public sculpture collection would be pivotal, announcing a company of quality and one that shared its acquisitions freely with locals and visitors. The company had been resented by its new neighbours, the residents of Purchase, ‘an upper-class, horsy section of Westchester County’, but it was reported that the sculpture collection did indeed ‘mollify’ the local community.58 The New York Times reported on the 30 miles northwards move from Park Avenue, Manhattan, PepsiCo’s home for 20 years. It was argued that the company would have to take on a new role in the community, if only because it would be much more visible when removed from the numerous companies located in New York’s skyscrapers. In Purchase the company would become pivotal in the community of 2,000 people, private estates and country clubs, which had remained little altered for 60 years.59 Former Chief Executive Officer Donald M. Kendall (b. 1921) conceived the gardens in the 1970s to reflect the creativity of his company.60 However as early as 1944 PepsiCo had been the first company to extensively engage in commissioning American artists, choosing 12 to make a PepsiCo calendar entitled Portrait of America. This calendar was distributed to business associates and the original artworks were displayed throughout the company’s premises.61 In 1965 the company started its art collection which consists of a substantial number of works by major twentieth-century sculptors and these were put on display from 1970 when Edward Durrell Stone (1902–78) designed the site. Kendall took control of the selection and placement of the sculptures in the company’s gardens.62 Stone’s son, Edward D.

good public relations : sculpture and business

Stone, Jr (1932–2009) was engaged as the landscape architect and he has confirmed that most of the sculptures were placed by making decisions in the landscape rather than following a preconceived plan. Kendall apparently told a sceptical Purchase resident ‘We’re gonna turn that cow pasture into a new Versailles.’63 To allay fears that PepsiCo would import ‘an urban nightmare’ to Purchase Kendall told local residents that the company’s aim was to create a business context that would enrich and inspire employees and visitors alike. The beauty of the gardens would be enhanced by the addition of the sculptures.64 Kendall believed that sculpture was a perfect medium through which to convey his company’s sense of both stability as well as experimentation, reflected through the acquisition of artwork from ‘modern masters’ as well as from lesser-known artists.65 The site had originally belonged to a polo club and combined a large meadow area, where the building was located, and surrounding woods in which car parking could be placed unobtrusively. A river tributary was damned to create a lake. After completion of the building Edward Durrell Stone Associates continued to recommend improvements to Kendall. Russell Page (1906–85) was hired to further the layout of the gardens. He had designed numerous private gardens in Europe and his work was seen as ‘timeless, as far removed from questions of modernism as his gardens were from the public gaze…PepsiCo was his opportunity to create a final public legacy for a client as committed and wealthy as any European aristocrat.’ Page had become interested in gardens instigated by corporations in the belief that these would be the great gardens of the future. He believed that the impressive private gardens that had previously belonged to the landed gentry were on the decline, being overtaken by corporate gardens that would endure and provide pleasant experiences for millions of visitors. When invited to Purchase he saw the need to unify the landscape and sculpture.66 Page had been responsible for the design and planting of the Festival of Britain gardens in Battersea Park, for which he was awarded an OBE.67 Earlier he had worked ‘in the grand manner at Longleat’ and the 140acre PepsiCo sculpture park has been characterised as the culmination of his career.68 In the latter part of his life Page was involved in many United States projects that clearly reflect changes in patronage that had benefited Moore’s career. These included working with companies,

181



182

H enry moore in america

museums and governmental departments. He was proved correct in his pessimism concerning the private garden since many that he had designed have disappeared. By working in the public sector he hoped that this would not happen under the auspices of the foundations and companies that had taken on the role of patronage once held by the aristocracy and industrialists of the nineteenth century.69 Page devoted himself to PepsiCo’s ‘corporate villa’ from 1981 until his death.70 Stone Jr has recalled that it was his father who introduced Donald Kendall to sculptures by Moore and Alexander Calder, this being the catalyst for the collection’s formation.71 Jory Johnson has described how the company’s clients are at two extremes – the purchaser of fast food and those who invest in the corporation – and that the sculpture collection is ‘cleverly poised between the two client groups’ with high value abstract sculptures by Moore, Isamu Noguchi (1904–88), Calder, Rodin and David Smith (1906–65), alongside the most centrally positioned works which are a ‘sentimental bear and a playful dolphin by British sculptor David Wynne.’72 In 1970 Kendall found his first three Moore sculptures at one gallery in a single day and these were in the first group installed in the same year. In David Finn’s Sculpture and Environment Moore’s 1956 Reclining Figure at PepsiCo was described as being on a good site, passed by both visitors and employees going into the building. The large lawn enabled good views and the architecture was low so that the sculpture did not have to compete with a tall structure (Fig. 39).73 In 1971 the public were invited to view art in the gardens, to ‘sip free soda and munch free snacks’ whilst viewing what was estimated to be a million dollars’ worth of sculpture. The controversy surrounding the relocation was now seen as a past issue.74 Kenneth Clark, in a piece entitled Henry Moore Around the World, reported his thoughts on David Finn’s As The Eye Moves (1973) and the placement of Moore’s work near architecture. Here he argued that one of the most successful relationships between sculpture and modern architecture were to be found on college campuses such as at Princeton but even more so in the spacious landscaping around modern offices such as at PepsiCo.75 However Jory Johnson has commented that although Page had a genuine feel for each of the sculptures, he did not really like modern sculpture and was not particularly interested in its meaning.

good public relations : sculpture and business

Kendall also was described as mainly interested in ‘visual effects’. The result of this lack of curatorial cohesion could be a trivialising of the collection. Johnson noted that ‘from the dining room terrace … Arnaldo Pomodoro’s fifty-foot eroded columns, Wynne’s Grizzly Bear, and Calder’s bright red stabile look like uncomfortable guests at a cocktail party who have nothing to say to one another … a great deal of modern art is impolite and Page’s genteel settings can turn the works into mere garden ornament.’76 Hill Arches 1973 Deere & Co., Moline There are comparisons to be made between the ethos of the landscaping at John Deere and that at PepsiCo. Moreover both companies are situated some distance from, but in counterpoint to, a major city. In the case of John Deere, the nearest city is Chicago. Jory Johnson has described how historian Leo Marx in his book The Machine in the Garden argued that America had ‘struggled to reconcile a passion for the power and independence of the machine with a Jeffersonian love



Henry Moore, Reclining Figure 1956, PepsiCo, purchase.

Fig.39

183



184

H enry moore in america

and nostalgia for a pastoral landscape.’ As a result, there developed a ‘middle landscape…an ideal landscape free from brutish machines … the rawness and smell of working farms…the danger and hardships of untamed wilderness.’ Johnson characterised the landscape design of Deere & Co. to be ‘the epitome of the machine in the garden’ representing this ‘middle ground: modern in spirit, but conservative in its horizon of aesthetic expectation.’77 Here, as with PepsiCo, there existed a pastoral ideal. The landscape surrounding Eero Saarinen’s steel frame buildings did not accord with the architecture of the building which imposed itself on the landscape, underscoring the company’s production of machines. In contrast, the landscape speaks of a pastoral harmony between man and nature. ‘It is the land as it is imagined to have been before the plow [sic], before section lines gridded the prairie. It is the romantic repository of the American birthright that the machine forever erased. In fact, it is the ideal landscape before the arrival of John Deere in 1833.’78 In 1955 the company had moved from downtown Moline, Illinois to the countryside. The new building was placed in a valley and amongst trees. It is possible that this romantic placement aided acceptance of the modern architecture, and it was noted that farmers from the Midwest enthusiastically joined ‘architects and tourists in seeking out the remote award-winning headquarters.’79 Johnson described Moore’s Hill Arches as being more at home in such a location than ‘the Moores attempting to jolly up empty urban plazas across the country…its smooth mass isn’t about anything in particular, which is in keeping with the pastoral mode.’80 When Deere & Co. produced their new home lawn mower and demonstrated it to visiting sales representatives, the company began to mow everywhere…with all the mowing, the grounds look more like a golf course than a native Illinois woodland…the Deere landscape is…as technologically and structurally determined as the building. Yet most visitors believe the landscape is ‘natural’, that the landscape architect merely cleaned it up a bit and planted some trees along the entry drive.81

The company’s Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, William Hewitt (1915–98), asked Frank Stanton to recommend a major piece of sculpture. As a result Hewitt visited Moore who at this time felt that the mound he had constructed for Hill Arches at Much Hadham was

good public relations : sculpture and business

unsatisfactory. Hewitt described the island on his company’s lake and Moore felt that this might be a suitable location for the sculpture. David Finn was also involved, photographing the Moore in situ at Deere & Co. Viewed from the executive dining room the sculpture is seen as a low level silhouette against the sky, framed by willow trees.82 Hewitt argued that people spent more of their waking hours at work than at home, and so the office should be as attractive as the home. He acknowledged that it took a while for some of his employees to get used to modern art, but he also believed that the quality of art owned by the company helped in attracting high calibre people, the collection going part of the way to address the remoteness of the company from city art galleries.83 Another aim for the collection was that it should comprise artworks from all the countries where the company did business, in order to give employees an insight into these different cultures. Wherever possible Hewitt bought directly from artists and often did so after visiting them in person. Moore’s sculpture was installed on 31 August 1974. Fig. 40 shows the arrival of the sculpture in a special pamphlet produced by Deere & Co.



Deere & Co., Moline, brochure showing the arrival of Henry Moore, Hill Arches 1973.

Fig.40

185



186

H enry moore in america

Large Upright Internal/External Form 1981 Three First National Plaza, Chicago This monumental sculpture represents significant financial investment. Its visual impact and sheer physical scale within its urban setting are most striking. It is highly visible to all visitors to the plaza (Fig. 41). The presence of such works in impressive foyers is significant since the latter constitute major sites that can literally ‘entrance’ the viewer.84 Certainly the location of Moore’s sculpture in the foyer of Three First National Plaza exemplifies this. The typical materials for foyers of marble and stone have been related to the impact of Speer’s Berlin, part of a discourse of power through scale: The vertical dimension lends the building symbolic value as it lays claim to that awe-filled crick in the neck of the grand public and religious buildings of the past…The foyer is both a welcome celebrated with art and architectural display and also a kind of intimidation…This is not a



Henry Moore, Large Upright Internal/External Form 1981, 3 First National Plaza, Chicago.

Fig.41

good public relations : sculpture and business

place to linger, or for the casually dressed…In the foyer, the triumph of the surface reaches its peak as a spectacle of art, space and light, and the symbolic choreography of corporate discipline.85

Office lobbies in the 1950s had increasing security problems, their social function having disappeared, and so through necessity a new identity was created through the dominating effect of a large work of art, usually made of resilient materials.86 Chicago was the source of a 1973 feature on Lobby Art and Plazas where it was noted that: The long time railroad buff knows that there is a grain of truth in the adage ‘always polish station side.’ This refers to the need to keep at least one side of a passenger train sparkling clean: the side seen by the customers. Building managers don’t have to be told how important it is to keep their lobbies sparkling. The first impression each visitor experiences often affects the way he will feel about your entire building…If your building gives everyone a lift when they enter each day, you make the tenant’s job easier, his employees happier and…increase productivity.87

The Chicago office of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill were responsible for Three First National Plaza which was completed in 1981 as a 1.6 million-square-foot office tower. Bruce Graham had been introduced to Moore through Gordon Bunshaft and he believed that the sculptor was drawn to the idea of making a work for the business district of Chicago because of the presence of a Picasso sculpture near the Civic Centre, a Miró opposite the Picasso, a Chagall outside First National Bank of Chicago, and an Alexander Calder at the Federal Buildings. A number of these sculptures were donated by the artists to the City, and Moore did the same in giving a copy of the small inside figure of the Three First National Plaza sculpture to the Art Institute of Chicago.’88 Bunshaft loved Internal/External Form and Graham suggested that it should be scaled up to about 25 feet high, about four times larger than the working model. The owner of 3 National Plaza, Gerald D. Hines, was in agreement and the three men went to Much Hadham to see the sculpture in one of Moore’s fields. At the same time Moore took the working model of the interior piece, and released that as a new sculpture in an edition of six, and also six 2 feet high maquettes.89 The Hines acquisition and a concurrent one for the Art Institute of Chicago were announced at the same time on 6 May 1983 and the Mayor proclaimed this date as ‘Henry Moore

187



188

H enry moore in america

Day in Chicago.’90 The illustration shows Moore’s sculpture placed in the 9-storey lobby. Moore saw that the architects were looking for a sculpture that could be successfully viewed from the different levels of the building as people went up on the escalator and this was his tallest work to date.91 The Chicago Tribune reported that this double unveiling brought the total of Moore sculptures in the Chicago area to five, making him the best represented sculptor in the city. A familiar pattern unfolded as the same report noted that ‘a tantalizing selection’ of Moore’s work was on display at the Institute and at the Richard Gray Gallery. Thus it was understood that as well as celebrating the acquisitions for the city, Chicago was also previewing the large Moore retrospective due to open in the following week at the Metropolitan Museum in New York.’92 Large Two Forms, Gould Inc., Rolling Meadows, Chicago, 1978; the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Henry Moore: Sixty Years of His Art, 1983 David Finn met Bill Ylvisaker (1924–2010), Chief Executive Officer of Chicago electronics firm Gould Inc., when they both independently visited Moore’s studios on the same day.93 Finn was photographing Moore’s sculptures and amongst the images taken was one of Moore showing his Sheep Piece to Ylvisaker. When Finn next went to Chicago he visited Gould Inc. and gave a large print to Ylvisaker: ‘Stunned, he stood up, shook my hand, and said “I can’t tell you how much this means to me. I will always treasure it.”’ This photograph was a direct catalyst for Ylvisaker’s and Gould’s subsequent involvement with purchasing and publicising Moore’s work in America. It is a persuasive example of the power of photography in relation to the popularity of Moore’s sculptures and particularly that of David Finn. When he saw Gould’s offices Finn told Ylvisaker that he should buy a large Moore sculpture to be placed outside. Ylvisaker agreed and asked for Finn’s advice. Eventually Large Two Forms was chosen.94 Finn recommended this sculpture since he believed it to be one of Moore’s most impressive. He had earlier photographed the cast at the Neuberger Museum, Purchase and the other in front of Toronto’s Art Gallery of Ontario. He asked Moore if he would make a further cast and the sculptor agreed. To

good public relations : sculpture and business

ensure that Ylvisaker liked the sculpture Finn and his wife took him to see the version outside the Neuberger Museum. Whilst the cast was being prepared, Finn visited Gould and discussed possible sites; as a result a Picasso sculpture was moved so that Moore’s could be placed centrally on a green. In addition Finn said that Moore liked his work to be slightly raised up, in order to be appreciated from all angles, and so the entire area was re-landscaped to accommodate Large Two Forms. As Ylvisaker wanted Moore to see the sculpture in situ Finn arranged this to coincide with Moore’s visit to America to attend the unveiling of his sculptures in Washington, DC and Dallas.Ylvisaker had bought a maquette of the sculpture for donation to the Art Institute of Chicago at a special lunch. Unusually Moore got up to speak and this formed part of Bob Fresno’s film tracing the progress of the sculpture from its casting in Berlin to the placement in Rolling Meadows and concluding with Moore’s speech.95 This reveals a number of important points. Firstly the arrival of a Moore sculpture displaced one by Picasso. Secondly the purchase of a major Moore sculpture by a business was linked to a donation to an art museum. As we have seen this was also the case when a monumental Moore sculpture was purchased in 1983 for corporate site Three First National Plaza, Chicago. This pattern was pronounced in Chicago and mirrored in Dallas in relation to the new City Hall and the aspirations of the Art Museum. It creates a strong symbolic link between such powerful organisations. The third point highlighted by Finn is that the luncheon was filmed, as had been the process of the sculpture’s casting and transfer to Gould’s land. Such filmed records, as for Moore’s sculpture for Dallas City Hall, emphasise the process of production, the sheer scale of the task and the distances covered in bringing works that have their genesis in a tiny English village to a major site in America. Finally the claim here is that Finn and Ylvisaker chose the site although the company’s own house journal reported that the site was chosen by Moore, but significantly ‘from photographs of the mall leading to the headquarters building and the terrain in front of the building…modified according to Moore’s specifications…’96 The film, underwritten by Gould, shows Moore in various locations and includes his brief speech at the December 1978 Art Institute meal.97 The narrator notes that this is an occasion where

189



190

H enry moore in america

Moore provided a glimpse of himself as a public artist through giving a rare speech. Moore characterised the American character as youthful and energetic, enthusiastic about making a positive impact on the community. He had experienced this directly in cities such as Dallas and Chicago. In contrast he believed that England had lost this sense of innocence and initiative. It was certainly unusual for Moore to speak at public events, although he took part in countless interviews for written publication. Fig. 42 shows part of the publicity material for the Gould-sponsored film where a collection of photographic fragments of Moore’s head, the sculptor at work, and some of his pieces has been assembled. The imposition of the grid has a curious flattening effect on the individual elements and thus we view them less for their varying content but rather as a pattern. The Gould press release stressed the significance of Moore’s sculpture for the company, with Ylvisaker stating that the humanity of art was a necessity in the current technological society and that Moore embodied man’s progress towards greater understanding.98 In January 1982 Gould confirmed to David Finn that they wished to sponsor Moore’s 1983 exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, up to



Images on invitation to world premiere of Henry Moore, Robert M. Fresno film, Guggenheim Museum, New York, 28 May 1980.

Fig.42

good public relations : sculpture and business

a figure of $500,000. They asked to spread such payments over three years; they were currently undertaking a major cost reduction exercise within the company and preferred for the time being not to have any public announcements about their sponsorship.99 The following correspondence demonstrates Finn’s influence over Moore, perhaps exceeding even that of Kenneth Clark in Britain. Concerning the offer from Gould, Finn wrote to Moore: It would be nice if you could find the time to write to Bill Ylvisaker a letter telling him how pleased you were to see the book on Large Two Forms…You could also say that I have written you that Gould will sponsor an exhibition of your work at The Metropolitan and that you were very pleased to hear of this decision. You are looking forward to the exhibition and feel that it will be an important presentation of your work. You know that Bill Ylvisaker has been a good friend over the years, that he produced an outstanding film of your work with a commentary by Kenneth Clark and you are very pleased that the company is now going to sponsor The Metropolitan exhibition. If you do write, I would be grateful if you could send me a copy for my own files.100

Moore duly obliged, writing to Ylvisaker: ‘David has … told me that Gould will sponsor the exhibition of my work at the Metropolitan … I am delighted … to hear of this decision and I want to thank you for the great help you are giving.’101 Concerning the underwriting of the Metropolitan Museum exhibition Ylvisaker believed that this would ‘be a subtle approach to a distinguished promotion by Gould’; it would also reflect his admiration for Moore and his incalculable contribution to art. He was grateful for the assistance of Finn who had given guidance and communicated with Moore over the details of the purchase and siting of Large Two Forms, and the Metropolitan show.102 Moore’s major 1983 exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum of Art was promoted as celebrating the sculptor’s eighty-fifth birthday. David Finn was friends with Tom Messer (1920–2013) of the Guggenheim Museum and initially approached him with the idea. However when Bill Lieberman (1924–2005) left MoMA and moved to the Metropolitan he decided that he wanted his first project to be a substantial Moore exhibition. Finn got Messer’s agreement to the change of venue.103 However Finn has described how an even more ambitious project 191

191



192

H enry moore in america

might have been realised. A little earlier, Thomas Hoving (1931–2009) was Director of the Metropolitan and he had considered organising an eightieth birthday exhibition of Moore’s work, jointly with MoMA and the Guggenheim. He obtained an in-principle agreement from the directors of these two museums and also talked to Joseph Hirshhorn in Washington about a possible exhibition there. However Hoving left the Metropolitan which then had to focus on the opening of new wings; there was a feeling that a major exhibition in 1978 for Moore’s eightieth birthday would be organisationally problematic.104 This might also have included an outdoor exhibition in collaboration with the New York Parks commission.105 Finn discussed with Messer the possibility of Moore sculptures being displayed outside, possibly near the Guggenheim. Interestingly Finn credits Messer with having suggested (for the Guggenheim-centred show) ‘a floating platform in the reservoir in Central Park’ for the placement of sculptures, to provide a backdrop of water and trees.106 As has been seen, such a device formed part of Moore’s 1984 New York Parks Exhibition although unfortunately the platform came adrift. In 1980 the chairman of the board of Philip Morris Inc., with his wife, visited Moore in England. At this time they were the intended sponsors of Moore’s Metropolitan Museum exhibition. The couple were described as the oldest friends of the Finns, and Philip Morris as Ruder Finn’s biggest overall client, as well as one of the major corporate sponsors of the arts in the world.107 Finn was friends will Bill Lieberman and so when the latter proposed a Moore exhibition at the Metropolitan he understood their shared feeling that it was time for a major exhibition of Moore’s work to take place in New York. The whole of the Lehman Wing was given over to the exhibition. Finn offered to help in any way that he could since a major corporate sponsor would be required. Bill Ylvisaker heard about the plan for the Metropolitan exhibition and offered Gould’s sponsorship. Finn was asked to encourage Philip Morris to step aside. This was agreed and Gould became the sponsor of its first major art exhibition.108 In the exhibition catalogue Ylvisaker stated that the company believed its Moore sculptures to be ‘symbols of its commitment to innovation and exploration.’ Finn published Large Two Forms, a text on the Gould sculpture with an introduction by Kenneth Clark. In addition Gould

good public relations : sculpture and business

requested a mural of Finn’s photographs of details of Large Two Forms to be placed in the company’s lobby.109 Ylvisaker characterised his company’s support of the Moore Metropolitan exhibition as reflecting the importance they placed on creativity and originality in their corporate life. Moore was described as the world’s greatest sculptor and his monumental works were unquestionably the first choice as the ‘centrepiece of a great city plaza.’110 Elsewhere Ylvisaker argued for the usefulness of such art as a business motivator, in that ‘the continuing interplay of forms and spaces which one experiences in a Henry Moore sculpture stimulates our imagination and encourages us to seek new approaches in our research laboratories, training centres and in the management of our business.’111 A newspaper review of the Metropolitan Museum exhibition appeared under the heading Moore’s Art Perfect for the Reagan Era: During the 1960s and early 1970s, the sculpture of English artist Henry Moore became perhaps the most pervasive artistic status symbol in the developed capitalist world. In front of corporate headquarters, civic buildings and cultural centres built during that economically bullish period, Moore’s works provide prestigious emotional relief from the sterility of modernist architecture, and are mute tribute to the worldly wise internationalism of the businessmen who put them there.

