Talk:Henry Moore/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

older comments

This quote makes no sense whatsoever:

"All art should have a certain mystery and should make demands on the spectator. Giving a sculpture or a drawing too simple a title takes away part of that mystery so that the spectator moves on to the next object, making no effort to ponder the meaning of what he has just seen. Everyone thinks that he or she look but they really, you know."

- the niece was asking why the sculptures had simple titles, and here there seems to be the incoherent beginnings of an explaination of why they should not be simple. And the last part is gibberish. Someone please clarify. Palefire 04:11, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

You are right; it would make more sense if the quote were '... Giving a sculpture or a drawing too descriptive a title takes away part of that mystery...'. And the last line should probably be 'Everyone thinks that he or she looks, but they really don't, you know.' It comes from the article by Moore's niece, Ann Garrould, in the Dulwich Picture Gallery catalogue - I'll try and check it if I get the chance. -- Solipsist 08:50, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes, please do.Palefire 12:04, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
OK, I've had a chance to check now, and it shows my memory is better than my typing. The corrected quote is '... Giving a sculpture or a drawing too explicit a title takes away part of that mystery...' and 'Everyone thinks that he or she looks but they don't really, you know.' - Solipsist 19:52, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm just curious how one's tax could be 97% of one's income. - Sour pickle 04:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, this implausible fact needs a source. Another funny thing is the jump over two sentences from him disagreeing with his RCA professor to him getting a job there.Notjim 19:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I removed the reference to Henry Moore paying 97% of his income in tax, after performing a couple of quick google searches:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22henry+moore%22+97+tax&btnG=Search

Most of the high hits that match this search seem to be just copies of this wikipedia article.
Furthermore, the following search finds no reference to anything about 'tax' on the Henry Moore foundation website:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=tax+site%3Awww.henry-moore-fdn.co.uk&btnG=Search

I didn't change the report of paying about 1 million pounds in tax, even though I could find no source for it, because it is not an obviously implausible statement. Please feel free to revert my changes if you can find some source to back this claim Mister Farkas 21:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree 97% seems high, but I believe the top tax bracket in the UK was high in the 70's - I recall some controversy in the 80's when the Conservatives reduced the top tax bracket (to 50%?) arguing that it would actually increase tax revenue, since the previous high tax rate just forced most people who would pay it to leave the country.
I suspect the figure came from one of the books referenced - I'll check when I get a chance. In the meantime, the 97% tax figure is quoted in more detail in this essay and printed in The Japan Times
By 1977, Moore was paying a million pounds a year tax, representing 97 percent of his artistic income (the only higher taxpayers in Britain at the time were The Beatles). So to divert the money to a better cause he set up the Raymond Spencer Selling Co. as a business to sell his sculpture, and became an "employee" drawing a modest salary.
although that is qualified as 97% of 'artistic income' - did tax rates vary for different sources of income? I've known of the opposite; I think Éire offered a tax break of 0% on income from royalties until recently.
It still does, artists in the Republic of Ireland can apply for a tax exemption.
The Henry Moore Trust was set up in 1972, and the Henry Moore Foundation in 1976, so by 1977 his tax position was probably not straightforward. -- Solipsist 01:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Deficiencies of this article

This article has a worrying amount of short paragraphs (two of them only one sentence long) and no footnotes – even if the external links in the body of the text were converted to the preferred citation format we'd still only have four. I'd hate to see one of only three featured articles on artists lose its status, but I don't think this article meets the current FA criteria at the moment. HAM 18:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Be bold. You'll find citations for most dated events mentioned in the 'Biography from the Henry Moore foundation', but I'm unlikely to spend the time modernising the citations myself. I've got a much bigger backlog of things to do, such as improving the Barbara Hepworth article - including uploading a dozen photos of her sculptures. -- Solipsist 21:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Photo

I wonder if it would be possible to obtain a photo of the man himself, it would be a good addition to the article. So far, there are only his sculptures. --Tone 23:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice, but there almost certainly aren't any copyright expired images and it could be a long shot to find any copyright free or GFDL licensed sources. If someone was feeling rather keen, it might be possible to approach the Henry Moore Foundation to see whether they own an image that could be licensed under GFDL (possibly at a reduced size) - AFIK, their primary remit is for encouraging arts education, so it is perhaps not outside the realms of possiblilty. There must be some other possibilities. -- Solipsist 21:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Photo additions; disrespectful substitutions for the artists' actual work

Please do not insert your photograph of the article's subject at the top of the page, as was done on 23 November with Henry Moore and René Magritte, without discussing it here on the Talk page. Even if the photograph did show us clearly what the artist looked like, and these do not, such an addition should be discussed here first. The photo caption credit to wikilinked Lothar Wolleh is also troubling, as the Lothar Wolleh article has two lines about the photographer, then approximately 100 wikilinked (most of them red) artists' names, and one external link – to Wolleh's web site.

