BACON MOORE bacon / m oor e 路 A
BACON MOORE In their different mediums, Henry Moore (1898–1986) and Francis Bacon (1909–1992) created unforgettable images of the human figure. The distinctive visual languages that each artist developed over more than half a century were marked by a growing simplicity and monumentality of form. Their perspectives differed: Moore clung to a belief in humanism, while Bacon espoused a post-humanist, nihilistic view of the world. In expressing their visions of humanity, the two artists had very different approaches: Bacon working from the outside in, disintegrating and dissolving form; Moore from the inside out, pushing anatomical structure to the surface. If Bacon’s images suggest flux, chance, and the arbitrariness of existence, Moore’s sculptures have been interpreted as universal symbols of strength and endurance. Bacon and Moore first exhibited together in a group exhibition at the Lefevre Gallery in London in which Bacon showed his Three Studies for Figures, at the Base of a Crucifixion (1944), propelling him into the limelight for the first time. Moore showed two sculptures from the 1930s and fourteen wartime drawings, some of which anticipate the theme (though not the savage imagery) of Bacon’s triptych. Exhibiting together in a commercial gallery was repeated twice in the 1960s, when Moore and Bacon were both represented by Marlborough Fine Art. These joint shows, extensively reviewed in the press, gave critics a chance to compare the artists’ radical approaches to the human figure, which were seen as complementary rather than conflicting. Fifty years later, this publication once again brings their work into direct comparison.
· B
BACON MOORE
BACON MOORE In their different mediums, Henry Moore (1898–1986) and Francis Bacon (1909–1992) created unforgettable images of the human figure. The distinctive visual languages that each artist developed over more than half a century were marked by a growing simplicity and monumentality of form. Their perspectives differed: Moore clung to a belief in humanism, while Bacon espoused a post-humanist, nihilistic view of the world. In expressing their visions of humanity, the two artists had very different approaches: Bacon working from the outside in, disintegrating and dissolving form; Moore from the inside out, pushing anatomical structure to the surface. If Bacon’s images suggest flux, chance, and the arbitrariness of existence, Moore’s sculptures have been interpreted as universal symbols of strength and endurance. Bacon and Moore first exhibited together in a group exhibition at the Lefevre Gallery in London in which Bacon showed his Three Studies for Figures, at the Base of a Crucifixion (1944), propelling him into the limelight for the first time. Moore showed two sculptures from the 1930s and fourteen wartime drawings, some of which anticipate the theme (though not the savage imagery) of Bacon’s triptych. Exhibiting together in a commercial gallery was repeated twice in the 1960s, when Moore and Bacon were both represented by Marlborough Fine Art. These joint shows, extensively reviewed in the press, gave critics a chance to compare the artists’ radical approaches to the human figure, which were seen as complementary rather than conflicting. Fifty years later, this publication once again brings their work into direct comparison.
· B
BACON MOORE
2 COMPOSITION 1931
3 COMPOSITION 1931
Blue Hornton stone · h 48.3 cm The Henry Moore Family Collection
Cumberland alabaster · l 41.5 cm The Henry Moore Foundation: gift of Irina Moore, 1979
2 COMPOSITION 1931
3 COMPOSITION 1931
Blue Hornton stone · h 48.3 cm The Henry Moore Family Collection
Cumberland alabaster · l 41.5 cm The Henry Moore Foundation: gift of Irina Moore, 1979
7 STANDING NUDE c.1924 Pen and ink, and chalk on paper · 32.3 x 21.4 cm Inscribed l.l. Moore The Henry Moore Foundation: gift of the artist, 1977
M OORE · 60
7 STANDING NUDE c.1924 Pen and ink, and chalk on paper · 32.3 x 21.4 cm Inscribed l.l. Moore The Henry Moore Foundation: gift of the artist, 1977
M OORE · 60
44 COMPOSITION 1933 Gouache on paper · 52.2 x 39.7 cm The Henry Moore Family Collection
Since a mere fourteen paintings and drawings from the first fifteen years of Bacon’s career were thought to have survived his ruthless destruction of his earliest work, the re-emergence of this hitherto undocumented gouache in 2009 was an exciting occurrence. While Composition has several features in common with Bacon’s contemporaneous works on paper, such as the tongue-and-groove floorboards and walls (these are also found in the paintings of his mentor, Roy de Maistre), the vivid, painterly interjections of red, yellow and white, which disrupt the relatively well-behaved geometry, were a significant departure: they portend, in some respects, the free, vigorous brushstrokes associated with Bacon’s oil paintings from 1949 onwards. Like Moore, he was striving to escape from the influence of Picasso, in a work of unusual vitality for 1933 that gives a tantalising glimpse of a direction Bacon did not pursue until sixteen years later.
B ACON · 108
44 COMPOSITION 1933 Gouache on paper · 52.2 x 39.7 cm The Henry Moore Family Collection
Since a mere fourteen paintings and drawings from the first fifteen years of Bacon’s career were thought to have survived his ruthless destruction of his earliest work, the re-emergence of this hitherto undocumented gouache in 2009 was an exciting occurrence. While Composition has several features in common with Bacon’s contemporaneous works on paper, such as the tongue-and-groove floorboards and walls (these are also found in the paintings of his mentor, Roy de Maistre), the vivid, painterly interjections of red, yellow and white, which disrupt the relatively well-behaved geometry, were a significant departure: they portend, in some respects, the free, vigorous brushstrokes associated with Bacon’s oil paintings from 1949 onwards. Like Moore, he was striving to escape from the influence of Picasso, in a work of unusual vitality for 1933 that gives a tantalising glimpse of a direction Bacon did not pursue until sixteen years later.
