Henry Moore: Sculptural Process and Public Identity

ISBN 978-1-84976-391-2

Henry Moore OM, CH Standing Woman 1924

Made when Moore was a student in London, Standing Woman is one of the sculptor’s earliest surviving works. It appears to be unfinished, though Moore included it in the first complete catalogue of his work. Its form suggests affinities with the work of sculptor Henri Gaudier-Brzeska and provides insights into Moore’s approach to carving in the early 1920s.
Henry Moore OM, CH 1898–1986
Standing Woman
Portland stone
565 x 137 x 116 mm
Lent from a private collection 1994


Standing Woman is an early example of Moore’s interest in the female nude, a subject that would dominate his later work. The woman is depicted contrapposto, meaning that her weight is unevenly distributed; her right knee is bent causing her left leg to stand straight and her left hip to be raised slightly. Her right arm hangs down by her side while her left arm is wrapped behind her back and bent at the elbow so that the forearm points up towards her right shoulder. Her head is slightly turned to the left. When viewed from behind, the figure’s left hand appears to be clasping her (now damaged) hair. The visible chisel marks on the right side of her torso and underneath the breasts contrast with the figure’s legs and back, which have been smoothed. This suggests that the sculpture was either left unfinished or that Moore sought the appearance of a sculpture that was not quite completed, judged by conventional standards.
In the catalogue raisonné of Moore’s work, which was published in 1957 and thus in the artist’s lifetime, Standing Woman was dated 1924. Subsequent published literature repeated this information. However, on entering the Tate collection in 1994 its date of creation was revised to 1922. It is unclear why this date was changed and it has subsequently been corrected.
Henry Moore 'Head of the Virgin after Rosselli' 1922–3
Henry Moore
Head of the Virgin after Rosselli 1922–3
© The Henry Moore Foundation. All Rights Reserved
Photo: Henry Moore Foundation Archive
Moore was a student at the Royal College of Art (RCA) in London from 1921 to 1924. When Moore carved Standing Woman it is likely that it was a personal project rather than a required piece of coursework for the RCA. Moore had arrived at the college as a mature student, aged twenty-three, having served in the British army during the First World War. When Moore began the course, academic teaching of sculpture focused almost entirely on figuration, and was concerned above all with the styles and techniques of ancient Greek and Roman statuary and Italian Renaissance art. Under the leadership of Professor Francis Derwent Wood (1871–1926), a member of the Royal Academy, students in the RCA sculpture department were taught how to copy classical sculptures by accurately modelling replicas in clay or plaster before using a pointing machine to create a stone copy.1 Students were required to copy historical sculptures, working from plaster casts from the college’s collection, or from originals housed in London’s museums. In this way they would gain training not only in traditional sculpting techniques but also in the styles and subjects of the art of the past.2 Moore made Head of the Virgin after Rosselli 1922–3 (fig.1), a copy of the fifteenth-century Italian artist’s Virgin and Child, housed in the Victoria and Albert Museum, as a piece of coursework.3 Here he attempted to make the stone look like skin; the figure’s cheeks appear to be soft, her lips are plump and flesh-like while the folds of her delicate headscarf look as though they could move in a breeze. Although Head of the Virgin after Rosselli appears to have been made using a traditional pointing machine, Moore said he carved the work freehand, making fake ‘point’ marks on the surface of the marble so as to deceive his tutor.4 As Moore recalled in 1968, ‘no original carving was permitted’.5 Indeed, while Moore recognised the value of attending life-drawing classes, which enhanced his understanding of the three-dimensional figure, he quickly realised that the classical style and sculptural techniques that the RCA promoted were of little interest to him. In order to balance his own interests with the demands of his course Moore later recalled:
I had a double goal, or double occupation: drawing and modelling from life in term-time and daytime. And the rest of the time trying to develop in pure sculptural terms – which for me, at that time, was a very different thing from the Renaissance tradition ... When I was a student direct carving, as an occupation and as a sculptor’s natural way of producing things, was simply unheard of in academic circles ... I liked the different mental approach involved – the fact that you begin with the block and have to find the sculpture that’s inside it.6
Standing Woman is one of the earliest examples of Moore’s work made in what he called ‘pure sculptural terms’. However, while no specific drawing has been identified as the genesis of this sculpture, he did make numerous sketches of standing women during the early 1920s, and although it is rare for a sculpture from this period to be directly linked to a preparatory sketch, Moore’s life-drawing classes at the RCA can be said to have furnished him with an understanding of the human body and how it could be presented in sculpture. Nevertheless, Moore probably finalised the pose of Standing Woman as he worked on it. In that they illustrate an attempt to respond consciously to the grain and texture of the stone, the tool markings in particular suggest that Standing Woman was made without the aid of a preliminary drawing or model in clay. For example, the ankles and feet have been roughly chiselled and lack definition, while the area under the breasts shows marks made using a riffler (a tool used to define and smooth areas, normally deployed towards the end of the carving process).