Beyond the simple addition of such photographs, on 16 November an image of arguably the most famous work of each of these artists was replaced by the same photographs. Please cease this harmful behavior. --CliffC 04:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Also I have some concerns over the licensing of these Lothar Wolleh photographs. I still haven't managed to track down the permissions that are said to have been emailed to Wikipedia. -- Solipsist 09:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Solipsist, you might want to look at the recent comments by one of the three (at least) posters involved in this, at Talk:René Magritte. --CliffC 15:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
On the whole, I think including the portraits would be a very good thing - at least on the Henry Moore article. And in general I would argue that the portrait should be the lead image on most biographical articles. I just wanted to be sure that the photographs were correctly GFDL licensed. I've been in discussion with the user who uploaded the Lothar Wolleh images over at Commons:User talk:Zita and the licensing issues look legit to me now. Once we get a confirmation on the email, I'll reinsert the portrait on this page.
I suspect the replacement of the previous lead images in each article was just a simple mistake by a new editor - its not completely trivial to get the hang of reflowing the images in an article, so its far simpler to replace an image that's already there. -- Solipsist 17:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I would certainly prefer to believe the Wolleh photos were substituted (and later, simply added) in good faith, perhaps as you say in frustration at not getting the revised page to flow correctly. But when I first spotted the substitution of a Wolleh photo for the image of Magrittes's "The Treachery of Images", my spam detector went off. A little forensic work yields diffs for 9 November - Magritte and 9 November - Moore, then 16 November - Moore again where, for whatever reason, a Wolleh photo was substituted for an image of one of the artists's most famous works. I believe this user has a commercial interest in getting Wolleh's works into Wikipedia, and when I read the expansion of template {{spam1}} it tells me such photos should not be used. Perhaps if I had used the template instead of referring the user to notes posted in the Talk pages the problem would have gone away and we wouldn't need this discussion.
I think reader interest in seeing a photo of an artist like Moore or Magritte takes second place to an interest in knowing what his art looks like (Dali excepted, of course!). When an editor thinks an artist photo will be helpful to an article, I hope he will place it in a respectful size and position to the art images, and use a photo that would help us recognize the artist should we ever see him on the street. --CliffC 22:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Adding photo of artist to article

Dear all, in the discussion board on René Magritte I explained that the replacement of a picture through the uploading of L Wolleh´s portrait of the artist was not intended. Sorry for the inconvenience.

I suggest to insert both photos in the respective articles. They both work nicely in the current structure of the text adding a new element that gives the reader a different perspective on the artist.

Regarding GFDL everything is fine. Take care --149.225.52.251 13:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Dead link, live site

Could someone in the know repair or replace the external link

near the bottom? Thanks. --CliffC 15:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Assistance with marquettes?

As a matter of practicality he largely abandoned direct carving, and took on several assistants to help produce the maquettes. Does this make sense to anyone else? Do you really need several assistants to aid with marquettes? Seems like the marquettes would be a one man job to me... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickgbb (talk • contribs)

This article does not mention the St Stephen Walbrook church and the controvertial altar that henry moore designed for it. The London Diocesan Consistory Court refused to let the church use it as an altar saying that an altar should be a table in rememberance of the last supper. See [1] for details. It might be useful to include details on that in the article. Cxbdi 11:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Improvement?

What is going on here? This is essentially a reversion of my edit two edits earlier [2]. You want the infobox back (whatever), you want a biography infobox to contain a picture of the sculptor's work instead of a picture of the subject (a nice photo, which has been moved back down the article), and you want the left-aligned image after the heading, an edit that SandyGeorgia has changed back again per MOS recommendation? I don't get it. Whiskeydog (talk) 06:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it per the suggestion, so the two versions can be examined and the best outcome arrived at, hopefully. Here's the version criticised above.[3] Here's the new one with Moore in the infobox.[4] Ty 06:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

PS It's not titled a biography infobox, but an artist infobox. There is a body of opinion that it is valid to represent the artist by a significant work. It is, after all, them in a different form, as it were, and a lot higher recognition factor in most cases than a mugshot. Ty 06:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • There most certainly is! In this case I prefer the sculpture, partly because though the photo is a fine one, he is rather small, which any disinfobox of coutrse makes worse. But far better would be having no box at all. The text needs to be drastically trimmed - has anyone actually looked at it? | location = Castleford, Yorkshire, England

| deathdate = 31 August 1986 (aged 88) | deathplace = England | nationality = English Yes, I think we have the idea! The later bits need cutting too, which I will do when we have settled on a pic. But do we need the stupid thing at all? Johnbod (talk) 11:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