It was claimed that Moore’s sculptures were ‘a silent member of the board…’112 However, Moore’s post-war work was also described as displaying: Cold War sexual clichés and artistic gratifications of the post-war white suburban family’s image of itself: father strong as a bridge, mother cast as archetypal earth mother, hearty children quite subservient to this totalitarian compositional arrangement…Is it any wonder that Moore is (or was) the darling of the macho North American business elite? It is fitting that this show should be taking place under the presidency of Ronald Reagan. This art is the embodiment of the romantic, hierarchical, sexist mythology to which Reagan is giving new respectability…113

In 1983 John Russell described Moore as many Americans’ ‘favourite Englishman’ both on a personal and an artistic level. For the past 50 years Moore had been the first choice for countless public commissions. His monumental sculptures placed on university campuses and in towns and cities were seen every day by thousands of Americans. ‘More than

193



194

H enry moore in america

any other artist of our time, he has been brought out of the museum and into the open and offered the gift of ubiquity.’114 Echoing my earlier discussions, in the exhibition catalogue Lieberman recognised Moore’s situation as ‘an official ambassador of British culture.’115 As Alfred Barr’s assistant, Lieberman had first met Moore in 1946 and he made some interesting comments on Moore’s contrasting status within the art and business/civic worlds in the 1980s. He described a decline in Moore’s reputation within the art world as due to the shift in his career to the production of monumental bronzes, an emphasis underscored by recent large exhibitions. Lieberman said that the show at the Metropolitan was extremely successful as it reminded people of the quality of Moore’s direct carvings in stone and wood.116 In terms of Moore’s general success in the United States Lieberman believed that Moore’s work was understandable to a wide audience and that this was somewhat rare. He believed that this was due to the humanity displayed in all of the sculptor’s work, adding ‘…a thousand Americans probably consider that Henry is one of their close friends…they’re genuinely dedicated to his work.’117 A smaller concurrent exhibition Henry Moore in New York took place at the Nathan Silverberg Gallery. This latter exhibition shows further interest in Moore’s work at this time, apart from the major show at the Metropolitan and the 1984 New York Parks exhibition. Given their official low profile in the United States it is interesting that the British Council were involved with the Metropolitan Museum exhibition via a major British arts festival entitled Britain Salutes New York, described as ‘a monument to private enterprise’. The Council gave advice on the programming of events and a total of £60,000 in financial support, of which £10,000 was allocated to the Moore exhibition.118 Two-Piece Reclining Figure: Cut 1978–80, the Pritzker Prize and the Hyatt Corporation The Pritzker Prize is the main award for architectural excellence, established by Jay Pritzker (1922–99) the Chairman and founder of the Hyatt Hotel Corporation. It was decided that a $100,000 prize be given annually and David Finn suggested that it would be good to

good public relations : sculpture and business

also give each winner a small Henry Moore sculpture. He was asked to liaise with Moore over this. Finn had hoped that different maquettes could be purchased each year, but Moore preferred to make a sculpture specifically for the Prize. Gordon Bunshaft was visiting Moore at this time and suggested a new version of Moore’s Two-Piece Reclining Figure: Cut. The edition of nine was purchased by the Pritzkers. When the first recipient Philip Johnson was given the prize, Finn’s photography of the sculpture was on display at the ceremony. When all nine casts had been given away, Moore was asked for permission to make additional casts, although this conflicted with his unbroken commitment to limit the editions of any given sculpture. In this instance he did consider making an exception as the sculptures would only be used for the Pritzker Prize but his wife Irina objected. She warned that some of the sculptures might eventually be sold, and the maquettes might suffer the same fate as some of Rodin’s sculptures, that of other casts being made and thus devaluing the sculpture. Moore agreed with her.119



Henry Moore, Working Model for Two Piece Reclining Figure: Cut 1978–80, lobby of Hyatt Corporation, Chicago.

Fig.43

195



196

H enry moore in america

The founding jury included Kenneth Clark, incongruously described as the ‘host of the very popular BBC television series “Civilization”.’120 Mr Pritzker also asked for the working model of the sculpture for placement in the reception area atrium of his new headquarters. Fig. 43 shows this in situ in 2003, the scale and context being notably successful. The Architectural Prize is still funded annually by the Hyatt Foundation. According to one of the company directors art had been used within the corporation since their first ‘atrium hotel’ of 1967. He believed that such art helped to create a sense of hospitality and that the purchase and display of art, fine interior design and great architecture were part of Hyatt’s philosophy in setting the company apart from its competitors.121 The Pritzker family also owns a version of the sculpture which is at a private residence. The Corporation itself has a study for the maquette, one of the maquettes itself, as well as the working model. The study maquette is slightly smaller than the ‘final’ maquette. Edward Rabin, President of the Hyatt Corporation from 2003 to 2006, did not know why Moore was chosen and why this particular piece of sculpture, but believed that Jay Pritzker was very impressed by Moore’s work, viewing it as sufficiently significant to be a very suitable gift to the Laureate to commemorate their receipt of the Prize. Rabin speculated that the first President of the Prize’s Jury, J. Carter Brown, could have played a part in the choice of a Moore sculpture. At the time Carter Brown was President of the National Gallery of Art in Washington, DC and it was possible that he was with Pritzker when the latter met Moore to select the sculpture. However, Pritzker Prize Attorney Allen Turner has said that Moore was suggested by Carlton Smith who was the first secretary for the Prize, and who knew Moore personally.122 Rabin believed that the choice of sculpture as part of the Prize was appropriate because of its affinity to architecture in terms of mass and form. Visitors commented favourably on the sculpture in Hyatt’s reception area as it was ‘highly recognisable.’ Rabin personally owned two Moore sculptures. Discussing the presence of Moore sculptures in the United States he characterised America as being a kindred spirit with Britain. Moore was a prominent sculptor who could be adopted by corporate America as a reflection of the latter’s long-standing

good public relations : sculpture and business

relationship with Britain. He felt that people not involved in the arts would be able to identify a Henry Moore work if presented with three distinct sculptures by different artists. In relation to America’s ‘special relationship’ with Britain, Rabin agreed with the notion of Moore as a cultural ambassador. He believed in the potency for Americans of Moore’s working setting, the relationship to landscape and to Britishness.123 Allen Turner was involved in setting up the Prize’s structure and recalled how the company considered how people might respond to their establishing this award. In the end it was decided that it would be best to use the family name instead of the Hyatt’s, thus playing down the commercial connections. This seems an interesting distinction, unlikely to have masked awareness of the company behind this award. Turner said there would have been no debate concerning the choice of Moore for the sculpture prize, since his work was ‘classic’; by extension he agreed that Moore was in many ways an easy option, no longer at the cutting-edge of sculpture. However, this was again appropriate since the Architectural Prize was not necessarily for the most cutting-edge work: the prize was awarded for a body of work over a lifetime. He concluded: ‘We had a great inexpensive white wine in this country with a screw top – ‘Blue Nun’. The slogan was ‘Blue Nun goes with everything’ – maybe Henry Moore goes with everything … We’re always comfortable with it.’124 This comment, although possible to dismiss as a frivolous aside, is nonetheless revealing, referencing as it does a sense of familiarity, value-for-money, the power of publicity and also suggesting a cross-society consensus as to the benefits of an accessible, acceptable and undemanding product. Moore’s remarkable success in gaining American patrons can be attributed to the shared aspirations of key individuals in the civic and corporate worlds. Keen to demonstrate their positive impact both locally and nationally, they realised that the careful choice and display of public sculpture could be used to enhance and reinforce their status. In the long period of the Cold War such strategies could also be positioned as visible expressions of humanity and openness. Time and again American city mayors and directors of corporations used remarkably similar language when discussing the purchase of sculptures by Moore.

197



10

The After-Life of Henry Moore

Henry Moore’s sculpture has continued to facilitate international relations, be these political, financial or cultural. Ongoing corporate backing for major exhibitions of Moore’s work reveals its currency as a means through which to communicate with powerful constituencies in countries that may be perceived as requiring careful and diplomatic handling. This is of course linked to trade and the establishment or consolidation of economic channels, as well as to nurturing political relationships. The examples that I have chosen are selective, intended as an Afterword to my book; however such overseas exhibitions are in themselves a very interesting topic, and it is remarkable how Moore’s later monumental sculptures do appear to be so malleable to differing cultural, political and economic contexts. After Moore’s death at home in Hoglands the sense of place has remained powerful. Exhibition catalogues have continued to highlight aspects of Moore’s personality and his location in the Hertfordshire countryside to a greater degree than is the case for most artists. The following is typical: When visitors to the Henry Moore Foundation in Perry Green first enter the Bourne Maquette Studio, there is often a collective intake of breath … the sense of personal contact … is so appealing. One can easily imagine that the sculptor has just got up from the cane chair with its plump cushions, that his stick, hooked on to the side of the table, has been only momentarily abandoned, and that the plaster in its plastic bowl has not yet had time to harden and dry … The image of the sculptor … tapping on the window to attract the attention of the sheep and finding inspiration in the jumble of maquettes and objects around him has become familiar through Errol Jackson’s and John Hedgecoe’s evocative photographs, via countless documentaries and through Moore’s own words …1 198

the after - life of henry moore

Fig. 44 shows the interior of one of the studios as it appeared in April 2000. For the visitor to Moore’s home and studios there is the sense of being as close as is possible to the sculptor and his work. The combination of Moore’s domestic life, his working estate in the Hertfordshire countryside and the display of several of his sculptures compellingly reinforces this sense of artistic ‘place’. Moore’s international career has proceeded largely uninterrupted by his death in 1986. This has generally been in the form of retrospective exhibitions rather than permanent public sculptural installations. The Henry Moore Foundation continues to circulate exhibitions of his work around the world, frequently in tandem with the British Council. It is interesting how in the post-Cold War period the Council still has a diplomatic role to play, particularly in the Far East, Eastern Europe and South America, assisting in facilitating international trade, opening up new markets and instigating or consolidating political relationships. In the catalogue for Henry Moore In India (1987) the financial assistance received by multinational



Inside Moore’s Maquette Studio, Perry Green, 2000.

Fig.44

199



200

H enry moore in america

corporations is acknowledged, the main sponsors being Unilever PLC, Glaxo Charity Trust and the Thomas Cook Group Ltd. The British Council expressed their gratitude that it had ‘been possible to unite business and cultural interests, both in Britain and India, to pay homage to one of the greatest sculptors, perhaps the greatest, of the twentieth century.’2 Glaxo’s Chairman Sir Paul Girolami later stated that such sponsorship was an expression of ‘good corporate citizenship’ and that ‘We want to drive home the message that Glaxo is synonymous with quality of life in all its aspects. So we shall continue to foster worthwhile artistic endeavour as an important part of our charitable and community support.’3 Girolami’s words demonstrate that the official explanation for an alliance between business and art remains unchanged, expressed in the same language as had been the case throughout the twentieth century. A review of this exhibition noted that, despite the phenomenal expense, a Moore exhibition remained ‘a cost-effective form of cultural diplomacy. One held in Caracas in 1983 … did much to repair the damage done to Britain’s reputation in Venezuela by the Falklands War …’ In the instance of the New Delhi exhibition it was argued that ‘If a map of the world were coloured bronze where Henry Moore’s work has been exhibited, the result would make the old British empire look very small.’ The exhibition was inaugurated at the highest level by Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi (1944–91), and the British Minister for the Arts presented a Moore maquette as a gift from the British Government.4 The United States developed a culture of harnessing art to business somewhat earlier than was the case in Britain. In fact it was not until the election in the 1980s of Margaret Thatcher (1925–2013) as Prime Minister that this concept was strengthened. Thatcher was interviewed on the occasion of Moore’s 1988 exhibition at the Royal Academy. She had met the sculptor when she was Secretary of State for Education and Science, and later as Prime Minister. She saw the Moore sculpture outside the Chancellery in Bonn and decided that one should be acquired for 10 Downing Street.5 There was also a Moore sculpture at Chequers and the sculptor’s prints were given as gifts to visiting heads of state or leaders of foreign governments. For the European Summit held in the Queen Elizabeth Conference

the after - life of henry moore

Centre, Westminster, the rooms were unacceptable to Thatcher who had them covered with three Moore tapestries.6 However a 1992 report in The Daily Telegraph recorded the removal from Downing Street of Moore’s bronze working model version of Reclining Figure: Angles, loaned to Margaret Thatcher in 1984 at the request of Lord Gowrie, the Arts Minister. The Henry Moore Foundation asked for its return, the work having been described privately by Nigel Lawson and Quentin Hogg as ‘disgraceful’ and it was replaced ‘by a less racy sculpture’. The two ministers thought it inappropriate ‘to have that kind of art at No. 10’. Hogg was reported as stating: ‘I don’t like statues … I’m willing to put up with Greek goddesses but other statues just take up space and cause arguments. We’re better off without ’em.’ John Major ‘also a Moore fan, has installed a more abstract (i.e. incomprehensible) bronze.’7 It is hard to imagine this story originating in the United States and so recently: it seems somehow to reflect a peculiarly British sensibility, a fear of offending, a somewhat juvenile prudishness and continuing distrust of modern art. This aspect was touched on in a lengthy appraisal of Moore’s career that appeared in the New York edition of Connoisseur magazine. This was a few months before the sculptor’s 1988 retrospective at the Royal Academy. The article noted that Moore did not become financially secure until his forties and it was not until his sixties that he was rich. His work had remained the butt of British cartoonists’ jokes, but climbed in value at a dramatic pace between the 1960s and his death in 1986: it had increased in value by 400 per cent since the mid-1970s, and in the period 1984 to 1986 prices had risen by 80 per cent. Many international exhibitions of his work took place in the last few years of the sculptor’s life.8 BBC Radio 3 broadcast an edition of Critics Forum on 17 September 1988, specifically concerned with Moore’s Royal Academy exhibition. It comprised a round-table discussion of the show, for which Bernard Meadows had selected the sculptures. The display was chronological and described as charting Moore’s output up to the public bronzes of the 1950s and 1960s, some of which have been the subject of this book. The exhibition was defined as ‘thrilling’ and ‘theatrical’, with the rooms becoming lighter and brighter as the chronology unfolded in order

201



202

H enry moore in america

to underscore the prestige of the public works of the post-war period. Moore is described as now appearing to be ‘the man that Modernism passed by’, suggesting a resistance in the sculptor’s work to changing artistic trends. This could offer a partial reason for Moore’s longterm acceptability for public works in high profile locations: patrons knew that in acquiring a Moore sculpture they would not be hostage to future artistic tastes. Indeed, it is claimed in this broadcast that although ‘Fashions have swirled around him… (Moore) is coming back to the forefront now.’9 The exhibition was thoroughly celebratory and Roger Berthoud has proposed that Moore’s reputation had become untouchable from the moment of the sculptor’s large 1968 retrospective at the Tate Gallery in that the scale of his achievements silenced his critics. It was irrelevant that young artists did not admire him: indeed the unprecedented variety within fine art in subsequent decades all the more clearly marked Moore’s work as ‘a reassuring part of modern life: striking, recognizable, sturdily contemporary, something we could be proud of.’10 In 1993 a major exhibition of Moore sculptures was held in Paris entitled Moore in the Bagatelle Gardens. The catalogue’s Foreword was written by Jacques Chirac who noted that the show’s opening by Queen Elizabeth II proved the strength of relations between the two countries. Once again the British Council was involved and the exhibition was overtly aligned to Anglo-French relations.11 A film about the exhibition confirmed the Henry Moore Foundation, the British Council and the City of Paris as the joint organisers. In the film, the opening sequence takes place at sunset, to the accompaniment of atmospheric music; we see views of spectators’ heads, their faces expressive of wonder and pleasure. No commentary interrupts this passage. As with earlier films on Moore installations, whether they address placements of single works or temporary exterior exhibitions, there are many shots showing the sculptures on the move, the emphasis being on the technical challenges presented in bringing together such a major event.12 Writing in The Sunday Times Hugh Pearman compared the Bagatelle Gardens to those developed in nineteenthcentury Britain by Lord Seymour, Marquis of Hertford. The result was to present Moore’s sculptures as if they had sprung naturally from the landscape. Pearman believed that the striking aspect of the

the after - life of henry moore

exhibition was the perception by visitors that they were wandering through an ‘enchanted place’ rather than an organised display. The impression given by the huge bronze sculptures in the landscape was that they had been there for ever and would continue to be so.13 The timeless quality of Moore’s sculptures was emphasised: At one level, being acceptable to the greatest number of people reduces him to the hideous level of grim, committee-chosen municipal art. At another level, the now widespread acceptance of Moore by the public suggests that he speaks universally, not just to a clique of critics, curators and dealers. It is because Moore’s sculpture is irrevocably associated in the general consciousness with the modern that it is acceptable. If you see a Moore, you know what it represents. There is a little spark of recognition. The fact that there is far more extreme and ‘difficult’ contemporary sculpture about only serves to reinforce Moore’s place in the public’s affection.14

Half the costs of the show were met by the Henry Moore Foundation and the British Council, the remainder coming from private sponsors including British Airways, British Steel in the United Kingdom, and Shell and ICI in France.15 Supporting the Bagatelle Gardens exhibition was a smaller show Henry Moore Intime which comprised a display of Moore’s private art collection ‘set in the carefully reconstructed ambience of his home at Much Hadham’ which showed the sculptor’s own paintings, small sculptures and drawings alongside works from artists whom he admired.16 Also included were items of Moore’s furniture, his library books and computer generated photographs of views from the windows looking over Hertfordshire, by implication views from Moore’s studios.17 Thus the aim in Paris was clearly to show two distinct sides to Moore: the monumental public sculptor, whose work could equal any location, and the man who lived in the heart of the English countryside, quietly and undramatically. Tom Lubbock believed that the Paris exhibition presented Moore’s sculptures in a manner that was more sympathetic than a city plaza. In general city sculptures tend to be overlooked, and in such locations Moore’s work registered as a ‘solid but non-specific presence, a dark brown something designed to register vaguely, but not to invite attention – the ideal public sculpture for an age

203



204

H enry moore in america

with no particular use for this form.’18 In the Paris gardens Moore’s sculptures functioned as inhabitants of a place. Nonetheless it was difficult to avoid the conclusion that Moore’s sculptures represented a ‘wholesome Anglican compromise between the modern movement and British pastoral.’ This in turn displayed ‘an act of cultural diplomacy transported from thirty years ago,’19 an interesting covert reference to the Cold War and more troublesome times. Lubbock recalls the moment when Michael Heseltine, then Secretary of State for the Environment, unveiled the Moore sculpture in London’s Serpentine Gardens and inadvertently referred to Moore as ‘our greatest living sculpture’, thereby underscoring the sculptor’s status as a monument to himself.20 The sponsorship of the Bagatelle exhibition was described as giving the companies concerned an opportunity to buy ‘shares in a reputation.’ In reality the show was testimony to the workings within international culture as a response to a new world order following the collapse of the USSR, which meant that there was no political threat or agenda that needed to be opposed.21 Moore appealed to both socialists and conservatives in British politics, and even to those uninterested in politics. ‘He has become for almost everyone what the Beatles were to Sir Alex Douglas-Home, a “secret weapon” which accrues dividends, without demanding investment … since his work comes in “editions” of varying numbers, he can both be exported and stay at home … There is something about his fame which suits all parties…’22 Linked to this I believe there to be no evidence for Moore’s public sculptures being more or less favoured in the United States according to whether the Republicans or Democrats were in power. Major exhibitions of Moore’s sculpture have continued outside of the West, noticeably in countries that might be viewed as future trading partners, countries where cultural diplomacy can precede political and economic overtures, and more broadly in the cause of disseminating western values. In 2000–1 Moore in China: a Never Ending Discovery comprised a selection of major works spanning Moore’s career. It was organised by the Henry Moore Foundation and the British Council, in association with the China International Exhibitions Agency. The sculptures were placed in Beihai Park, Beijing and there was also a gallery exhibition that

the after - life of henry moore

toured to Guangzhou and Shanghai. The associated film, made by the Foundation, shows the chaotic fast moving city streets of Beijing, presumably to act as a foil to Moore’s static, solid sculptural presences. The Chinese government had approached the Foundation, and since the settlement of the Hong Kong ‘problem’ in 1997 Anglo-Chinese relations had been improving steadily, especially in the cultural field. A spokesman for the Chinese Ministry of Culture described the Moore exhibition as the biggest event in Sino-British exchanges. The Director of the British Council pointed out that five years previously it would not have been possible to place sculptures in Beijing’s parks: this had never been allowed for a foreign exhibition. He characterised Moore’s work from a Chinese perspective as still representing very contemporary Western art: There are things in Henry Moore’s work which I believe will appeal to a Chinese audience. They appeal to audiences all over the world and there is absolutely no reason why the Chinese should be any different… Moore was a figurative artist. He wasn’t realistic, but equally he wasn’t abstract. An interest in the human figure is universal. Now you tie that in with Moore’s interest in natural forms and in landscape and you have three subjects immediately that the Chinese will respond to.23

