Henry Moore: Sculptural Process and Public Identity

ISBN 978-1-84976-391-2

Henry Moore OM, CH Working Model for Reclining Figure (Lincoln Center) 1963-5, cast date unknown

This work served as the preparatory model for a monumental sculpture of a reclining figure commissioned for the Lincoln Center in New York. According to Moore the two pieces of the sculpture represent a human body and a rock rising from water, while their formal affinities exemplify the way in which figures and landscapes coalesce in his work.
Henry Moore OM, CH 1898–1986
Working Model for Reclining Figure (Lincoln Center)
1963–5, cast date unknown
2350 x 3723 x 1652 mm
Inscribed ‘Moore’ and stamped ‘GUSS : H. NOACK BERLIN’ on lower rear of torso
Presented by the artist 1978
In an edition of 2


Henry Moore’s two-part sculpture Working Model for Reclining Figure (Lincoln Center) 1963–5 comprises two separate bronze elements that together may be understood to represent a reclining human figure. The sculpture was the working model for a much larger work commissioned for the Lincoln Center in New York City. The larger sculpture was designed to be placed in a large ornamental pool of water in front of the building, where it was installed in 1965. Tate’s working model for this sculpture is currently on long-term loan to the Charing Cross Hospital in London, where it is also installed outdoors in a pool (fig.1).
Henry Moore
Henry Moore
Working Model for Reclining Figure (Lincoln Center) 1963–5, cast date unknown, installed at Charing Cross Hospital, London
Tate T02295
© The Henry Moore Foundation. All Rights Reserved
Henry Moore 'Two Piece Reclining Figure No.2' 1960, cast 1961–2
Henry Moore
Two Piece Reclining Figure No.2 1960, cast 1961–2
Tate T00395
© The Henry Moore Foundation. All Rights Reserved

The pose of a reclining figure – created by an upright torso and horizontally-arranged legs – was a motif that preoccupied Moore for much of his career. Works such as Recumbent Figure 1938 (Tate N05387) and Draped Reclining Woman 1957–8 (Tate T06825) are earlier examples of Moore’s engagement with the subject, which from 1959 went in a new direction when Moore began to systematically segment his reclining figures into two and three pieces, as can be seen in Two Piece Reclining Figure No.2 1960 (Tate T00395) (fig.2). In 1961 Moore explained:
In doing these Reclining Figure sculptures (No.1 in 1959 and No.2 in 1960), it came naturally and without any conscious decision, that I made them in two separate pieces, the head-and-body end and the leg-end. In both sculptures I realised that I was simplifying the essential elements of my reclining figure theme ... In many of my reclining figures the head-and-neck part of the sculpture, sometimes the torso part too, is upright, giving contrast to the horizontal direction of the whole sculpture.1
Torso of Working Model for Reclining Figure (Lincoln Center) 1963–5, cast date unknown (rear view)
Tate T02295
© The Henry Moore Foundation. All Rights Reserved
Torso of Working Model for Reclining Figure (Lincoln Center) 1963–5, cast date unknown (side view)
Tate T02295
© The Henry Moore Foundation. All Rights Reserved

Working Model for Reclining Figure (Lincoln Center) represents a continuation and development of these earlier ideas and forms. The sculpture comprises an upright torso part and a separate block-like part, which, judging by the title and Moore’s earlier manifestations of this subject, would seem to denote the legs. The torso section is wide and thin and marked by irregular curvaceous protrusions. A thin slither of bronze marks the tallest point of the sculpture and may be recognised as a head due to its position within the composition, although it possesses no recognisable facial features. The rear of the head is reminiscent of a fin that extends down the figure’s back to create a ridged backbone, which divides the back into two similarly sized sections (fig.3). Two broad shoulders round off the top of the torso, which does not have arms. On the left shoulder is a triangular shaped depression, the edge of which is akin to a collar bone. The torso remains approximately the same width from shoulders to hips, at which point it splits into two truncated appendages separated by an arch. Seen from the side, the torso appears to lean forwards at a diagonal angle towards the other section of the sculpture (fig.4).
Leg section of Working Model for Reclining Figure (Lincoln Center) 1963–5, cast date unknown
Tate T02295
© The Henry Moore Foundation. All Rights Reserved
Leg section of Working Model for Reclining Figure (Lincoln Center) 1963–5, cast date unknown
Tate T02295
© The Henry Moore Foundation. All Rights Reserved