No we dont. A pic with a short caption is far more elegant. Ceoil sláinte 12:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The box is standard fare, I don't like the box, but I think it should stay...although I did like having a sculpture there. Modernist (talk) 13:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I've cropped the photo. It looks better in the infobox. Ty 22:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

If the article is meant to be in British English, can someone familiar with BrEng look at it from that perspective? I see "recognize", "publicize" for example. Whiskeydog (talk) 11:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

False premise - see American_and_British_English_spelling_differences#-ise.2C_-ize. Johnbod (talk) 12:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Henry Moore/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

needs inline citations --plange 21:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 21:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 14:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Anthony Caro

Sir Anthony Caro, Dream City (1996), rusting steel, at the Yorkshire Sculpture Park.

The Chadwick piece doesn't hold up, I'm adding a better one with dates, and better yet someone else's work, sorry but the Chadwick doesn't surpass Henry Moore or fit here. I'm trying an Anthony Caro who might be a better sculptor than Moore. And who is the leading British sculptor alive. (Damien Hirst aside). Modernist (talk) 02:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Good move. Ceoil sláinte 12:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Two Piece

i added a pic of "two piece" example, washington d.c. to gallery Slowking4 (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

FA standard and referencing of the article

Was just passing by and was surprised at the state of the referencing of this article. I see it was kept at an FAR four years ago. There seem to be an awful lot of facts with no citations, including nothing at the end of the para. Eg. "In 1921, Moore won a scholarship to study at the Royal College of Art in London, along with Hepworth and other Yorkshire contemporaries." "In July 1929, Moore married Irina Radetsky, a painting student at the Royal College. Irina was born in Kiev in 1907 to Russian–Polish parents. Her father did not return from the Russian Revolution and her mother was evacuated to Paris where she married a British army officer. Irina was smuggled to Paris a year later and went to school there until she was 16, after which she was sent to live with her stepfather's relatives in Buckinghamshire." etc etc. Is anyone working on maintenance of this article? I don't have any UK sculpture references or I'd take a look myself. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Nothing about his Wax Resist

Henry Moore did a lot of wax resist drawings during his time in WWII London. He drew the people sleeping in bomb shelters. There is absolutely nothing on this article about this, and not a single image of any wax resist work. Henry Moore was more than a sculptor, and if I knew enough about his wax resist I'd add it myself. -Abyssal Dreamer (talk) 14:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

FA status (again)

Currently this article is listed as a WP:Featured Article, but it's really not up to current FA standards, I fear. My major concerns are comprehensiveness (WP:WIAFA 1b) and consistent citations (criterion 2c). I am likely to have little internet access for a week from Sunday, but I will try to tackle the citations after that point. However, the comprehensiveness concerns are more significant.

Things that the article in my estimation is missing:

  • Most importantly, in my opinion, there is barely any mention of Moore's drawings and graphics: there's a small amount on the shelter drawings and coal-mine drawings, but no mention of, among other drawings, Moore's sheep sketches or stonehenge lithographs.
  • Textiles and tapestries are entirely unmentioned: nowhere near as important as the drawings and sculptures, but Moore designed a series of textiles for Zika Ascher, and commissioned a number of tapestries based on his drawings; neither of these are mentioned at all.

Other miscellaneous issues:

  • The thefts of Moore's Reclining Figure 1969-70 and Sundial are covered twice: once in "controversy" and once in "collections". I'm not sure that they really fit under either heading particularly well, but there's certainly no need to say essentially the same thing twice.
  • The section on "collections" mentions only three collections: the Henry Moore Foundation, the Art Gallery of Ontarion, and the Tate Modern. Once the long digression on theft is cut out of that, this barely seems to merit a whole section.
  • Also in the section on collections, we are told that both the HMF collection AND the AGO collection are the "largest" public collection of Moore's work; both can't be true!