The spokesman for the Chinese Ministry of Culture argued that introducing Moore’s work to ordinary Chinese people would broaden their minds through access to ‘one of the giants of world culture.’ Professor Jin Shang Yi, Principal of the Central Academy of Fine Arts, was of the opinion that the Moore exhibition was the most important show of an artist’s work in China seen since the inception of the People’s Republic in 1949. A local citizen is quoted using familiar terminology for Moore sculptures such as ‘greatness’, ‘generosity’, ‘profundity’, ‘a good combination of man and nature’. The sculptures are seen as cross-cultural. He is ‘thrilled’ by the works. Another was of the opinion that it was good to see modern work in a very old park and yet another citizen stated that ‘we’ve all known about him for years’ and he was ‘very excited’ by the show. Another says how much the work has inspired him, focusing as it does on life and humanity.24 Perfectly articulated for my book, another observer, a student, described his delight at seeing the sculptures: ‘Henry Moore! I have seen him in America. I never knew he would be here.’25

205



206

H enry moore in america

Once again associated accounts reveal the effects that Moore and his base in Much Hadham had on guests. A vice principal at the Central Academy of Fine Arts, art historian Wang Hong Jian, had been to Britain three times to see Moore’s work. In 1982 he visited the sculptor’s home and possessed a treasured collection of photographic mementoes of that trip. Afterwards, he wrote extensively on Moore for a Chinese audience. Interestingly in terms of the debates over sculptural monuments, so problematic for western observers in the post-war period, a Chinese sculptor working in the old style of socialist realist art was positive in his responses to Moore’s work. Qian Shaowu was highly successful in China, producing huge works in granite that commemorated Chinese heroes. He had studied socialist realist art in the Soviet Union in the 1950s and this was reflected in his work. He said that Moore’s sculpture had been an influence on him and he believed that the forthcoming exhibition was important because Moore ‘opened the window to other perspectives, other ways of seeing. We have been socialist realists, but he has been very liberating.’26 The catalogue for Moore’s China exhibition emphasised the setting for his life, the opening essay describing Hoglands as ‘framed by a white-painted wooden fence and a laurel hedge’27 and in 2007 Hoglands: the Home of Henry and Irina Moore was published to coincide with the opening of the Moores’ house to the public. Apart from images of Moore’s work, this lavishly illustrated book contains many photographs of Moore and his family engaged in ordinary domestic activities. In 2008 an extensive exhibition of Moore’s monumental sculptures was staged in the New York Botanical Gardens.28 This was described as being the largest outdoor display of Moore’s sculptures in a single location in New York, or indeed elsewhere in America. The Bronx exhibition followed a slightly larger show of Moore’s sculptures at the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew. This was noted in New York as appropriate since Kew Gardens had been the inspiration for those established in the Bronx in 1891.29 After New York, the exhibition toured to the Atlanta Botanical Garden. Running in tandem with the outdoor exhibition was an indoor display of photographs and related maquettes, as well as a selection of tools similar to those used by the sculptor, along with flints, bones and so on. Therefore the use of the

the after - life of henry moore

photograph and the references to the physical as well as mental work carried out in the studio was clearly conveyed. Finally, the ubiquity of Moore’s work was brought home forcefully to me during a visit in 2008 to Romania’s National Museum in Bucharest. Here we have a city that does not have the type of modernist public sculpture so familiar elsewhere in the West. Sculptures here are clearly commemorative of specific individuals and events. The National Museum is also unlike those generally found in Europe and the United States in that it does not have educational, merchandising or catering facilities. It is a Museum in the old mould – serious, noncommercial and quiet. Yet even here, the sculpture that greeted me at the Museum’s entrance was by Henry Moore (Fig. 45). This is the working model version of Locking Piece (1962) and is the only known Moore sculpture in Romania that is not privately owned. It is clear the Moore’s large sculptures perform an exceptional purpose, all the more remarkable when one considers for how long this has been the



Henry Moore, Working Model for Locking Piece 1962, National Museum of Romania, Bucharest.

Fig.45

207



208

H e nry m o o r e in a m e ric a

case. His work still enables access to new areas of the world that are of interest to Britain and the West in general. The deployment of these sculptures in this way is of great interest and warrants another study which could take as its start date the sculptor’s death in 1986. Clearly factors such as perceptions of his personality, of the place where he lived and worked, and the humanistic qualities of his sculptures remain elements in attitudes towards, and writings about, Moore. Although the display of Moore’s monumental works may now be taking place within the international arena, the momentum was created in the United States. In the end maybe the modesty and location of the sculptor’s simple gravestone in the small churchyard at Perry Green is indicative of why he might have rejected official honours from the British establishment, even though many Americans assumed that he was Sir Henry Moore and were no doubt surprised to find that he was not (Fig. 46).



Henry Moore’s grave at Perry Green churchyard.

Fig.46

Notes Abbreviations used in notes AA Author’s Archive AAA.SI Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC AAFAL Avery Architecture & Fine Arts Library, Columbia University, New York ACCNY Art Commission of the City of New York AIC Art Institute of Chicago Archive APA Adler Planetarium Archive, Chicago BC British Council, London DMARC Dallas Municipal Archives & Records Centre DPL Dallas Public Library: Texas/Dallas History & Archives HKRC Hyman Kreitman Research Centre, Tate Britain, London HMF Henry Moore Foundation Archive, Much Hadham HSP Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia LC Lincoln Center Archive, New York LCC London County Council LMA London Metropolitan Archives MoMA Museum of Modern Art Archive, New York NA National Archives, London BT Records of the Board of Trade BW Records of the British Council FO Records of the Foreign Office FOB Festival of Britain INF Records created or inherited by the Central Office of Information RG Records of the General Register Office, Government Social Survey Department and Office of Population Censuses and Surveys WORK Records of the successive works departments and of the Ancient Monuments Boards and Inspectorate NAMA Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art Archive, Kansas City NGL National Gallery of Art, London NGW National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC NYPD New York Parks Department Archive UC University of Chicago Library, Department of Special Collections

209



210

notes to pages 1 – 1 4

Chapter 1 1 Frankfurter, A.M., ‘Henry Moore: America’s First View of England’s First Sculptor’, Art News, December 1946, pp.26–9. 2 Fowler, Bridget, Pierre Bourdieu and Cultural Theory: Critical Investigations (London, Sage Publications, 1997) pp.75–6. 3 Wulffson, Jennifer, ‘“More light and less heat”: The intersection of Henry J. Seldis’s art criticism and the career of Henry Moore in America’, Sculpture Journal, vol.17, no 2, 2008, pp.89–101. 4 Seldis, Henry J. Henry Moore in America (London, Phaidon Press in association with the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, 1973) p.9. Chapter 2 1 The British Council, British Life and Thought: An Illustrated Survey (London, New York, Toronto, Longmans Green & Co., 1941) p. 447. 2 Fine Art Committee, Report on Progress, July 1950, p.1. vol.1: British Council Minutes Book, 1935–1953, VAAC Papers. May 1948–October 1960. BC. 3 Hall, James, ‘Clement Greenberg on English Sculpture and Englishness’, Sculpture Journal, vol.4, 2000, p.172. 4 Shaw, Roy and Shaw, Gwen, in Ford, Boris, Modern Britain (The Cambridge Cultural History of Britain, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1992) vol.9, pp.17–18. 5 Millier, Arthur, ‘Bay City has Two Displays of British Art’, Los Angeles Times, 1947. 6 Kavanaugh, Simon, ‘Timeless Simplicity of the Primitive is his Goal’, Coventry Evening Telegraph, 7 November 1958. 7 In Barnett, Anthony, ‘The Shape of Labour’, Art Monthly, no 100, October 1986, p.6. 8 The Yorkshire Evening Post, 28 January 1928. 9 Ritchie, Andrew, quoted in Seldis: Henry Moore in America, p.102. no date given for interview. 10 Barnett: England’s Henry Moore, sound recordings. HMF A.143. 11 Thistlewood, David, Herbert Read: Formlessness and Form, an Introduction to his Aesthetics (London, Boston, Melbourne and Henley, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984) pp.xi–xii. 12 Goodway, David (ed.), Herbert Read Reassessed (Liverpool, Liverpool University Press, 1998) p.276. 13 Causey, Andrew, ‘Herbert Read and Contemporary Art’, in Goodway: Herbert Read Reassessed, p.135. 14 Beckett, Jane and Russell, Fiona (eds), Henry Moore: Critical Essays (London, 2003), p.126.

notes to pages 1 5 – 2 0





15 Minutes of 67th meeting, 15 October 1957. Item 4, White paper on Overseas Information Services, July 1957, p.5. vol.2: British Council Minutes Book, July 1953–January 1978, VAAC Papers. May 1948– October 1960. GB/640/6/2. BC. 16 Bowness, Alan (ed.), Henry Moore: Complete Sculpture 1981–86, vol.6, (London, Lund Humphries, 1999, first published 1988) p.8. 17 Seldis: Henry Moore in America, p.12. 18 Ibid., p. 21. 19 Ibid., p. 14. 20 Ibid., p. 56. 21 Seldis, Henry J., ‘Dynamic Reassertion of Henry Moore’s Power’, Los Angeles Times, 26 April 1970. 22 Hall, James, The World as Sculpture: The Changing Status of Sculpture from the Renaissance to the Present Day (London, 2000), p.5. 23 ‘Maker of Images’, Time, vol.LXXIV, no 12, 21 September 1959, p.86. 24 Hall, Donald, ‘Henry Moore: An Interview by Donald Hall’, Horizon, New York, November 1960 (transcript HMF). 25 Saarinen, Aline B., Today: Henry Moore Report, NBC Television, 1970. HMF A6.B. 26 ‘Celebrated Sculptor: Henry Spencer Moore’, The New York Times, 20 July 1968. 27 Spencer, Charles, ‘Matisse Moore’, Fashion, August 1968. 28 Cotton, Judy, ‘Mighty Moore’, Vogue (Australia) May 1983, pp.48 and 50. 29 Finn, David, ‘Art for Business’s Sake, Art for Art’s Sake’, Across the Board, vol. 13, no 12, December 1976, pp.30–6. 30 Edleson, Harriet, ‘Art Interest makes the best of Friends’, The StandardStar, 18 February 1979. 31 Finn, David, ‘Unforgettable Henry Moore’, Reader’s Digest, February 1988, p. 165. 32 Grigson, Geoffrey, ‘Henry Moore’, Harper’s Bazaar, June 1945. 33 Hedgecoe, John, interviews with Henry Moore, Looking at Photographs, n.d. HMF A.92. 34 Marcoci, Roxanna, The Original Copy: Photography of Sculpture, 1839 to Today (New York, Museum of Modern Art, 2010) p.25. 35 Jones, Caroline A., Machine in the Studio: Constructing the Postwar American Artist (Chicago and London, University of Chicago Press, 1996) p.11. 36 Beckett and Russell: Henry Moore, pp.136–7. 37 Leathart, J.R., Building Magazine, 1942, p.75. 38 Manvell, Robert, ‘International Film’, Britain Today (London, British Council) no 101, September, 1944, pp.21 and 23. 39 Letter from Primrose, A.F. to Lord, Bertram, 20 January 1938. BW 63/1. British Council Films, 1938. NA. In the 1930s and 1940s the

211



212

notes to pages 2 1 – 2 7



40



41



42 43 44 45



46 47



48



49 50



51



52 53



54 55



56 57 58



59



60

Merlin Film Company Ltd. produced a series under the general title of This is Britain. Outline scenarios all include a sub heading ‘Propaganda Point’, outlining outlines the message to be embedded in the film’s narrative and visual language. In their quaintness the films’ titles speak for themselves, for example: So this is London; Beside the Seaside; The Key to Scotland, and Around the Village Green. Associated correspondence described the soundtracks of such films as clearly positioning England from an American perspective, and thus reducing the likelihood of their being seen as propaganda. Rawnsley, Gary D., (ed.) Cold War Propaganda in the 1950s (Basingstoke, Macmillan, 1999) pp.166–7. The BBC was vital to British foreign policy. Franc, Helen M., ‘Film Review’, Magazine of Art, New York, March, 1953, p. 138. Read, John, Henry Moore (London, BBC, 1951). HMF V.126. Daily Mail, 1 May 1951. Sweeney, James Johnson [1947] HMF V.171. ‘Art of Henry Moore brought to America via Film Series’, Look, 11 May 1948. Read, John, A Sculptor’s Landscape, BBC, 1958. HMF V.128. ‘A Sculptor’s Landscape’, The Painter and Sculptor: A Journal of the Visual Arts, vol. 1, no 2, Summer, 1958, p.2. Read, John, Henry Moore: One Yorkshireman Looks at his World, BBC, 1967. HMF V.127. Read, John, Henry Moore at Eighty, BBC, 1978. HMF V.60. Berthoud, Roger, transcript of interview with John Read, 12 October 1983. HMF. Letter from Moore, Henry to Clark, Kenneth, 23 December 1939. HMF. Pearce, Robin, letter to Henry Moore, 8 June 1960. HMF. Centron Corporation, A Henry Moore for Moline, Chicago, 1975. HMF V.169. Facts about Gould Inc., press release, 1980, Gould Inc. HMF. ‘Henry Moore, Sculpture and Drawings’, Magazine of Art, New York, vol. 36, no 6, October 1945, pp.242–3. Beckett and Russell: Henry Moore, p.7. Marcoci: The Original Copy, p.128. Hedgecoe, John, Henry Spencer Moore (London, Nelson; New York, Simon & Schuster, 1968) pp.10–11. Meadows, Bernard, ‘The sculptor as a human being’, The Sunday Times, 13 October 1968. Hughes, Robert, ‘Moore is Less’, The Spectator, 25 October 1968.

notes to pages 2 7 – 3 9



61 Hedgecoe: Henry Spencer Moore, p.173. 62 Ibid., p. 332. 63 Skurka, Norma, ‘Henry Moore at Home’, The New York Times Magazine, 23 July 1972, pp.32–3. 64 Johnson, Geraldine A., (ed.) Sculpture and Photography: Envisioning the Third Dimension (Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Cambridge University Press, 1998) p.12. 65 Read, John, The Language of Sculpture. 1973. HMF V.130. 66 Levine, Gemma, With Henry Moore: The Artist at Work, dust jacket text, (London, Sidgwick & Jackson, 1978). 67 Jackson, Errol, Henry Moore at Work: Photographs by Errol Jackson, Ellingham, 1998, p.17. 68 Johnson: Sculpture and Photography, p.7. 69 Henry Moore at the British Museum (London, British Museum Publications Ltd., 1981) pp.18–19. 70 Letter from Finn, David to Moore, Henry, 11 January 1967. HMF. 71 Berthoud, Roger, transcript of interview with David Finn, 29 November 1983. HMF. 72 Publisher’s Weekly, Review of David Finn’s ‘Sculpture and Environment’, vol. 211, no 15, 11 April, 1977, p.67. 73 Andreae, Christopher, ‘Moore’s Sculptures sit for Roving Photographer’, Christian Science Monitor, 29 June 1977. 74 Newman, R., ‘Art Book News’, Arts Review, 27 May 1977. 75 Eauclaire, Sally, ‘Henry Moore: Sculpture to fit any Environment’, Mocratic and Chronicle, Rochester, New York, 24 July 1977. 76 Kutner, Janet, ‘A look at Henry Moore’s Sculpture’, The Dallas Morning News, 10 July 1977. 77 Haacke, Lorraine, ‘Henry Moore: New Book ready at a perfect time for Dallas’, The Dallas Times Herald, 29 May 1977.

Chapter 3 1 Reich, Robert, ‘Decline and Divergence’, The Times Literary Supplement, 6 March 1987, p.242. 2 Reich: ‘Decline and Divergence’, p.231. 3 Gordon, Alastair, ‘The British Council – International Impresario of British Art’, Connoisseur, June 1961, p.16. 4 Taylor, Philip, The Projection of Britain: British Overseas Publicity and Propaganda 1919–1939 (London, Cambridge, New York, New Rochelle, Melbourne, Sydney, Cambridge University Press, 1981) p.68. 5 Tallents, Stephen, The Projection of England (London, Faber & Faber, 1932). 6 Beak, G.B., Memorandum, ‘Policy and Propaganda’, 2 December 1918. FO 395/301, 00409. NA.

213



214

notes to pages 3 9 – 4 4







7 Speech by Earl of Derby at Mansion House, 20 December 1928. FO 395/435, P215/178/150. NA. 8 Sir Louis Beale writing in official guide to British Pavilion, New York World’s Fair, 26 January 1939. BT 50/51/5. NA. 9 Taylor: The Projection of Britain, p.117. 10 New York World’s Fair, 1939. Memorandum reference Publicity, signed W. Hill, 2 November 1938. BT 60/51/5. NA. 11 British Council Fine Arts Advisory Committee Minutes 1935–1945. Minutes of Fine Arts (General) Committee, 26 October 1939, Item 3, Sculpture in New York, p.1. BW 78/1. NA. Moore’s sculpture on display at the 1939 World Fair was his Horton stone Reclining Figure which he bought back in 1939 from his friend, architect Serge Chermayeff. 12 Editorial ‘Britain and America’, Britain Today, (London, British Council) 23 January 1941, pp.1 and 3. 13 Memorandum by Maxwell Raison, Picture Post. ‘Publicity by means of a pictorial publication “Picture Post”’. INF1/234. MM/17. NA. 14 Barnett, Correlli, The Lost Victory: British Dreams, British Realities 1945– 1950 (London and Basingstoke, Macmillan, 1995) p.126. 15 Letter from Hopkinson, Tom to Fraser, Robert, Director of Publications, Ministry of Information, 14 March 1941. INF 1/234. ‘Publicity by Means of a Pictorial Publication “Picture Post”’. NA. 16 ‘The Humanistic Tradition in the Century Ahead: A Bicentennial Conference Review’, Princeton Alumni Weekly, 20 December 1946, pp.4–7. 17 Melly, George, Without Walls: J’Accuse Henry Moore, Rapido Television, London, Broadcast on Channel 4, 1993. HMF V.231. Melly did not specify whether he was referring to both Britain and the United States. 18 Barnett: The Lost Victory, p.83. 19 Kosinski, Dorothy, ‘Some Reasons for a Reputation’, Henry Moore: Sculpting the Twentieth Century (New Haven and London, Yale University Press, 2001) p.25. 20 Shaw and Shaw, in Ford: Modern Britain, p.7. 21 Taylor, Brandon, ‘Post-War Positions: Arts Council, LCC and ICA’, Art for the Nation: Exhibitions and the London Public 1747–2001 (Manchester, Manchester University Press, 1999) pp.197–8. 22 Chicago Tribune, 17 August 1949, np. 23 Hall: ‘Clement Greenberg on English Sculpture and Englishness’, p.172. 24 Report on Progress to 75th meeting, 12 December 1961. Item 8, Henry Moore–Europe 1960–62. Berlin, 23 July–3 September, p.13. vol.2: British Council Minutes Book, July 1953–January 1978. VAAC Papers. April 1961–November 1975. FAC (61) 4. BC. 25 Philip Hendy: Personal Correspondence Henry Moore 1950–1964. Paper undated. NG 35/108. Philip Hendy Archives (NGL). Moore spoke on

notes to pages 4 4 – 5 0



26



27 28 29 30 31



32 33 34



35



36 37 38 39



40



41



42 43 44



45 46



47

‘The Sculptor in Modern Society’ when leading the sculpture section of an international artists’ conference in Venice in September 1952. The topic, like the competition for The Unknown Political Prisoner Monument, tapped into the Cold War debate. Moore described sculpture as a public art and that ‘We have a society that is fragmented…We live in a transitional age…’ (In James, Philip (ed.), Henry Moore on Sculpture (London, 1966, 1992), p.84). Russell, John, ‘Ten Years of Majestic Expansion’, The Sunday Times, 27 November 1960. Barnett: England’s Henry Moore, HMF A.143. AHB, 7.21.b. MoMA. Boal, Ian, in Beckett and Russell: Henry Moore, p.234. Boal in Beckett and Russell: Henry Moore, p.234. Author’s interview with Barbara Hall, Senior Conservator, the Art Institute of Chicago, 11 July 2003. AA. Inter Ocean, 15 April 1905. In Riedy: Chicago Sculpture, p.9. ‘Artistic Memorials’, Chicago Tribune, 4 March 1907, p.8. Letter from McNeill, William to Berthoud, Roger, 1 April 1985. HMF. The Woods Charitable Fund, the Chauncey and Marion Deering McCormick Foundation, and the Field Foundation of Illinois. Letter from McNeill, William to Berthoud, Roger, 1 April 1985. HMF. Letter from McNeill, William to author, 16 August 2011. AA. Letter from McNeill, William to Berthoud, Roger, 15 March 1985. HMF Letter from Pearce, Robin, Director, Fine Arts Program, University of Chicago, to Moore, Henry, 1 February 1960. HMF. A CBC film’s first showing in the United States was at the University and the Art Institute. There was also a screening of a BBC Face to Face interview, shown for the first time in the United States, at the Institute. John Read had recently been in Chicago and The Sculptor’s Landscape was shown at the Institute and the University. (Letter from Pearce, Robin to Moore, Henry, 8 June 1960. HMF). Letter from McNeill, William, to Moore, Henry, 14 November 1963. HMF. Letter from McNeill, William, to Moore, Henry, 21 January 1964. HMF. Letter from McNeill to author. Copied extract of Minutes of Fermi Memorial Planning Committee, 15 July 1965. HMF. University of Chicago press release, 25 September 1965. HMF. Letter from McNeill, William, to Moore, Henry, 15 December 1965. HMF. Letter from McNeill, William, to Moore, Henry, 23 May 1966. HMF.

