PRE—COLUMBIAN SCULPTURE

AND MODERN SCULPTORS

THESIS FOR THE DEGREE OF M. A.

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

JOEL ALLAN MILLER

1970

 

In.n._._.. -

I) LIBRARY “”2

‘ " 11'
1| ~ - ’. _
1".) ”y; la: ‘3 . '.-,1‘,\.
—T . -
v 1 ' "
THEE—J9 q‘fi L31."V‘LL..A.;’

.‘of Vf'v-ng‘q',‘ - gnu-’1‘.

 

ABSTRACT

PRE—COLUMBIAN SCULPTURE AND MODERN SCULPTORS

By
Joel Allan Miller

This paper measures the depth of influence of pre-
Columbian, primarily Mexican, stone sculpture upon the
following modern artists: Moore, Flannagan, Zorach, Epstein,
Gaudier—Brzeska, Picasso, Dérain, Duchamp-Villon, Zadkine,
and Gauguin. By examination of the forementioned artists'
works, examination of pre-Columbian sculpture, analysis of
the artists' and of other authors' written commentaries on
the artists' works, it is shown that Moore and Flannagan
were the sculptors who were most profoundly influenced by
pre—Columbian sculpture. The paper then analyzes the con—
ceptions of nature and art held by the ancient Mexicans and
these two modern sculptors. It is shown that the reason
why Moore's and Flannagan's works show the greatest percent—
age of ancient Mexican influence is that these two artists
held philosophical views which were similar to the ancient
Mexican's. These similar concepts enabled Moore and
Flannagan to be better able to appreciate and absorb the
essence of pre—Columbian sculpture and to evolve similar but

individualistic plastic expressions.

PRE—COLUMBIAN SCULPTURE AND MODERN SCULPTORS

By

Joel Allan Miller

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Art

1970

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The author wishes to express his appreciation to

Professor Webster Smith for his assistance in the prepar—

ation of this manuscript.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION
II. THE DISCOVERY OF PRE-COLUMBIAN ART
The Sixteenth Century
The Seventeenth Century
The Eighteenth Century
The Nineteenth Century
The Twentieth Century
III. PRE—COLUMBIAN ART (MEXICAN)

IV. MOORE, FLANNAGAN, AND ANCIENT MEXICAN STONE
SCULPTURE

The Direct Comparisons
Moore's and Flannagan's Concepts About Their
Art and About Nature
V. CONCLUSION

BIBLIOGRAPHY

iii

33

33

H0

55

56

I. INTRODUCTION

In comparing specific sculptures of the following
modern artists, Moore, Flannagan, Zorach, Epstein, Hepworth,
Gaudier—Brzeska, Picasso, Laurens, Dérain, Duchamp-Villon,
Zadkine, and Gauguin, with specific examples of pre-Columbian
sculpture we are struck by their similarities. Except for
Gauguin, whose ceramic—sculpture was influenced by Peruvian,
and to a lesser extent ancient Mexican ceramic—sculptures,
the other sculptors were influenced by the stone sculpture
of ancient Mexico. To measure the depth of the influence of
ancient Mexican stone sculpture on each of the forementioned
artists it is necessary to measure the percent of their total
work that bears similarity to pre—Columbian Mexican sculp-
ture and to study and compare these pieces with their Mexican
counterparts to see how many and how strong these similari—
ties are. By making such quantitative and qualitative com-
parative analyses we find the following:

1. Moore and Flannagan have been most persistently and
profoundly influenced.

2. most of Zorach's animal sculptures have been influ-
enced by Aztec animal sculpture, but not so strongly
as Flannagan's animal sculpture. In some of
Zorach's animal sculptures Egyptian influence pre-
dominated. In others we find the artist's romantic
and sentimental attitude toward animals manifested.

This sentimental quality is absent in both

Flannagan's and the Aztec's plastic interpretation
of nature.

3. although Epstein produced some carvings, his more
realistic bronze portrait studies formed the main
body of his work. In most of his carvings we find
an intermingling of Egyptian and ancient MeSOpotam-
ian influences along with ancient Mexican influence.
However, his sculpture, "Woman Possessed," is pre—
dominantly influenced by Mexican sculpture.

H. Hepworth, after a few initial abstract plastic exper-
iments based on the human head and figure which were
influenced by pre—Columbian art (1925-35), turned to
a non—representational art based on pure form.

5. Gaudier-Brzeska was influenced by so many other
non-European arts, i.e., that of China, MeSOpotamia,
Negro Africa, Egypt, and Polynesia, besides that of
ancient Mexico, that it is exceedingly difficult to
isolate or judge the extent of the influence of any
one of them.

6. Picasso, Laurens, Duchamp—Villon, Derain, and Zadkine
are only represented by single works.

Hence, by direct comparison, we conclude that Moore and
Flannagan were the sculptors most influenced by the sculpture
of ancient Mexico.

In order to confirm the contention that the modern sculp—

tors mentioned in the first paragraph were influenced by pre—

Columbian art, aside from making direct comparisons, I shall,

when it is pertinent, draw from both or from either of the
following sources: (1) the sculptor's statements, and (2) the
statements of others.

If we study Moore's and Flannagan's sculptural aims and
concepts regarding nature as revealed in their writings and
compare them with the pre—Columbian Mexican's concepts regard-
ing nature as revealed in the translations of their writings
and in the writings of scholars in the field of pre—Columbian
culture we again find similarities. Because of these anal—
ogies Moore and Flannagan were motivated to find solutions
similar to those of the ancient Mexicans. They could, more—
over, better comprehend and thus absorb the ancient Mexican's
modes of plastic expressiOn while maintaining individual
plastic expressions of their own. I will,therefore, analyze
most deeply the relationships that exist between Moore's and
Flannagan's sculpture and pre—Columbian Mexican sculpture.
Whereas all the sculptors mentioned in the first paragraph
were influenced by pre—Columbian sculpture because they
found in it the same qualities of simplicity of form, direct—
ness of approach, and vitality of expression which they
sought to infuse into their own work, the influence upon them
was not as lasting or deep as that exerted upon Moore and
Flannagan.

In order to understand why pre—Columbian art did not
exert any influence upon artists until the first decade of
the twentieth century, with the exception of Gauguin in the

third quarter of the nineteenth century, I will devote

section II of my paper to a short history of the discovery
of pre-Columbian art as art. I will include all the sculp-
tors who were influenced by pre-Columbian art in the latter
part of this second section. In section III, I will give a
brief summary of the qualities found in the stone sculpture
of ancient Mexico and the related metaphysical concepts that
motivated this type of plastic expression. In section IV,
I will present a detailed comparison between pre—Columbian
Mexican sculpture and the sculpture of Moore and Flannagan.
I will then show that similar conceptions of art and nature
were held by these two modern sculptors and the ancient

Mexicans.

II. THE DISCOVERY OF PRE-COLUMBIAN ART

If the works of that artistic world do not confirm,

or even if they offend, our concept of beauty, which
is that of Western civilization, it is not because of
any inadequacy in pre-Cortesian art, but inadequacy
on the part of the spectator who misled by prejudice,
applied invalid standards to it.1

The Sixteenth Century

Except for small pockets of resistance, the Spaniards
had conquered the Aztecs, the Mayas, and the Incas by the
end of the sixteenth century. They wiped out much of the
pre—Columbian civilization by destroying their religious
sculpture and temples, by killing the people who resisted
them, and by converting forcibly those remaining to Catholi-
cism. Once the military and religious leaders were killed,
and the plastic manifestations of their religion were
destroyed, their civilization crumbled. The Spanish were not
interested in the pre—Columbian's accomplishments in art.
They were interested in treasure. In reference to the liter-
ature written by the Spanish during the sixteenth century on
the pre-Columbian civilization, George Kubler writes, "All
these sources may be described as a literature of economic and
political purpose. When monuments are mentioned, it is not
for the sake of their form or expression, but to indicate

that important centers of population were present, or that

 

lPaul Westheim, The Art of Ancient Mexico, (New York:
Doubleday and Co., Inc., 19657: p. H9.

 

treasure might be latent. The notion of any artistic value
beyond magnitude of expertise, strangeness of form, and
rarity of material was absent from sixteenth century commen-
taries upon pre—conquest manufactures."l However, there was
one important commentary written in this period. Bernardino
de Sahagfin, a Franciscan monk, with the help of some Aztecs,
compiled an encyclopedia work on the native peoples of
Mexico. This work, which was written in the native Aztec
language, contained Aztec literature on their arts which
gives us direct information on what the Aztecs thought about
their art. Phillip II (1527—98) stopped Sahagfin's research
for the reason that it was "not conductive to the glory of
God nor to mine that things be written about the supersti—
tions of these Indians."2 He had him send all his volumes
to Spain where all but four volumes decayed in the royal
library. These were finally published in the nineteenth
century in the original Nahuatl, and later in the twentieth
century in Spanish and English. The typical attitude exhib-
ited by the Spanish conquistador towards pre-Columbian
sculpture was one of revulsion. In the process of destroying
some pre—Columbian sculpture, Bernal Diaz recalls, "The idols

looked like fiercesome dragons, as big as calves, and there

 

lGeorge Kubler, The Art and Architecture of Ancient
America, (Baltimore: Penguin Books, Inc., 19677, p. 8.

2I. A. Langnas, "The Discovery of Aztec Art," Arts,
Hilton Kramer, XXXV, no. 8—9, (May—June, 1961) p. 28.