Henry Moore 'Mother and Child' 1922
Henry Moore
Mother and Child 1922
© The Henry Moore Foundation. All Rights Reserved
Photo: Henry Moore Foundation Archive
Carving in this way, Moore sought to avoid what he regarded as the deadening affects of reproduction with a pointing machine, which did not allow for any spontaneity.7 Unlike Head of the Virgin after Rosselli there is little naturalism in Standing Woman. Here the character of the stone is integral to the column-like structure of the sculpture, the dimensions of which were most likely dictated by the rectangular shape of the stone block: the original surface of the block is discernable on the figure’s belly. Although the figure is clearly a female nude, Moore emphasised the mass and bulk of the body rather than embellish the statuette with realistic details. A comparison with Mother and Child 1922 (fig.2) suggests that the blocky limbs and roughly hewn shapes of Standing Woman are consistent characteristics of Moore’s work from this period: the seated woman and her child are presented as a single block-like unit, and tool marks are clearly visible around the base and feet.
Both Standing Woman and Mother and Child were carved from a single block of Portland stone, a limestone quarried in the Isle of Portland in Dorset. As a sedimentary rock, Portland stone often has an uneven consistency as hard fossils are frequently found within the softer stone. When carving, these fossils can protrude from the surface or, if chipped at too forcefully, may come away from the stone leaving indentations or crevices. In 1968 Moore said that at the start of his carving career he had been ‘afraid of hurting the stone or damaging it’.8 The fossils in the stone used for Standing Woman are hard and would have made arriving at a smooth finish difficult. Perhaps because of its uneven character Portland stone is not traditionally used for sculpture (instead, it is famously associated with the construction of prestigious buildings, most notably St Paul’s Cathedral and Buckingham Palace in London). In a conversation with the curator and critic David Sylvester in 1963, Moore recalled that early in his career, owing to the expense of the stones and marbles conventionally used for sculpture, he would ‘buy odd random pieces of stone from any stonemason’, which may explain the use of Portland stone in this work.9
The direct carving technique used to fashion Standing Woman was informed by Moore’s study of the sculpture and writings of a slightly older generation of sculptors, Henri Gaudier-Brzeska (1891–1915), Eric Gill (1882–1940) and Jacob Epstein (1880–1959), who had been at the forefront of contemporary sculpture in Britain during the 1910s. All three were advocates of direct carving, believing that only by working directly on the stone, and in response to its particular physical properties, could the sculptor create a work of art imbued with meaning. These ideas were endorsed in Blast, the Vorticist magazine published in 1914 and edited by the painter Wyndham Lewis, which included contributions from Gaudier-Brzeska and Epstein.10 Moore’s biographer Donald Hall states that during his first few years at the RCA Moore read and was excited by Blast, which called for an overthrow of academic traditions and championed alternative systems of art making.11 For sculptors, this meant rejecting the mediated methods of mechanical reproduction, such as the use of the pointing machine, in favour of direct carving.
In addition to Blast, as a student Moore also read Gaudier-Brzeska: A Memoir (1916), a posthumous anthology of the artist’s statements and exhibition reviews collated by the poet and critic Ezra Pound.12 In ‘Vortex’ (1914), the essay he wrote for Blast which was reproduced in Pound’s literary memorial, Gaudier-Brzeska proclaimed that: ‘Sculptural energy is the mountain; Sculptural feeling is the appreciation of masses in relation; Sculptural ability is the defining of these masses by planes.’13 This text may have provided Moore with a blueprint for thinking about sculpture in terms of shapes, volumes and masses. Later in his life Moore recalled that as a student he found Pound’s book on Gaudier-Brzeska ‘a great help and an excitement’, stating that he found the sculptor’s texts ‘written with a freshness and an insight ... [in which] Gaudier speaks as a young sculptor discovering things’.14
Although articulated by Gaudier-Brzeska in a particularly forceful way, the idea that art should be composed in terms of shapes, volumes and masses was not new. This approach to art had been promulgated at the end of the nineteenth century by the French painter Paul Cézanne (1839–1906) who proposed that artists should ‘treat nature by means of the cylinder, the sphere, the cone, everything brought into proper perspective’.15 Cézanne treated his subjects, whether apples, mountains or female bodies, as arrangements of volumes and masses using strong outlines and edges, and blocks or planes of colour. For example, in his painting The Large Bathers 1900–6 (fig.3) Cézanne structured his composition according to a large triangle, delineated by two groups of angled tree trunks on opposite sides of the canvas that lean inwards and almost meet at the top edge of the painting. The naked female bodies in the bottom corners of the painting replicate the directional pull of the trees and might themselves be described as arrangements of shapes rather than anatomically realistic figures.
Paul Cézanne 'The Large Bathers' 1900–1906
Paul Cézanne
The Large Bathers 1900–1906
Purchased with the W.P. Wilstach Fund 1937
© Philadelphia Museum of Art Rights & Reproductions