The second, smaller section of the sculpture comprises two differently shaped and highly textured vertical columns connected by a smooth, curved sheet of bronze that creates an almost tubular hollow between them (fig.5). This linking curve arches over the gap but also extends backwards to create a fin-like protrusion (fig.6). The heavily textured surfaces, overhanging edges and rounded hollows of this part of the sculpture are reminiscent of seafront caves and eroded cliffs, allusions that are accentuated by its placement in water.

The Lincoln Center commission

Henry Moore 'Reclining Figure' 1963–5
Henry Moore
Reclining Figure 1963–5 Lincoln Center, New York
Lincoln Center, New York
© The Henry Moore Foundation. All Rights Reserved
During the early 1960s Moore developed close working relationships with a number of American architects, many of whom approached the artist to create monumental public sculptures to adorn city plazas and corporate courtyards. Indeed, according to the art historian Iain Boal, by the mid-1960s Moore was regarded as ‘the open-air sculptor par excellence’.2 In December 1961 Moore was approached to create a sculpture to be placed in a water pool the size of a tennis court located in front of the Lincoln Center, a new arts and cultural complex in New York City. The fee for the commission was $240,000, which was to cover all costs, including casting and shipping. Moore was interested in the way a sculpture could be reflected in water, and accepted the commission (fig.7). However, Moore rarely made sculptures according to a rigid brief or set of requirements. Instead he would invite the person commissioning the work to choose from a selection of maquettes or mid-sized working models already in development. In this way Moore was able to retain artistic control over a commission and develop ideas for his work independently of others. By the time Moore came to start work on Working Model for Reclining Figure (Lincoln Center) he had already completed four two-piece reclining figures and had amassed numerous maquettes and drawings that explored the potential of dividing the human figure into multiple parts. These designs clearly informed the compositional arrangement of the Lincoln Center sculpture, but the resulting work was understood by Moore to represent a slightly different subject. In 1967 he reflected that ‘in the case of the Lincoln Center piece I saw a chance to carry out a private idea, that of a woman and rock rising from the water. There was no compromise’.3