 

 

were figures half men and half great dogs of hideous
appearance."1

The only person in the sixteenth century who appreciated
pre-Columbian art was Albert Durer. Upon seeing some of the
pre-Columbian's gold and silver work, weapons and other arti-
facts sent to Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor, which were
exhibited in Brussels in 1520, he wrote the following in his
diary: "I have never seen in all my days what rejoiced my
heart as these things. For I saw among them amazing artistic
objects and I marvelled over the subtle ingenuity of men in
these distant lands. Indeed I cannot say enough about the

things which were there before me."2

The Seventeenth Century

The Spanish missionaries paid the highest tribute to
pre—Columbian sculpture's expressive power by their destruc-
tion of it. It was not until the late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries that the expressive vitality of pre—
Columbian sculpture was rediscovered in a more positive way
by modern sculptors. The only literature which the Spanish
allowed to be written on pre—Columbian art was in the form

of commentaries describing the objects to be destroyed and

 

lBernard Diéz del Castillo, The Discover and Conquest
of Mexico, trans. by A. P. Maudslay, (New YorE: Parrar,
Straus, and Cudahy, 1956), p. 129.

2Victor W. von Hagan, The Aztec: Man and Tribe, (New

York: The New American Library of World Literature, Inc.,
1958), p. 15”.

 

 

the date of their destruction. Any other writings were
discouraged. When "...the nun Juna Ines of the Cross, who
was the greatest woman poet of the Americas, started to write
in defense of the Indians and to compose verses in Nahuatl,

the Aztec language, she was mercilessly silenced."l

The Eighteenth Century

The Jesuit historian, Francisco Clavigero, wrote the
most important of eighteenth century commentaries on Aztec
art. He defended the Indian culture against the writers of
his time, such as Dr. William Robertson, who said in his
history of the Americas that the pre-Columbian nations were
not to "rank with the nations which merit the name civilized."2
Clavigero considered pre-Columbian art a naive art based on
the heart rather than the mind. However, he did not think

that pre-Columbian art should rank with the artistic achieve—

ments of EurOpe.

The Nineteenth Century

In the nineteenth century the official Mexican attitude
was to elevate anything Spanish and debase anything pre—

Columbian. José Bernardo Couto, a noted appreciator of

 

lLangnas, Arts, XXXV, no. 8—9, p. 28.

2Langnas, Arts, XXXV, no. 8-9, p. 28.

colonial art, in his "Dialogue of the History of Aztec
Paintings in Mexico" (1860) said this about Aztec paintings,
"'One should not look in them for a knowledge of Chiaroscuro
or of perspective, or for a taste of beauty or grace....
They failed to express moral qualities and moods of the soul
...and showed a certain propensity to observe and copy the
less genteel aspects of Nature, such as animals of disagree—
able aspect.“l

Some nineteenth century European and American archaeo-
logists were less biased in their attitude towards pre-
Columbian art. John L. Stevens, who explored the Yucatan
peninsula (18H0) and was the first to amass evidence for the
independent origin of the ancient Mexican civilizations,
showed some appreciation for Mayan art. "His first view of
COpan convinced him that American antiquities were important
hot only as the remains of an unknown peOple but as works of
art.'"2

William H. Prescott, another American writer on pre—
Columbian art, showed some appreciation for Aztec sculptures
but was unable to fully appreciate them as he was blinded by
the artistic prejudices of his day. We can see this from the

following statements taken from his book, History of the

Conquest of Mexico: ”The allegorical phantisms of his

 

lJean Charlot, ”Who Discovered America," Art News,
Alfred Frankfurter, LII, no. 7, (November 1953) p. 31.

2Holger Cahill, Aztec, Incan and Mayan Art, (New York:
Museum of Modern Art, 1933), p. 6.

 

10

religion, no doubt, gave a direction to the Aztec artist, in
his delineation of the human figure; supplying him with an
imaginary beauty in the personification of divinity itself.
As these superstitions lost hold on his mind, it Opened to
the influences of a purer taste; and, after the conquest,
the Mexicans furnished many examples of correct and some of
beautiful portraiture."l

Franz Kugler, the German art historian, wrote the first
explicit statements about pre-Columbian art. He was one of
the first to believe in the independent origins of the pre-
Columbian culture. He arrived at his decision by comparing
available photographs of pre-Columbian art with the art of
other cultures.2 More important in relation to this paper
is the following: "In l8u2 Kugler correctly noted the
Aztec sculptor's search for the 'inner meaning of organically
animated form' and his command of the 'expressions of the
life of the soul.‘ But Kugler was ill at ease with the
'deformed proportions,' the 'excessive symbolic ornament,‘
the 'archetectonic inventions.‘ Like Waldeck, who claimed
to be Jacques-Louis David's pupil, Kugler preferred the
'1ively sense for nature, excellent musculature, slender

forms, and soft motions of Mayasculpture at Palenque."3 "In

 

1William H. Prescott, History of the Conquest of Mexico,
(Philadelphia: J. B. Lippicott and Co., 186H), p. 1H1.

 

2Kubler, p. 13.

31bid., pp. 13, 1a.

11

other respects Kugler was less adventurous. His taste for
Neo—Classic correctness and severity, then already old-
fashioned but characteristic of his generation, kept him from
enjoying the expressive power of Mexican sculpture."l

Most of the scholars of the nineteenth century consid-
ered only those pieces of pre—Columbian sculpture which
approached realism, and hence which could be judged by the
western standards of beauty, to be art. The painter-sculptor
Paul Gauguin was an exception. His early exposure to
Peruvian and Huaztec ceramic-sculpture, his love for the prim—
itive, and his hatred for the effete, over-sophisticated
academic art of his time gave him the right frame of mind to
appreciate pre—Columbian sculpture. Unbiased by a western
ideal of beauty based either on the Classical, Renaissance,
or Realist tradition, he could observe and analyze the formal
strength of these sculptures and penetrate the secret behind
their powerful vitality. "Pre—Columbian art had been famil-
iar to Gauguin since his youth, thanks especially to his
guardian Gustave Arosa's collections and publications and we
find him using motifs from this distant civilization in early
drawings (1878) and wood carvings (1881)....And when he began
to make ceramics in 1886 it was to the forms of this art in
particular that he turned in order to break away from the

EurOpean tradition of pottery."2 Gauguin's trip to

 

lKubler, p. 13.

2Merete Bodelson, Gauguin's Ceramics, (London: Faber
and Faber Limited, 1964), p. 98.

 

12

Central America in 1887 reinforced his love for pre—Columbian
ceramics. He was proud of his Indian heritage and it was on

his return from Martinique "that he wrote the famous words

to Mette Gauguin about the two natures within him: 'L'Indien
et la sensitive: la sensitive a disparu ce qui permet a
l
l"

1'Indien de marcher tout droit et fortement. The extent
of "the Indian" in Gauguin is very nicely illustrated in the

book, Sculpture and Ceramics of Paul Gauguin. Here one can

 

 

 

see photographic comparisons made between Gauguin's ceramics
and pre—Columbian ceramics, each photographic comparison
being supplemented with a commentary by the author.2

As very little of pre-Columbian art was shipped to
EurOpe, Gauguin was fortunate in that he was able to come
into direct contact with it. The Romantic literary movement
in the nineteenth century stimulated the archaeologists and
the painters (Delacroix, Lautrec, van Gogh, Degas) to turn
to exotic places and remote civilizations. However, the pre-
Columbian civilizations of Latin America were by—passed. It
was easier to travel to and to procure art objects from the
European colonies in Asia, Africa, and Oceanea. Before the
twentieth century the ethnographical collections which con-
tained an appreciable amount of art from primitive and
ancient civilizations possessed no art from the ancient

Americas. "The Latin American peoples, who attained

 

lBodelson, p. 98.

2ChristOpher Gray, The Sculpture and Ceramics of Paul
Gauguin, (Baltimore: The John Hopkifis Press, 1963).

 

l3

independence from Spain before the formation of the European
colonial empires, never contributed from their rich resources
to these ethnographical collections."l
There were other good reasons why pre-Columbian sculp-
ture did not influence any western artists except Gauguin
until the twentieth century. The archaeologists and art
historians who traveled to Latin America and saw pre-
Columbian sculpture were blinded by European aesthetic dogma
and, therefore, could not see the artistic value in this art

form. The artists who were capable of breaking with European

tradition never went to Latin America.

The Twentieth Century

The prejudices against pre—Columbian art extended into
the early part of the twentieth century. Many western
scholars were still applying western aesthetic standards to
an art which was not made with these standards in mind.

In the early twentieth century, Manuel Gamio, a Mexican
archaeologist and anthropologist who had been a student of
Franz Boas, conducted an experiment. "He gathered at his
house a number of civilized peOple well acquainted with
Western art but unfamiliar with that of ancient Mexico. He
presented them with two sets of works of art. The first
included the well known head of the "Eagle Knight," monument-

al though only life size; the head of a dead Aztec that might

 

lKubler, p. 13.

14

have been based on a death mask; and a charming chapulin in
red carnilite. The second group consisted of a colossal
and terrifying head of the god Coyalyauhqui; a weird figure
with the body of a baby and the head of a bird peeping out
of a baroque canopy; and a coiled feathered snake about to
strike. The concensus of opinion was that the first set
represented genuine works of art and the second did not."1
Nor were Gamio's friends isolated examples. Roger Fry's
and Eliefaure's reactions toward the fierce and terrible
aspects of Aztec sculpture deprived them of a total apprec—
iation of this art.2

Even though the prejudices against non—Western art in
general and pre—Columbian art in particular continued to be
prevalent in the first quarter of the twentieth century
there were events taking place at this time which began to
weaken the bases for these prejudices. The aesthetic bias
that presupposed art to be a successful imitation of nature
was attacked by Wilhelm Worringer, Alois Riegl, André
Focillion, and others.3 These scholars stressed the impor—
tance of abstraction. During the same period, artists were
plastically actualizing the principles of abstraction. The
works of these scholars and artists made it possible to com—

prehend the abstract formal properties of non—Western art.