Moore had been introduced to Cézanne’s work sometime between 1919 and 1921 when he attended Leeds School of Art. There Moore had come into contact with Sir Michael Sadler (1861–1943), the Vice-Chancellor of Leeds University, who owned works by Cézanne and who encouraged students to study his personal art collection.16 But Cézanne’s approach had a more direct impact on Moore from 1922. Moore and fellow student Raymond Coxon sought permission from the Principal of the RCA, John Rothenstein, to go to Paris during Whitsun week in June 1922,17 with the express intention of studying Cézanne’s work.18 Rothenstein agreed and Moore and Coxon visited Auguste Pellerin’s collection of paintings, which included Cézanne’s The Large Bathers. Moore later recalled: ‘Cézanne’s figures had a monumentality about them I liked. In his Bathers, the figures were very sculptural in the sense of being big blocks and not a lot of surface detail about them. They are indeed monumental.’19 Moore’s identification of Cézanne’s painted figures as block-like and lacking in surface detail suggests that he may have had Cézanne in mind when sculpting Standing Woman, whose weighty limbs and schematic facial features resemble Cézanne’s bulky nude bathers.
While Cézanne’s paintings may have provided a reference point for Moore, it was Gaudier-Brzeska who offered a more direct, sculptural model for Standing Woman. Although it had been known that Moore had read Pound’s book on Gaudier-Brzeska, it was not until 1965 that the influence of Gaudier-Brzeska on Moore’s work was fully established.20 That year the art critic Herbert Read provided a list that paired sculptures by the two artists in his monograph on Moore.21 However, owing perhaps to its lack of exposure in exhibitions, Read did not include Standing Woman in his list despite its similarities to Gaudier-Brzeska’s Singer 1913 (Tate N04514; fig.4).
Photographs of the front and rear views of Singer were included in Pound’s 1916 book on Gaudier-Brzeska and it is likely that Moore studied these reproductions (fig.5). A comparison between Singer and Standing Woman reveals significant similarities: both female figures are standing in contrapposto, with their right knee bent (traditionally contrapposto was used by sculptors to infuse figures with a sense of motion or relaxation) and while two legs are identifiable in each sculpture, neither artist has attempted to carve out a gap between the legs. In both cases the origins of the sculptures in a stone block are acknowledged.
Henri Gaudier-Brzeska 'Singer' 1913
Henri Gaudier-Brzeska
Singer 1913
Tate N04514
Henri Gaudier-Brzeska
Henri Gaudier-Brzeska
Singer (front view) 1913
Reproduced in Ezra Pound (ed.), Gaudier-Brzeska: A Memoir, London 1916