From studio to foundry

Flint stone from Henry Moore's collection on display at Marlbrough Gallery, London, June 1971
© The Henry Moore Foundation. All Rights Reserved
By the 1960s Moore preferred to develop new ideas for sculptures by first making small three-dimensional maquettes in a malleable material such as clay or plaster. Moore most likely made the maquette for Working Model for Reclining Figure (Lincoln Center) in his small studio in the grounds of his home, Hoglands, at Perry Green in Hertfordshire. This studio was lined with shelves displaying Moore’s ever growing collection of found bones, shells and flint stones, the shapes of which often served as starting points for Moore’s formal experiments in three dimensions. For example, the shape of the upright torso section of Working Model for Reclining Figure (Lincoln Center) may well have evolved from a flint stone with a similar forward thrusting neck that was included in a display of Moore’s found objects in his exhibition at Marlborough Fine Art, London, in June 1971 (fig.8). While not exactly the same, Moore garnered what he called ‘form-knowledge’ from naturally occurring objects, utilising their shapes imaginatively in his sculpture.4 In 1963 Moore explained to the critic David Sylvester how exactly he worked with these natural objects:
I look at them, handle them, see them from all round, and I may press then into clay and pour plaster into that clay and get a start as a bit of plaster, which is a reproduction of the object. And then add to it, change it. In that sort of way something turns out in the end that you could never have thought of the day before.5
Moore made numerous maquettes for two-piece sculptures between 1959 and 1964 using these techniques, sometimes making only very slight alterations between each one. Not all of these maquettes were scaled up into full size sculptures, although some were cast in bronze as small table-top sculptures. Moore explained:
Sometimes I make ten or twenty maquettes for every one that I use in a large scale – the others may get rejected. If a maquette keeps its interest enough for me to want to realise it as a full-size final work, then I might make a working model in an intermediate size, in which changes will be made before going to the real, full-sized sculpture. Changes get made at all these stages.6
According to Moore’s biographer Donald Hall, Moore made a series of small maquettes for the Lincoln Center project in the summer of 1962.7 It is not known whether the final plaster maquette for Working Model for Reclining Figure (Lincoln Center) survived, and no bronze casts of it were made. However, in addition to this maquette, one other design under consideration for the Lincoln Center site was enlarged in plaster to an intermediary, ‘working model’ size. This second sculpture became Two Piece Reclining Figure No.5 1963–4 (Tate T02294), and is identified as an ‘alternative project for the Lincoln Center Sculpture’ in the artist’s catalogue raisonné.8 The enlargement process, which was undertaken in the winter of 1962–3, would have involved charting and measuring specific points on the surface of the maquettes to ensure the sculptures were scaled up accurately. Scaling-up was carried out in the White Studio at Hoglands or, if the weather was fine, outdoors on the studio terrace (fig.9).9 Much of this work would have been undertaken by one or more of Moore’s sculpture assistants, who in 1962–3 included Geoffrey Greetham, Robert Holding, Roland Piché, Ron Robertson-Swann, and Isaac Witkin.
Plaster version of Working Model for Reclining Figure (Lincoln Center) at Hoglands c.1962–3
© The Henry Moore Foundation. All Rights Reserved
Detail of gouges in surface of Working Model for Reclining Figure (Lincoln Center) 1963–5, cast date unknown
Tate T02295
© The Henry Moore Foundation. All Rights Reserved

Moore’s assistants would have initially constructed an armature to the required size and rough shape for each section of the sculpture. The armature would have been made up of numerous lengths of wood and possibly chicken wire, and then draped in scrim, a bandage-like fabric. Successive layers of plaster were then built up over the hollow structure until only a short section of each armature rod was exposed. The armature served not only a structural purpose, but was also used to facilitate the enlargement process, with the end of each rod corresponding to a precise point on the surface of the sculpture.10 After modelling the sculpture to the required shape and size, Moore would then have concentrated on the surface texture. Using an array of tools – including saws, chisels, and files – he created different types of markings, grooves and cuts depending on the wetness of the plaster. Moore found plaster to be a very useful material because it could be ‘both built up, as in modelling, or cut down, in the way you carve stone or wood’.11 The surface of the plaster was captured in the casting process and an examination of the bronze surface of Working Model for Reclining Figure (Lincoln Center) shows how Moore created a range of textures using a number of different tools including fine points, graters and spatulas (fig.10).
After they were completed, the two working models were applied with colour to make the plaster look more like bronze. Moore did this ‘because on white plaster the light and shade acts quite differently, throwing back a reflected light on itself and making the forms softer, less powerful ... even weightless’. 12 Importantly, it also allowed Moore to gauge what the two darkly coloured bronze sculptures would look like in water. The two painted plaster working models were thus positioned within a small swimming pool at Hoglands (fig.11).13 Following this test, Moore concluded that Two Piece Reclining Figure No.5 ‘was not so good at rising out of the water’ and so the decision was made to enlarge Working Model for Reclining Figure (Lincoln Center) for the New York commission.14
Plaster version of 'Working Model for Reclining Figure (Lincoln Center)' in pool at Hoglands c.1963
Plaster version of Working Model for Reclining Figure (Lincoln Center) in pool at Hoglands c.1963
The Henry Moore Foundation
© The Henry Moore Foundation. All Rights Reserved
Plaster versions of Working Model for Reclining Figure (Lincoln Centre) 1963–5 and Reclining Figure 1963–5 at Hoglands c.1964
The Henry Moore Foundation
© The Henry Moore Foundation. All Rights Reserved