 

lLangnas, Arts, XXXV, no. 8—9, p. 28.

2Cahill, p. 13.

3Dore Ashton, Abstract Art Before Columbus, (New York:
André Emmerick Gallery, 1957), p. 3”.

 

15

Non—Western art ceased to be curios in museums and began to
exert influence on the art of twentieth century western man.

In the early part of the twentieth century, there was
an upsurge of archaeological investigation in Latin America.
Many art objects were sent to America and EurOpe where they
found their way into museums and ethnographical collections.
The Trocadéro Museum in Paris was founded by Dérain and
Vlaminck in the first decade of the twentieth century.:L This
museum contained examples of pre-Columbian art which were
viewed by many of the important artists of the twentieth cen—
tury, including Picasso. During the early part of the twen—
tieth century Lipchitz began to collect pre—Columbian as well
as other non-Western art fOrms. His now world famous collec-
tion contains many examples of pre-Columbian sculpture.2
While it is possible that Lipchitz was influenced by pre—
Columbian sculpture as Selz states,3 this influence is incon-
sequential. This is apparent to anyone who studies his work
in its entirety.

There exist a few isolated works by Laurens, Dérain,
Zadkine, Duchamp—Villon, and Picasso that resemble pre—
Columbian sculpture in their formal properties and/or general

overall appearance. Laurens abstracted the features of the

 

lAshton, p. 3”.

2The Lipchitz Collection, (New York: The Museum of
Modern Art, 1960).

 

3Jean Selz, Modern Sculpture Origins and Evolution,
(New York: George Braziller, Inc., 1963), p. 238.

 

16

head in his "Portrait of Marthe Giriead" (1912, stone)1 in
much the same way the Aztec artist did in his stone statue
of "Xochiquetzal."2 In his stone sculpture, "Crouching Man"
(1907),3 Dérain, like his pre—Columbian predecessors,
abstracts the human figure into large geo-organic volumes.
Zadkine's "Head of a Man" (191”, stone)u resembles Aztec
stone masks with its division into a few basic planes.
Duchamp-Villon's "Maggy" (1912, bronze)5 resembles a terra-
cotta skull6 of the Mixteca-puebla civilization. Picasso's
"Skull" (1943, bronze),7 bears a striking resemblance to
Aztec skull sculpture.

William Zorach, the American sculptor, made frequent
visits to the pre—Columbian exhibit in the Museum of Natural

8

History during the 1910's. The fact that Zorach was

 

lSelz, p. 227.

2Raoul d'Harcourt, Primitive Art of the Americas,
(New York: Tudor Publishing Co., 19507: p. 74.

 

 

3Carola Giedion—Welcker, Contemporary Sculpture an
Evolution in Volume and Space, (New York: George Wittenborn
Inc., 19607: p. nu.

L'Selz, p. 233.

 

 

 

5Ibid., p. 229.

6Chefs—d'oeuvres de 1'art Mexicain, (Paris: Ministere
d'Etat Affaires Culturelles, 1962), p. 169.

 

 

7Andrew Carnduff Ritchie, Sculpture of the Twentieth
Century, (New York: Museum of Modern ArtT? p. 178.

8

 

 

Cahill, p. 7.

17

influenced by Aztec sculpture is easily seen by direct
comparison. Zorach's "Frog" (195%, granite)1 is similar in
appearance to and has the same formal properties as
Flannagan's "Frog" (1938, sandstone)2 and the Aztec "Frog"
(stone).3 (See IV for a detailed comparison between the
"Frog" sculpture of Flannagan and the Aztec.) In 1933 the
Museum of Modern Art in New York gave a joint exhibition of
pre—Columbian and modern art. Zorach was represented with
the following three stone sculptures: "Rabbit" (1930), "Cat"
(1930), and ”Seated Child" (1939).” Other animal stone
sculptures by Zorach influenced by Aztec stone animal sculp—
tures are: "The Grey Rabbit" (19U7),5 "Reclining Cat"
(1935),6 and "Pigeon" (1930).7

During the 1920's Mexican painters and sculptors issued
a manifesto calling for a return to the native heritage of

Mexico. The Mexican craftsmen and folk artists did not need

 

1John I. H. Bauer, William Zorach, (New York: Frederick
A. Praeger, Inc., 1959), Fig. 78.

 

2Carl Zigrosser, "Introduction," John B. Flannagan,
"Statement by the Artist," The Sculpture of John B. Flanpagan,
ed. by Dorothy C. Miller, (New York: ThenMuseum of Modern
Art, 19u2), p. 32.

 

 

3Westheim, The Art of_Ancient Mexico, Plate III.
u

 

Cahill.

5Bauer, Figure 65.

61bid., Figure u3.

7Ibid., Figure 31.

18

a manifesto. They had been preserving the pre-Columbian

tradition since colonial times.1 In Chefs-d'oeuvres d3

 

1'art Mexicain there is a skull done by a twentieth century

 

folk artist that is strongly reminescent of the Aztec's
treatment of the skull in their sculpture.2 Mexico's great
contribution to twentieth century art has been in the field
of mural painting. However, Mexico did produce three major
sculptors, all of whom were influenced by pre-Columbian art.
They are Luis Ortiz Monasterio, Francisco Zuniga, and Carlos
Bracho. "Woman's Head"3 by Monasterio shows Aztec influence
in its simplification of planes, stylization of the eyes and
the flat nose, and its massive cubic overall shape. However,
it lacks the Aztec sculpture's great expressive vitality.
The same critique can be applied to "Head of an Indian"
(stone)u by Zuniga, adding the fact that it is more realis—
tic than both Monasterio's "Woman's Head" and Aztec sculp-
ture. 0f the three modern Mexican sculptures, Bracho's
"Head of an Indian Woman"5 comes closest to the Aztec sculp-

ture's feeling of simplicity, directness, and vitality.

 

lCahill, p. 8.

2Chefs—d'oeuyres dg_l'art Mexicain, p. ”09.

 

 

3Art News, Alfred Frankfurter, XLVLLI, (May 19mg), p. 18.

LlContemporary Artists in Latin America, (Washington,
D.C.: Pan American Union, 19MB).

5

 

 

Chefs-d'oeuvres d3 1'art Mexicain, p. 369.

 

 

19

In 1913 Epstein and Gaudier-Brzeska helped to found the
London Group, a group of avant-garde sculptors and painters.
Gaudier-Brzeska stated the beliefs of the group in a mani-
festo which appeared in the first edition of the group's

periodical, Blast. In Blast he wrote of the group's contempt

 

for the art traditions of Greece, Rome, and the Renaissance;
and their admiration for the art of the ancient civilizations
of China, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and America.1 His study of
the art of these ancient civilizations helped him to form
concepts of sculpture which were to become the creed of the
many modern sculptors who followed him. "Sculptural energy
is the mountain. Sculptural feeling is the appreciation of
masses in relation. Sculptural ability is the defining of
these masses by planes."2 Epstein and Gaudier—Brzeska
admired sculpture that was clear, hard, durable, and geo—
metric.3 These qualities are found in pre—Columbian art as
well as in their work. Gaudier—Brzeska absorbed many non—
Western influences. He did not create a single work in
which the pre—Columbian influence is clearly dominant. The
most one can say is that this was one of the influences

found in his sculpture. Valentiner states in regard to

 

lRichard Buckle, Jacob Epstein Sculptor, (London: Faber
and Faber Limited, 1963), pp. 65, 66.

2Ezra Pound, Gaudier-Brzeska, (New York: John Lane Co.,
1916), p. 91.

3Buck1e, p. 78.

 

 

20

Gaudier-Brzeska's "Seated Figure" (1915),1 "The expression
of the face, as well as the preponderance of the upper part
of the body over the lower, reflect the influence of primi-
tive African and primitive American sculptures by which
this sculptor was greatly impressed."2
In some of Epstein's carvings of the 1930's, the pre-
Columbian influence is more apparent than in Gaudier-Brzeskds
sculptures. "Woman Possessed" (Hoptonwood stone, 1932)3
possesses plastic qualities which are similar to two pre-
Columbian sculptures. The overall position of Epstein's
figure is similar to the first of these, "Pregnant Woman"
(Occidental Coastal Civilization of Mexico, terracotta, 300-
1250 A.D.).u Both sculptures are geo-organic abstract repre-
sentations of the female figure in the same unusual reclin-
ing pose. In both figures the back is greatly arched, the
legs bent at the knee, and the head is touching the ground.
Both are fertility images; the Mexican figure is already
pregnant, while Epstein's figure is tensely awaiting her
union with the male. Both sculptures are simple, direct,
plastic expressions. The "stoniness" of Epstein's figure

is accentuated by the use of simplified, large, smoothly

 

lValentiner, Origins of Modern Sculpture, (New York:
Wittenborn and Co., 1946), Figure 55.

2

 

Ibid., p. 73.
3Buckle, pp. 192, 193.

1+Chefs—d'oeuvres d3 1'art Mexlcain, p. 89.

 

 

21

joined volumes, and by the tensely static distribution of

mass. The Mexican figure is looser, less rigid, softer, and
appears to grow from within outward. It seems to contain
something like a filled pot. Here the Mexican artist makes

use of the properties of terracotta to emphasize the idea
of fecundity. However, the head of Epstein's figure is much
more akin to a second pre—Columbian sculpture, the Mayan

1 In both these sculptures the head is treated

"Chacmool."
as a flattened ovoid growing out of the neck. Both have the
same facial stylizations: flat elongated nose, almond-
shaped eyes and open mouth.