B ACON · 108
47 PAINTING 1950 Oil on canvas · 198.0 x 152.0 cm Leeds Art Fund (Leeds Art Gallery)
Formally, Painting, 1950, is unique in Bacon’s output.
Conversation, c.1909 (Royal College of Art, London),
A figure and its ‘shadow’ (stooping, ambiguously, and
which he would certainly have encountered at the
behind the circular metal rail) move silently side-
college in 1950. To this list I would add Matthew
wards, in parallel to our gaze, passing in front of what
Smith’s Nude in a Chair, c.1915 (Corporation of
appears to be a vividly striped curtain hung on a brass
London), and Fitzroy Street Nude No. 1, 1916 (Tate
rail, perhaps in a bath-house. While in some respects
Gallery, London); Bacon and Smith were close at
Painting, 1950, can be related to Bacon’s switch to the
this time, and these paintings could have informed
human body as his main subject in 1949, in others it
both Bacon’s palette and, with Michelangelo’s Dying
stands as one of his distinctly sui generis paintings. Its
Slave and the wax model in the Victoria and Albert
most conspicuous deviation from Bacon’s contempo-
Museum, the ‘Ariadne’ pose of the arched arm.
rary manner was in its vivid palette and planar spatial
The untypically formal presentation of the
organization. As David Sylvester pointed out, it also
painting was partly derived from Matisse, who was
marked a return to the heroic dimensions of Bacon’s
another possible source for both the odalisque pose
Painting, 1946; these two remained for many years
and the brightly striped curtain; but irrespective
the largest canvases Bacon had completed.
of the manifold pictorial absorptions, Painting,
Ronald Alley noted a loose correspondence with
1950, is characterized predominantly by the
Eadweard Muybridge’s photo sequences of men
Michelangelesque monumentality of the principal
walking (it was probably a case of Bacon conflating
figure and Bacon’s correspondingly voluptuous
aspects of several images), but only in recent years
painting of his anatomy.
have scholars attempted to further penetrate some of the mysteries that this painting resolutely resists disclosing; future investigation of the significance of the many pentimenti may eventually reveal vital clues. The shimmering bands of red and blue at the top and bottom are comparable with the rectangles of pulsing colour that Mark Rothko developed in 1949; while this putative analogy may be entirely coincidental, Rothko was, tantalisingly, in London in August 1950, shortly before Bacon began Painting, 1950. Rebecca Daniels has demonstrated that Bacon borrowed details from Walter Sickert’s drawing B ACON · 114
47 PAINTING 1950 Oil on canvas · 198.0 x 152.0 cm Leeds Art Fund (Leeds Art Gallery)
Formally, Painting, 1950, is unique in Bacon’s output.
Conversation, c.1909 (Royal College of Art, London),
A figure and its ‘shadow’ (stooping, ambiguously, and
which he would certainly have encountered at the
behind the circular metal rail) move silently side-
college in 1950. To this list I would add Matthew
wards, in parallel to our gaze, passing in front of what
Smith’s Nude in a Chair, c.1915 (Corporation of
appears to be a vividly striped curtain hung on a brass
London), and Fitzroy Street Nude No. 1, 1916 (Tate
rail, perhaps in a bath-house. While in some respects
Gallery, London); Bacon and Smith were close at
Painting, 1950, can be related to Bacon’s switch to the
this time, and these paintings could have informed
human body as his main subject in 1949, in others it
both Bacon’s palette and, with Michelangelo’s Dying
stands as one of his distinctly sui generis paintings. Its
Slave and the wax model in the Victoria and Albert
most conspicuous deviation from Bacon’s contempo-
Museum, the ‘Ariadne’ pose of the arched arm.
rary manner was in its vivid palette and planar spatial
The untypically formal presentation of the
organization. As David Sylvester pointed out, it also
painting was partly derived from Matisse, who was
marked a return to the heroic dimensions of Bacon’s
another possible source for both the odalisque pose
Painting, 1946; these two remained for many years
and the brightly striped curtain; but irrespective
the largest canvases Bacon had completed.
of the manifold pictorial absorptions, Painting,
Ronald Alley noted a loose correspondence with
1950, is characterized predominantly by the
Eadweard Muybridge’s photo sequences of men
Michelangelesque monumentality of the principal
walking (it was probably a case of Bacon conflating
figure and Bacon’s correspondingly voluptuous
aspects of several images), but only in recent years
painting of his anatomy.
have scholars attempted to further penetrate some of the mysteries that this painting resolutely resists disclosing; future investigation of the significance of the many pentimenti may eventually reveal vital clues. The shimmering bands of red and blue at the top and bottom are comparable with the rectangles of pulsing colour that Mark Rothko developed in 1949; while this putative analogy may be entirely coincidental, Rothko was, tantalisingly, in London in August 1950, shortly before Bacon began Painting, 1950. Rebecca Daniels has demonstrated that Bacon borrowed details from Walter Sickert’s drawing B ACON · 114
Notes a nd Refer e nce · 16 2
BACON MOORE