Having decided which sculpture he wanted to make, Moore set to work building the full-size plaster in a specially constructed studio on the grounds at Hoglands (fig.12). The full-size plaster was completed in August 1964, whereupon it was carved into pieces and shipped to the Noack Foundry in Berlin, where the individual parts were cast in bronze before being welded together. During the 1950s and early 1960s Moore used a number of different foundries in London and Paris but started working with Noack in 1958 following an introduction by the dealer Harry Fischer.15 By then Noack was regarded as one of the best bronze foundries able to undertake large-scale castings and in 1967 Moore stated, ‘I use the Noack foundry for casting most of my work because in my opinion, Noack is the best bronze founder I know ... Also, the Noack foundry is reliable in all ways – in keeping to dates of delivery – and in sustaining the quality of their work’.16 The casting, welding and patinating of Reclining Figure 1963–5 took almost a year to complete, but the finished work was flown to New York in July 1965.
Given the timescale involved in creating the Lincoln Center Reclining Figure, it is likely that Moore only considered casting the plaster working model into bronze after the full-size version had been installed in New York. Working Model for Reclining Figure (Lincoln Center) was also cast at the Noack Foundry, in an edition of two. The sculpture is inscribed with Moore’s signature and stamped with the foundry mark on the back of the figure towards the bottom (fig.13).
It is unclear which casting technique was used to create this bronze sculpture, but whether the lost wax or sand casting method was used, the foundry technicians at Noack would still have had to carve up the plaster sculpture into smaller pieces so that moulds could be created of each piece. The inside of each mould would then have been filled with molten bronze. After the bronze had hardened it was removed from the mould revealing a section of sculpture. Once all the pieces of the sculpture had been cast they would be welded together. Finally, the casting seams would have been filed down so that the joins between each section were practically imperceptible.
Detail of artist's signature and foundry stamp on Working Model for Reclining Figure (Lincoln Center) 1963–5, cast date unknown
Tate T02295
© The Henry Moore Foundation. All Rights Reserved
Torso of Working Model for Reclining Figure (Lincoln Center) 1963–5, cast date unknown (side view)
Tate T02295
© The Henry Moore Foundation. All Rights Reserved

After being assembled at the foundry the bronze sculpture was probably returned to Moore so that he could check the quality of casting and make decisions about the patination. A patina is the surface colour of a sculpture and is usually achieved by applying chemical solutions to the pre-heated bronze surface. This sculpture has a dark brown patina, overlaid with green shades that have probably developed over time as a result of exposure to the elements (fig.14). In 1963 Moore asserted, ‘I always patinate bronze myself’, explaining that since he had conceived the sculpture it would be unlikely that someone else would be able to replicate the exact colour he wanted.17 However, it is known that Noack would sometimes patinate Moore’s sculpture at the foundry. But even in these instances Moore was still able to adjust the patina when the sculpture was returned to the studio.