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, establishing what citation style ought to be used is, it turns out, a non-trivial matter. WP:CITEVAR says that we should defer to "the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page". However, the first major contributor doesn't appear to have used any particular style (when the article was first featured in 2004, there were no citations whatsoever!) and by the time of the first FAR [5], the citation style was already inconsistent. For instance, at that point book names were in quotation marks in the "citations section" (apart from ref#30, where the name of the book is italicised), but italicised in the bibliography. (That is not the only bizarre or inconsistent formatting choice, but an exhaustive list is impractical at this point.
I don't care any which way about what citation style to use, but if anyone does have a strong opinion on what it ought to be, I suggest that they make it known. I'm happy to apply whatever cite style people want; I'd just like to know if anyone has any particular opinions on what that ought to be before I unilaterally choose one (probably one using template:cite or template:sfn).
Pinging Clasqm as page creator; Solipsist who originally nominated the article for featured status; TonyTheTiger, Ceoil, Johnbod, Woody, Modernist, Whiskeydog, Cirt, and Tyrenius as commenters on the FAR in 2008. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
No strong views, though personally I don't like sfn. Sadly, Tyrenius is not around these days. Johnbod (talk) 11:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I would go with the cite templates to standardise the layout and get the error checking provided by the templates. Short references, if used, should provide linkage to enable you to find the relevant full reference detail. Keith D (talk) 12:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, I did a little bit of this around the end of September, stopped, and felt like coming back to it today. Now I remember why I stopped.
The article starts out fine with book refs for what are, at time of writing, footnotes 1-5. Then #6 is to a radio programme, which is okay, I suppose – but tracking it down might be fun. Then we really get into the weeds: #7 is a link to the MoMA profile of Henry Moore, which is now merely an import of wikipedia's lead. At the time of the accessdate it wasn't – and thankfully the page was archived shortly after our accessdate here, but unfortunately that doesn't appear to support the opinion that Sadler's collection "had a pronounced effect on his development", only the uncontroversial fact that Moore had access to Sadler's collection. The problems with citations continue – there are a bunch of broken links to the old Henry Moore Foundation and Institute sites, for instance; some are archived, but I haven't checked all, and finding the same content on the new site – if it is even still online – will be a tedious job. (Of course, much of it is stuff which is certainly in half a dozen books about Moore, his life, and his work, but again it'll be a job to find the relevant citations.)

Son of a...

In the book Artforms, revised 7th edition, it states that Moore's father was a coal miner, not a coal engineer.

Supported by Grohmann (1960), the article now says: "His father was of Irish origin and became pit deputy and then under-manager of the Wheldale colliery in Castleford." So simply "coal miner" would seem quite wide of the mark. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2010/feb/27/henry-moore-sculpture-tate-britain. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Henry Moore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Archives seem to work ok. Some of the other links don't work/ maybe dead. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.gagosian.com/exhibitions/henry-moore--may-31-2012. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Henry Moore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Henry Moore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:57, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Henry Moore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Reclining Figure: Arch Leg

Page watchers are invited to contribute to the newly created Reclining Figure: Arch Leg. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Gallery

What is the basis for selection? There is second picture of Draped Seated Woman 1957–58, and at the end it looks like several from the Schwäbisch Hall collection have just been added on. Is it meant to be items from different collections (one each) or some indication of different styles.? Commons has a great many pictures. How should this selection be chosen? Chemical Engineer (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

It's unclear, but at the moment it's not doing any particular job well. Uses I can imagine for this gallery:
  • Show the range of styles of Moore's work (currently missing: any works on paper, any wood carvings, the mother and child theme)
  • Show a chronological range of Moore's work (currently missing: anything from before 1950)
  • Show the geographical range of places Moore's work is displayed (Japan is the most obvious ommission; Schwäbisch Hall is enormously overrepresented)
  • Show a selection of Moore's most important (however we are to judge that?!) works (Sculpture with Hole and Light is certainly not in the top 20; Knife Edge Two Piece probably doesn't need two casts illustrating; King and Queen is probably the most obvious major work not to be illustrated at all in the article).
If it were up to me, I would redo the gallery completely, selecting images which show the variety of themes and materials Moore used, and covering a range of dates. Quickly off the top of my head, a better range might look a little like this:
  • Reclining figures: an early carving, e.g. this one; an elmwood figure, for example this one; the festival figure; a two piece figure; possibly a late figure like this.
  • Mother and Child sculptures: early stone, early wood, late seated; late reclining
  • Some other important/well known sculptures: e.g. Harlow Family Group, King and Queen, an Upright Motive, Standing Figure: Knife Edge
  • Works on paper: an early drawing of some sort, a war drawing, a sheep sketch, one of the elephant skull or stonehenge prints, perhaps a textile design
That's about the same number of works as currently, but I think shows a wider range of Moore's style, and includes works from the 1920s right through to the 1980s, covering every decade of Moore's working life.
If you wanted to work from the current gallery I would start by removing the duplicate image of Knife Edge Two Piece and fixing the captions so they are consistent. Then look at c:Category:Sculptures by Henry Moore and c:Category:Drawings by Henry Moore to fill out gaps in the selection of images. (In fact, if there are no objections, I'll chop the duplicate Knife Edge image!) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Henry_Moore/Archive_1&oldid=1210760241"