Detail of back of Standing Woman 1922 showing breakage
Tate N04514
© The Henry Moore Foundation. All Rights Reserved
Curiously, when viewed from the front, the left arm of Standing Woman appears to be pulled uncomfortably behind her, but when viewed from behind it is clear that the arm is holding onto a ponytail or hank of hair (fig.6). Although some damage has occurred to this part, the curve of the hair towards the hand suggests that Moore had intended the hand to be holding it. With this unusual pose, Moore may have been attempting to replicate the way the right arm of Gaudier-Brzeska’s Singer twists behind her back to play with her hair; her left arm also wraps behind her body. Art historian and critic Richard Cork has noted that stylised ponytails and plaits played a ‘prominent role’ in the sculpture of not only Gaudier-Brzeska but also Gill and Epstein in the years prior to the First World War.22 By carving intricate plaits and ponytails down the backs of their figures, these artists emphasised the three-dimensionality of the work and demonstrated that the rear view of a sculpture could be as interesting or important as the front. Like Singer, Moore’s sculpture was designed to be seen in the round; it is impossible to gain a full appreciation of it from a single, frontal viewing position. In his 1930 essay ‘A View of Sculpture’ Moore articulated what he was perhaps trying to achieve with Standing Woman:
The sculpture which moves me most is full blooded and self supporting, fully in the round, that is, its component forms are completely realised and work as masses in opposition, not being merely indicated by surface cutting in relief; it is not perfectly symmetrical, it is static and it is strong and vital, giving out something of the energy and power of great mountains.23
It is striking how this statement paraphrases Gaudier-Brzeska’s remarks about sculpture published in Blast, most notably the reference to ‘masses’ and the use of ‘mountains’ as a metaphor for sculptural energy.24
One element that distinguishes Gaudier-Brzeska’s Singer from Moore’s Standing Woman is the latter’s lack of facial detail: apart from the slight suggestion of a nose, the face of Moore’s sculpture lacks definition in comparison to the clearly delineated facial features of Singer. Although it is possible that Standing Woman was left unfinished, and Moore’s precise plans for the face are unknown, the art historian Andrew Causey, in his study of Moore’s drawings, has pointed out that throughout the mid-1920s ‘impersonality through lack of facial features is a recurrent theme in Moore’s notes’.25
Although the example of Gaudier-Brzeska’s Singer seems to be the most obvious source for Moore’s Standing Woman, two other possible sources have been identified. When Standing Woman was first exhibited in 1982 at Leeds City Art Galleries the curator Terry Friedman argued that the work’s ‘minimised facial features ... are clearly related to Cycladic figures’.26 Moore’s sculpture was displayed alongside a marble Cycladic figurine from the collection of the British Museum (fig.7). Cycladic sculptures from c.2600–2400 BC are notable for their lack of facial features, with only the nose being distinguished by a thin ridge. Moore had certainly seen and studied examples of Cycladic sculpture on his numerous visits to the British Museum, and among the drawings Moore made there between 1922 and 1923 is a sketch of a Cycladic figurine, demonstrating that he was indeed aware of these sculptures around the time he was carving Standing Woman.27 As Causey has identified, impersonality was a recurrent theme in Moore’s work during the mid-1920s, and it is possible that Cycladic sculpture demonstrated to Moore how figurative sculpture could remain featureless. However, the extent to which Cycladic sculpture was a direct source for the overall form of Standing Woman is questionable.28
Another related source for Standing Woman was proposed in 2004 by the curator Ian Dejardin who suggested that the sculpture could be understood in relation to the forms of ancient Greek classicism. Dejardin identified ‘Grecian notes’ in the sculpture.29 In particular, Dejardin identified Moore’s use of contrapposto – a defining feature of classical statuary from c.500 BC to c.200 AD – as evidence that Moore was emulating classical Greek and Roman sculpture. Moore was certainly aware of Greek sculpture and titled a sketch, Study of a Caryatid 1921–2 (fig.8), after a classical architectural feature (a caryatid is the name given to a sculpture of a standing female figure designed as a load-bearing pillar in architectural constructions, which were common features on buildings in ancient Greece).30 Moore’s sketch bears some resemblence to Standing Woman: in both female cases the figures stand upright in contrapposto, their weight borne on their straight left leg, with their left arm wrapped around their back. The vertical lines that tightly frame the main figure in the sketch may allude to the caryatid’s function as a column. But these lines may also allude to the dimensions of the original block of stone from which the figure was carved, serving to illustrate Moore’s remark about direct carving, that ‘you begin with the block and have to find the sculpture that’s inside it’. Even though as a student he sought to reject the conventions of classical sculpture, Moore’s absorption of its forms, evidenced by the sketch that he made, may go some way to explaining why Dejardin detected ‘Grecian notes’ in Standing Woman.
Marble Figurine of a Woman c.2600–2400 BC
Marble Figurine of a Woman c.2600–2400 BC
British Museum, London
© Trustees of The British Museum
Henry Moore
Henry Moore
Study of a Caryatid 1921–2 (from Notebook No.2)
© The Henry Moore Foundation. All Rights Reserved
Photo: Henry Moore Foundation Archive

