.jpg?w=1)
拍品專文
‘… a modern building in the heart of London has been decorated with a series of modern sculptures, and this is even a more significant development than the placing of a group outside a County Council school. In the case of the school, the sculpture is additional – it could be removed without affecting the architecture behind it. In the Time-Life building the sculpture is merged into the structure’ (H. Read, quoted in A.Bowness (ed.), Henry Moore, Complete Sculpture: 1949-54, Vol. 2, London, 1986, p. 9).
Moore’s award of the International Prize for Sculpture in the Venice Biennale of 1948 was the point at which his career developed onto an international scale. During the 1951 Festival of Britain, architect Michael Rosenaur approached Moore with opportunities for commissions for the new London offices of the American corporation Time-Life International. Time/Life Screen, 1952, created for the façade of the building, is an outstanding example of a three-dimensional artwork as an integral part of an architectural space. The present work, Time/Life Screen: Working Model was developed following preliminary studies, and is a bronze model for the large-scale piece that can still be seen on the building today in Mayfair. It provides a true insight into how Moore innovatively perceived the relationship between two artistic practices, seamlessly and effectively combining them.
Moore, who believed reliefs were often merely surface decoration and would be perceived as secondary to the architecture, rejected any idea of a pictorial scene and deemed it obvious that it instead should be considered as a screen whereby his work would be seen as on an equal footing, and of equal importance to, the building itself. As a member of the modernist group, Unit One, Moore had, in the same vein, previously expressed his frustration with the relief technique. In a 1934 book published by the group’s members, who included Paul Nash, Barbara Hepworth and Ben Nicholson, they discussed the changing relationship between modernist architecture, painting, drawing and sculpture. Here, Moore stated that in order to have total sculptural expression, one needed to create a form in three dimensions. As such, a relief would therefore limit the full power of the piece to the viewer. Moore undoubtedly drew on his past experience for these opinions: his first public commission West Wind in 1928 for the Underground building in St James’s, London comprised a carved stone relief. In spite of the brief, Moore made sure to cut the stone as deep as possible in order to maintain the three-dimensional quality he felt was essential to represent his work.
Moore’s practice supported aspects of humanism through his figurative representational work, and was key in championing a modernising post-war Britain. The artist was keen to communicate and share these feelings with the public through his artwork, and to reflect his passion for the importance of societal wellbeing. Yet, in comparison to his development of sculpture based upon organic forms of nature and the human figure, Moore’s Time/Life Screen’s abstracted style was surprising to some.
In contrast to his prevailing humanistic style, it can be argued that the 1950s was a time of continued experimentation and invention for Moore. Time/Life Screen is perhaps the definitive example of this, demonstrating Moore’s ability to embrace the challenge of creating something entirely original and more abstract. The present work and the earlier screen maquettes from this commission strongly demonstrate Moore’s careful consideration of how he adapted these organic sculptural forms and combined them to suit the modernist structure of the Time-Life building. Moreover, what is so exciting about this piece is that Moore was able to envision and enact the work as a sculpture in its own right within the building structure. This enabled him to reinforce and publicly emphasise his belief that sculpture must have a relationship with the space, light and air surrounding it to be fully impactful. He comments, ‘The fact that it is only a screen with space behind it, led me to carve it with a back as well as a front, and to pierce it, which gives an interesting penetration of light, and also from Bond Street makes it obvious that it is a screen and not a solid part of the building…’ (H. Moore, quoted in 'Henry Moore: Sculpture in London', Art Review, London, 1993, p. 26).
Time/Life Screen: Working Model was the resulting sculpture from four maquettes all conceived in 1952. They express Moore’s determination to create a rhythm within his sculptures that harmonised and augmented Rosenaur’s post-war design. Primary maquettes portray smooth forms growing from and supporting the cut-out frames of the screen, and upon reflection, emulate the sculptor’s past themes of curved standing and reclining anthropomorphic figures and objects. These shapes came together in a regular rhythm. Moore, however, regarded these early incarnations as too obvious in relation to the building’s window and door positions. He was further dissatisfied with the directional patterns that these organic shapes created as a contradiction to the squared quality of the building. As a direct response, Moore removed the appearances of organic forms, and instead manipulated them to introduce a geometric and abstracted component to the design.