The heads of "Elemental" (alabaster, 1932),2 "Chimera"
(alabaster, 1932),3 "Adam" (alabaster, 1938),u and one of
the male figures from the relief "Primitive Gods" (Hopton—
wood, 1933)5 all show Mayan influence.

Epstein, along with Gaudier—Brzeska, were founding
members of the London Group. Gaudier—Brzeska wrote a mani—
festo for this group in which he praised pre-Columbian art.

Gaudier—Brzeska mentions Epstein's name as one of the art-

ists supporting this manifesto.

 

lHerbert Read, The Art of Sculpture, (New York:
Bollingen Foundation, 1961), Figure 204.

 

2Buckle, pp. 191, 192.
3Read, Figure 205.
”Ibid., p. 202.

5Barbara Hepworth, text, Herbert Read, "Introduction,"
Barbara Hepworth Carvings and Drawings, (London: Lund

Humphries and Co., Ltd., 1952), p. ix.

22

In his book on Epstein, Richard Buckle writes of
Epstein's respect for Mexican sculpture and its influence
on him. In reference to Moore and Epstein, Buckle writes,
"In the future they would go very different ways,...because
of their mutual respect, perhaps because of their admira—
tion for Mexican sculpture [which] they had in common...."1
Epstein's "Woman Possessed" and Moore's "Reclining Figure"
(brown Horton stone, 1929)2 shared similar qualities of form
and feeling with the Mayan "Chacmool." With respect to
Epstein's "Primitive Gods," Buckle writes, "It represented
a male deity nearly three-quarter length, with squarish
flat-topped head and incised Mexican—style features [like
"Woman Possessed"]...."3

Moore and Hepworth came under the pre-Columbian influ—

ence in the 1920's. Herbert Read, in his introduction to

Barbara Hepworth Carvings and Drawings, states that

 

 

Hepworth was influenced by the sculpture of ancient Mexico.u
Hepworth in her "Head" (stone, 1930), and especially in her

stone "Mask" (1929), abstracts the facial features in much

 

lBuckle, pp. 191, 192.

2Read, The Art of Sculpture, Figure 205.

 

31bid., p. 202.

U'Barbara Hepworth, text, Herbert Read, "Introduction,"
Barbara Hepworth Carvings and Drawings, (London: Lund
Humphries and Co., Ltd., 1952), p. ix.

 

23

the same way as a Teotihuacan artist did in a mask shown in

Westheim's Sculpture of Ancient Mexico.1

 

 

Flannagan's sculpture began to show pre—Columbian influ—
ence in the 1930's. He was represented in the Museum of
Modern Art's show of 1933 with "Serpent" (stone, 1930) and
"Nude” (stone, 1930).2

Sahagfin's manuscripts were finally translated into
Spanish from the original Nahuatl by Francisco del paso y
Trancuso in 1958 and then into various other modern lan—
guages.3 The Aztec's conception of their art finally became

available to the modern world.

 

lBarbara Hepworth, Barbara Hepworth Carvings and
Drawings, Figure 14.

 

'2Hepworth, Figure 12.

3Langnas, Arts, XXXV, no. 8—9, pp. 29, 101.

III. PRE-COLUMBIAN ART (MEXICAN)

Aztec poems recorded by Bernardino de Sahagfin:
Toltecatl: The Artist

The artist: disciplined, abundant, multiple, restless.

The true artist; is capable, well prepared, skillful;

He dialogues with his heart, finds things with his
reason.

The true artist takes everything from his heart;

He works with delight; makes things calmly, with a
steady hand;

He works like a Toltec, puts things together, works
well, creates;

He arranges things, makes them trim, adjusts them.

The bad artist: takes chances with his work, laughs
at people,

Makes things dim, passes over the face1 of things,

Works without care, defrauds peOple, is a thief.

Zuquichiuhqui: The Potter

He who gives clay a being,
With a sharp eye molds it.
Kneads it.

The good potter;

He puts care into things,

Teaches the clay to lie;

He dialogues with his heart,

Makes things live, creates them;
He knows everything like a Toltec,
Makes his hands skillful.

The bad potter:
Clumsy, laughs in his art,
Deathly pale.

 

l"face" also used by the Aztecs to mean "mind." Langnas,
Arts, XXXV, no. 8-9, p. 101.

2Langnas, Arts, p. 29.

3Ibid., p. 29.

 

2n

25

The Painter

The good painter;

Toltec-artist of the black and red ink,

Creator of things with the black water....

The good painter; understanding

God in his heart,

Defies things with his heart,

Dialogues with his own heart....

Art and religion were inseparable for pre—Columbian man.
The purpose of their art was to give plastic expression to
their magico-religious conceptions of the universe. Pre—
Columbian art is not a realistic art, but an abstract art
based on natural forms. Their reality was not based on per—
ception, but on metaphysical concepts and myths. "The pur-
pose of pre—Cortesian art is not and cannot be the represen—
tation and embodiment of the Optic phenomenon. In that
artistic world, the authentic and genuine reality that must
be represented is what acts as the vital element within
things, the hidden mythico-magic forces. To give them plas-
tic expression and to convert into form the spirits that
animate things, to shape the significance rather than the
visual aspect-—this is the aim of that artistic creating
and this is where all esthetic appreciation must start. It
is thought expressed in symbolic images, in contrast to

realistic-objective thought."2

 

1Von Hagan, p. 198.

2Westheim, The Art of Ancient Mexico, p. 26.

 

26

A short summary of the pre-Columbian Mexican's concepts
of nature will help us to better understand their art. The
following statements are true for all the major ancient
Mexican civilizations: Toltec, Aztec and Mayan. They
believed in animism. "Every object, man, animal, plant and
stone is possessed and ruled by hidden forces and by spirits,
demons and gods. What characterizes phenomena and gives
them their existence is not matter, but the spirits inherent

1 They believed the universe to be in a condition

in matter."
of ceaseless change brought about through the struggles of
two great godly adversaries, Quetzalcéatl and Tezcatlipoca.
Both gods possessed the dual aspects of the creative and

the destructive. Tezcatlipoca made the first world which
Quetzalcoatl destroyed, Quetzalcéatl then created a second
world which Tezcatlipoca destroyed, etc. The concept of
dualism was central to the pre—Columbian Mexican's way of
thinking. The creative and the destructive forces in con-
tinuous struggle, first one force in ascendency then the
other, give rise to the cyclical recurrence of the natural
phenomena: life and death, day and night, summer and
winter, rain and drought, etc. There is a principle of
unity underlying the ancient Mexican's concept of dualism.
The dual aspects of nature are interdependent. They are not

final states, they continuously change into one another

obeying some metaphysical unifying principle. This concept

 

lWestheim, The Art of Ancient Mexico, p. 21.

 

27

is manifested in their art. "The Borgia Codex, describing
the five regions of the world, shows, after the destructive
forces, the creative forces symbolized by the pair of gods,
shown in the act of copulation, who dominate each region.

In the South, the place of death, the god and goddess of
death are seen thus (Plate 52 of the Borgia Codex)."l A
destructive process is the necessary condition for the birth
of the creative process.

The most important gods of ancient Mexico possessed
both the creative and destructive aspects of nature. Besides
Tezcatlipoca and Quetzalcoatl, the most important gods were:
the sun god, who was also a god of war; the maize gods who
were also war gods; and the earth goddess who was both the
creator and destroyer of all earthly beings. The metaphys—
ical conception of the interrelationship of the creative and
destructive aspects of nature is manifested in the sculpture
of ancient Mexico. In a ceramic mask from the Mexican
Valley civilization at Tlataco (700 B.C.),2 we find a plastic
representation of the human head divided into two halves,
half face and half skull. Both halves are combined into one
unified plastic symbol.

The pre-Columbian Mexican considered the process of

birth to be the result of a struggle between the creative and

 

lWestheim, p. 25.

2G. H. S. Bushwell, Ancient Arts of the Americas, (New
York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1965), p. 34.

 

 

28

destructive forces taking place either in the womb of the
human mother or in the womb of mother earth. "A part of her
being dies there so that new life can begin, just as a grain
of maize dies in the earth so that a new plant can spring

up."1 In Westheim's book, The Sculpture of Ancient Mexico,

 

 

the earth's struggle to give birth to maize and woman's
struggle in childbirth are combined in one plastic symbol.2
The Aztec sculpture represents the goddess of fertility,
Tlazolteotl, giving birth to the maize god. The agonized
features of the goddess testify to the birth struggle. The
"Great Coatlicue"3 is the strongest plastic expression of
the ancient Mexican's concept of creation—destruction. I
will consider the "Great Coatlicue" in more detail later
when I compare it to Moore's "Reclining Figure" of 1951.
The ancient Mexican's deepest worry was that the crea—
tive energies, the gods governing the sun, rain, etc.,
would exhaust themselves. They believed the gods created
man so that man would nourish them. The individual man had
to be sacrificed to the gods in order that the gods would
have enough energy to-do their respective functions and
hence to ensure the survival of the human community as a

whole. In order that the right god be nourished and the

right ritual performed at the right time, an elaborate

 

lWestheim, The Art 9£.Ancient Mexico, p. 6.
2

 

Westheim, The Sculpture 2: Ancient Mexico, Figure 71.

 

 

3Ibid., Figure 75.

29

systematic study of the heavenly bodies, the positions of
which coincided with earthly crises, i.e., the time of the
planting of maize, was developed. Because of this religious
motivation, the Mayans develOped the most accurate calendar
then in existence, and could accurately predict the eclipses
of the sun and the moon, and other celestial events hundreds
of years in the future. They were the first people to
discover and use the zero.