In 1930 Moore praised the ‘removal of the Greek spectacles from the eyes of the modern sculptor’ in his essay ‘A View on Sculpture’.31 Here Moore consciously echoed Gaudier-Brzeska, who had used the phrase ‘Greek spectacles’ in his 1914 essay ‘Vortex’, suggesting that the historical preference for representational Greek art had blinkered artists to the ‘intrinsic emotional significance of shapes’ found in non-European art.32 Nonetheless, Dejardin’s identification of a ‘Grecian’ sculptural legacy in Standing Woman points to the divergent academic demands and personal interests that Moore was grappling with during his time as a student at the RCA. If Standing Woman contains a lingering trace of the academic tradition Moore sought to reject, this might go some way to explaining why he left the work seemingly unfinished.
In 1926 and 1927 Moore carved two other standing female figures that were similar in form to Standing Woman. Like the earlier sculpture, Standing Woman 1926 and Standing Girl 1927 (figs.9 and 10) present a single, free-standing female nude in contrapposto, with her head turned to the right, and her arms wrapped around her body. All three sculptures present the female figure as a heavy-limbed column and are quite distinct in both form and material from Moore’s other standing figure from this period, Standing Woman 1923 (fig.11). Made in darker walnut wood, this sculpture, with its curvaceous, segmented body and equally distributed weight, shows what Moore identified as ‘an influence from Negro sculpture’.33 Significantly, in Moore’s catalogue raisonné both the 1926 and 1927 sculptures are listed as having been destroyed.34 In a letter dated 7 January 1969 Moore recounted that he ‘abandoned or destroyed’ a number of his early sculptures, and although he did not provide reasons for his decision to destroy these two particular works, it is known that Moore recycled stone by re-carving works that he no longer wished to keep.35
Henry Moore 'Standing Woman' 1926
Henry Moore
Standing Woman 1926
© The Henry Moore Foundation. All Rights Reserved
Photo: Henry Moore Foundation Archive
Henry Moore 'Standing Girl' 1927
Henry Moore
Standing Girl 1927
© The Henry Moore Foundation. All Rights Reserved

Henry Moore 'Standing Woman' 1923
Henry Moore
Standing Woman 1923
Manchester City Galleries
© The Henry Moore Foundation. All Rights Reserved
Photo: Henry Moore Foundation Archive