215



216

notes to pages 5 0 – 5 5



48 Letter from Moore, Henry, to McNeill, William, 27 May 1966. HMF. 49 Letter from McNeill, William, to Moore, Henry, 13 September 1967. HMF. 50 Letter from McNeill, William, to Moore, Henry, 16 November 1967. HMF. 51 Press Release from Joseph Brisben, Office of Public Relations, University of Chicago, 26 November 1967. Atomic Energy Anniversary Celebrations, 1967, File 1. UC, Special Collections. 52 Schulze, Franz, ‘Tell us, Sir Henry’, Chicago Daily News, 2 December 1967. 53 Frank H. Woods, President of the Art Institute, was one of the four dignitaries, with Mrs Enrico Fermi, George Beadle and Henry Moore. 54 University of Chicago press release, 2 December 1967, Office of Public Relations. File 1. UC, Special Collections. 55 Snider, Arthur J., ‘Fermi statue creates furor (sic) at University of Chicago’, Chicago Daily News, 16 July 1965. 56 Wolters, Larry, ‘Both life and death – shaped in bronze’, Chicago Tribune Magazine, Section 7, 28 November 1965. 57 Graham-Dixon, Andrew, ‘The Catastrophe Culture’, The Independent, 1987. 58 Author’s interview with Barbara Hall. 59 Letter dated 13 December published 14 December 1950 in The Times. Under the heading ‘Use of Atomic Weapons’ the letter has various signatories, including Benjamin Britten, E.M. Forster, and Moore.

Chapter 4 1 Taylor, Philip British Propaganda in the Twentieth Century (Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, 1999) p.82. 2 ‘Definition of the work of the British Council’, 3 December 1946. BW 1/27, P 802/718/907. NA. 3 Taylor: British Propaganda in the Twentieth Century, p.234. 4 Taylor: The Projection of Britain, p.153. 5 Ibid., pp. 3–4. 6 The Times, 20 March 1935. 7 Britain Today (London, the British Council) March 1949, p.7. 8 Garlake, Margaret, New Art: New World. British Art in Postwar Society (New Haven and London, Yale University Press, 1998) p.238. 9 FAAC (86) 2nd Meeting, 18 November 1986, Item 1:3, p.2. vol.3: British Council Minutes Book, April 1978–April 1996. BC. 10 The Hedgecoe Tapes, 3 February 1985. HMF A.86. By the 1980s the British Council had arranged one major exhibition of Moore’s work each year since the war. Margaret McLeod (formerly of the British Council) confirmed that Curt Valentin was the catalyst for Moore’s reputation

notes to pages 5 5 – 5 8



11 12



13



14 15



16



17 18 19



20 21



22



23



24 25



26



27



28



29

within the United States. (Author interview with Margaret McLeod, London, 1 August 2001). Critics Forum, Radio 3, BBC, transmitted 31 October 1987. HMF A.102. Report on the Turner and Moore exhibition, British Pavilion, Biennale, Venice. June–September 1948, p.16. Venice Biennale: Correspondence with Artists & Owners 1947–1948. BW 2/377. NA. Minutes of 53rd meeting, 1 July 1952, Item 3(a), Venice Biennale, p.1. vol. 1: British Council Minutes Book, 1935–1953, VAAC Papers. May 1948–October 1960. GB/640/6. BC. Hendy, Philip, ‘Henry Moore’, The Times, 13 July 1968. Britain Today referred to the American people’s belief that ‘the British Empire was fighting for all the democracies, including that of the United States’. (23 January 1941, pp.1 and 3). White, A. The British Council: The First Twenty Five Years (London, British Council, 1965) p.25. Britain Today (London, British Council) 9 June 1939, p.1. Britain Today, 9 June 1939, p.10. Barnett, Correlli, The Audit of War: The Illusion and Reality of Britain as a Great Nation (London, Macmillan, 1986) pp.123–4. Britain Today (London, British Council) 8 December 1939, p.4. Letter from Fraser, Robert to Adam, General Sir Ronald, British Council, 11 August 1947. INF 12/32. NA. British Council Executive Committee April 1953–March 1954, Meeting of 24 November 1953, Paper D, ‘The British Council and Industry’. BW 68/11. NA. British Council Executive Committee Minutes, April 1951–March 1952. Meeting 8 May 1951. Sub-Committee on the Future of the Council. Draft Memorandum by Viscount Esher. BW 68/9. NA. Russell, John, Henry Moore (London, Allen Lane, 1968) p.101. Minutes of 61st meeting, 18 October 1955, item 4, p.5. vol.2: British Council Minutes Book, July 1953–January 1978, VAAC Papers. May 1948–October 1960. GB/640/6/2. BC. Overy, Paul, ‘The Britishness of Sculpture’, Studio International, vol.200, no 1018, November 1987, pp.9–10. British Cultural Propaganda 1945–1946. USA/8/2. Montagu-Pollock, W. Foreign Office, 4 December 1946. LC5311/18/452, Items 7 and 10 respectively. BW 63/7. NA. British Council (1940) Contemporary British Art, Toledo Museum of Art, Ohio. Minutes of 79th meeting, 15 December 1964. Item 20. Exhibitions for USA, pp. 5–6. vol.2: British Council Minutes Book, July 1953–January 1978. VAAC Papers. April 1961–November 1975. BC.

217



218

notes to pages 5 8 – 6 3











30 Report on Progress to 80th Meeting, 29 June 1965. Attachment: draft paper for submission to Executive Committee, ‘Fine Arts Work in the USA’. vol. 2: British Council Minutes Book, July 1953–January 1978. VAAC Papers. April 1961–November 1975. FAC (65) 1. BC. 31 Britain Today (London, British Council) October 1948, p.8. 32 Taylor: British Propaganda in the Twentieth Century, p.240. 33 Barnett, Anthony, England’s Henry Moore, directed by Hugh Brody, Channel Four, 1988. HMF A.136. 34 Berthoud, Roger, The Life of Henry Moore (London, Faber & Faber, 1987), p. 235. 35 Lubbock, Tom, ‘A Reputation that should be Chiselled Away’, The Independent, 14 April 1998. 36 Letter from Nasher, Patsy to Moore, Henry, 12 December 1967. HMF. 37 Letter from Nasher, Patsy to Moore, Henry, 21 January 1980. HMF. 38 The Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, Masterworks of Modern Sculpture: the Nasher Collection (New York, Guggenheim Museum Publications, 1996). Born in Boston, Raymond Nasher and his wife moved to Dallas in 1950. 39 The Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum: Masterworks of Modern Sculpture, pp. 23 and 26. 40 The Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum: Masterworks of Modern Sculpture, p. 32. The Nasher Sculpture Centre opened in downtown Dallas in October 2003 to provide a garden and building for the display of Nasher’s collection. Designed by Renzo Piano and landscape architect Peter Walker, it is located in the Dallas Arts District, close to Dallas Museum of Art. Nasher hoped that the gallery would provide ‘an oasis in the city… this project is infusing new life in the Dallas Arts District, continuing a downtown rejuvenation that was begun nearly 20 years ago’ (www.brookpartners.com/Nasher: link no longer active). 41 Brown, Steve, ‘Nasher: for art’s sake’, The Dallas Morning News, 10E, 9 December 1980. 42 A statement put together for a press release concerning NorthPark’s opening. AA. Other details unknown but content is closely related to Berkman, C., ‘”Create something uplifting”: Nasher – one who’s shaping environments of the future’, Financial Trend, 13–19 November 1970. 43 Author’s interview with Raymond Nasher, 2 July 2003, Dallas. AA. 44 Ibid. 45 Kutner, Janet, ‘Three Commitments to the Arts’, ARTnews, May 1979, p. 60. 46 Later to merge with Comerica Bank of Texas.

notes to pages 6 3 – 6 4









47 Peacock, Janice, Records Manager, NorthPark, in conversation with author, Dallas, 2 July 2003. 48 Nash, Steven A., A Century of Modern Sculpture: The Patsy and Raymond Nasher Collection (New York, Rizzoli International Publications Inc. in association with the Dallas Museum of Art and the National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, 1987), p.17. 49 Kutner: ‘Three commitments to the arts’, p.60. 50 Nash: A Century of Modern Sculpture, pp.17 and 21. Over the years the centre expanded and by 1979 had moved from 1 million to 1.5 million square feet and ‘its sales per square foot … (were) among the highest in the world.’ (Kutner: Three commitments to the arts, p.60) The complex was the prototype for enclosed malls and received many design awards. 51 Michael Ennis has described the mixed-use mall complex as ‘more than a collection of stores; it’s a full fledged “urban node” … NorthPark Mall … has an impressive horizontality, its sheer beige lines sweeping for blocks. There is a kind of ceremoniousness to the structure that makes it easy to imagine the complex as a ruin; the great, pillared entrances lead not to halls echoing with the immortal footsteps of pharaohs and caesars but to the trade routes of the mighty American consumer … The mall age as we know it today … began back in 1960, when Ray Nasher started thinking about NorthPark. The basic idea wasn’t new; the first suburban shopping centers appeared in 1907 … and by the late fifties suburban malls were a hot topic with forwardthinking developers … Nasher… followed the same line of thinking as the other mall seers: the automobile would determine the movement of Americans for at least the full depreciation period of commercial property, and the roads they travelled would in essence lead away from Rome, away from the city center. But while most mall developers couldn’t overcome a gut conviction that their shopping complexes, like the suburbs they served, were cultural squatters best left as stark retail warehouses or thinly disguised by moronic neo-period veneer, Nasher believed that a mall should be the nucleus of something that could eventually rival the great city centers of the old World. The roads were leading away from Rome, so move Rome. Nasher also wanted to make the new Rome as glorious in its way as the old.’ (Ennis, Michael, ‘Postmodern times: NorthPark dared to be different. It dared to be good’, Texas Monthly, November 1985, p.14). 52 Kutner, Janet, ‘Art in the malls’, The Dallas Morning News, 10 August 1976. 53 ‘Bank in Dallas becomes Center for Fine Artworks Exhibits’, MidContinent Banker, March 1979.

219



220

notes to pages 6 5 – 7 2



54 55 56 57

Ennis: ‘Post-modern times’, p.16. Ibid., pp. 7–8. Press release, 1977, NorthPark Centre, AA. Ibid.

Chapter 5 1 Bridges, J.G., ‘The Come to Britain Campaign’, Britain Today (London, British Council) no 161, September, 1949, p.27. 2 WORK 25/3. Record A1/A3/2. Public Relations Department. NA. 3 Britain Today (London, British Council) February 1951, p.5. 4 Letter from Moss, Louis, Director of Research, the Social Survey, London, to Forman, Dennis, Director of the British Film Institute. Undated, c. June 1949. Festival of Britain Survey: General Correspondence RG 40/37. NA. 5 Festival of Britain Council Papers 1948. A5/A4. F.B.C. (48) 5. WORK 25/44. NA. 6 Overseas Publicity Committee: Agenda, Minutes and Papers. Meeting held 28 February 1949, OP (49) 5th Meeting. INF 12/302, FOB 1951. NA. 7 Casson, Hugh, ‘Festival Sculpture’, Image, no 7, Spring 1952, pp.5 –58. 8 Melly, George, ‘Moore is Less’, The Guardian, 9 March 1993. 9 Britain Today (London, the British Council) May 1951. 10 The Times, 2 May 1951. 11 Surprisingly, in view of his early support for Moore, Jacob Epstein has been quoted as saying the proceedings were ‘a scream…the whole show was really got up to boost Moore and his absurd work…It is the only sculpture to be shown in the posters and of course Moore was made the hero of the opening leading the members of the Cabinet, (Stafford) Cripps and (Aneurin) Bevan straight to this work and ignoring everything else. Bevan avoided me and so did Moore.’ (In Berthoud: The Life of Henry Moore, p.246.) 12 Letter from Hyde, H. General Manager, Travel Association to Strauss, Patricia 12 August 1947, LCC/CL/PK/1/54. LMA. 13 Casson, Hugh ‘The Role of Sculpture in Contemporary Life’, The Studio, June 1938, pp.296–310. 14 Baro, Gene, ‘British Sculpture: The Developing Scene’, Studio International, vol. 172, no 882, October 1966, p.173. 15 See Harding, David, in Harding and Buchler (eds) Decadent Public Art: Contentious Term and Contested Practice (Glasgow, Foulis Press, 1997) pp. 11–12. 16 Wright, Martyn. Lecturer’s Report, Open Air Sculpture, Battersea Park: May 17th to 18th, to James, Philip. LCC/CL.PK/1/54. LMA.

notes to pages 7 2 – 7 8



17 Mayer-Martin, G., Lecturer’s Report 17 June–5 July 1948, to James, Philip. LCCCL/PK/1/54. LMA. 18 Naish, Barbara, Lecturer’s Report, 28 August–16 September 1948. LCC/CL/PK/1/54. LMA. 19 Clark, Kenneth, Open Air Sculpture, 18 January 1954. LCC/CL/PK/1/54. LMA. 20 Letter from Marsh, Edward, Tate Gallery, to Strauss, Patricia, on behalf of Contemporary Art Society, 7 May 1948. LCC/CL/PK/1/54. LMA. 21 The Hedgecoe Tapes, c1967–c1985. A.83. Reel 12.b. HMF. 22 Benson, E., ‘Seven Sculptors’, American Magazine of Art, August, 1935, pp. 454–69. Moore’s first visit to America was in 1946, on the occasion of his exhibition at The Museum of Modern Art. 23 Berthoud: The Life of Henry Moore, p.150. 24 Letter from Cerretani, Conan, G. Robert Strauss Jr Memorial Library, Albright-Knox Art Gallery, to author, 12 June 2002. AA. 25 Letter from Washburn, Gordon to Moore, Henry, 4 December 1958. HMF. 26 Letter from Ingersoll, R. Sturgis to Moore, Henry, 4 June 1951. HMF. 27 Letter from Ingersoll, R. Sturgis to Moore, Henry, 10 October 1952. HMF. 28 Seldis: Henry Moore in America, pp.207–8. 29 Letter from Johnson, Philip to Berthoud, Roger, 27 March 1985. HMF. 30 Seldis: Henry Moore in America, p.32. 31 Ibid., p. 34. 32 Hall: The Life and Work of a Great Sculptor, p.113. 33 Riley, Maude, ‘Henry Moore from War Torn London’, Art Digest, vol.17, no 16, 15 May 1943, p.14. 34 McBride, Henry, ‘The Henry Moore Drawings’, New York Sun, 14 May 1943. 35 Buchholz Gallery, Contemporary British Artists, 27 March–14 April 1945. 36 Hall: The Life and Work of a Great Sculptor, p.113. 37 Ibid., p. 55. 38 Letter from Moore, Henry to Valentin, Curt, 19 November 1951, in reply to letter from Valentin to Moore, 12 November 1951. Curt Valentin Papers, III.A.20. MoMA. 39 Letter from Valentin, Curt to Moore, Henry, 26 November 1951. Curt Valentin Papers, III.A.20. MoMA. 40 McBride, Henry, Art News, January 1951. 41 Letter from Wade, Jane to Moore, Henry, 13 November 1959. HMF. 42 Seldis: Henry Moore in America, p.57.

221



222

notes to pages 7 8 – 8 1







43 Letter from Barr, Alfred to Hall, Donald, 22 January 1964. Barr Papers, Roll 2187. AAA.SI. 44 James: Henry Moore on Sculpture, p.44. 45 Museum of Modern Art, Cubism and Abstract Art, New York, April 1936. 46 Seldis: Henry Moore in America, p.53. Sweeney met Moore in London in 1932. By 1935 he and Daniel Catton Rich of the Art Institute of Chicago were corresponding with Moore. (Seldis: Henry Moore in America, p.37). 47 Partisan Review, James Johnson Sweeney interview with Henry Moore, vol. XIV, no 2, March/April, 1947, pp.180–5. 48 ‘Moore, Vital Briton’, Art Digest, 15 February 1947. 49 Richter, Gigi, ‘Introduction to Henry Moore’, Art in America, vol.XXXV, no 1, January 1947, pp.5 and 16. 50 Sweeney, James Johnson in Henry Moore (MoMA, New York, in collaboration with the Art Institute of Chicago and the San Francisco Museum of Art, 1946). 51 Hess, Thomas, ArtNews, December, 1954. (In Seldis: Henry Moore in America, p. 135). 52 O’Brian, John (ed.) Clement Greenberg, Collected Essays and Criticism: Arrogant Purpose, 1945–49, vol.2 (Chicago and London, University of Chicago Press, 1986) pp.126–7. Greenberg not only disliked Moore’s work, but doubted the standing of some of his supporters, unable to understand Herbert Read’s ‘prestige as a critic and a philosopher of art.’ In reviewing The Art of Sculpture Greenberg claimed that Read was as uncomfortable with painting as he now clearly was with sculpture: ‘the only important difference being that he seems to believe in the sculptor Henry Moore as he believes in no painter living or dead.’ (Quoted in Hall, James, ‘Clement Greenberg on English Sculpture and Englishness’, Sculpture Journal, vol.4, p.173). 53 Kosinski, ‘Some Reasons for a Reputation’, p.23. 54 O’Brian, John (ed.) Clement Greenberg, Collected Essays and Criticism: Perceptions and Judgements, 1939–1944, vol.1. (Chicago and London, University of Chicago Press, 1986) p.127. Originally in The Nation, ‘Review of Exhibitions of Gaston Lachaise and Henry Moore’, 8 February 1947, pp.164–5. 55 Hall: Clement Greenberg on English Sculpture and Englishness, p.174. 56 Letter from Wheeler, Monroe, MoMA to Rich, Daniel Catton, the Art Institute of Chicago, 19 November 1946. James Thrall Soby Papers, I.187. MoMA. 57 McBride, Henry, ‘Henry Moore, Modernist’, New York Sun, 20 December 1946. 58 Jewell, Edward Alden, ‘Art show offers display by Moore’, The New York Times, 18 December 1946.

notes to pages 8 1 – 8 7





59 Letter from Markel, Lester, The New York Times to Newmeyer, Sarah, MoMA, 20 December 1946. Registrar Exhibition Files, Exh. # 339. MoMA. 60 ‘British Sculptor: Henry Moore shocks and pleases in his first big exhibit in U.S.’, Life, vol.22, no 3, 20 January 1947, pp.77–80. 61 ‘The talk of the town’, The New Yorker, 21 December 1946, pp.18–19. 62 Summers, Marion, ‘Henry Moore creates grandeur in his sculpture’, The New York Daily Worker, 5 January 1947, p.2. 63 Rogers, W., ‘Sculptor Henry Moore opening show Tuesday’, Norfolk Virginian Pilot, 15 December 1946. 64 ‘Henry Moore, Modern Briton, Impresses with his Aesthetic Vitality’, Art Digest, 1 January 1947. 65 Riley: ‘Henry Moore from War Torn London’, p.14. ARTnews also noted the assistance of the British Council for this exhibition: ‘Moore: A mountainous sculptor draws’, vol.XLII, no 7, New York, 15–31 May 1943, p. 12. 66 Letters from Soby, James Thrall and Kaplowitz, Helen, subsequently published in Life magazine, 10 February 1947. Registrar Exhibition Files, Exh. # 339. MoMA. 67 Letter from Wheeler, Monroe to Moore, Henry, 22 January 1947. Registrar Exhibition Files, Exh. # 339. MoMA. 68 Letter from d’Harnoncourt, René to Moore, Henry, 18 February 1947. Registrar Exhibition Files, Exh. # 339. MoMA. 69 Barr, Alfred (ed.), Painting and Sculpture in the Museum of Modern Art, New York, MoMA, 1948, p.6. 70 Beckett and Russell: p.13.

Chapter 6 1 Wilkinson, Alan (ed.), Henry Moore: Writings and Conversations (Aldershot, Lund Humphries, 2002) pp.86–7. 2 Barnett, Anthony, England’s Henry Moore, sound recording with David Sylvester, 1988. HMF A.144. 3 Hendy, Philip, Diary USA October–November, 1948. NG 35/24. NGL. 4 Hendy, Philip, ‘Art – Three Generations of Painters’, Britain Today, no 142, February 1948. 5 Observer, 30 March 1958, p.10. 6 Berthoud: The Life of Henry Moore, p.172. 7 Ibid., p. 174. 8 Secrest, Meryl, Kenneth Clark: A Biography (London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1984) p.109. 9 Berthoud: The Life of Henry Moore, p.158.