In studying pre—Columbian stone sculpture we find the

following qualities:

1. not beautiful,1 but vital expression, imbued with
"Ch'i";2
2. not optical reproduction, but geo-organic abstrac-

tion based on natural form;
3. respect for the stone in the treatment of form
which preserves the stone's (a) static massiveness,

(b) compactness, and (c) hard tenseness;

4. monumentality regardless of size;

5. appeal to the tactile sense;

6. direct statement, avoidance of unnecessary orna—
mentation;

 

l . .
Beauty 1n the Greco-Roman—Renaissance sense.

2ch'i--"[This]...signifies the life and breath of
everything, be it man, beast, mountain, or tree. It may be
rendered by the word spirit or spiritual, but also by the
word vitality, which is the result of the activity of the
spirit." Oswald Siren, The Chinese on the Art of Painting,

-__——-_———

(New York: Schocken Books, 1963), p. 21.

 

30

7. rhythmatic placement of volumes;
8. three—dimensional presence;
9. archetypical form;

10. symbolism.
All the above qualities found in pre—Columbian sculpture
are reflections of the pre—Columbian's metaphysical concepts.
Their sculptures are not beautiful; they are not meant
to be. They are a vital, plastic, representation of the
forces of nature both in its creative and destructive
aspects. They fulfilled deep religious needs of the people.
The makers of the sculpture believed the statue to be the god
himself. "The statue of the deity is the deity itself.
Magic thinking identifies the image with the thing. The
image seems more real than the thing itself because the image
has been given form and shape, and the form is a manifesta—
tion of psychic energies."l
"It is the artist's task to create the image of the
deity, not merely as an adornment of the temple or as a luxu—
ry, for this art is an applied, subordinate art at the ser-
vice of an extra—artistic purpose: survival of the commun—
ity."2
The sculptors respected the "stoniness of the stone"

because: (1) they believed that a spirit resided in the

 

lWestheim, The Art of Ancient Mexico, p. 39.

 

21bid., p. 90.

31

stone, the finished object was to become a living god;
(2) they had a great respect for craftsmanship; and (3) the
plastic properties of stone best expressed their metaphysical
concepts.

I have already mentioned why pre—Columbian sculpture is
abstract. On the more specific use of geo-organic form,

Westheim, in his book The Sculpture g£_Ancient Mexico,

 

 

writes, "Organic form is transposed into cubicoegeometric
form in order to raise the work above individuality and con-
vert it into an expression of metaphysical conceptions. The
figure assumes the posture of a statue: immobile, hieratic,
it represents a timeless existence rather than an action
subject to time which explains why this art resists
description."1

The sculpture was monumental, independent of size,
because it represented a concept which was to be separated
from the world of everyday appearances.

The sculpture has three—dimensional presence because
the sculpture plastically represents a spirit or god that is
to exert its force in a three—dimensional world.

There is no extraneous matter in pre—Columbian sculp-

ture. Only those plastic formal qualities that clearly man-

ifested the pre-Columbian's metaphysical concepts were used.

 

lWestheim, The Sculpture of Ancient Mexico, p. 14.

 

 

 

32

Any embellishment on the basic plastic symbol was superflu-
ous and was not even considered. "All the means of expres—
sion are used functionally; their function is to form a
determined plastic structure, and all that does not serve
this is rigorously eliminated.":L

Rhythmatic repetitions were plastically used to
strengthen and emphasize the magico—religious symbols. The
pre-Columbian's conception of nature as a system of recur-
rent cyclical processes was reflected in their plastic use
of rhythm.

Pre-Columbian sculpture is tactile because the sculp—
tor used smooth, round, organic forms and thought with his
hands as well as with his intellect.

Pre—Columbian man could capture in his sculptures the
creative—destructive archetypes, i.e., "Coatlicue," and the
archetype of animals, i.e., "the froginess of a frog,"
because pre—Columbian man combined close observation of
nature with an intense probing into the inner reality of

things.

 

lWestheim, The Sculpture 9f_Ancient Mexico, p. 15.

 

 

IV. MOORE, FLANNAGAN, AND ANCIENT MEXICAN STONE SCULPTURE

...[The]...works by Flannagan are undoubtedly
influenced by sculptures of very early periods
of...such...types...[as that of Mexico and Central
America].1

...Flanna an's animals recall certain Aztec stone
carvings. '

Although he reveals his grounding in European
tradition in his sense of free will, and in his
feeling for compassion, Flannagan was much influ—
enced by Aztec sculpture of the pre-Columbian
period.

Its "stoniness", by which I mean its truth to
material, its tremendous power without loss of sen—
sitiveness, its astonishing variety and fertility

of form-invention and its approach to a full three-
dimensional conception of form, make it unsurpassed
in my opinion by any other period of stone sculpture.

The Direct Comparisons

Moore. "Snake." 1924. Marble. 6 in.5 6
Flannagan. "Snake." 1938. Limestone. '25 in.
Aztec. "Coiled Serpent" (representing the earth). 1324—1521.

Polished black granite.7

 

lValentiner, Origins pf Modern Sculpture, p. 73.

 

2Selz, p. 238.

3Charles Seymour, Jr., Tradition and Experiment in Modern

 

 

Sculpture, (Washington, D.C.: The AmeriEan UniversityEPress,
1999), p. 68.
u

Read, Henry Moore Sculpture and Drawings, p. xliv.

 

 

sIbid., Plate 4B.

 

6John B. Flannagan, "Statement," Carl Zigrosser, "Intro-
duction," The Sculpture pf John E; Flannagan, ed. by Dorothy
C. Miller, (New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 1942), p. 34.

7

 

 

Chefswd'oeuvres de 1'art Mexicain, Figure 819, p. 297.

 

 

33

34

All three sculptures are simple, directly carved, com—
pact geo-organic forms. They are assymmetrical organic
forms which can be contained in basic geometric volumes.
Moore's and the Aztec's snake fit into an ovoid, while
Flannagan's snake can be contained in a cone. The three
sculptures are extremely similar in appearance and are not
optical reproductions of a snake. They do capture the
essential character of the snake. The snakes' twisting move-
ments, coiled energy, and earth—nature are reflected in the
tense, circular, rhythmic arrangement of volumes and the
massive heaviness of stone. The three sculptures are massive
and monumental in appearance while being small in actual
physical dimensions. Their roundness adds to their full
three—dimensional presence. All three pieces appeal to the
sense of touch. Moore's and the Aztec's sculpture evoke the
tactile sense by their round, organic smooth forms and
Flannagan's sculpture by its round, organic slightly tex—
tured form. All three possess vitality and monumentality.

I will make one more detailed comparison between two
animal sculptures, one by Flannagan and one by an Aztec.

Flannagan. "Little Creature." 1941. Bluestone. 13 in.
Aztec. "GrasshOpper." Stone.

 

lFlannagan, The Sculpture pf John B. Flannagan, p. 34.

 

 

 

2Antonio Castro Leal, "Los Animales en la Escultura
Mexicana," Mexico pp pl Arte, II, (August 1948), Figure 6.

35

In comparing these two sculptures we find the same sim—

ilarities occurring. Both sculptures are simple, directly
carved, compact geO—organic forms. The two sculptures are
extremely similar in appearance. They are not Optical repro—

ductions of the grasshopper. They are symbols of the earth.
The Aztec grasshopper is static, heavy and massive, and at
rest in a horizontal position. Flannagan's is vertical, not
balanced on, but merging with a blade of grass which it is
eating. Although Flannagan's grasshopper appears heavy, and
its axis is tilted slightly from the vertical, it is still
static. Both sculptors' respect for the material, stone, is
felt in the closed, compact treatment of the forms. The
sculptures are massive and monumental in appearance, though
small in actual dimensions. The monumentality and static
vitality of the figures are enhanced by their compact,
closed mass and simplified convexo-planar constituents,
which unobtrusively overlap one another giving rise to a
living, unified whole. The total shape of both figures
approaches that of an elongated ellipsoid. The organic
gives them a living vitality while the geometric freezes
them in time. The tactile and three-dimensional qualities
are emphasized through smoothness and roundness of form.
Although Flannagan attempts to achieve texture through his
use of the bushing hammer, the overall effect of his sculp-
ture is one of smoothness. The Aztec makes greater use of

rhythm. This is seen in the rhythmic positioning of the

grasshOpper's legs and segmenting Of the grasshOpper's

36

abdomen. Both sculptures pulsate with ch'i.
To avoid repetition, I will only state that when com-

paring the following we are struck by the same forementioned

similarities:

Flannagan. "Frog." 1938. Sandstone. 7 in.1
Aztec. "Frog." Stone.

Flannagan. "Pelican." 1928. Sandstone.3
Totonac. "Seated Pelican." Stone. 15 in.

Whereas Flannagan expressed himself mainly through his

animal sculpture, Moore preferred the human figure.

Moore. "Reglining Figure." 1929. Brown hornton stone. L.
32 in.
Mayan—Toltec. "Chac Mool, the Rain Spirit." Chicken Itza.

948-1697 A.D. Limestone L. 58—1/2 in.6

Both sculptures are closed forms consisting Of large,
simple, geo—organic volumes which remain contained within the
rectangular block; this rectangular block—like treatment is
further accentuated by the roughly hewn rectangular base.
Both sculptures are static, massive, and monumental. All
these aspects of the sculptures help the observer to feel the

ponderous weight of stone. Moore and the pre—Columbian man

 

lFlannagan, The Sculpture pf John B. Flannagan, p. 32.

 

 

 

2Westheim, The Art pf Ancient Mexico, Plate III.

 

3Flannagan, p. 32.

LlTwenty Centuries pf Mexican Art, (New York: The Museum
of Modern Art, 1940), Figure 40.

 

 

5Herbert Read, The Art of Sculpture, (New York:

Bollingen Foundation, 1961 ,—Eigure 205.
6

 

Ibid., Figure 204.