This new concept of the screen revisited a number of even earlier thematic influences. Each stone in Time/Life Screen: Working Model No. 4 and in the present work appears to suggest elements of both Cubism and non-Western influences, which Moore had previously examined and applied in the late 1920s and early 1930s. On inspection, the model’s indented holes, engraved shapes, and etched lines come together to form eyes and various limbs of now biomorphic shapes; shapes that have been rotated, stacked and squared-off to fit into and define the pierced surrounds of the screen. Associations with carved stele from Pre-Columbian civilizations are recalled in particular. The addition of holes to a sculpture was another tool for Moore to explore in depth. For the artist, the hole was not only an additional shape to accommodate the sculptures, but acted as an essential filter and diffuser of space and light from front to back, which aided Moore to achieve his ambition for the Time-Life commission. Elements of this model appear very similar to Square Form, a carving created by Moore some fifteen years earlier. At the time of the commission Moore had in fact used the 1936 sculpture’s prototypes ‘placed one above the other’ to construct the maquette of the definitive screen’ (D. Sylvester, quoted in exhibition catalogue, Henry Moore Sketch Models and Working Models, Coventry, Mead Gallery, 1990, p. 10). The rhythm created by these rectangular and square shapes shows a supplementary distinctive affinity to Ben Nicholson’s 1930s modern ‘White Relief’ series. Like Moore, Nicholson was also interested in exploring the relationship of architecture and art, which suggests an influence on his practice when contemplating the design of this screen. Nicholson’s reliefs were exhibited alongside Moore in the Unit One London exhibition of April 1934, and the two known sculptures of his career were later seen as a hallmark of modern architecture.
While the working model was cast in bronze, Moore intended to carve the final Time/Life Screen from the same material as the building’s cladding: Portland Stone. The entire piece - from working model through to completion - shows Moore’s influences from, and respect of, Aztec sculpture, and his comprehensive understanding and appreciation of stone as a medium. The heavy quality of the screen not only reflects this façade of the Time-Life building, but also builds upon Moore’s aim to be true to the nature of the material, a characteristic he observed from non-western carving. Mexican sculpture in particular, Moore noted, was carved in such a way that it not only retained a sensitivity of subject but also exuded the power and strength of the material in three dimensions. As a result the figures within Time/Life Screen are consequently constructed to preserve both the integrity of the subject matter and the austerity of the material.
The final frieze, placed into the terrace wall of the new London offices, was carved as four individual forms and affixed to the screen in situ. It was not until the screen had been placed in position that Moore realised this element was not in fact necessary for the completion of his sculpture. As a result, Moore expanded each of the screen’s openings as far as structurally possible, to give each form more surrounding space and to utilise the ever changing elements of light to surround and define his sculptures. Moore’s vision to remove the screen, further distinguishes his work as distinct from traditional wall ornamentations and worthy of equal importance to the building itself.
In keeping with his approach to viewing sculpture in the round, Moore had also proposed that each form was to be rotated marginally within its frame over time. This would, in Moore’s opinion, enhance the viewing experience of the screen, allowing those seeing the work from the outside, or from the building’s open terrace to gain a new projection of the forms. By turning the sculptures outside of their framed constraints, the work would partly resemble his inspiration of Romanesque architecture, where animals protruded from the surface. While this was structurally not possible, Time/Life Screen: Working Model therefore offers the opportunity to see this sculpture in an all-round view, as Moore intended. Susan Compton expands on this, stating, ‘It was a revival of a plan he may first have hatched several years before, when the Family Group at Stevenage was placed on a restricted site. In such circumstances architects might consider the use of a turntable, not to keep the statue slowly turning – that would be a horrible idea – but to present another view of it every month or so’ (S. Compton, Henry Moore, London, 1988, p. 21). While Moore himself explained that ‘if a sculptor knows that his work is going to be seen all round, it is a further impetus to sculpt all round’ (H. Moore, quoted in ibid.).
The distinctly original Time/Life Screen, and indeed its working model, the present work, is a dynamic exploration of the possibilities of combining architectural elements with sculpture. The success of the artwork lies in Moore’s willingness to challenge himself and revisit themes which he had since developed. In doing so, he displays wonderful ingenuity and single mindedness for the independence of his work to the architecture that guides Moore’s development of maquettes for future projects, and provides a substantial impact and counterpoint to the clean lines of modernist architecture.