223



224

notes to pages 8 7 – 9 0



10 Barnett: England and Henry Moore, sound recording with Bernard Meadows. HMF A.133. 11 Barnett: England and Henry Moore. HMF A.133. 12 Letter from Clark, Kenneth to Moore, Henry, 30 October 1941. HMF. 13 ‘“Sculpture is exciting” says Henry Moore’, The Oxford Mail, 27 October 1962. 14 Letter from Clark, Kenneth to Moore, Henry, 3 August 1939. HMF. 15 Clark, Kenneth, Another Part of the Wood: A Self-Portrait (London, John Murray, 1974) p.242. 16 Clark, Kenneth, ‘Talk on Henry Moore’, Museum of Modern Art, New York, February 1951. Kenneth Clark Papers, TGA 8812.2.2.2.605. HKRC. 17 America 1969–1971, Part II: 1970–71. Kenneth Clark Papers, TGA 8812.1.4.14b. HKRC. 18 Letter from Barr, Alfred, Director of the Museum Collections, MoMA, to Clark, Kenneth, 3 November 1949. Kenneth Clark Papers, TGA 8812.1.2.4543. HKRC. 19 Letter from Clark, Kenneth to Barr, Alfred, 19 November 1949. Kenneth Clark Papers, TGA 8812.1.2.4543. HKRC. 20 Hunter, Sam, Art in Business: The Philip Morris Story (New York, Business Committee for the Arts, Inc. and Harry N. Abrams Inc., 1979) p. 24. 21 Gill, Michael, ‘Obituary’, The Daily Telegraph, 26 October 2005. 22 Finn, David, Henry Moore: Sculpture and Environment (New York, Harry N. Abrams, Inc., London, Thames & Hudson, 1977) p.18. 23 Finn: Henry Moore: Sculpture and Environment, p.18. 24 Clark, Kenneth, Henry Moore, 1967. Kenneth Clark Papers, TGA 8812.2.2.612. HKRC. 25 Cohen, David in Gee, Malcolm, Art Criticism Since 1900 (Manchester and New York, Manchester University Press, 1993) p.177. 26 Read, Herbert, Henry Moore: Sculpture and Drawings 1949–1954 (London, Lund Humphries) 1965, p.ix. 27 Riley: ‘Henry Moore from War Torn London’. 28 Seldis: Henry Moore in America, p.37. 29 King, James, The Last Modern: A Life of Herbert Read (London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson) 1990, p.287. 30 Walker, John, Cultural Offensive: America’s Impact on British Art since 1945 (London, Sterling Virginia, Pluto Press, 1998) p.14. 31 Seldis: Henry Moore in America, pp.71–72. 32 Dudar, Helen, ‘Art is looking up with a sculpture gallery in the sky’, The Smithsonian, Washington, DC, November, 1984, p.153. 33 Dudar: ‘Art is looking up’, p.157.

notes to pages 9 2 – 9 6





34 Dilsaver, Dick, ‘Art is investment of the heart’, The Wichita Eagle-Beacon, Kansas, 14 August 1984. 35 Bennets, Leslie, ‘City to get loan of 25 Henry Moores: Sculptures to be placed in 5 boroughs’, The New York Times, 26 March 1984. 36 Douglas Walla, executive vice president of Marlborough Gallery, New York, advised Ablah of this. (Dudar: Art is looking up, p.153). 37 Dudar: ‘Art is looking up’, p.156. 38 Berthoud, Roger, transcript of Interview with Ablah, George, New York, 13 November 1985. HMF. 39 See letter from Finn, David to President Sovern, Michael, Columbia University, New York, 2 March 1984. HMF. 40 Finn, David, One Man’s Henry Moore (Redding Ridge, CT, Black Swan Books, 1993) p.84. 41 Author’s telephone interview with George Ablah, 10 September 2002. AA. 42 Author’s interview with Ablah.The sculptures were sold by the subsequent owners of the building complex. The area was described as ‘wilderness’ north of New York. PepsiCo also had their offices on the same river, but in Connecticut. 43 Finn: One Man’s Henry Moore, p.93. 44 Ibid., pp. 91–2. 45 Letter from Ablah, George to Moore, Henry, 7 May 1983. HMF. 46 Zimmer, William, ’35 Moore bronzes in retrospective’, The New York Times, 15 April 1984. 47 Berthoud: Interview with Ablah. 48 Letter from Devree, Charlotte, LOOK, to Barr, Alfred, 19 September 1949. Barr Papers, Roll 2175. The reader’s letter was received at LOOK magazine on 3 August 1949. AAA.SI. 49 Alfred H. Barr, Jr Papers, 7.6.c. MoMA. 50 Letter from Barr, Alfred to Devree, Charlotte, 28 September 1949. Barr Papers, Roll 2175, AAA.SI. 51 Letter from Barr, Alfred to Moore, Henry, 21 July 1965. Barr papers, Roll 2182. AAA.SI. 52 Letter from Moore, Henry to Barr, Alfred, 19 February 1973. HMF. 53 Seldis: Henry Moore in America, p.67. 54 Ibid. Seldis referred to a diary notebook entry for 12 December 1946 when Moore was in New York for his MoMA exhibition. The fullness of the entry was typical of Moore’s schedule, including as it did lunch with Barr, a visit to the British-American Art Center, the Pierpont Morgan library, a visit to the Frick Collection with Valentin, and to his ‘old friend’ Peggy Guggenheim. During the visit Moore also went to Boston, Washington, Dumbarton Oaks and Philadelphia.

225



226

notes to pages 9 6 – 1 0 1







55 Sandler, Irving and Newman, Amy, Redefining Modern Art: Selected Writings of Alfred H. Barr, Jr. (New York, 1986) p.212. Originally in Goldwater, Robert, ‘A Symposium: The State of American Art’, Magazine of Art, March 1949. 56 Seldis: Henry Moore in America, p.68. 57 Berthoud, Roger, transcript of interview with James Johnson Sweeney, New York, December 1983. HMF. (Quoted with the permission of the Estate of James Johnson Sweeney © Estate of James Johnson Sweeney). 58 Finn: Unforgettable Henry Moore, p.165. 59 Author’s interview with David Finn, 2 August 2003, New Rochelle. AA. 60 Ibid. 61 Finn, David, ‘Rethinking the Role of Public Relations’, Move: Perspectives on Communication, vol.5, 2002, pp.16–17. 62 Edleson: ‘Art Interest Makes the Best of Friends’. 63 Gould Inc., A Word from Henry Moore, Interview between David Finn and Henry Moore, Chicago, 1983. HMF V.22. 64 David Finn has published over 70 books, some concerned with business, but the majority comprising photographic essays on major sculptors. 65 Mullaly, Terence, ‘Where Moore’s £1m gift can go’, Daily Telegraph, 11 March 1967.

Chapter 7 1 Museum of Modern Art Exhibition. Fairmount Park Art Association (FPAA), Box 68. Historical Sites and Related Material, Folder 21. HSPA. 2 Tuan, Yi-Fu, Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes and Values (New York, Columbia University Press, 1990) p.226. 3 Sinclair, Andrew, The Need to Give: the Patrons and the Arts (London, Sinclair-Stevenson, 1990) p.7. 4 Boyer, M. Christine, The City of Collective Memory: Its Historical Imagery and Architectural Entertainments (Cambridge, MA and London, MIT Press, 1996) p.8. 5 Mumford, Lewis, The City in History (Harmondsworth, Penguin Books, 1961) pp. 81 and 650. 6 Harvey, David, The Urban Experience (Oxford and Cambridge, MA, Blackwell, 1989) p.229. 7 Zukin, Sharon, ‘Whose Culture? Whose City?’, in Legates, Richard T. and Stout, Frederic, The City Reader (London, Routledge, 2000) p.132. 8 Zukin: ‘Whose Culture?’, pp.133–4. 9 Wilson, William H., The City Beautiful Movement (Baltimore and London, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989) p.1.

notes to pages 1 0 1 – 1 0 6







10 Ibid., p. 75. 11 Eells, Richard, The Corporation and the Arts (New York and London, Macmillan, 1967), pp.103–4. 12 Bess, Philip, ‘Communitarianism and Emotivism: Two Rival Views of Ethics and Architecture’, in Nesbitt, Kate, Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture: An Anthology of Architectural Theory (New York, Princeton Architectural Press, 1996) pp.375–6. 13 Tuan: Topophilia, pp.194 and 196. 14 Giedion-Weicker, Carola, Contemporary Sculpture: An Evolution in Volume and Space (London, Faber & Faber, 1960, originally published 1937) p. xxiii. 15 Royal Institute of British Architects, Rebuilding Britain (London, Lund Humphries, 1943) p.26. 16 Royal Institute of British Architects: Rebuilding Britain, p.205. 17 Ibid., p. 205. 18 Hitchcock, Henry-Russell and Johnson, Philip, The International Style: Architecture Since 1922 (1932) pp.73–4, in Senie: Contemporary Public Sculpture: Tradition, Transformation, and Controversy (New York and Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1992), p.65. 19 Quoted in Martin, David F., Sculpture and Enlivened Space: Aesthetics and History (Lexington, University Press of Kentucky, 1981), p.7. 20 Wines, James, in Hall, James, The World as Sculpture: The Changing Status of Sculpture from the Renaissance to the Present Day (London, Pimlico, 2000) p. 250. 21 Myerscough-Walker, Robert, ‘Architect, Painter, Sculptor: What will be the Future Relationship between the Three Arts?’, Building, no 19, January 1938, p.28. 22 Ibid., p. 28. 23 Casson, Stanley, ‘The Role of Sculpture in Contemporary Life’, The Studio, June 1938, pp.296–308. 24 Casson in Martin, Sculpture and Enlivened Space, pp.37–8. 25 Ibid., p. 78. 26 Originally Read, Herbert, Henry Moore, Sculpture and Drawings (London, Lund Humphries, 1944), p.xxxvi, quoted in Hall: The World as Sculpture, p. 279. 27 Hall: The World as Sculpture, p.279. 28 Senie: Contemporary Public Sculpture, p.106. 29 Ibid., pp. 94–5. 30 Moore, Henry, in Hedgecoe: Henry Spencer Moore, p.154. 31 Moore, Henry, ‘Sculptures in Landscape’, Selection, vol.1, no 1, Autumn, 1962, p. 12. 32 Seldis, Henry J., ‘Dynamic Reassertion of Henry Moore’s Power’.

227



228

notes to pages 1 0 6 – 1 1 1



33 Kramer, Hilton, ‘The two Henry Moores’, The New Criterion, vol.5, no 2, October 1986, p.1. 34 Lippard, Lucy, ‘Art outdoors, in and out of the public domain’, Studio International, March/April 1977, vol.193, no 986, p.83. 35 Henry Moore, Savoy Hotel, 1 November 1967. Kenneth Clark papers TGA 8212.2.2.612. HKRC. 36 Landry, Charles and Greene, Lesley, The Art of Regeneration: Urban Renewal through Cultural Activity (London, Comedia, 1996) p.22. 37 Letter from Greer, James B. Supervisor, Motion Picture Division, University of California, Los Angeles, to Moore, Henry, 10 November 1967. HMF. 38 ‘Carving a niche for sculpture-vultures’, The Regent Magazine, Hong Kong, no 12, 1987. 39 Lerner, Abram (ed.), The Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden (New York, Smithsonian Institution and Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1974), pp.23–4. 40 Dean, Andrea Oppenheimer, ‘The National East: An Evaluation’, Architecture, vol.73, October 1984, p.74. 41 www.hirshhorn.si.edu/museum/story (link no longer active). Hirshhorn was born in Latvia. 42 Fletcher, Valerie, A Garden for Art: Outdoor Sculpture at the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden (Washington, DC, Smithsonian Institution in association with Thames & Hudson, 1998) pp.12–13. 43 Fletcher: A Garden for Art, p.15. 44 Saarinen, Aline B., The Proud Possessors: the Lives, Times and Tastes of Some Adventurous American Art Collectors (New York, Random House, 1958) p. 275. 45 Ibid., pp. 277–8. 46 Hyams, Barry, Hirshhorn: Medici from Brooklyn (New York, E.P. Dutton, 1979) p. 95. 47 Ibid., p. vii. 48 Ibid., p. 100. 49 Jacobs, Jay, ‘Collector: Joseph H. Hirshhorn’, Art in America, no 57, July/ August 1969, p.56. 50 Saarinen: The Proud Possessors, p.282. 51 Berthoud, Roger, transcript of interview with Hirshhorn, Olga, 11 November 1985. HMF. Hirshhorn sent a cheque for $30,000 to the Tate Gallery in honour of Moore’s seventieth birthday. 52 Seldis: Henry Moore in America, pp.110–11. 53 This sculpture had been ejected from an office block at 380 Madison Avenue, New York, where it had been placed for about a month. Percy Uris, president of the company which owned the building, had hoped that the tenants would like it. However, the sculpture was removed,

notes to pages 1 1 1 – 1 1 4



54 55



56 57 58 59



60



61



62 63

64

65 66



67 68



69 70 71



72

although ‘Mr. Uris scoffed at rumors that the statue was removed to placate a bitterly complaining tenant who occupies several floors and threatened to go if the statue didn’t.’ Uris did acknowledge that about 75 per cent of the tenants disliked the sculpture which had been cast for the late Curt Valentin and given to Uris to try out in the lobby with a view to purchase if it was well received. (‘City preoccupied by three statues’, New York Times, 16 October 1954). Hyams: Hirshhorn, p.117. Ibid., p. 131. Hyams credited Hirshhorn with helping to encourage the establishment of the Henry Moore Centre at Toronto Art Gallery (p.133). Hirshhorn persuaded Moore to drop his price for the Toronto City Hall sculpture almost by half, at the request of the civic authorities. Fifteen years before, Toronto Art Gallery had been lent three of Hirshhorn’s Moores: King and Queen, Glenkiln Cross and Reclining Woman (p.131). Hyams: Hirshhorn, p.135. Ibid., p. 139. Fletcher: A Garden for Art, p.11. Letter from Hendy, Philip to Goodman, Lord, 22 February 1969. NG 35/61. Correspondence: Henry Moore: Vertebrae 1969–72, Israel Museum 1969–72. Hendy archives. NGL. Krinsky, Carol Herselle, Gordon Bunshaft of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (New York, The Architectural History Foundation; Cambridge, MA and London, The MIT Press, 1988) p.135. Berthoud, Roger, transcript of interview with Bunshaft, Gordon, 30 November 1983, New York. HMF. Letter from Bunshaft, Gordon to Moore, Henry, 1 April 1969. HMF. Letter from Moore, Henry to Bunshaft, Gordon, 24 December 1974. HMF. Letter from Moore, Henry to Bunshaft, Gordon, 25 April 1983. HMF of Letter from Finn, David to Bunshaft, Gordon, 18 July 1979. Bunshaft Papers, File 1:4. Correspondence: general 1970–1979. AAFAL. Berthoud: interview with Bunshaft. Danz, Ernst, Architecture of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, 1950–1962 (London, The Architectural Press, 1963) p.12. Anderson, Stanford, in Krinsky: Gordon Bunshaft, pp.ix, xi. Stephens, S., ‘Museum as Monument’, Progressive Architecture, vol.56, no 3, March 1975, p.46. Ibid., p. 45. Ibid., p. 44. Wiseman, Carter, The Architecture of I.M. Pei, (London, Thames & Hudson, 1990), p.155. Wiseman: The Architecture of I.M. Pei, p.156.

229



230

notes to pages 1 1 5 – 1 1 7







73 Originally, Lynes, R., ‘National Gallery’s New Building is a Triangular Triumph’, The Smithsonian, June 1978, p.48, in Wiseman: Museum as Monument, p. 163. 74 Dean, Andrea Oppenheimer, ‘The National East: An Evaluation’, p. 74. Carter Brown wrote at length on the genesis of the East Wing, a paramount issue being ‘how to integrate the structure on a Mall characterized by classical architecture…Although the Gallery’s East Building does not employ a classical vocabulary, the design nonetheless attains a classic quality that makes it fully compatible with its more traditional neighbors…By the 1960s, the National Gallery had become crowded; some of the galleries had been relegated to office space, and the cafeteria was highly inadequate…The West Building…was an integral part of this project…It is an addition to an existing facility, in a sense, a pavilion. The idea of expanding the museum had been envisioned by Andrew Mellon, who held the bargaining leverage of the largest individual gift ever given by any citizen to any government: his collection, an endowment, and the construction of a building…’ (Brown, J. Carter, ‘The designing of the National Gallery of Art’s East Building’, Studies in the History of Art, vol.30, 1991, pp.279–80). 75 Author’s interview with I.M. Pei, New York, 1 August 2003. 76 Carter Brown in Museum Without Walls: Henry Moore in New York City, from the Ablah Collection (New York, Book-of-the-Month Club Inc., 1984) p. 11. 77 Letter from Brown, J., National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC to Moore, Henry, 7 May 1973. HMF. 78 Memorandum of a telephone conversation between Brown, J. Carter and Brooks, Harry, Wildenstein Gallery, 17 May 1973. RG 11c, Box 8. Records of the Planning Office Commissions for the East Building. Moore, Henry. Spindle Piece & Two Edge Knife Piece. File E.B. Art – Moore. Spindle Piece (1972 – 12/1975) NGW. 79 Memorandum from Scott, D., Planning Consultant to Brown, J. Carter, 18 September 1972. RG 11c, Box 8. NGW. 80 Commissioned and specially selected Works of Art for the East Building 1971– 1981, A Calendar of Correspondence. NGW. 81 Author’s interview with I.M. Pei. 82 Letter from Moore, Henry to Brown, J. Carter, 23 May 1973. RG 11c, Box 8. NGW. 83 Letter from Brown, J. Carter to Atlas, Martin, Vice President, the Morris and Gwendolyn Cafritz Foundation, Washington, 8 August 1973. RG 11c, Box 8. NGW. 84 Cork, Richard in Compton, Susan, British Art in the Twentieth Century (London, Royal Academy, 1988) p.25.

notes to pages 1 1 7 – 1 2 2







85 Letter from Moore, Henry to Brown, J. Carter, 5 July 1974. HMF. 86 Letter from Moore, Henry to Brown, J. Carter, 20 December 1974. HMF. 87 Letter from Moore, Henry to Brown, J. Carter, 10 April 1975. HMF. 88 Letter from Brown, J. Carter to Moore, Henry, 1 July 1975. RG 11c, Box 8. NGW. 89 Letter from Brown, J. Carter to Moore, Henry, 5 November 1975. RG 11c, Box 8. NGW. 90 Letter from Hanes, Gordon to Moore, Henry, 10 November 1975. RG 11c, Box 8. NGW. 91 Letter from Moore, Henry to Hanes, Gordon, 17 December 1975. RG 11c, Box 8. NGW. 92 Memorandum from Mallick, Jerry, Registrar’s Office, NGA, to the file, 19 April 1976. RG 11c, Box 8. File E. B. Art – Moore. Spindle Piece (c1976-). NGW. 93 Finn, David, ‘Looking at Henry Moore’s “Mirror Knife Edge”’, Roll Call, Washington, DC, 14 December 1989. 94 Letter from Moore, Henry to Pei, I.M., 22 April 1976. RG 11c, Box 8. File E.B. Art – Moore. Two Edge Knife Piece (April 1976–November 1977). NGW. 95 Letter from Brown, J. to Moore, Henry, 26 April 1976. HMF. 96 Wilkinson: Henry Moore: Writings and Conversations, pp.306–7. 97 Letter from Brown, J. Carter to Moore, Henry, 1 December 1976. HMF. 98 File Note regarding Acquisitions Committee meeting, 26 January 1977. RG 11c, Box 8. File E.B. Art – Moore. Two Edge Knife Piece. NGW. 99 Letter from Atlas, Martin to Brown, J. Carter, 8 November 1977. Box RG 11c, Box 8. NGW. A grant had been approved ($250,000 in 1973) and now an additional $250,000. The Foundation was to be recognised as the sole donor of the sculpture. 100 Letter from Jacobson, Leonard, I.M. Pei Associates, to Offenbacher, Hurley F., National Gallery, Washington, DC, 12 September 1974. RG 11c, Box 8. NGW. 101 Author’s interview with I.M. Pei. 102 Ritchie, Anne G., interview with Brown, J. Carter, 7 February 1994, Washington, DC. Exhibition Celebrating East Building, National Gallery, 2003. Oral History Program, National Gallery of Art. Planning and Design of the East Building (94-02) NGW. 103 Lovell, Bonnie, transcript of interview with I.M. Pei, 1 August 2002, New York. DPL. 104 Ritchie, Anne G., interview with Pei, I.M., 22 October 1993, New York. Exhibition Celebrating East Building, National Gallery, 2003. Oral History Program, National Gallery of Art. The Architecture of the

231



232

notes to pages 1 2 2 – 1 2 7

105 106 107

108 109 110 111

112 113 114 115 116 117 118

119 120 121 122 123

124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132

East Building (93–01). Interestingly, this parallels the use of Moore and Dubuffet in New York: Dubuffet chosen for Chase Manhattan Bank and Moore for Lincoln Center. Author’s interview with I.M. Pei. Author’s interview with David Finn. Abbott, Arlinda, Dealey Plaza: The Front Door of Dallas (Dallas, The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza, 2003) p.14. Ibid., p. 41. Eells: The Corporation and the Arts, p.85. Wiseman: The Architecture of I.M. Pei, pp.122–23. Payne, Darwin, Big D: Triumphs and Troubles of an American Supercity in the Twentieth Century (Dallas, TX, Three Forks Press, 1994) p.330. Goals for Dallas, Goals for Dallas: Proposals for Achieving the Goals (Dallas, TX, Republic Bank Building, 1966) p.6. Ibid.: p. 7. Ibid.: p. 45. Goals for Dallas, Achieving the Goals for Dallas 1978–83 (Dallas, 1979). Wiseman: The Architecture of I.M. Pei, p.123. Ibid., p. 125. Dallas Municipal Presentation Album, I.M. Pei, 5 July 1976. Record Group 15: City Facilities. City Hall and City Hall Dedication (Collection 91 – 124). Box 8. Folder 1. DMARC. Wiseman: The Architecture of I.M. Pei, p.125. Ibid., pp. 127–8. Ibid., p. 130. ‘Dedication at City Hall’, The Times Herald, 14 March 1978. Marlin, William, ‘I.M. Pei – An appreciation for context’, The Christian Science Monitor, 16 March 1978, p.31. Wiseman: The Architecture of I.M. Pei, p.136. Ibid., p. 137. Berthoud, Roger, transcript of interview with Pei, I.M., New York, 29 October 1983. HMF. Diamonstein, Barbaralee (ed.) Collaboration: Artists and Architects (New York, Whitney Library of Design, 1981) p.56. Lovell, Bonnie, transcript of interview with Schrader, George, Addison, Texas, 19 June 2002. DPL. Letter from Black, Leicia, Secretary to I.M. Pei, to Berthoud, Roger, 26 January 1984. HMF. Letter from Moore, Henry to Pei, I.M., 22 April 1976. HMF. Letter from Pei, I.M. to Moore, Henry, 30 April 1976. HMF. Author’s interview with I.M. Pei.