37

were not interested in giving an optical reproduction or a
narcissistic idealization of the human figure. They were
interested in imbuing their work with spiritual vitality.
They achieved their aim. Both sculptors used the medium of
the human figure as a basis which they abstractly modified
to express man's primordial feelings and concepts toward
nature. These sculptures are plastic manifestations Of the
earth archetype. Through the formal arrangements of volumes,
and through the concentrated mass, or energy, Of stone, they
are direct expressions of natural forces. Both sculptures
are supra—personal in aspect and possess vitality.

Following are some more specific qualities common to
both; both are reclining figures with the upper part Of the
body raised, both are frontal with the head twisted at a
ninety degree angle from the body, both are still partially
contained within the stone, the position is similar, the
legs, arms, and neck are cylindrical, the shape of the head
and the facial features, especially the open mouth, are
similar.

Although Flannagan consistently throughout his sculp-
tural career keeps to the simple, closed form, Moore in 1929
starts to Open up his forms with the introduction of the
hole. Moore's sculpture becomes more complex than Flannagan's,
but the more complex shapes always merge into a uniform
organic whole, and he never violates the "stoniness of the

stone." We can see why Moore admired the "fertility of form

38

invention"l found in pre-Columbian sculpture. The closed
treatment manifested in Aztec animal sculpture could inspire
Flannagan's animal sculpture while the Totanac's and the
Toltec's successful use of the hole could serve as a guide
for Moore's experimentation with negative space.

Moore. "Square Form." Hornton stone. 1936.2
Toltec. "Ara Head." Basalt. Zochicalco, Mexico. 23 in.

3
In both sculptures we find a hole introduced without
losing the quality of the "stoniness of the stone." "A
piece of stone can have a hole through it and not be weak—
ened——if the hole is of a studied size, shape, and direc—
tion."q Both pieces preserve these qualities of stone men-
tioned. The hole adds to their three—dimensional reality.
"The hole connects one side to the other making it immediate-
ly more three-dimensional."5 The hole adds to its metaphys-
ical quality—-"...the mystery of the hole--the mysterious
fascination Of caves in hillsides and cliffs."6 Both
sculptures, although they are more non-representational than
the previous ones, lie within the realm of geo-organic forms.

They both possess a living vitality and feeling Of

monumentality.

 

lRead, Henry Moore Sculpture and Drawings, p. xliv.

 

2Giedion—Weloker, p. 197.

3Ibid., p. 146.

 

uRead, Henry Moore Sculpture and Drawings, p. xli.

 

5Ibid., p. xli.

6Ibid.

39

Without analysis here are some more examples where pre—

Columbian sculpture and Moore's sculpture are similar:

Civilization of Teotihuacan III. "Funeral Mask.? Green
stone. Approx. 300—650 A.D., Teotihuacan, Mex1co.:L
Moore. "Mask." Green stone. 1930.2

Pre~C1assic. Terracotta female figure. 1500—600 B.C.3

Moore. "Mask." Concrete. 1927.u
Olmec figurine. "Serpentine."5 6
Moore. "Reclining Figure." Iron stone. 1930.

As a result of these comparisons we have seen that
Moore's and Flannagan's sculpture possess the same qualities
which we found in pre-Columbian sculpture. If the similar—
ities between Moore, Flannagan and pre—Columbian sculpture
were just restricted to the same formal devices, i.e., the
Open mouth in Moore's masks and pre—Columbian masks, I would
conclude that they borrowed directly from the pre-Columbian
pieces they saw. However, there are too many correlations
that transcend these formal devices. These similarities

could only be the result of similar views of nature and art.

 

lChefs-d'oeuvres d3 1'art Mexicain, Figure 399, p. 129.

2Read, Plate 23B.

 

3
p. 41.

Chefs-d'oepvres d3 1'art Mexicain, Figure 100—101,

 

 

”Read, Plate 61B.

5Erwin Christensen, Primltive Art, (New York: Crown
Pub., Inc., 1955), Figure 166.

 

6Read, Plate 23A.

40

Moore's and Flannagan's Concepts
About Their Art and About Nature

Henry Moore, in common with artists of his type

throughout the ages, believes that behind the

appearance Of things there is some kind of spir—

itual essence, a force or imminent being which is

only partially revealed in actual living forms.l

Flannagan and the pre—Columbian artist were artists of
Moore's type. The pre-Columbians had an animistic religion
in which art and religion were inseparable. In their sculp-
ture they took natural forms and transformed them into meta—
physical symbols. Flannagan and Moore shared with pre-
Columbian man an animistic reaction to natural forms.
Flannagan Often sees "...an occult attraction in the very
shape of a rock as sheer abstract form."2 Moore finds
"...principles of form and rhythm from the study of natural

"3

objects such as pebbles, bones, plants, etc. "There are

universal shapes to which everybody is subconsciously con—
ditioned and to which they can respond if their conscious
control does not shut them Off."u

The modern sculptors, Moore and Flannagan, explain the

creation of their work as follows: Moore--"Each particular

 

lRead, Henry Moore Sculpture and Drawings, p. xxiv. In
reference to Read's term "actual llVlng forms," I would prefer
to include all forms upon which man can project the quality
of life.

 

2Flannagan, The Sculpture pf John B. Flannagan, p. 7.

3
Read, Henpy Moore Sculpture and Drawings, p. x1.

 

 

 

 

 

”Ibid., p. xli.

41

carving I make takes on in my mind a human, or occasionally
animal, character and personality, and this personality
controls its designated formal qualities and makes me satis—
fied with my work."l; Flannagan-~"TO that instrument Of the
subconscious, the hand of a sculptor, there exists an image
within every rock. The creative act of realization merely
frees it."2 "As design, the eventual carving involuntarily
evolves from the eternal nature of the stone itself, an
abstract linear and cubical fantasy out Of the fluctuating
sequence Of consciousness, eXpressing a vague general memory
of many creatures of human and animal life in various forms."3
The Aztec explored the creation of his art in terms of reli—
gion, "...understanding god in his heart, defines things with
his heart, dialogues with his heart...."u
The pre—Columbian artist did not strive for fame and
glory among his contemporaries. He was a necessary agent of
the community. His job was to manifest the "magico-religious"
feeling of the community in plastic form. Hence, he must
communicate not to an esoteric few, but to the whole society.

"We do not know the name of a single master from the three

millenniums that pre-Cortesian art approximately

 

1
Read, Henry Moore Sculpture and Drawings, p. x1.

 

 

 

2
Flannagan, The Sculpture pf John B. Flgnnggan, p. 7.

 

3Ibid., p. 7.

u .
From the translation of the Aztec poem on "The Painter "
von Hagan, p. 199. ,

42

encompasses."l In these days of the cult of the individual,
the artist rarely feels that it is necessary to express him-
self to many, but only to himself or a few. Flannagan was

an exception. Of course it was easier for pre—Columbian man
to communicate to many because he was an integral member of

his society. In his introduction to the book, The Sculpture

 

9: John B. Flannagan, Carl Zigrosser tells of Flannagan's

 

 

passion for anonymity which the artist had related to him.2
Flannagan put his belief in anonymity into practice by sign-
ing very few Of his works. Flannagan, like the pre-Columbian,
felt it necessary to communicate to many. He spoke of
"...disciplining myself to think and see and feel so natur—
ally as tO escape the precious or the esoteric. My aim is
the achievement of a sculpture that should fulfill a definite
function in the social consciousness of many instead of a
limited few.”3
Moore, Flannagan, and pre—Columbian man had a high
regard for technical proficiency. It is only when technique
is perfected to such a degree as to be almost effortless,

that the more profound aspects Of art can manifest them-

selves. Throughout the Aztec poem "Toltecatl," the Aztec

 

lWestheim, The Sculpture 9: Ancient Mexico, p. 9.

 

 

2Flannagan, The Sculpture 9: John B. Flannagan, p. 9.

 

 

 

3Ibid., pp. ll, 12.

43

makes references to his respect for superior workmanship by
describing the Toltec as disciplined, skilled and equipped
with a steady hand.1 Flannagan wrote, "It takes an artist
to be a really good craftsman...."2
The pre—Columbian was not concerned with an art of
perceptual appearances. He probed into natural phenomena
in order to arrive at the spiritual essence of things. "The
artist of pre-Hispanic Mexico does not reproduce realities:
he creates symbols. In contrast to an artistic attitude
whose ideal is the analysis of the perceptible, the creation
of symbols attempts to find an explanation for the phenomena
of reality, an orientation in the universe that enables man
to understand the incomprehensible reality.3 Flannagan and
Moore had similar attitudes. In his interpretation Of the
artist, Flannagan writes, "The stone cutter, worker Of metal,
painter, those who think and feel by hand, are timeless,
haunted by all the old dreams. The artist remembers, or
else is fated by cosmic destiny to serve as the instrument
for realizing in visible form the profound subterranean
urges of the human spirit in the whole dynamic life process--
birth, growth, decay, death."u Moore writes, "Because a

work does not aim at reproducing natural appearances, it is

 

lLangnas, Arts, XXXV, no. 8-9, p. 29.

2
Flannagan, The Sculpture 2: John B. Flannagan, p. 12.

 

 

3Westheim, The Sculpture 2: Ancient Mexico, p. 10.

 

L‘Flannagan, p. 8.

