Henry Moore Relief No. 1 Analysis

701 Words2 Pages

I will describe and evaluate the work, Relief No. 1, by Henry Moore, in this paper. This abstract

sculpture, created in 1959, can be located in the Kansas City Sculpture Park at The Nelson-

Atkins Museum of Art. The bronze figure, with green and brown undertones, stands 223.52 cm

(7 feet 4 inches) (Henry Moore Works in Public). Tate.org.uk lists the size of Relief No. 1 as 7

feet 3 inches x 4 feet 1 inch x 1 foot inches (The Tate Gallery, 1981). Henry Moore was an

English artist born in 1898 and died in 1986.

This distinct symbol stands upright and is flush against a stone wall at the top of the sculpture

garden. The sculpture, which resembles the image of a woman, appears to be composed of

three layers. The first layer, the …show more content…

The second and third layers are almost cohesive. It takes on the form of a

distorted woman’s silhouette. The top quarter is shaped like a head and shoulders. The head is

only a touch larger than the elongated next. The shoulder area has no true definition, but

merely a horizontal stretch of stone that leads to an enlarged bump at the left shoulder. The

bottom looks 3-D (hence a possible 3rd layer) and is comprised of the breast, hips and legs. The

breasts are distorted and look more like a nose sitting in between a pair of cat ears. There’s a

curvature that extends from the right, mid-torso. It could be viewed an arm resting on the right

hip. The torso area is asymmetric. The right side appears to have a hip but no knee, with the

left being it’s opposite, a knee but no hip. It bottoms out on stumps, no feet.

I had a hard time connecting with this piece. For me, there was no clean understanding of the

message the artist was attempting to convey. I did feel a sense of pride as the woman …show more content…

This also differed from standard pieces as his general products took on forms

such as reclined or seated women, male and female pairs, mother and child motifs, as well as

family units. (Artist Biography, 2015). It is noted that this piece was the result of 2 smaller

pieces from a study for the Bouwcentrum Wall Relief 1955. For me that fact is far-fetched as

The Bouwcentrum wall is in red brick and is longer than 11 meters. The Bouwcentrum is

surrounded in a wall, whereas the Relief No. 1 is free standing piece of art. I don’t see the

connection.

Also stated on the placard, ‘non logical, instinctive, subconscious part of the viewer’s mind

must play a part’, when it comes to interpreting this piece (Relief No. 1). To me that means an

irrational mind is needed to interpret an irrational piece of art. Not fully grasping the artist

intent makes it hard to judge the artwork. Moore is credited for his organic shapes and being

inspired by the human body. If I’m critiquing his piece around these basic ideas, I believe he hit

his mark.

In conclusion, I wonder if the conditions on my visit day were the cause of me not connecting

with the piece and being in tune with Moore’s intentions. It was very hot, which was

Open Document