Sources and development

Henry Moore 'Reclining Woman (Mountains)' 1930
Henry Moore
Reclining Woman (Mountains) 1930
National Gallery of Canada, Ottawa
© The Henry Moore Foundation. All Rights Reserved
According to the critic Donald Hall ‘the Lincoln Center Reclining Figure is not merely a composite Henry Moore: it is the logical development, and the culmination, of the ideas of the years preceding it’.18 Writing a decade later, the art historian Alan Bowness suggested similarly that the working model and the final incarnation of the sculpture was the climax of Moore’s series of two-piece reclining figures made during the 1960s, which drew analogies between the pose of a reclining woman and landscape formations such as boulders, mountains and cliffs.19 This theme had been explored by Moore as early as 1930, when he created Reclining Figure (Mountains) (fig.15), but it was not until he started making his two-piece reclining figures in the early 1960s that landscape formations actually began to be represented in his work. In a statement about his two-piece reclining figures written in 1961, Moore remarked:
Also in my reclining figures, I have often made a sort of looming leg – the top leg in the sculpture projecting over the lower leg, which gives a sense of thrust and power – as a large branch of a tree might move outwards from the main trunk – or as a seaside cliff might overhang from below, if you are on the beach.20
Reflecting on the traces of landscape in Moore’s reclining figures, the critic David Thompson wrote in 1965, ‘I think it could be claimed that Moore is the first sculptor in history to have found a way of expressing his feelings about landscape. Formerly only painters could describe mountains and cliffs and sea-caves’.21 Thompson went on to state that in Working Model for Reclining Figure (Lincoln Center), Moore referred ‘not only to costal scenery but to a specific coastal scene, namely the famous rock at Etretat which appears in paintings by Courbet, Monet, Renoir and others’.22 Following up this point, the critic John Russell has argued that two specific paintings contributed to the compositional form of the Lincoln Center sculpture: Claude Monet’s The Manneporte (Étretat) 1883 (fig.16) and George Seurat’s Le Bec du Hoc, Grandcamp 1885 (Tate N06067) (fig.17), which was owned by Moore’s close friend, the art historian Kenneth Clark.23 While the arched cliff painted by Monet resembles the smaller, hollowed part of Moore’s sculpture, the steep promontory depicted in Seurat’s Le Bec du Hoc, Grandcamp may be compared to the curvaceous protrusions found on the sculpture’s torso, most notably that of the figure’s head.24
Claude Monet 'The Manneporte (Étretat)' 1883
Claude Monet
The Manneporte (Étretat) 1883
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
© 2000–2015 The Metropolitan Museum of Art. All rights reserved
Georges Seurat 'Le Bec du Hoc, Grandcamp'
Georges Seurat
Le Bec du Hoc, Grandcamp 1885
Tate N06067

Henry Moore 'Two Forms' 1934
Henry Moore
Two Forms 1934
Museum of Modern Art, New York
© The Henry Moore Foundation. All rights reserved
Despite Hall’s and Bowness’s assertion that the Lincoln Center sculpture should be understood as the culmination of the sequence of two- and three-piece reclining figures, differences between the design of this sculpture and the other multi-part works of the early 1960s need to be acknowledged. Most significantly, Moore’s description of the work as ‘a woman and rock rising from the water’ indicates clearly that the sculpture should not be understood to represent a figure in two parts, but a single body seen in relation to another object.25 Whereas works such as Two Piece Reclining Figure No.2 1960 illustrate the fragmentation of the body, and thus develop ideas explored in earlier works such as Four-Piece Composition: Reclining Figure 1934 (Tate T02054), Working Model for Reclining Figure (Lincoln Center) is closer in concept to Moore’s multi-part work Two Forms 1934 (fig.18), in which a tall member looms over a smaller rock-like piece. The relationship between the two parts of Working Model for Reclining Figure (Lincoln Center), which seem to have individual identities, is significantly different from the other two-part reclining figure sculptures of the 1960s, where the two parts appear to interact in a way that establishes a unified whole.

‘A supreme symbol of our human destiny’