1+4

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 colors
in a pleasing combination, not a decoration to life, but an
expression Of the significance of life, a stimulation to
greater effort in living."1

Moore and Flannagan like their pre-Columbian predeces—
sors thought of nature in terms of the living and organic,
not in terms of the mathematic—physical and mechanical.
Natural forms for them were charged with vital rhythms and
energies. These forms evolve out of nature by a continual
process of organic growth and are molded by the creative—
destructive natural forces within and at the same time out-
side Of them. Moore, Flannagan, and the pre—Columbians were
concerned with the processes which give rise to and are
reflected in the external phenomena of form. "Pebbles share
nature's way of working stone. Some of the pebbles I pick
up have holes right through them."2 The geometric is not,
however, foreign to the organic. Organic form evolves
according to geometric laws but, "Organic forms, though they
may be symmetrical in their main disposition, in their reac—
tion to environment, growth and gravity, lose their perfect

symmetry."3

 

lRead, Henry Moore Sculpture and Drawings, p. x1.

1

 

2Read, p. xli.

3Ibid., p. xxxix.

45

By creating as nature creates, "understanding god in
his heart,"1 the artist can create living, organic plastic
forms which follow geometric laws that result from the
dialogue between the artist's metaphysical concepts and the
medium by which these concepts are to be realized. The
formal principles, "truth to material," geo—organic abstrac-
tion, etc., are but a reflection of the artist's deeper con—
cepts regarding the workings of nature.

Pre—Columbian man tried to explain nature in terms of
gods, and their art in terms of communion with these gods.
Moore and Flannagan tried to explain nature and their crea—
tive work in modern psychological jargon, i.e., the communi—
cation with the creative unconscious. Nevertheless, the
sculpture Of Flannagan, Moore, and the pre—Columbian, which
does not depend on linguistic terminology relative to a
particular culture, is a direct plastic expression Of the
artist's deep feeling and concepts regarding nature. There-
in 1ie the similarities.

With these thoughts in mind, I will quote more of
Moore's and Flannagan's statements on art. I will try to
group them according to the Specific principles about which
they are writing, e.g., "truth to materials." However,
since these specific concepts are interrelated, and since
the artists Often intermingle their ideas, this will not

always be possible.

 

lVon Hagan, p. 191.

46

Truth :2 Materials

 

Every material has its own individual qualities.
It is only when the sculptor works direct, when
there is an active relationship to his material,
that the material can take its part in the shap-
ing of the idea. Moore.l

Each material being used logically according to

its own nature is after all a great part of being
an artist with sculpture. Flannagan.

Monumentality

 

A carving may be several times over life size and
yet be petty and small in feeling and a small carv-
ing only a few inches in height can give the feeling
of huge size and monumental grandeur, because the
vision behind it is big. Moore.

The size is deliberately small physically, partly
to make possible their use in even a small docile
(social purpose), and partly as a reaction to the
so—called heroic--too often mock—heroic. There are
monumental miniatures and miniature monuments.
Flannagan.”

Simplicity and Directness

 

 

...It makes a straightforward statement, its primary
concern is with the elemental, and its simplicity
comes from direct and strong feeling, which is a very
different thing from that fashionable simplicity-for—
its—own—sake which is emptiness. Like beauty, true
simplicity is an unselfconscious virtue; it comes by
the way and can never be an end in itself. Moore.5

The simplicity of the work is a wholly austere con—
cern with purely essential sculptural values. The

 

lRead, Henry Moore Sculpture and Drawings, p. xxxix.

2Flannagan, The Letters pf John B. Flannagan, p. 73

 

 

3Read, p. xli.

1+Flannagan, Letters, p. 100.

5Read, p. xliii.

L17

rude rock is partly protest against Art as mere
ornament, and rather an affirmation of Vlgour.
Flannagan.

92 Vitality and Abstractness pl Form

 

 

For me a work must first have a vitality of its
own. I do not mean a reflection Of the vitality
of life, of movement, physical action, frisking,
dancing figures and so on, but that a work can
have in it a pent-up energy, an intense life Of
its own, independent of the Object it may repre—
sent. When a work has this powerful vitality we
do not connect the word Beauty with it.

Beauty, in the later Greek or Renaissance sense,
is not the aim in my sculpture.

Between beauty of expression and power Of expres-
sion there is a difference of function. The first
aims at pleasing the senses, the second has a
spiritual vitality which for me is more moving

and goes deeper than the senses. Moore.2

My sculpture is becoming less representational,
less an outward visual copy, and so what some
people would call more abstract; but only because
I believe that in this way I can present the human
psychological content of my work with the greatest
directness and intensity. Moore.3

Abstract qualities of design are essential to the
value Of a work, but to me Of equal importance is
the psychological, human element. If both
abstract and human elements are welded together in
a workIi it must have a fuller, deeper meaning.
Moore.

In the austere elimination of the accidental for
ordered simplification, there is a quality of the
abstract and lifeless, but lifeless only contra

 

lFlannagan, The Letters pl John B. Flannagan, p. 73.

2Read, Henry Moore Sculpture and Drawings, p. x1.

 

 

 

 

3Read, p. xlii.

LLIbid., p. xxxix—xl.

48

spurious lifelikeness. Instead of which a purely
sculptural attempt by the most simple unambiguous
demonstration of tactile relations, the greatest
possible preservation of cubic compactness, carved
to exclude all chance evasive spatial aspects to
approximate the abstract cubical elemental forms .
and even to preserve the identity of the original
rock so that it hardly seems carved, rather to have
endured so always-~inevitable. The artistic repre-
sentation of the organic and living now takes on an
abstract lifeless order and becomes, instead of the
likeness Of what is conditioned, the symbol of what
is unconditioned and invariable, as though seeking
the timeless, changeless finality of death. Sculp-
ture like this is as inevitable. Flannagan.l

Pure abstraction is dead....Make it come alive by
the use Of living form. Warm the cold geometry of
abstraction with a naturalism in which the super-
ficial and accidental have been eliminated by their
union with pure form. Flannagan.2

Over and above the tactile organization of lines,
planes and masses should brood the mystery of a
living thing. Flannagan.3

Tactile

I think I judge a real sculpture by the sensitivity
Of tactile surface, like texture, etc., because to
get it one must love stone. Flannagan.

Rhythm

Rocks show the hacked, hewn treatment of stone, and
have a jagged nervous block rhythm.

With such abstract purpose, instead of classic
poise, there is more of the dynamic tension that is
movement, even accentuated by devices that are rest—
less such as a deliberate lack of abvious balance

 

lFlannagan, The Sculpture pl John B. Flannagan, p. 8.

 

 

2Ibid., p. 11.

 

3Flannagan, The Letters 9: John B. Flannagan, p. 99.
u

 

 

Ibid., p. 92.

5 . .
Read, Henry Moore Sculpture and Draw1ngs, p. xxx1x.

 

49

in design and the use of repetition to heighten

the occult activity with velocity, as in the psyche

of our time—speed without pauses or accents.

Flannagan.

There exist two other similarities that the sculpture
Of Moore, Flannagan, and the pre—Columbian have in common
that I wish to discuss in more detail. Their sculptures
serve as symbols and capture an archetype. Sculpture
"should be of a generalized universal symbolic nature...
man, woman, child, animal."2

Herbert Read wrote on the Animal Style stating, "In
such representations there is no attempt to conform with
the exact but casual appearances Of animals; and no desire
to evolve an ideal type Of animal. Rather from an intense
awareness of the nature of the animal, its movements and its
habits, the artist is able to select just those features
which best denote its vitality, and by exaggerating these
and distorting them until they cohere in some significant
rhythms and shape, he produces a representation which con-
veys to us the very essence of the animal."3 The above
holds true for the animal sculpture of Flannagan and the
Aztec.

The pre-Columbian's animal sculpture, besides capturing

the "animalness of the animal," function as magico-religious

 

lFlannagan, The Sculpture p£_John B. Flannagan, p. 8.

 

 

2Flannagan, The Letters 9: John B. Flannagan, p. 99.
3

 

 

 

Read, Henry Moore chlpture and Drawings, p. xxvi.

 

50

symbols. Because the ancient Mexican lived in such close
relationship to nature he often gave to his gods attributes
that he observed in animals. By a magicO—religious Operation
the animal can become so identified with the god that the
animal is both an animal and the symbol for the god. Both
the animal and the god are vehicles for the same metaphysical
concept. To see this more clearly let us take the toad.

It undergoes metamorphosis. This change in physical state
becomes in the mind of the pre—Columbian associated with the
concept of resurrection. From the earth all things are

born, die, and are reborn again. The toad, the animal Of

the earth, became associated with the Aztec god Tlaltecuhtli,
Lord of the Earth, and was considered to be one of his mani-
festations. The toad was a toad and yet was a symbol for
Tlaltecuhtli.

Flannagan lived close to nature, especially during his
stay in Ireland. From his writings we have learned that he
had an animistic concept of the world. He realized that
the animal form could serve as a symbol for metaphysical con—
cepts. He said this about his sculpture, "Jonah_and the
Whale——Rebirth Motif," "Its eerie to learn that the fish is
the very ancient symbol of the female principle."l Flannagan
spent most of his sculptural career in an attempt to plas—
tically symbolize the creative aspect of nature. This is

apparent when one views his sculptures: "Triumph of the

 

lFlannagan, The Sculpture 2: John B. Flannagan, p. 8.

 

 

51

Egg 1,"1 "Triumph of the Egg II,"2 "Dragon Motif" (1940),3
"Not Yet,"lJr "New One,"5 and "Beginning."6
"It might seem from what I have said of shape and form
that I regard them as ends in themselves. Far from it. I
am very much aware that associational, psychological factors
play a large part in sculpture. The meaning and significance
of form itself probably depends on the countless associations
Of man's history. For example, rounded forms convey an idea
Of fruitfulness, maturity, probably because the earth,
woman's breasts, and most fruits are rounded, and these
shapes are important because they have this background in
our habits of perception. I think the humanist organic ele—
ment will always be for me Of fundamental importance in
sculpture, giving sculpture its vitality."7
I have already mentioned that the Aztec represented the
creative—destructive aspects of nature in the feminine earth
symbol "Coatlicue." Moore has been motivated throughout his

sculptural career with the drive to give plastic expression

 

lFlannagan, The Sculpture 9: John B. Flannagan, p. 2.
2

 

 

Ibid., p. 37.