notes to pages 1 2 7 – 1 3 4

133 Lovell: interview with Pei. 134 This is the opposite of what Pei told Roger Berthoud in their 1983 interview. 135 Lovell: interview with Pei. 136 Ibid. 137 Lovell: interview with Schrader. 138 ‘Councilman opposes free modern statue for Dallas’, The New York Times, 11 July 1976. 139 Bauman, Kit, ‘Folsom’s art panel approved – after lively debate’, Dallas Times Herald, 27 July 1976. 140 Tatum, Henry, ‘Cothrum Asks: Whose Taste?’, The Dallas Morning News, 1 August 1976. 141 Tatum, Henry, ‘Cothrum Shapes New Respect for Moore, his Work’, The Dallas Morning News, 6 December 1978. 142 Dallas Museum of Fine Arts, Henry Moore: The Dallas Piece. Film by Jim Murray, 1982. V.34. HMF. 143 ‘Folks just can’t keep hands off Henry Moore’s powerful sculpture’, Dallas Downtown News, 11 December 1978, pp.8–9. 144 Parmley, Helen, ‘Dallas in awe of sculpture – whatever it’s supposed to be’, The Dallas Morning News, 5 December 1978. 145 Lovell, Bonnie, transcript of interview with Murray, Jim, Dallas 1 May 2002. DPL. 146 Letter from Marcus, Stanley to Moore, Henry, 22 January 1979. HMF. 147 Kutner, Janet, ‘Pei Says Dallas “in motion”’, The Dallas Morning News, 5 June 1979. 148 Kutner, Janet, ‘Making Dallas “Exciting Place”’, The Dallas Morning News, 25 December 1977. 149 ‘Moore Sculpture: Vandalism of Work also Defaces Dallas’, The Dallas Morning News, November 1994. 150 Payne: Big D, pp.387–88. 151 Neville, John, ‘Art: Major Henry Moore sculpture acquired by DMFA’, The Dallas Morning News, 16 January 1965. 152 Letter from Lovell, Bonnie to author, 1 February 2004. AA. 153 Letter from Deal, I.C. to Moore, Henry, 29 November 1982. HMF. 154 Scully, Vincent, ‘Does MoMA always know best’, Architectural Digest, vol. 41, August 1984, p.142. In 1987 the new museum acquired 14 bronze maquettes, dating from between 1938 and the 1980s. 155 Riedy, James L., Chicago Sculpture (Chicago and London, University of Illinois Press, 1981) p.1. 156 Ibid., p. 3. 157 Ibid., p. 6. 158 Dedicated on 15 August 1967.

233



234

notes to pages 1 3 4 – 1 4 0

159 Chicago Daily News, 13 May 1977. In Riedy: Chicago Sculpture, pp. 253–54. 160 Bach, Ira J. and Gray, Mary Lackritz, A Guide to Chicago’s Public Sculpture (Chicago and London, University of Chicago Press, 1983) pp. xi–xii. 161 Originally known as the Chicago Academy of Fine Arts, it acquired its present name in 1882. 162 Reference Art Institute of Chicago V Otto Kerner, no B-269011. Cited in Riedy: Chicago Sculpture, pp.9–10. 163 Chicago Daily News, 11 February 1955. Cited in Riedy: Chicago Sculpture, p. 10. 164 Kutner, Luis, ‘The Desecration of the Ferguson Monument Trust: The Need for Watchdog Legislation’, De Paul Law Review, vol.7, 1963, pp. 219–20. Cited in Riedy: Chicago Sculpture, p. 10. 165 Riedy: Chicago Sculpture, p.12. 166 Bach and Gray, p.xvii. 167 Riedy: Chicago Sculpture, p.11. 168 Taft’s fountain was dedicated on 9 September 1913. 169 Riedy: Chicago Sculpture, pp.13–14. 170 Chicago Sun Times, 2 June 1955. 171 Letters from Moore, Henry to Mr and Mrs Maremont, 22 July 1958, 10 June 1959. HMF. 172 Letter from Brown, Lloyd W., Secretary, Art Institute of Chicago, to Mr and Mrs Maremont, 7 April 1960. File 1960.9. (Unesco) Reclining Figure, 1957. AIC. When seen by the author in 2003, the sculpture was placed in isolation on a landing, in front of a window covered with nets, behind which the railway line was clearly visible. 173 Memorandum from Wood, James N., Director, Art Institute of Chicago, to Institute Board members, 31 January 1983. File 20B. Large Interior Form, 1983. AIC. 174 Letter from Wood, James N. to Bruce Graham, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, 3 February 1983. File 20B. AIC. 175 Letter from Moore, Henry to Schultz, Arthur, Chairman, Art Institute of Chicago, 31 March 1983. File 20B. AIC. 176 Letter from Stefanski, James A., SOM, to Plack, Joseph, Art Institute of Chicago, 26 April 1983. File 20B. AIC. 177 Note dated 31 March 1983. File 20B. AIC. 178 Exhibition 6 May–5 June 1983. 179 Memorandum for file, 15 April 1983. File 20B. AIC. 180 Founded by Max Adler in 1930 the Planetarium holds almost 2,000 historic instruments and is the largest such collection in the Western hemisphere. Officially, the Adler belongs to the City of Chicago. Philip

notes to pages 1 4 0 – 1 4 4

181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188

Fox, astronomer and academic, was the first president of the Adler, spending part of his career at the University of Chicago where astronomy was a key discipline. It seems that the position of the Ferguson Fund was never clear since for many years the Planetarium thought that they owned the Moore sculpture. Letter from Pyle-Vowles, Devon, Collections Manager, Adler Planetarium, Chicago, to author, 14 August 2003. AA. Letter from Nebenzahl, Kenneth to Moore, Henry, 13 October 1978. APA. Letter from Moore, Henry to Nebenzahl, Kenneth, 20 February 1979. APA. Letter from Nebenzahl, Kenneth to Moore, Henry, 12 April 1979. APA. ‘Proposal to the Committee on The Ferguson Fund of The Art Institute of Chicago from The Adler Planetarium’, nd, enclosed with letter from Nebenzahl, Kenneth to Wood, James, 22 May 1979. APA. Letter from Nebenzahl, Kenneth to Moore, Henry, 18 September 1980. APA. Letter from Moore, Henry to Nebenzahl, Kenneth, 8 October 1980. APA.

Chapter 8 1 Barnett: ‘The shape of labour’, p.4. 2 Chadwick, George, F., The Park and the Town: Public Landscape in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries (London, The Architectural Press, 1966) p. 19. 3 Ibid., p. 181. A park for New York was first discussed in 1785: the Battery became a park in 1826. 4 Ibid., p. 184. 5 Olmsted, Frederick Law, Walks and Talks of an American Farmer in England (London, 1852, pp.78–82). In Chadwick: The Park and the Town, p. 71. 6 Wilson, William H., The City Beautiful Movement (Baltimore and London, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989) p.86. 7 Chadwick: The Park and the Town, p.163. 8 Legates and Stout: The City Reader, p.296. 9 Cranz, Galen, The Politics of Park Design: A History of Urban Parks in America (Cambridge, MA and London, the MIT Press, 1982) p.xii. 10 Ibid., pp. 3–4. 11 Ibid., p. 24. 12 Ibid., pp. 161 and 163.

235



236

notes to pages 1 4 4 – 1 4 9



13 14 15 16 17



18



19 20 21



22



23



24



25



26



27 28



29



30 31



32 33

Ibid., p. 209. Ibid., p. 135. Ibid., p. 137. Ibid., pp. 233–4. Mannes, Marya, ‘The New York I Know: II. Central Park’, The Reporter, 21 January, p.20, 1960. In Cranz: The Politics of Park Design, p. 234. Bach, Penny Balkin, Public Art in Philadelphia (Philadelphia, PA, Temple University Press, 1992) p.21. The Fairmount Park Commission was created in 1867, assisted by the formation in 1872 of the FPAA that sponsored the linkage of the city centre with the park in 1904. The Fairmount Parkway concept was for an axial vista from a planned new museum (which opened in 1928) to cut diagonally across the grid plan of the city and to culminate at the point of one of the corner towers of City Hall. Ibid., p. 101. Ibid., p. 120. Fleisher, Samuel S., Chairman of Committee on Recreational Activities. Report of the Commissioners of Fairmount Park, 1940. FPAA papers. Box no 22. HSP. Fairmount Park Art Association leaflet, Selected Works of Public Art in Philadelphia, 2000. AA. Canaday, John, ‘Art in Cities’, 1963 talk reprinted in 91st Annual Report of the FPAA. FPAA papers. Box no 22. HSP. Love, Nancy, ‘An Athens it isn’t’, Philadelphia Magazine, vol.57 no 10, October 1966, pp.54, 56 and 150. Donohoe, Victoria, ‘100 years of Fairmount Art Association’, Philadelphia Inquirer, 16 April 1972. Clark, K., Address to the FPAA on ‘Ideal Cities’, 1972. 8212.2.2.420. HKRC. Finn: Henry Moore: Sculpture and Environment, p.416. Letter from Ingersoll, R. Sturgis to Price, Philip, FPAA, 24 August 1967. FPAA papers. Box no 14. HSP. Letter from Scott, Robert, Chairman of the Friends of the Philadelphia Museum of Art, to Moore, Henry, 12 June 1967. HMF. Berthoud interview with Bunshaft. BBC, Arts Programme, Interview with Henry Moore, 12 May 1972 (transmitted 19 May), London. HMF A.49. Senie: Contemporary Public Sculpture, p.109. Oral history interview by Zane, Sharon with Blum, Robert, 1990, p.50. LC. The sculptor on the Art Commission was Eleanor Platt, a member of the National Sculpture Society. (Senie in Kosinski: Henry Moore, p.282).

notes to pages 1 5 0 – 1 5 4





34 Senie in Kosinski: Henry Moore, p.282. 35 26 March 1962. Memorandum issued reference update of a ‘Facts Leaflet’ on the Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts. Max Abramovitz Papers. 1926–1995. Folder: 1990.007. Lincoln Center Memoranda, 1959–60, 1962. AAFAL. 36 Biddle, Livingstone L., Our Government and the Arts: a Perspective from the Inside (New York, American Council for the Arts, 1988) p.239. 37 Zane: Interview with Blum, p.59. 38 Report 2 October 1956. Abramovitz Papers. 1926–1995. Folder: 1990.003. Lincoln Center Meeting Minutes. AAFAL. 39 Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts, 1964 booklet. Max Abramovitz Papers. 1926–1995. Folder: 1990.007. Lincoln Center correspondence. AAFAL. 40 Letter to Groberg, Jodi from Abramovitz, Max, 16 October 1973. Max Abramovitz Papers. 1926–1995. Folder. 1990.007. Lincoln Center correspondence. AAFAL. 41 Oral history interview by Zane, Sharon with Abramovitz, Max, 20 June 1990, New York. Max Abramovitz Papers. 1926–1995. AAFAL. 42 Zane: Interview with Blum, p.40. LC. 43 Ibid., p. 61. 44 Oral history interview by Zane, Sharon with Johnson, Philip, 4 August 1990, p. 39. LC. 45 Oral history interview by Zane, Sharon with List, Vera, 16 June 1994, p. 7. LC. 46 Author’s interview with David Finn. 47 Zane: Interview with List. 48 Ibid. 49 Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts. Meeting of Collaborating Architects 20 March 1961. Max Abramovitz Papers. 1926–1995. Folder: 1990.003. AAFAL. 50 Zane: Interview with Johnson, p.50. 51 Ibid., p. 88. 52 Ibid., pp. 89–90. 53 Ibid., p. 90. 54 Oral history interview by Zane, Sharon with Roche, Kevin, 17 August 1995, p. 12. LC. 55 Oral history interview by Zane, Sharon with Schuman, William, 1990, p. 145. LC. 56 Board of Directors Minutes, 9 July 1962. LC. 57 Letter from Stanton, Frank to Schuman, William, 3 July 1962. LC. 58 Oral history interview by Zane, Sharon with Stanton, Frank, 18 January 1991, p. 36. LC.

237



238

notes to pages 1 5 4 – 1 5 9



59 60 61 62 63 64 65



66



67



68



69



70 71 72



73 74 75 76



77



78



79 80



81 82 83 84



85 86

Berthoud interview with Bunshaft. Letter from Stanton, Frank to Schuman, William, 27 July 1964. LC. Zane: interview with Stanton, p.31. Ibid., pp. 40–1. Ibid., p. 36. The New York Times Magazine, 1962, p.6. Special supplement, ‘Lincoln Center’, The New York Times Magazine, Section 6, Part 2, 23 September 1962, pp.15, 39 and 40. Remarks by Mayor Robert F. Wagner, at unveiling of Moore statue, 21 September 1965. File 3470. Lincoln Center. ACNY. Columbia Broadcasting System, Henry Moore: Man of Form, New York, 1965. HMF V.97. Remarks by Frank Stanton at dedication of Henry Moore sculpture, Lincoln Center, 21 September 1965. René d’Harnoncourt Papers. VII. 146. MoMA. Remarks by Frank Stanton at dedication of Henry Moore sculpture, Lincoln Center. Author’s interview with Ablah. Memorandum from Ablah, George to Shar, Larry, 3 January 1984. NYPD Letter from Goldsmith, Caroline, Ruder Finn to Stern, Henry, 27 March 1985. NYPD. Finn: One Man’s Henry Moore, p.87. Ibid., p. 88. Ibid., pp. 88–9. Museum without Walls: Henry Moore in New York City, From the Ablah Collection. ‘Henry Moore in the Parks’, Advertising Supplement, The New York Times, 1 July 1984. Berthoud interview with Ablah. The film was made by Philip Gittelman Film Associates, New York. ‘Henry Moore in the Parks’, p.8. Remarks by Mayor Edward Koch, accepting loan of 25 Moores. 15 December 1983. NYPD. The New York Daily News, 29 April 1984. ‘Sculpture Protection Project’, Point (g), 16 January 1984. NYPD. Author’s interview with Henry Stern, 30 July 2003, New York. AA. Letter from Bresnan, Joseph, Director of Planning and Preservation to Dodge, Melvin, Director of Department of Recreation and Parks, 28 August 1984. NYPD. Sutton, Larry, ‘Two Park sculpture with City’, Daily News, 28 March 1985. ‘Eight graffiti-free months gain New York a $1 million sculpture’, The Philadelphia Inquirer, 30 March 1985.

notes to pages 1 6 0 – 1 6 6





87 The Phoenix, 20 September 1984. 88 Press release, Mayor’s Office, 27 March 1985. File: Collateral. 4648. ACCNY. 89 ‘Urban relief: Mooring Moore’, The New York Times, 30 May, 1986. 90 ‘Sculpture in search of a home’, The New York Times, 7 May 1986. ‘So it was cleaned, waxed and taken to the Doris C. Freedman Plaza at Fifth Avenue and 60th Street – also a temporary residence, because that site is for changing exhibitions.’ 91 Letter from Ablah, George to Finn, David, 4 April 1989. NYPD. 92 New York Art Commission resolution for removal of Moore’s Two-Piece Reclining Figure: Points, 7 April 1989. NYPD. 93 Letter from Finn, David to author, 25 October 2010. AA. 94 Finn: One Man’s Henry Moore, p.91. 95 Letter from Finn, David to Morris, D.J., Barclay School, Stevenage, 18 July 1983. HMF. 96 Letter from Moore, Henry to Finn, David, 20 July 1983. HMF. 97 Letter from Moore, Henry to Finn, David, 4 August 1983. HMF. 98 Finn: One Man’s Henry Moore, pp.91–2. 99 Ibid., p. 94. 100 Author’s interview with George Ablah. 101 Finn: One Man’s Henry Moore, pp.95–6. 102 Berthoud, Roger, ‘The selling of Henry Moore’, Business Magazine, June 1988. 103 Glueck, Grace, ‘Kansas collector sells 57 art works by Moore’, The New York Times, 23 November 1986. 104 Glueck: ‘Kansas collector sells 57 art works by Moore’. 105 Letter from Coe, Ralph T., Assistant Director, William Rockhill Nelson Gallery of Art, to Moore, Henry, 30 May 1973. HMF. 106 Letter from Wade, Jane to Moore, Henry, 27 October 1973. HMF. 107 Letter from First National Bank, Kansas City (no signatory) to Moore, Henry, 19 July 1974. HMF. 108 Hoffmann, Donald, ‘”Sheep” still without a pasture’, The Kansas City Star, 2 January 1976. 109 Letter from Wade, Jane to Moore, Henry, 19 August 1974. HMF. 110 Letter from Moore, Henry to Wade, Jane, 28 August 1974. HMF. 111 Letter from Coe, Ralph to Moore, Henry, 23 September 1975. HMF. 112 Letter from Moore, Henry to Coe, Ralph, 2 October 1975. HMF. 113 Letter from Dunning, Brian to Moore, Henry, 24 September 1975. HMF. 114 In Dallas Moore visited the Dallas Museum of Art for a reception, inspecting his Reclining Figure there. (Prejean, Jeanne, ‘The Moore they saw, they liked’, The Dallas Morning News, 17 April 1976).

239



240

notes to pages 1 6 6 – 1 7 2

115 Churchman, Michael, High ideals and aspirations: the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art 1933–1993 (Kansas City, the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, 1993) p. 11. 116 Wilson, Marc F. in Churchman: High ideals and Aspirations, Foreword. 117 Ibid., p. 7. 118 Letter from Collins, Peggy, Hallmark Cards, to Darter, Jerry, Director, Department of Parks and Recreation, Kansas City, 8 January 1987. File: Henry Moore Sculpture Garden. RG01/04. Box 4. NAMA. 119 Letter from Darter, Jerry to Hall, William A., 30 January 1987. File: Henry Moore Sculpture Garden. RG01/04. Box 4. NAMA. 120 Author’s interview with Finn. 121 Finn: One Man’s Henry Moore, pp.97–8. 122 The Kansas City Star, 23 November 1986. 123 Ibid. Chapter 9 1 Scully, Vincent, ‘Does MOMA always know best’, Architectural Digest, vol. 41, August 1984, p.138. 2 Museum of Modern Art, Modern Art in your Life (New York, 1949). 3 Harris, Neil, Cultural Excursions: Marketing Appetites and Cultural Tastes in Modern America (Chicago and London, University of Chicago Press, 1990) p. 356. 4 Ibid., p. 111. 5 Jacobson, Marjory, Art and Business: New Strategies for Corporate Collecting (London, Thames & Hudson, 1993) p.10. 6 Senie: Contemporary Public Sculpture, p.222. 7 Wu, Chin-Tao, Privatising Culture: Corporate Art Interventions since the 1980s (London, Verso, 2002) p.7. 8 Aaronovitch, Sam, ‘The American Threat to British Culture’, Arena, vol. II, no 8, June/July 1951, p.3. 9 Ibid., p. 6. 10 Ibid., p. 16. 11 Feaver, William, ‘Yorkshire Moore’, Times Educational Supplement, 13 November 1987. 12 Kosinski: Henry Moore, p.6. 13 Harris: Cultural Excursions, p.253. 14 Wu: Privatising Culture, p.11. 15 Ibid., p. 127. 16 Abell, Walter, ‘Industry and Painting’, Magazine of Art, vol.39, no 3, 1946, pp. 82–93, 114–18. 17 Frost, Rosamund, ‘Has advertising art improved?’, Art News, vol.1, part 30, 1–30 September, 1944, pp.9–10.

notes to pages 1 7 2 – 1 7 5







18 Abell: ‘Industry and Painting’, pp.82–93, 114–18. 19 Lynes, Russell, ‘The Taste-Makers’, Harper’s Magazine, 194, June 1947, p. 489. 20 In Rose, S., ‘Interface: Business and Beauty’, Columbia Journal of World Business, vol. 2, part 3, May/June, 1967, pp.87–8. 21 Lynes, Russell, ‘Whose Business is Art’?, Art in America, vol. 44, no 2, Spring 1956. One of the key figures in supporting art in department stores was Stanley Marcus of Neiman-Marcus in Dallas. When Marcus ‘brought a group of Gauguins to Dallas … he got a bunch of distinguished designers to whip up a Gauguin-inspired collection of fabrics and women’s ready to wear. Neiman-Marcus not only showed the Gauguins for the edification of Dallas, but also sold some extra clothes to the enrichment of Neiman-Marcus … when art can do something for the store … the store will go all out to do something for art.’ 22 Eells: The Corporation and the Arts, p.82. 23 Wu: Privatising Culture, p.125. 24 Abell, Walter, ‘Viewpoints: Can Industry be counted on as a patron of the arts?’, Magazine of Art, vol.37, April 1944, p.135. 25 Burnham, Sophy. American journal extract. Incomplete details. Philip Hendy archives, NG 35/63. NGL. The presence of this article in Hendy’s papers is intriguing, and one can only speculate as to whether he was in agreement with the sentiments of its author. 26 Martorella, Rosanne, Corporate Art (New Brunswick and London, Rutgers University Press, 1990) p.53. 27 Montgomery Museum of Fine Arts, Art Inc: American Paintings from Corporate Collections (in association with Brandywine Press, 1979) p.35. 28 Martorella: Corporate Art, p.85. 29 Harris: Cultural Excursions, p.3. 30 Ibid., p. 25. 31 Harris, John S., Government Patronage of the Arts (Chicago and London, University of Chicago Press, 1970) p.10. 32 Ibid., p. 66. 33 Ibid., p. 72. 34 Container Corporation of America, Modern Art in Advertising: Designs for Container Corporation of America, 1946. 35 Schiller, Herbert I., Culture Inc: The Corporate Takeover of Public Relations (New York and Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1989) p.31. 36 Harris: Government Patronage of the Arts, p.376. 37 Sunday Star Ledger, 26 March 1978, p.15. 38 Elicker, P., ‘Why Corporations give money to the Arts’, Wall Street Journal, 31 March 1978, p.15.