As the final work to be discussed in Herbert Read’s 1965 monograph on Henry Moore, the Lincoln Center Reclining Figure (and thereby the working model) is described in exaggerated terms:
This piece is the extreme evolution of those variations of the reclining figure motive in which the extended limbs are magnified until they form a massive cliff-like extension, pierced by an arch. The torso rises against this rocky mass with a volcanic violence, in which, however, some element of the eternal feminine still confronts the general sense of the earth’s indifference. Set in water, this impassive monument is reflected against the changing moods of the overreaching sky. The Great Mother, the Goddess of Fertility, life itself as a tender force, broods over the desolated alters of a Waste Land. The creative genius of our artist has finally led us to a supreme symbol of our human destiny.26
Moore’s continuous preoccupation with the subject of the reclining female figure led numerous critics to suggest that he was seeking to present an archetypal vision of the human form.27 As early as 1953, Read, who was a life-long supporter of Moore’s, asserted that ‘in modern Europe we cannot avoid certain humanitarian preoccupations ... The modern sculptor, therefore, more naturally seeks to interpret human form’.28 Moore, according to Read, distinguished himself from his contemporaries by relating ‘the human form to certain universal forms which may be found in nature’.29 By uniting human and natural forms, as can be seen in Moore’s allusions to rocks or bones in Working Model for Reclining Figure (Lincoln Center), Moore was able to break free of what Read saw as the ‘false imprisonment’ of mimetic representation. In his 1953 book Read supported his interpretation by quoting a statement written by Moore in 1934:
Because a work of art does not aim at reproducing natural appearances it is not, therefore, an escape from life – but may be a penetration into reality, not a sedative or drug, not just the exercise of good taste, the provision of pleasant shapes and colours in a pleasing combination, not a decoration to life, but an expression of the significance of life, a stimulation to greater effort of living.30
These beliefs underpinned Moore’s later work, and anticipated the comment he made in 1967 that when looking for human implications in natural forms, ‘taste is not the guide. I’m not interested in the niceties of a shape’.31 In attempting to create a union of the human body and landscape, Moore identified humanity and the environment as partners within an ‘organic whole’.32

The Henry Moore Gift

Working Model for Reclining Figure (Lincoln Center) 1963–65, cast date unknown being installed in the garden at Tate in 1978
Tate T02295
© The Henry Moore Foundation. All Rights Reserved
Working Model for Reclining Figure (Lincoln Center) was presented by Henry Moore to the Tate Gallery in 1978 as part of the Henry Moore Gift. The Gift comprised thirty-six sculptures in bronze, marble and plaster and was exhibited in its entirety alongside Tate’s existing collection of Moore’s work in an exhibition celebrating the artist’s eightieth birthday, which opened in June 1978. A press release was duly prepared announcing that ‘The group [of sculptures] is the most substantial gift of works ever given to the Tate by an artist during his lifetime’.33 Working Model for Reclining Figure (Lincoln Center) was exhibited on the lawn outside the gallery during the exhibition (fig.19), which was attended by over 20,500 people, while nearly 11,000 copies of the catalogue were sold.34 At its close in late August the Director of Tate, Norman Reid, reflected in a letter to Moore’s daughter Mary Danowski that although he was sad to see the exhibition come to an end ‘we have the consolation of the splendid group of sculptures which Henry has presented to the nation’.35 In April 1979 the sculpture was returned to Moore so that a bronze base could be made for it. After it was returned to Tate it remained on display in the garden until June 1980.
In the years following the eightieth birthday exhibition Reid and the Tate trustees decided to loan some of Moore’s large-scale works to venues across the country on a long-term basis rather than keep them in storage. Working Model for Reclining Figure (Lincoln Center) has been on loan to the Charing Cross Hospital, London, since 1980, where it is displayed in a specially designed pool.
Working Model for Reclining Figure (Lincoln Center) exists in an edition of two bronzes. The plaster sculpture from which the bronze was cast is held in the collection of the Art Gallery of Ontario, Toronto.