The survival of Standing Woman may be due to its ownership; from 1922 to 1925 Moore often stayed with his sister Mary Spencer Moore (later Garrould) in Wighton near the Norfolk coast during college vacations. A number of his early non-academic sculptures, including Dog 1922 (The Henry Moore Foundation) and Mother and Child 1922, were carved in her garden in these years.36 Although it is not known where Moore made Standing Woman, it is likely that he made it during one of his Norfolk holidays. Moore’s sister was identified as its owner in the artist’s catalogue raisonné in 1957, and she probably owned it from the time Moore made it. Ann Garrould, Moore’s niece, and daughter of Moore’s sister Mary, recalled that the sculpture had been named Josephine and was used as a door-stop when she was a child.
Moore did not include Standing Woman in his first solo exhibition in 1928 or any of his subsequent exhibitions during the 1930s. The work remained in his sister’s possession and it was rarely lent for exhibitions. Indeed, the sculpture was only exhibited once in Moore’s lifetime, in 1982 at the Leeds City Art Galleries.

Alice Correia
November 2012


A pointing machine is a measuring tool used by sculptors to make like-for-like copies of sculptures. The device is not really a machine but a collection of adjustable rods on an armature which are used to measure specific points on the surface of modelled sculpture. The tool measures the width, height and depth of these points from a chosen position and these dimensions are then used to accurately carve into a block of stone or wood. Each time a point (or measurement) is taken, a small hole is drilled into the corresponding block of stone to indicate the point to which the sculptor should carve. The first point of reference is the highest relief point; on a sculpture of a head this might be a protruding nose. This ensures that the sculptor does not carve away too much material. Carvings made with the use of a pointing machine are often pockmarked, where the point has been drilled fractionally too deep. For an example of a sculpture made with a pointing machine with visible point marks, see Auguste Rodin, The Kiss 1901–4 (Tate N06228).
Ian Dejardin, ‘Catalogue’, in Henry Moore at Dulwich Picture Gallery, exhibition catalogue, Dulwich Picture Gallery, London 2004, p.37.
For Domenico Rosselli, Virgin and Child 1450–98, see http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O137490/virgin-and-child-relief-rosselli-domenico/, accessed 15 November 2012.
See John Hedgecoe (ed.), Henry Moore, London 1968, p.33. Moore’s subversive act when making the work is possibly one of the reasons why the work survived while his other pieces of coursework did not.
Ibid., p.33.
See John and Véra Russell, ‘Conversations with Henry Moore’, Sunday Times, 17 December 1961, reprinted in Alan Wilkinson (ed.), Henry Moore: Writings and Conversations, Aldershot 2002, pp.47, 230.
See Hedgecoe 1968, p.33.
Henry Moore quoted in Hedgecoe 1968, p.450.
Henry Moore cited in David Sylvester, ‘Henry Moore talking to David Sylvester’, 7 June 1963, transcript of Third Programme, BBC Radio, broadcast 14 July 1963, Tate Archive TGA 200861, pp.19–20. An edited version of this conversation was published in the Listener, 29 August 1963, pp.305–7.
Wyndham Lewis (ed.), Blast, London 1914. For a digitised version of the magazine see the Modernist Journals Project, http://dl.lib.brown.edu/mjp/render.php?id=1143209523824844&view=mjp_object, accessed 30 July 2012.
Donald Hall, Henry Moore: The Life and Work of a Great Sculptor, London 1966, p.50.
Ibid., p.50.
Henri Gaudier-Brzeska, ‘Vortex’, in Lewis 1914, p.155.
Henry Moore, ‘In Conversation with Huw Wheldon, c.1983’, reprinted in Wilkinson 2002, p.151.
Paul Cézanne, letter to Emile Bernard, 15 April 1904, reprinted in Charles Harrison and Paul Wood (eds.), Art in Theory 1900–2000: An Anthology of Changing Ideas, Oxford 2003, p.33