241

241



242

notes to pages 1 7 5 – 1 8 0







39 Harris: Government Patronage of the Arts, p.376. 40 Ibid., p. 377. 41 In Lieberman, William, S., The Nelson A. Rockefeller Collection: Masterpieces of Modern Art (New York, Hudson Hills Press, 1981) p.24. John D. Rockefeller, Jr’s wife, Abby, was a co-founder of MoMA. Their son Nelson was elected a MoMA trustee in 1932; president in 1939 aged just 30, and in 1940 was given a political position within the Roosevelt government. 42 Rockefeller, David, Culture and the Corporation. Founding Address for the Business Committee for the Arts, Inc., 20 September 1966, delivered at 50th Anniversary Conference, National Industrial Conference Board, New York. 43 www.bcainc.org/content_board, 2001 (link no longer active). 44 Roche, Mary, ‘Printed fabrics go on exhibition here’, The New York Times, 23 May 1947. 45 Buchholz Gallery, Léger, Matisse, Miró, Moore: Panels and Sculpture, 4–28 May 1949, New York. 46 Reno, Doris, ‘Big Business a Natural to Sponsor Modern Art’, The Herald, Miami Florida, 26 January 1965. 47 AFA, Box 47. Exhibition files 60–42. 31 October 1963. AAA. SI. 48 ‘Clairol reaps benefits by sponsoring fine art’, Printers Ink. AFA. Box 47. Box 60. Exhibition Files 63–33. Mother & Child in Modern Art. AAA.SI. 49 Letter from Honore, Andrea, Art Administrator, Corporate Art Program, Johnson & Johnson, to author, 30 June 2002. AA. 50 Johnson & Johnson, undated press release. AA. 51 Finn, David, ‘Art for business’s sake, art for art’s sake’, p.30. 52 Finn, David and Jedlicka, Judith, The Art of Leadership: Building Business Arts Alliances (New York, London, Paris, Abbeville Press, 1998), p. 11. 53 Finn and Jedlicka: The Art of Leadership, p.172. 54 Schiller: Culture Inc., p. 93. Originally in The New York Times, 13 November 1987. 55 Time, 1959, p. 86. 56 Kramer, Hilton, ‘Art: Civic-Minded people’s choice’, The New York Times, 4 October 1967. 57 Mack, Walter S., ‘Viewpoints: a new step in art patronage’, Magazine of Art, vol. 57, October, 1944, p.228. 58 Rice: ‘The Big Pay Off in Corporate Art’, Fortune, 25 May 1987, pp. 72–3. 59 Greenhouse, Linda, ‘PepsiCo begins its move to the suburbs’, The New York Times, 13 April 1970.

notes to pages 1 8 0 – 1 8 6







60 Donald M. Kendall was co-founder of PepsiCo and its Chief Executive Officer for over twenty years before his retirement in 1986. That year, the gardens at PepsiCo were renamed the Donald M. Kendall Sculpture Gardens. 61 Jedlicka, Judith, America’s Eclectic Collector: a History of Corporate Art Collection (New York, Business Committee for the Arts, Inc. and Executive Viewpoints, 1983). 62 Letter from Kendall, Donald to author, 20 March 2003. AA. 63 Rice, ‘The big pay off in corporate art’, pp.72–73. 64 Kendall, Donald, ‘What came first, the sculpture or the garden?’, The Public Garden, October 1992, p.8. 65 Ibid., p. 8. 66 Ibid., p. 8. 67 Van Zuylen, Gabrielle, The Gardens of Russell Page (New York, Stewart, Tabori & Chang, 1991) pp.12 and 112. 68 Van Zuylen: The Gardens of Russell Page, p. 13. Specifically in the 1930s. 69 Ibid., p. 224. 70 Johnson, Jory, Modern Landscape Architecture (New York, London, Paris, Abbeville Press Publishers, 1991) p.21. 71 Letter from Stone, Edward, Jr, to author, 16 May 2003. AA. 72 Johnson: Modern Landscape Architecture, pp.19–21. 73 Finn: Henry Moore: Sculpture and Environment, p.360. 74 McLane, David, ‘Touchable sculpture: it’s look and touch the art work at PepsiCo’, New York Sunday News, 30 May 1971, p.22. 75 Kenneth Clark, ‘Henry Moore around the World’, nd. Kenneth Clark Papers, TGA 8812.2.2.629. HKRC. 76 Johnson: Modern Landscape Architecture, pp.22–4. 77 Ibid., p. 29. 78 Ibid., pp. 29–30. 79 Ibid., p. 36. 80 Ibid., p. 38. 81 Ibid., pp. 38–9. 82 Letter from Olson, D., Principal, Sasaki Associates, Inc., Watertown, Mass. to Darter, Jerry, 31 March 1987. File: Proposals from Landscape Architects for Henry Moore Sculpture Garden, NAMA. The Deere & Co. Moore sculpture was referred to in this letter. 83 Sloane, Leonard, ‘We’re giving people more than a paycheck and we’re all richer for it: The Ciba-Geigy Collection’, ARTnews, November 1974, p. 96. 84 Dovey, Kim, Framing Places: Mediating Power in Built Form (London, Routledge, 1999) p.114.

243



244

notes to pages 1 8 7 – 1 9 3





85 Dovey: Framing Places, p.115. 86 Harris: Cultural Excursions, p.293. 87 Charles M. Edwards, ‘Art Can be Beautiful and Make Your Leasing Easier, Too’, Lobby Art and Plazas, Skyscraper Management, vol.58, no 9, Building Owners and Managers Association International, September 1973, p. 7. 88 Letter from Graham, Bruce to author, 24 April 2003. AA. 89 Berthoud interview with Bunshaft. 90 Press release ‘Two Henry Moore Sculptures Come to Chicago’, 6 May 1983. AIC. 91 Lyon, Christopher, ‘Henry Moore’s offspring finds a secure home at First National’, Chicago Sun Times, 8 May 1983. 92 Artner, Alan G., ‘Monumental dedication: Moore’s sculptures find home in Chicago’, Chicago Tribune, 6 May 1983, p.14. 93 Finn: One Man’s Henry Moore, pp.73–4. 94 Berthoud, Roger interview with Finn, David, New York, 29 November 1983. HMF. 95 Finn: One Man’s Henry Moore, pp.75–7. 96 ‘Henry Moore sculpture unveiled at Gould Center’, Gould Now, vol.9, no 1, February 1979, p.1. 97 ‘Henry Moore’, Robert Fresno and Educational Broadcasting Corporation, 1980. The film includes a striking and protracted sequence of images of Moore’s head, seen over the ages. HMF V.7. 98 Ruder Finn Inc., ‘Facts About Gould’, nd. HMF. 99 Letter from Millington, George P. Jr, Vice Chairman, Gould Inc., to Finn, David, 28 January 1982. HMF. 100 Letter from Finn, David to Moore, Henry, 8 February 1982. HMF. 101 Letter from Moore, Henry to Ylvisaker, William, 17 February 1982. HMF. 102 Letter from Ylvisaker, William to Berthoud, Roger, 26 February 1985. HMF. 103 Author’s interview with Finn. 104 Finn, David, ‘Moore at the Met’, Art World, vol.7, no 9, June 1983. 105 Finn: ‘Moore at the Met’. 106 Finn: One Man’s Henry Moore, p.78. 107 Letter from Capone, Terri, Assistant to David Finn, Ruder Finn, to Tinsley, Betty, Henry Moore’s Secretary, 17 January 1980. HMF. 108 Finn: One Man’s Henry Moore, pp.79–80. 109 Ibid., p. 81. 110 Press release dated November 1982. HMF. 111 In the World of Henry Moore, Sunday Morning, Columbia Broadcasting System, 1983, New York. HMF V.67.

notes to pages 1 9 3 – 2 0 2

112 Mays, John Bentley, ‘Moore’s art perfect for the Reagan era’, Toronto, The Globe and Mail, 7 May 1983. 113 Mays: ‘Moore’s art perfect for the Reagan era’. 114 Russell, John, ‘The Met will present the private Henry Moore’, The New York Times, 8 May 1983. 115 Lieberman, William, S., Henry Moore: 60 years of his art (London and New York, Thames & Hudson and the Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1983) p. 13. 116 Berthoud, Roger interview with Lieberman, William S., 2 December 1983, New York. HMF. 117 Berthoud: interview with Lieberman. 118 FAAC (82) 2nd Meeting, 19 October 1982, Item 4, p.7. Vol.3: British Council Minutes Book, April 1978–April 1996. BC. 119 Finn: One Man’s Henry Moore, pp.82–3. 120 The Pritzker Architecture Prize: The First Twenty Years, (New York, Harry N. Abrams, Inc. and The Art Institute of Chicago, 1999) p.22. 121 Author’s interview with John Nicolls, Senior Vice President Architecture and Design, Hyatt Corporation, Chicago, 15 July 2003. AA. 122 Email from Allen Turner to author, 4 August 2011. AA. 123 Author’s interview with Ed Rabin, President, Hyatt Corporation, Chicago, 15 July 2003. AA. 124 Author’s interview with Allen Turner, Attorney, Hyatt Corporation, Chicago, 15 July 2003. AA. Chapter 10 1 The Hakone Open-Air Museum, Henry Moore: The Expanse of Nature – The Nature of Man, Japan, exhibition 20 March–5 September 2004, pp. 59–60. 2 Bootle, Michael, Henry Moore: India 1987 (Henry Moore Foundation and British Council, 1987). 3 ‘BP Guide to Sponsorship of the Arts: Pharmaceutical Giant Sponsors Art’, Arts Review, September 1992, pp.439–40. 4 Berthoud, Roger, ‘Sermons in stone’, The Independent, 24 October 1987 5 ‘Margaret Thatcher talks about Henry Moore’, Modern Painters, vol.1, no 4, Winter, 1888/89, pp.42–3. 6 ‘Margaret Thatcher talks about Henry Moore’, pp.42–3. 7 Peterborough, ‘Nude carried out of Downing Street’, The Daily Telegraph, 6 November 1992. 8 Duthy, Robin, ‘Henry Moore: His sculpture seems a solid long-term investment, Connoisseur, vol.218, July 1988, pp.102–5. 9 Critics Forum, British Broadcasting Corporation, Radio 3, broadcast 17 September 1988. HMF A.124.

245



246

notes to pages 2 0 2 – 2 0 6





10 Berthoud: The Life of Henry Moore, pp.342–43. 11 Moore in the Bagatelle Gardens, exhibition catalogue, London, Lund Humphries, 1993. 12 Moore à Bagatelle: Sculpture on the Move, film produced by N. Descendre. The Henry Moore Foundation in association with the British Council and Histoires Naturelles Productions, 1992. HMF V.225. 13 Pearman, Hugh, ‘In great shape’, The Sunday Times, 14 June 1992 14 Ibid. 15 Cook, William, ‘A bronze age celebration’, The Scotsman, 12 June 1992. 16 Geddes, D., ‘Moore’s work on display in city he loved’, The Scotsman, 20 May 1992. 17 Ducas, J., ‘The figures in the Bois’, The Times, 1992, nd. 18 Lubbock, Tom, ‘Regarding Henry in a French garden’, The Independent on Sunday, 1992, nd. 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid. 21 Raphael, Frederic, ‘’Enry Moore’ [sic], Modern Painters, September 1992, pp. 36–40. 22 Raphael: ‘’Enry Moore’, p.39. 23 Henry Moore in China: a Never Ending Discovery, film, produced by the Henry Moore Foundation in association with Worldwide Pictures, 2000. HMF V.329. 24 Ibid. 25 Kelleher, John, ‘Western Figures Wander into Oriental Landscape’, The Times Higher Educational Supplement, 27 October 2000. 26 Ibid. 27 Henry Moore in China, catalogue, the Henry Moore Foundation, 2000, p. 13. 28 Moore in America, 24 May–2 November 2008. 29 Kennedy, Randy, ‘Giants Amid the Blooms’, The New York Times, 23 May 2008.

Bibliography Abbott, Arlinda, Dealey Plaza: The Front Door of Dallas, The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza (Dallas, TX, 2003) Appleyard, Bryan, The Pleasures of Peace: Art and Imagination in Post-War Britain (London, 1989) The Arts Council of Great Britain, Henry Moore at the Serpentine: 80th Birthday Exhibition of Recent Carvings and Bronzes (London, 1978) Bach, Ira, Gray, Mary Lackritz, A Guide to Chicago’s Public Sculpture (Chicago and London, 1983) Bach, Penny Balkin, Public Art in Philadelphia (Philadelphia, PA, 1992) Barnett, Correlli, The Audit of War: The Illusion and Reality of Britain as a Great Nation (London, 1986) — The Lost Victory: British Dreams, British Realities 1945–1950 (London and Basingstoke, 1995) Barr, Alfred (ed.) Painting and Sculpture in The Museum of Modern Art (New York, 1948) — Masters of Modern Art (New York, 1954) Beckett, Jane, Russell, Fiona (eds) Henry Moore: Critical Essays (London, 2003) Berthoud, Roger, The Life of Henry Moore (London, 1987, 2003) Biddle, Livingstone L., Our Government and the Arts: A Perspective From the Inside (New York, 1988) Bowness, Alan, (ed.) Henry Moore: Sculpture and Drawings 1955–1964 (London, 1965, 1986) — Henry Moore Complete Sculpture 1964–73 (London, 1977, 1991) — Henry Moore: Complete Sculpture 1974–80 (London, 1983, 1994) — Henry Moore: Complete Sculpture 1981–86 (London, 1988, 1999) Boyer, M. Christine, The City of Collective Memory: Its Historical Imagery and Architectural Entertainments (Cambridge, MA and London, 1996) The British Council, British Life and Thought: An Illustrated Survey (London, New York, Toronto, 1941) Chadwick, George, F., The Park and the Town: Public Landscape in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries (London, 1966) 247



248

H enry moore in america

Chagy, Gideon, The New Patrons of the Arts (New York, 1973) The Chase Manhattan Corporation, Art at Work: Forty Years of The Chase Manhattan Collection (New York, 2000) Churchman, Michael, High Ideals and Aspirations: The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art 1933–1993 (Kansas City, 1993) Clark, Kenneth, Another Part of the Wood: A Self-Portrait (London, 1974) Compton, Susan (ed.) British Art in the Twentieth Century (London, 1987) Cranz, Galen, The Politics of Park Design: A History of Urban Parks in America (Cambridge, MA and London, 1982) Danz, Ernst, Architecture of Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, 1950–1962 (London, 1963) Davis, Alan (ed.), Henry Moore Bibliography: vol. 1: 1898–1970; vol. 2: 1971–1986; vol. 3: Index 1898–1986; vol. 4: 1986–1991; vol. 5: Index 1898–1991. (London and Much Hadham, 1992) Donaldson, Frances, The British Council: The First Fifty Years (London, 1984) Eells, Richard, The Corporation and the Arts (New York and London, 1967) Fairmount Park Art Association, Selected Works of Public Art in Philadelphia (Philadelphia, 2000) Finn, David, As The Eye Moves: A Sculpture by Henry Moore (New York, 1973) — Henry Moore: Sculpture and Environment (New York and London, 1977) One Man’s Henry Moore (Redding Ridge, CT, 1993) Finn, David, Jedlicka, Judith, The Art of Leadership: Building Business-Arts Alliances (New York, London, Paris, 1998) Fletcher, Valerie, A Garden for Art: Outdoor Sculpture at the Hirshhorn Museum, Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, (Washington, DC, 1998) Garlake, Margaret, New Art: New World. British Art in Postwar Society (New Haven and London, 1998) Gee, Malcolm (ed.), Art Criticism Since 1900 (Manchester and New York, 1993) Gimenez, Carmen, Nash, Steven A. (eds), A Century of Sculpture: Nasher Collection (San Francisco and New York, 1996) Goodway, David (ed.), Herbert Read Reassessed (Liverpool, 1998) Greenhalgh, Liz, Worpole, Ken, Park Life – Urban Parks and Social Renewal (London, 1995) Greenwood, Sean, Britain and the Cold War 1945–1991 (Basingstoke, 1999) Hall, Donald, The Life and Work of a Great Sculptor: Henry Moore (London, 1960) Hall, James, The World as Sculpture: The Changing Status of Sculpture from the Renaissance to the Present Day (London, 2000)

bibliography

Harris, John S., Government Patronage of the Arts (Chicago and London, 1970) Harris, Neil, Cultural Excursions: Marketing Appetites and Cultural Tastes in Modern America (Chicago and London, 1990) Harvey, David, The Urban Experience (Oxford and Cambridge, MA, 1989) Hastings, Paul, The Cold War: 1945 - 1969 (London, 1969) Hedgecoe, John, Henry Spencer Moore (London, New York, 1968) — A Monumental Vision: The Sculpture of Henry Moore (London, 1998) The Henry Moore Foundation, Hoglands: The Home of Henry and Irina Moore (Aldershot, 2007) Hewison, Robert, In Anger: Culture in the Cold War 1945–1960, (London, 1988) — Culture and Concensus: England, Art and Politics Since 1940 (London, 1995) Hixson, Walter L., Parting the Curtain: Propaganda, Culture and the Cold War 1945–1961 (Basingstoke, 1997) Jackson, Errol, Henry Moore at Work: Photographs by Errol Jackson (Ellingham, 1998) Jacobson, Marjory, Art and Business: New Strategies for Corporate Collecting (London, 1993) — Art For Work: The New Renaissance in Corporate Collecting (Boston, MA, 1993) James, Philip (ed.), Henry Moore on Sculpture (London, 1966, 1992) Jedlicka, Judith, America’s Eclectic Collector: A History of Corporate Art Collection (New York, 1983) Johnson, Geraldine (ed.), Sculpture and Photography: Envisioning the Third Dimension (Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, 1998) King, James, The Last Modern: A Life of Herbert Read (London, 1990) Kosinski, Dorothy, Henry Moore: Sculpting the Twentieth Century (New Haven and London, 2001) Krinsky, Carol Herselle, Gordon Bunshaft of Skidmore Owings and Merrill (New York, Cambridge, MA and London, 1988) Kuznick, Peter J., Gilbert, James, (eds), Rethinking Cold War Culture (Washington, DC and London, 2001) Leach, Neil, (ed.), Rethinking Architecture: A Reader in Cultural Theory (London and New York, 1997) Legates, Richard T., Stout, Frederic, The City Reader (London, 2000) Lerner, Abram (ed.), The Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden (New York, 1974) Levine, Gemma, With Henry Moore: The Artist at Work (London, 1978) Lieberman, William, S., Henry Moore: 60 Years of His Art (London and New York, 1983)