We believe this is the first Time/Life Screen: Working Model has come to public auction. Other casts are in the Museum of Modern Art, San Francisco; The Museum of Modern Art, New York; Smith College Museum, Northampton, Massachusetts; The Arts Council of Great Britain; and the Henry Moore Foundation, Hertfordshire.
Moore’s award of the International Prize for Sculpture in the Venice Biennale of 1948 was the point at which his career developed onto an international scale. During the 1951 Festival of Britain, architect Michael Rosenaur approached Moore with opportunities for commissions for the new London offices of the American corporation Time-Life International. Time/Life Screen, 1952, created for the façade of the building, is an outstanding example of a three-dimensional artwork as an integral part of an architectural space. The present work, Time/Life Screen: Working Model was developed following preliminary studies, and is a bronze model for the large-scale piece that can still be seen on the building today in Mayfair. It provides a true insight into how Moore innovatively perceived the relationship between two artistic practices, seamlessly and effectively combining them.
Moore, who believed reliefs were often merely surface decoration and would be perceived as secondary to the architecture, rejected any idea of a pictorial scene and deemed it obvious that it instead should be considered as a screen whereby his work would be seen as on an equal footing, and of equal importance to, the building itself. As a member of the modernist group, Unit One, Moore had, in the same vein, previously expressed his frustration with the relief technique. In a 1934 book published by the group’s members, who included Paul Nash, Barbara Hepworth and Ben Nicholson, they discussed the changing relationship between modernist architecture, painting, drawing and sculpture. Here, Moore stated that in order to have total sculptural expression, one needed to create a form in three dimensions. As such, a relief would therefore limit the full power of the piece to the viewer. Moore undoubtedly drew on his past experience for these opinions: his first public commission West Wind in 1928 for the Underground building in St James’s, London comprised a carved stone relief. In spite of the brief, Moore made sure to cut the stone as deep as possible in order to maintain the three-dimensional quality he felt was essential to represent his work.
Moore’s practice supported aspects of humanism through his figurative representational work, and was key in championing a modernising post-war Britain. The artist was keen to communicate and share these feelings with the public through his artwork, and to reflect his passion for the importance of societal wellbeing. Yet, in comparison to his development of sculpture based upon organic forms of nature and the human figure, Moore’s Time/Life Screen’s abstracted style was surprising to some.
In contrast to his prevailing humanistic style, it can be argued that the 1950s was a time of continued experimentation and invention for Moore. Time/Life Screen is perhaps the definitive example of this, demonstrating Moore’s ability to embrace the challenge of creating something entirely original and more abstract. The present work and the earlier screen maquettes from this commission strongly demonstrate Moore’s careful consideration of how he adapted these organic sculptural forms and combined them to suit the modernist structure of the Time-Life building. Moreover, what is so exciting about this piece is that Moore was able to envision and enact the work as a sculpture in its own right within the building structure. This enabled him to reinforce and publicly emphasise his belief that sculpture must have a relationship with the space, light and air surrounding it to be fully impactful. He comments, ‘The fact that it is only a screen with space behind it, led me to carve it with a back as well as a front, and to pierce it, which gives an interesting penetration of light, and also from Bond Street makes it obvious that it is a screen and not a solid part of the building…’ (H. Moore, quoted in 'Henry Moore: Sculpture in London', Art Review, London, 1993, p. 26).
Time/Life Screen: Working Model was the resulting sculpture from four maquettes all conceived in 1952. They express Moore’s determination to create a rhythm within his sculptures that harmonised and augmented Rosenaur’s post-war design. Primary maquettes portray smooth forms growing from and supporting the cut-out frames of the screen, and upon reflection, emulate the sculptor’s past themes of curved standing and reclining anthropomorphic figures and objects. These shapes came together in a regular rhythm. Moore, however, regarded these early incarnations as too obvious in relation to the building’s window and door positions. He was further dissatisfied with the directional patterns that these organic shapes created as a contradiction to the squared quality of the building. As a direct response, Moore removed the appearances of organic forms, and instead manipulated them to introduce a geometric and abstracted component to the design.