Sir Michael Sadler was an important influence on Moore and was a prominent early collector of his sculpture. Sadler believed in the necessity of a broad education and the centrality of the arts in everyday life. At Leeds, Sadler was active in the University’s arts, drama and music societies, and he established a programme of public lectures on the arts by invited speakers including Roger Fry. Sadler also gave lectures on artists such as Cézanne, Gauguin and van Gogh, based on works in his own collection. Sadler was at the centre of artistic activities in Leeds and as an educationalist made his collection available as much as possible, frequently lending and showing items to artists and students in the city. In later life Moore acknowledged the importance of Sadler to his artistic education noting that ‘he really knew what was going on in modern art’. See Russell 1961 reprinted in Wilkinson 2002, p.44. Henry Moore’s sculpture Figure 1931 (Tate T00240) was formerly in Sadler’s collection.
Moore’s first visit to Paris is often listed as occurring in 1923 (see, for example, David Sylvester (ed.), Henry Moore. Volume 1: Complete Sculpture 1921–48, 1957, 5th edn, London 1988, p.xxxviii), but more recent scholarship has proved that the trip took place in 1922; see Wilkinson 2002, p.49.
See Wilkinson 2002 p.49–50. Whitsun is the seventh Sunday after Easter, which in 1922 fell on 4 June. The Monday following Whitsun was a Bank Holiday until 1971.
Henry Moore quoted in John Hedgecoe, Henry Moore. My Ideas, Inspiration and Life as an Artist, London 1986, pp.150–1.
See for example John Russell, ‘Introduction’, in Henry Moore: Stone and Wood Carvings, exhibition catalogue, Marlborough Fine Art, London 1961, p.5.
Herbert Read, Henry Moore: A Study of his Life and Work, London 1965, p.53. Among these pairs were Moore’s Standing Woman 1923 and Gaudier-Brzeska’s Red Stone Dancer c.1913 (Tate N04515).
Richard Cork, Wild Thing: Epstein, Gaudier-Brzeska, Gill, exhibition catalogue, Royal Academy of Arts, London 2009, pp.31, 74.
Henry Moore, ‘A View on Sculpture’, Architectural Association Journal, May 1930, p.408, reprinted in Wilkinson 2002, p.188.
See Alan Wilkinson, ‘Introduction: “Perfect Symmetry is Death”’, in Wilkinson 2002, p.17.
Andrew Causey, The Drawings of Henry Moore, London 2010, p.24.
Terry Friedman, ‘1921–1929’, in Henry Moore: Early Carvings 1920–1940, exhibition catalogue, Leeds City Art Galleries, Leeds 1982, pp.22–3.
See Ann Garrould (ed.), Henry Moore. Volume 1: Complete Drawings 1916–29, London 1996, p.63, no.22–24.45
When not at college, Moore could be found, in his own words, ‘Tate-ing or Museuming’; see Henry Moore, ‘Letter to Jocelyn Horner, Autumn 1921’, as quoted in Friedman 1982, p.21. See also Henry Moore, Henry Moore at the British Museum, London 1981, p.13.
Dejardin 2004, p.161.
There were many examples of ancient Greek caryatids in the British Museum that Moore would have been aware of. See, for example, Caryatid from the Erechtheion c.420 BC, http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/gr/c/caryatid_from_the_erechtheion.aspx, accessed 30 July 2012.
Moore cited in Wilkinson 2002, p.187.
See Gemma Levine, Henry Moore: Wood Sculpture, London 1983, p.54, reprinted in Wilkinson 2002, p.251.
See David Sylvester (ed.), Henry Moore. Volume 1: Complete Sculpture 1921–48, London 1957, p.4.
Henry Moore, letter to Michael Tollemache, 7 January 1969, Henry Moore Foundation Archive.
A photograph of Moore dated c.1922–3 standing in his sister’s garden next to Dog 1922 and Mother and Child 1922 is reproduced in Jane Beckett and Fiona Russell (eds.), Henry Moore Critical Essays, Aldershot 2003, p.150.

How to cite

Alice Correia, ‘Standing Woman 1924 by Henry Moore OM, CH’, catalogue entry, November 2012, in Henry Moore: Sculptural Process and Public Identity, Tate Research Publication, 2015, https://www.tate.org.uk/art/research-publications/henry-moore/henry-moore-om-ch-standing-woman-r1172058, accessed 18 January 2022.