249



250

H enry moore in america

Marchand, Roland, Creating the Corporate Soul: The Rise of Public Relations and Corporate Imagery in American Big Business (Berkeley, CA, 1998) Marcoci, Roxana, The Original Copy: Photography of Sculpture, 1839 to Today (New York, 2010) Martin, F. David, Sculpture and Enlivened Space: Aesthetics and History (Lexington, KY, 1981) Martorella, Rosanne, Corporate Art (New Brunswick and London, 1990) Miles, Malcolm, Art, Space and the City: Public Art and Urban Futures (London and New York, 1997) Mitchell, W.J.T. (ed.) Art and the Public Sphere (Chicago and London, 1992) Mitchinson, David (ed.), Henry Moore: Sculpture (London, 1981) Celebrating Moore (London, 1998) Mumford, Lewis, The City in History (Harmondsworth, 1961, 1974) The Museum of Modern Art, Henry Moore (New York, 1946) Modern Art in Your Life (New York, 1949) Museum Without Walls: Henry Moore in New York City, From the Ablah Collection (New York, 1984) Nash, Steven A., A Century of Sculpture: The Patsy and Raymond Nasher Collection (New York, 1987) Nesbitt, Kate (ed.), Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture: An Anthology Of Architectural Theory 1965–1995 (New York, 1996) Payne, Darwin, Big D: Triumphs and Troubles of An American Supercity in the 20th Century (Dallas, TX, 1994) PepsiCo., The Donald M. Kendall Sculpture Gardens at PepsiCo. (Purchase, New York, 1986) The Pritzker Architecture Prize: The First Twenty Years, (New York, 1999) Rawnsley, Gary D. (ed.), Cold War Propaganda in the 1950s (Basingstoke, 1999) Read, Herbert, Henry Moore, Sculptor: An Appreciation (London, 1934) — Henry Moore, Sculpture and Drawings (London, 1944) — The Art of Sculpture (London, 1956) — Henry Moore: A Study of His Life and Work (London, 1965) — Henry Moore: Sculpture and Drawings 1949–1954 (London, 1965) Rectanus, Mark W., Culture Incorporated: Museums, Artists, and Corporate Sponsorships (Minneapolis and London, 2002) Riedy, James L., Chicago Sculpture (Chicago and London, 1981) Rockefeller, David, Culture and the Corporation (New York, 1966) Rossi, Aldo, The Architecture of the City (Cambridge, MA and London, 1982) Ruder & Finn, Inc., Eighteen Conference Room Quotations and Sculptures (New York, 1977) Russell, John, Henry Moore (London, 1968)

bibliography

Russell-Cobb, Trevor, Paying the Piper: The Theory and Practice of Industrial Patronage (London, 1968) Saarinen, Aline, B., The Proud Possessors: The Lives, Times and Tastes of some Adventurous American Art Collectors (New York, 1958) Sandler, Irving, Newman, Amy (eds), Redefining Modern Art: Selected Writings of Alfred H. Barr, Jr. (New York, 1986) Schiller, Herbert I., Culture Inc: The Corporate Takeover of Public Relations (New York and Oxford, 1989) Scott, Deborah Emont, Friedman, Martin L., Modern Sculpture at the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art: An Anniversary Celebration (Kansas City, MO, 1999) Secrest, Meryl, Kenneth Clark: A Biography (London, 1984) Seldis, Henry J., Henry Moore in America (London, 1973) Selwood, Sara, The Benefits of Public Art: The Polemics of Permanent Art In Public Places (London, 1995) Senie, Harriet, Contemporary Public Sculpture: Tradition, Transformation, and Controversy (New York and Oxford, 1992) Sinclair, Andrew, The Need to Give: The Patrons and the Arts (London, 1990) The Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, New York and the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, Masterworks of Modern Sculpture: The Nasher Collection (New York, 1996) Stephens, Chris (ed.), Henry Moore (London, 2010) Sylvester, David, Henry Moore (London, 1968) — (ed.), Henry Moore Sculpture and Drawings 1921–1948 (London, 1957, 1988) — Henry Moore at the Serpentine: 80th Birthday Exhibition of Recent Carvings and Bronzes (London, 1978) The Tate Gallery and The Arts Council of Great Britain, Sculpture and Drawings by Henry Moore (London, 1951) Taylor, Philip, The Projection of Britain: British Overseas Publicity and Propaganda 1919 –1939 (London, Cambridge, New York, New Rochelle, Melbourne, Sydney, 1981) — British Propaganda in the Twentieth Century (Edinburgh, 1999) Thistlewood, David, Herbert Read: Formlessness and Form, an Introduction to His Aesthetics (London, Boston, Melbourne and Henley, 1984) Toffler, Alvin, The Culture Consumers: A Study of Art and Affluence in America (New York, 1964) Tuan, Yi-Fu, Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes and Values (New York, 1990) UNESCO, Films on Art: A Specialized Study, An International Catalogue (Paris, 1949) Van Zuylen, Gabrielle, The Gardens of Russell Page (New York, 1991)

251



252

H enry moore in america

Walker, John, Art and Celebrity (London, 2003) Westad, Odd Arne (ed.) Reviewing the Cold War: Approaches, Interpretations, Theory (London, 2000) White, A, The British Council: The First Twenty Five Years (London, 1965) Whitney Museum of American Art, Business Buys American Art (New York, 1960) Wilkinson, Alan (ed.), Henry Moore: Writings and Conversations (Aldershot, 2002) Willett, John, Art in a City (London, 1967) Wilson, William, The City Beautiful Movement (Baltimore and London, 1989) Wiseman, Carter, The Architecture of I.M. Pei (London, 1990) Wolfson, Murray, Essays on the Cold War (London, 1992) Worpole, Ken, Towns for People: Transforming Urban Life (Buckingham and Philadelphia, 1992) Wu, Chin-Tao, Privatising Culture: Corporate Art Interventions Since the 1980s (London, 2002) Young, Edgar B., Lincoln Center: The Building of an Institution (New York, 1980)

Index Figures in bold type refer to figure numbers 3 First National Plaza, Chicago; Gerald Hines, Large Upright Internal/ External Form 41, 135, 138, 141, 186–8, 189 Ablah, George 21, 90–4, 109, 161–7 Blue Hill office complex 93, 94, 156 Henry Moore in the Parks of New York 93, 155–61, 192 Two Piece Reclining Figure: Points 35, 157, 160–1 Reclining Mother and Child 36 Adler Planetarium 135, 140–1 Sundial (Man Enters the Cosmos) 32 Albright-Knox Art Gallery 73, 74 American British Art Centre, New York 176 American Federation of Arts 88, 177 architecture 5, 7, 64, 65, 72, 74–5, 88–9, 100, 102–6, 113–14, 116, 117, 126, 133, 144, 145, 146, 149, 174, 182, 184, 193, 196 Art Gallery of Ontario, Toronto 99, 188 Art Institute of Chicago 24, 46, 81, 135–8, 140, 141, 148, 174, 187, 189 Falling Warrior 138 Large Interior Form 31, 135, 137–8 UNESCO Reclining Figure: External Form 137 Arts Council 71, 72

Barclay School 161–2 Barnett, Anthony 9, 14, 44, 58, 87, 143 Barr, Alfred, H., Jr 71, 78, 88, 152, 168, 173, 194 Anti-Modern-Art Files, MoMA, New York 96–6 BBC 21–2, 23, 24, 196, 201 Berger, John 59 Berthoud, Roger 8, 58–9, 73, 86, 157, 163, 202 British Council 7, 11, 12, 15, 20, 21, 44, 53–9, 66, 68, 69, 73, 75, 89, 149, 175, 194, 199–200, 202, 203, 204, 205 Art Advisory Committee 55, 85, 89 Britain Today 20, 56, 58, 69–70 The British Council and Industry 56–7 Contemporary British Art 57 British Government 1, 11, 37, 38, 39, 41, 200 British Information Services, New York 21, 57 British Travel Centre, New York 69 Britishness 39, 197 Bunshaft, Gordon 111–12, 149, 153, 154, 187, 195 Calder, Alexander 74, 106, 138, 182, 183, 187 Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament 45

253



254

H e nry m o o r e in a m e ric a

Carter Brown, J. 88, 115, 116–22, 157, 161, 163, 196 Casson, Hugh 70 Casson, Stanley 71, 103–4 Catton Rich, Daniel 81, 89, 174 celebrity, fame 4, 18, 19, 23, 31, 89, 97, 149, 159, 204 Central Office of Information 56 Central Park, New York 102, 111, 143–4, 145, 151, 157, 162, 192 Chagall, Marc 83, 187 Chase Manhattan Bank 64, 111–12, 113, 153 Chicago 9, 24, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 64, 73, 85, 133–8, 140–1, 148, 183, 186–8, 189, 190 City Beautiful Movement 100, 101, 143–4, 145 civilisation, civilising, civilised 6, 11, 13, 21, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 44, 52, 56, 58, 100, 143, 144, 176 Clark, Kenneth 20, 15, 19, 24, 33, 39, 40, 71, 72, 83, 85–9, 90, 97, 106-7, 112, 146–7, 182, 191, 192, 196 Civilisation 88, 147, 196 Cold War 1, 8, 20, 37, 41–5, 52, 193, 197, 199, 204 Columbia University Law School 153 Communism, communist 2, 6, 37, 42, 48 Contemporary Art Society, London 73 Dallas 8, 9, 34, 35, 59, 64, 65, 66, 107, 109, 119, 123–33, 147, 166, 189, 190 Dallas Art Association 132 Dallas City Hall 35, 60, 64–5, 99, 123, 124, 189 Three Forms Vertebrae 27, 28, 34, 65–6, 125, 126–33 Dallas Gets Moore 14, 15, 35, 65 Dallas Museum of Art 60, 65, 66, 126–7, 131, 132–3, 146, 175 Two Piece Reclining Figure No.3 29, 132

Dondero, George 43 Donnelley, Gaylord 46 Dubuffet, Jean 121–2, 177 English, Englishness 2, 4, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 20, 35, 37, 40, 41, 42, 43, 56, 57, 58, 77, 80, 81, 84, 88, 90, 95, 96, 97, 122, 143, 176, 189, 193, 203 Fairmount Park, Philadelphia 102, 145–6 Fairmount Park Art Association 146–7 Three-Way Piece No.1: Points 145–8 Ferguson Fund for Sculpture 46–8, 50, 135–7, 140, 141 Ferguson, Benjamin Franklin 46 Fermi, Enrico 45, 48, 51 Fermi Memorial Planning Committee 50 Festival of Britain 7, 21, 69–70, 170, 181 film 9, 11, 19, 20–5, 27, 31, 35, 49, 55, 57, 58, 65, 88, 107, 130–1, 133, 155, 157–8, 189–91, 202, 205 March of Time series 69 see also Read, John Finn, David 9, 12, 18, 25, 33–5, 63, 65, 92, 93, 97–8, 109, 112, 119, 122, 147, 151–2, 156–7, 161–3, 166, 167, 175, 176, 177, 178, 182, 185, 188–93, 94–5 Conference Room Quotations 33, 178 Ruder and Finn Review, Seated Figure on Circular Steps 38 Florence, Henry Moore retrospective 31, 113, 116, 148–9 Foreign Office 53, 57 Franklin D. Murphy Sculpture Garden 107 Goals for Dallas 123–4 Achieving the Goals for Dallas 124 Gould Inc., William Ylvisaker 24, 98, 188–93 Large Two Forms 24, 88, 188–93

inde x

Graham, Bruce 138, 187 Greenberg, Clement 80–1, 222 Gregory, E.C. 85 Hakone Sculpture Park 163 Hanes, Gordon 117, 118, 119 Harlow 13, 102–3 d’Harnoncourt, René 18, 83, 152 Hawn, Fritz and Muriel 127, 130 Hedgecoe, John 3, 12, 19, 25–7, 55, 198 Hendy, Philip 44, 55, 80, 85, 90, 173 Henry Moore Foundation 9, 166, 198, 199, 201, 202, 203, 204 Henry Moore in India 199–200 Hepworth, Barbara 27, 43 Hess, Thomas 80 Hirshhorn, Joseph 22, 78, 99, 108–11, 113, 192 Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden 108–9, 111–14 Two Piece Reclining Figure: Points 24, 113 Working Model for Three Way Piece No. 3: Vertebrae 23, 111 Hoglands 9, 16, 27, 59, 110, 198, 206 humanism, humanistic, humanising, humanise 38, 41, 42, 44, 51, 72, 126, 145, 155, 178, 208 Huxley, Julian 45 Hyatt Corporation; Pritzker Prize for Architecture 5, 194–7 Working Model for Two Piece Reclining Figure: Cut 43, 196 Ingersoll, R. Sturgis 74, 146, 147 Institute of Contemporary Art, Boston 44 Institute of Contemporary Art, Washington, DC 23

Jackson, Errol 32, 45, 198 John Deere and Co. 24, 183–5 Hill Arches 40, 184–5 Johnson, Lyndon B. 101, 108 Johnson, Philip 74–5, 103, 110, 151, 153, 154, 195 Johnson and Johnson 177–8 Jonsson, J. Erik 123, 124, 126 Kennedy, John F. 123–4 Kiley, Dan 151, 166 Koch, Ed 156, 158–60 landscape 7, 13, 14, 16, 20, 23, 24, 26, 89, 102, 105, 135, 143, 145, 161, 165, 174, 181, 184, 189, 197, 202, 203, 205 landscape architect 151, 166, 167, 181, 184 Levine, Gemma 25, 32 Lincoln Center, New York; Reclining Figure 34, 49, 50, 75, 111, 142, 146, 149–55, 164, 166 Lipchitz, Jacques 74, 154 List, Albert and Vera 111, 152 London County Council open-air sculpture exhibitions 71–3 Marcus, Stanley 131, 175 McDermott, Margaret 127, 131 McNeill, William 46–50 Meadows, Bernard 26, 87, 166, 201 Mellon, Andrew 89, 230 Mellon, Paul 114 memorial 46, 71, 105, 107, 114, 134, 136 Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York 17, 98, 162, 174, 188, 190–4 Mies van der Rohe, Ludwig 50 Miró, Joan 138, 149, 176, 187 modernism, modernist 2, 12, 25, 71, 72, 80, 84, 103, 113, 114, 146, 167, 168, 181, 193, 202, 207

255



256

H e nry m o o r e in a m e ric a

monument, monumental, monumentality 2, 5, 7, 12, 13, 16, 26, 27, 34, 41, 45, 49, 65, 71, 92, 94, 100, 102, 103, 105, 106, 107, 108, 114, 118, 125, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 165, 168, 177, 178, 179, 186, 189, 193, 194, 198, 203, 204, 206, 208 Moore, Henry, sculptures Two Forms 1934 78 Northampton Madonna and Child 1943–4 43 Three Standing Figures 1948 71, 73 Helmet Piece No. 1 1950 111 Animal Head 1951 77 King and Queen 1952–3 111, 161, 229 Family Group 1956 102, 161, 162 Reclining Figure 1956 39, 182 Falling Warrior 1956–7 138 Seated Figure on Circular Steps 1957 38 Reclining Figure 1959–64 6, 7, 27, 31 UNESCO Reclining Figure: External Form 1960 137 Seated Woman: Thin Neck 1961 111 Two Piece Reclining Figure No. 3 1961 29, 107, 132 Working Model for Locking Piece 1962 45, 207 Large Arch (Torso) 1962–3 96 Reclining Figure: Bridge Prop 1963 33 Reclining Figure 1963–5 34, 149–55 Three Way Piece No. 1: Points 1964–5 33, 142, 145–8 The Archer 1966 99 Nuclear Energy 1967 10, 24, 45–52, 134, 136, 140 Two Piece Reclining Figure No. 9 1968 59 Working Model for Three Way Piece No. 3: Vertebrae 1968 23, 111

Moore, Henry, sculptures continued Three Piece No.3: Vertebrae 1968 13, 59, 61 Oval: Points 1969 112 Reclining Figure: Archleg 1969–70 111 Two Piece Reclining Figure: Points 1969–70 24, 35, 113, 157, 160 Large Square Form with Cut 1969–71 116 Sheep Piece 1971–2 37, 164–5 Hill Arches 1973 40, 24, 184–5 Spindle Piece 1974 116–22 Reclining Mother and Child 1975–6 36, 159 Reclining Figure: Angles 1975–7 201 Mirror Knife Edge 1977 25, 26, 116–22 Large Two Forms 1978 24, 88, 188–93 Three Forms Vertebrae 1978 27, 28, 34, 65–6, 125, 126–33 Working Model for Two Piece Reclining Figure: Cut 1978–80 43, 194–6 Mother and Child 1979 60 Sundial (Man Enters the Cosmos) 1979 32, 135, 138–41 Large Interior Form 1981 31, 135, 137–8 Large Upright Internal/External Form 1981 41, 135, 138, 141, 186–8, 189 Draped Reclining Mother and Child 1983–4 177 Moore, Irina 1, 3, 15, 18, 130, 195, 206 Moore in America 206–7 Moore in the Bagatelle Gardens 202–4 Moore in China 204–6 Morris and Gwendolyn Cafritz Foundation, Washington, DC 117, 119 Much Hadham 4, 15, 17, 18, 75, 97, 154, 184, 187, 203, 206 Munnings, Alfred 43



Museum of Modern Art, New York 39, 44, 55, 71, 73, 75, 77, 78, 87, 88, 96, 97, 109, 111, 112, 133, 152–3, 168, 173, 191, 192 Anti-Modern-Art Files 95–6 Architecture of the City Plan 100 Art in our Time 78 Cubism and Abstract Art 78 Henry Moore (1946 exhibition) 18, 19, 1, 13, 23, 70, 73, 75, 77, 78, 80–3, 90, 96, 110, 175 Modern Art in your Life 168–9 Painting and Sculpture in the Museum of Modern Art 84 Political Controversy files 44 Relation of Painting and Sculpture to Architecture (symposium) 74 Nasher, Raymond and Patsy 12, 13, 59–68, 109, 126, 131, 176 National Gallery of Art, London 85, 86 National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC; Mirror Knife Edge 25, 26, 88, 89, 108, 114–22, 129, 151, 161, 163, 166, 189, 196 National Museum of Romania; Working Model for Locking Piece 45, 207 Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, Kansas City; Sheep Piece 37, 151, 163, 164–7 Neuberger Museum, Purchase, NY 188–9 New York 1, 9, 12, 15, 17, 21, 25, 39, 44, 49, 50, 64, 65, 69, 70, 73–84, 85, 87, 88, 89, 92, 93, 94, 96, 97, 102, 106, 109, 111, 112, 119, 129, 133, 142, 143, 144, 146, 149, 153, 155–63, 166, 169, 175, 176, 177, 180, 188, 192, 194, 201, 206

ind e x

NorthPark, Dallas 35, 59–61, 63–7, 104, 148 NorthPark National Bank 59, 61, 63, 64, 131 Olmsted, Frederick Law 143–4 Page, Russell 181–2 parks 5, 43, 46, 71, 93, 100, 101, 102, 104, 132, 142–7, 149, 151, 155–61, 163, 165, 166, 181, 192, 194, 204 Pei, I.M. 65, 108, 114–22, 123–8, 131, 166, 177 PepsiCo, Donald M. Kendall 88, 93, 172, 180–3, 184 Reclining Figure 39, 182 Perry Green 4, 17, 20, 23, 78, 154, 198, 208 Philadelphia; Benjamin Franklin Parkway 74, 85, 101, 102, 142, 145–9, 159 Three-Way Piece No.1: Points 33, 142, 145–8 Philadelphia Museum of Art 74, 146, 148 Philip Morris 175, 192 Picasso, Pablo 48, 50, 76, 77, 79, 80, 134–5, 137, 187, 189 Untitled 30, 50, 134–5 photograph, photography, photographer, photographic, photographing 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 11–12, 16, 19–20, 25–36, 40, 45, 50, 55, 65, 75, 77, 78, 81–2, 90, 92, 95, 97, 98, 118, 122, 128, 130, 131, 141, 149, 157, 159, 162, 167, 172, 178, 185, 188, 189, 190, 193, 195, 198, 203, 206, 207 Picture Post 40, 56 propaganda 7, 21, 24, 37, 38, 39, 40, 53–5, 58, 70, 169, 175 public sculpture 12, 41, 46, 52, 71, 72, 85, 103, 104, 105, 133, 134, 136, 141, 142, 146, 180, 197, 203, 204, 207

257



258

H enry moore in america

Rathbone, Perry 16, 75 Read, Herbert 11, 14, 15, 19, 55, 80, 83, 85, 86, 87, 89, 90, 96, 104, 111 The Art of Sculpture 89, 222 Henry Moore, Sculptor: An Appreciation 83, 89 The Meaning of Art 89 Read, John 21, 23–4, 31 Henry Moore 21 Henry Moore: One Yorkshireman Looks at his World 23 Henry Moore at 80 23 A Sculptor’s Landscape 23, 24 Ritchie, Andrew 14, 74 Rockefeller, David 113, 175–6 Rockefeller, John D. III 151–2, 153 Rockefeller, Laurance S. 101 Rockefeller, Nelson 81, 152, 168, 175 Rockefeller family 170 Rodin, Auguste 78, 90, 92, 155, 182, 195 Russell, John 44, 57, 193

Stone, Edward Durrell and Edward D., Jr 180–1 Sweeney, James Johnson 23, 78, 80, 96 Sylvester, David 85, 87

Valentin, Curt 15, 17, 25, 75–6, 77, 78, 96, 97, 110, 111, 168 Buchholz Gallery 83, 89, 95, 176–7 Venice Biennale 55, 73, 96

Saarinen, Eero 152, 153, 184 Schrader, George 65, 126, 127, 130, 131 Schreiber, Taft 74 Seagram Building, New York 50, 74, 153, 154 Seldis, Henry J. 8, 15, 16 Skidmore, Owings and Merrill 49, 113, 114, 138, 141, 187 Soby, James Thrall 77, 83, 96 ‘special relationship’ 6, 37–40, 44, 171, 197 Stanton, Frank 153–5, 184 stereotype, stereotyping, stereotypical 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 25, 39, 81, 83, 93

Wade, Jane 77, 78, 164–5 Washburn, Gordon 73–4 Washington, DC 9, 23, 85, 88, 89, 95, 108–22, 127, 129, 151, 161, 163, 166, 189, 192, 196 Whitney Museum of American Art 44, 175 Business Buys American Art 175 World Fairs 39, 75, 78, 87, 173 World War I 38, 40, 169, 174 World War II 1, 4, 7, 8, 12, 15, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 51, 54, 56, 57, 59, 70, 71, 79, 83, 84, 89, 99, 100, 103, 104, 144, 168, 174, 193, 206

Taft, Lorado 134, 137 Tate Gallery 9, 70, 98–9, 137, 202 totalitarian, totalitarianism 13, 38, 43, 53, 84, 193 Travel and Industrial Development Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 39, 53 University of Chicago; Nuclear Energy 10, 24, 45–52, 134, 135, 136, 140, 155