Alice Correia
November 2013


Henry Moore, ‘Two-Piece Reclining Figures 1959 and 1960’, artist’s statement sent to Martin Butlin, 13 April 1961, Tate Artist Catalogue File, Henry Moore, A23945, reprinted in Mary Chamot, Dennis Farr and Martin Butlin, Tate Gallery Catalogues: The Modern British Paintings, Drawings and Sculpture, London 1964, vol.2, p.28.
Iain A. Boal, ‘Ground Zero: Henry Moore’s Atom Piece at the University of Chicago’, in Jane Beckett and Fiona Russell (eds.), Henry Moore: Critical Essays, Aldershot 2003, p.224.
Henry Moore cited in Albert Elsen, ‘Henry Moore’s Reflections on Sculpture’, Art Journal, vol.26, no.4, summer 1967, pp.352–8.
In 1934 Moore stated that ‘The observation of nature is part of an artist’s life, it enlarges his form-knowledge’. See Henry Moore, ‘Statement for Unit One’, in Herbert Read (ed.), Unit One: The Modern Movement in English Architecture, Painting and Sculpture, London 1934, pp.29–30, reprinted in Alan Wilkinson (ed.), Henry Moore: Writings and Conversations, London 2002, p.192.
Henry Moore in ‘Henry Moore Talking to David Sylvester’, 7 June 1963, transcript of Third Programme, BBC Radio, broadcast 14 July 1963, p.18, Tate Archive TGA 200816. (An edited version of this interview was published in the Listener, 29 August 1963, pp.305–7.)
Henry Moore cited in Gemma Levine, With Henry Moore: The Artist at Work, London 1978, p.57.
Donald Hall, Henry Moore: The Life and Work of a Great Sculptor, London 1966, p.164.
Alan Bowness (ed.), Henry Moore. Volume 4: Complete Sculpture 1964–73, London 1977, p.39.
See Anne Wagner, ‘Scale in Sculpture: The Sixties and Henry Moore’, Tate Papers, no.15, spring 2011, http://www.tate.org.uk/research/publications/tate-papers/scale-sculpture-sixties-and-henry-moore, accessed 13 August 2013.
Henry Moore cited in John Hedgecoe (ed.), Henry Moore, London 1968, p.300.
Henry Moore cited in John Hedgecoe (ed.), Henry Moore: My Ideas, Inspiration and Life as an Artist, London 1986, p.159.
Roger Berthoud, The Life of Henry Moore, 1987, 2nd edn, London 2003, p.344.
Hall 1966, p.164.
See Berthoud 2003, pp.323–4.
Henry Moore, letter to Heinz Ohff, 8 March 1967, Henry Moore Foundation Archive.
Moore cited in Sylvester 1963, pp.3–4.
Hall 1966, p.171.
See Bowness 1977, p.9.
Moore 1961, reprinted in Chamot, Farr and Butlin 1964, p.28.
David Thompson, ‘Recumbent Figure by Henry Moore’, Listener, 25 November 1965, p.861.
John Russell, Henry Moore, London 1968, p.193. It is known that Moore saw the Seurat painting regularly during his visits to Clark’s home. See Philip James (ed.), Henry Moore on Sculpture, London 1966, p.269.
Other writers, including Herbert Read, Robert Melville, and Alan Wilkinson, have also compared Moore’s work to the depiction of cliffs in paintings by Claude Monet and Georges Seurat. See Herbert Read, Henry Moore: A Study of his Life and Work, London 1965, p.227; Robert Melville, Henry Moore: Sculpture and Drawings 1921–1969, London 1970, p.29; Alan G. Wilkinson, Henry Moore Remembered: The Collection at the Art Gallery of Ontario in Toronto, Toronto 1987, p.193.
Moore cited in Elsen 1967, pp.352–8.
Read 1965, p.250.
See Elsen 1967 and Erich Neumann, The Archetypal World of Henry Moore, London 1959.
Herbert Read, The Philosophy of Modern Art, New York 1953, p.204.
Ibid., pp.204–5.
Moore 1934, cited in Read 1953, p.207.
Elsen 1967, p.355.
Christa Lichtenstern, Henry Moore: Work-Theory-Impact, London 2008, p.241.
See ‘Note on the Henry Moore Gift’, 1978, Tate Public Records TG 4/6/10/4.
These figures are based on those listed in a memo in the exhibition’s records; see Tate Public Records TG 92/344/2.
Norman Reid, letter to Mary Danowski, 31 August 1978, Tate Public Records TG 4/6/10/4.

How to cite

Alice Correia, ‘Working Model for Reclining Figure (Lincoln Center) 1963–5, cast date unknown by Henry Moore OM, CH’, catalogue entry, November 2013, 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-working-model-for-reclining-figure-lincoln-center-r1171994, accessed 17 April 2024.