This new concept of the screen revisited a number of even earlier thematic influences. Each stone in Time/Life Screen: Working Model No. 4 and in the present work appears to suggest elements of both Cubism and non-Western influences, which Moore had previously examined and applied in the late 1920s and early 1930s. On inspection, the model’s indented holes, engraved shapes, and etched lines come together to form eyes and various limbs of now biomorphic shapes; shapes that have been rotated, stacked and squared-off to fit into and define the pierced surrounds of the screen. Associations with carved stele from Pre-Columbian civilizations are recalled in particular. The addition of holes to a sculpture was another tool for Moore to explore in depth. For the artist, the hole was not only an additional shape to accommodate the sculptures, but acted as an essential filter and diffuser of space and light from front to back, which aided Moore to achieve his ambition for the Time-Life commission. Elements of this model appear very similar to Square Form, a carving created by Moore some fifteen years earlier. At the time of the commission Moore had in fact used the 1936 sculpture’s prototypes ‘placed one above the other’ to construct the maquette of the definitive screen’ (D. Sylvester, quoted in exhibition catalogue, Henry Moore Sketch Models and Working Models, Coventry, Mead Gallery, 1990, p. 10). The rhythm created by these rectangular and square shapes shows a supplementary distinctive affinity to Ben Nicholson’s 1930s modern ‘White Relief’ series. Like Moore, Nicholson was also interested in exploring the relationship of architecture and art, which suggests an influence on his practice when contemplating the design of this screen. Nicholson’s reliefs were exhibited alongside Moore in the Unit One London exhibition of April 1934, and the two known sculptures of his career were later seen as a hallmark of modern architecture.
While the working model was cast in bronze, Moore intended to carve the final Time/Life Screen from the same material as the building’s cladding: Portland Stone. The entire piece - from working model through to completion - shows Moore’s influences from, and respect of, Aztec sculpture, and his comprehensive understanding and appreciation of stone as a medium. The heavy quality of the screen not only reflects this façade of the Time-Life building, but also builds upon Moore’s aim to be true to the nature of the material, a characteristic he observed from non-western carving. Mexican sculpture in particular, Moore noted, was carved in such a way that it not only retained a sensitivity of subject but also exuded the power and strength of the material in three dimensions. As a result the figures within Time/Life Screen are consequently constructed to preserve both the integrity of the subject matter and the austerity of the material.
The final frieze, placed into the terrace wall of the new London offices, was carved as four individual forms and affixed to the screen in situ. It was not until the screen had been placed in position that Moore realised this element was not in fact necessary for the completion of his sculpture. As a result, Moore expanded each of the screen’s openings as far as structurally possible, to give each form more surrounding space and to utilise the ever changing elements of light to surround and define his sculptures. Moore’s vision to remove the screen, further distinguishes his work as distinct from traditional wall ornamentations and worthy of equal importance to the building itself.
In keeping with his approach to viewing sculpture in the round, Moore had also proposed that each form was to be rotated marginally within its frame over time. This would, in Moore’s opinion, enhance the viewing experience of the screen, allowing those seeing the work from the outside, or from the building’s open terrace to gain a new projection of the forms. By turning the sculptures outside of their framed constraints, the work would partly resemble his inspiration of Romanesque architecture, where animals protruded from the surface. While this was structurally not possible, Time/Life Screen: Working Model therefore offers the opportunity to see this sculpture in an all-round view, as Moore intended. Susan Compton expands on this, stating, ‘It was a revival of a plan he may first have hatched several years before, when the Family Group at Stevenage was placed on a restricted site. In such circumstances architects might consider the use of a turntable, not to keep the statue slowly turning – that would be a horrible idea – but to present another view of it every month or so’ (S. Compton, Henry Moore, London, 1988, p. 21). While Moore himself explained that ‘if a sculptor knows that his work is going to be seen all round, it is a further impetus to sculpt all round’ (H. Moore, quoted in ibid.).
The distinctly original Time/Life Screen, and indeed its working model, the present work, is a dynamic exploration of the possibilities of combining architectural elements with sculpture. The success of the artwork lies in Moore’s willingness to challenge himself and revisit themes which he had since developed. In doing so, he displays wonderful ingenuity and single mindedness for the independence of his work to the architecture that guides Moore’s development of maquettes for future projects, and provides a substantial impact and counterpoint to the clean lines of modernist architecture.
We believe this is the first Time/Life Screen: Working Model has come to public auction. Other casts are in the Museum of Modern Art, San Francisco; The Museum of Modern Art, New York; Smith College Museum, Northampton, Massachusetts; The Arts Council of Great Britain; and the Henry Moore Foundation, Hertfordshire.