31bid., p. 38.

 

”Ibid., p. 35.

5Ibid., p. 31.

6Valantiner, Figure 138.

7Read, Henry Moore Sculpture and Drawings, p. xlii.

 

52

to the archetypical female principle through his two major
sculptural motifs: the mother and child, and the reclining
figure. He has frequently shown the creative aspect of the
female as the eternal mother. In Moore's reclining figures
such as the elmwood "Figure"1 of 1936 and that of 19392 we
find the archetype of the earth goddess. Here we see full,
supple, rounded forms reminding one of the breasts and hips
of the fertile earth mother; the human female figure is
metamorphosized into the earth and the earth is metamorpho-
sized into the human figure. She is the mother of all
being. The transitions flow like a lover's or child's ca—
ress from one form to another and are given further unity
and rhythm through the fine use of the grain. The flow in
the "Figure" of 1936 from the hip up into the arch-like form
of the shoulders and breasts creates a sheltering, and
inviting cave as does the penetrating hole in the "Figure"
Of 1939.

The destructive aspect of the female principle is mani-
fested in Moore's "Reclining Figure" (1939, bronze).3 The
forms are barren, sterile, thin, and machine—like. The

polish gives the surface a cold, mechanical look which

repulses the tactile sense. There is less mass than space

 

lRead, Plate 184—86.

2Ibid., Plate 86A.

 

3Will Grohmann, The Art pf_Henry Moore, (New York:
Harry N. Abrams, Inc.), Plate 31.

 

53

and thus no shelter Offered. There are no round fruit-like
forms. Here the earth mother's domain is not that of the
fertile soil, but of the desert, the barren wasteland.

In one sculpture by Moore, the bronze "Reclining

l he combines both creative and destructive

Figure" of 1951,
forces as does the Aztec sculpture, "The Great Coatlicue,"
the Earth Goddess. The meanings of these two sculptures are
the same although the forms are different. In Moore's sculp-
ture the aspects Of creator and destroyer change as the
viewer moves about whereas the "Coatlicue" is a composite of
both from different angles. From the view in Figure 76 in
Neumann we see the full, organic, hip—like forms, the symbol
of fertility and in Figure 44 Of Grohmann the full rounded
breast-like forms also. From these views the sculpture
appears full—bodied and round and thus gives an image of
fertility. But now as the viewer moves around at 180
degrees, he comes to grips with a disembodied, spectral form,
almost machine—like, rigid, and spidery. The gaping, clefted
head is one meant to devour. From the back view one can see
that the hollow form is not that of the womb, but of the tomb.
"Jagged, wild, charged with sinister energy this recumbent

figure is more like the destroying goddess of late 1939."2

 

lErich Neumann, The Archetypical World 2: Henry Moore,
(New York: Pantheon Books, Inc., 1959), Figs. 76 and 77,
pp. 108 and 109; and, Grohmann, Figures 44 and 45.

 

 

 

2Neumann, p. 109.

54

This aspect, too, is found in the Aztec Goddess. She
is creation in its entirety, in each of her manifestations
and phases, in perpetual struggle with herself, creating

without end and without end destroying.

V. CONCLUSION

With the exception of Gauguin in the latter part of the
nineteenth century, pre—Columbian sculpture did not exert
any influence upon Western artists until the first decade
of the twentieth century. Pre—Columbian sculpture's sim-
plicity of form, directness of approach, and vitality Of
expression, helped to stimulate the modern sculptors in their
attempt to establish a new, vital, plastic art. By direct
comparison we have seen that Moore and Flannagan were the
two modern sculptors most profoundly influenced by ancient
Mexican sculpture. Moreover, in comparing Moore's and
Flannagan's concepts on nature and art with those of the
pre—Columbian we have found similarities. These similar con—
cepts motivated Flannagan, Moore, and the pre-Columbian to
evolve similar plastic forms. Because Of this they were
better able than other artists to appreciate and absorb the
essence of pre—Columbian sculpture.

The stone cutter, worker of metal, painter, those

who think and feel by hand, are timeless, haunted

by all the Old dreams.1

If one could get rid Of bias when viewing sculpture

of any age one would realize "there are universal

shapes to which everybody is subconsciously condi—

tioned and to which they can respond if their con—
scious control does not shut them off."2

lFlannagan, The Sculpture 2: John B..F1annagan, p. 8.

2Read, Henry Moore Sculpture and Draylngs, p. xli.

 

 

 

55

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Ashton, Dore. Abstract Art Before Columbus. New York:
André Emmerick Gallery, 1957.

 

Bauer, John I. H. William Zorach. New York: Fredrick
A. Praeger, Inc., 1959.

 

Bodelson, Merete. Gapguin's Ceramics. London: Faber and
Faber Ltd., 1964.

 

Buckle, Richard. Jacob Epstein Sculptor. London: Faber

and Faber Ltd., 1963.

Bushnell, G. H. S. Ancient Art pi the Americas. New York:
Fredrick A. Praeger, Inc., 1965.

 

 

Cahill, Holger. Aztec, Inca and Mayan Art. New York:
The Museum of Modern Art, 1933.

 

 

Chefs-d'oeuvres de 1'art Mexicalp. Paris: Ministere
dTEtat Affaires Culturelles, 1962.

 

 

Contpmporary Artists lg Latin America. Washington, D.C.:
Pan American Union, 1945.

 

 

D'Harcourt, Raoul. Primitlye Art 9: the Americas.
New York: Tudor Publishing Co., 1950.

 

 

Diaz del Castillo, Bernal. The Discover and Copquest 9:
America. Trans. by A. P. Maudslay. New York:
Farrar, Straus and Cudahy, 1956.

 

Flannagan, John B. "Letters." Valentiner, W. R.
"Introduction." The Letters 9: John B. Flannagan.
New York: Curt Valentin, 1942.

 

 

Flannagan, John B. "Statement." Zigrosser, Carl.

"Introduction." The Scplpture of John B. Flannagan.
Ed. by Dorothy C. Miller. New YOrk: Tfie Museum of
Modern Art, 1942.

 

 

 

56

57

Giedion—Welcker, Carola. Contempppary Sculpture. New York:
Fredrick A. Praeger, Inc., 1960.

 

Gray, Christopher. Sculpture and Ceramics p: Paul Gauguin.
Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 1963.

 

 

Grohmann, Will. The Art pp Henry Moore. New York: Harry
N. Abrams, Inc.

 

Hagan, Victor W. von. Realm p: the Incas. New York: The
New American Library of World Literature, Inc., 1957.

 

Hagan, Victor W. von. The Aztec: Man and Tribe. New York:

The New American Library of World Literature, Inc.,
1958.

 

 

Hagan, Victor W. von. World p: the Maya. New York: The New
American Library of World Literature, Inc., 1960.

Hepworth, Barbara. "Text." Read, Herbert. "Introduction."
Barbara Hepworth Carvings and Drawings. London: Lund
Humphries and Co., Ltd., 1952.

 

 

Hope, Henry R. The Sculpture p: Jacque Lipchitz. New York:
The Museum of Modern Art.

 

 

Indigenous Art pp the Americas. Washington, D.C.: National
Gallery of Art, 1947.

 

 

Kubler, George. The Art and Architpcture p: Ancient America.
Baltimore: Penguin Books, Inc., 1962.

 

 

 

Marchiori, Giuseppe. Modern French Sculpture. New York:
Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1963.

 

Neumann, Erich. The Archetypical World pf Henry Moore.
New York: Pantheon Books, Inc., 1959.

 

 

 

Pound, Ezra. Gaudier—Brzeska. New York: Wittenborn and
Co., 1946.

 

Prescott, William H. Histor Of the Conquest of Mexico.
Philadelphia: J. B. LlppIEOtt and Co., 1864.

 

Ramsden, E. H. Sculpture: Theme and Variations. London:
Percy Lund, Humphries and Ltd., 1953.

 

 

Read, Herbert. "Introduction." Moore, Henry. "Essays."
Henry Moore Sculpture and Drawings. London:
Humphries and Co., Ltd., 1949.

 

Read, Herbert. The Art p: Sculpture. New York: Pantheon
Books, Inc., 1961.

 

58

Ritchie, Andrew Carnduff. Sculpture pi the Twentieth
Century. New York: The Museum of Modern Art.

 

 

Selz, Jean. Modern Sculpture Origins and Evolutions.
New York: George Braziller, Inc., 1963.

 

Seymour, Charles Jr. Tradition and Experiment in Modern
Sculpture. Washington, D.C.: The AmericaH—Unlversity
Press, 1949.

 

 

Siren, Oswald. The Chinese on the Art of Painting. New

York: Schocken Books, 1963.

 

The Lipchitz Collection. New York: The Museum of Modern
Art, 1960.

 

Twenty Centuries p: Mexican Art. New York: The Museum of
Modern Art, 1940.

 

 

Valentiner, W. R. Origins p: Modern Sculpture. New York:
Wittenborn and Co., 1946.

 

Westheim, Paul. The Art p£_Ancient Mexico. Trans. by
Ursula Bernard. New York: Doubleday and Co., Inc.,
1965. '

 

Westheim, Paul. The Sculpture p: Ancient Mexico. Trans.
by Ursula Bernard. New York: Doubleday and Co.,
Inc., 1963.

 

 

Articles and Periodicals

 

Charlot, Jean. "Who Discovered America," Art News, LII,
no. 7 (November, 1953), pp. 31-32.

Langnas, I. A. "The Discovery of Aztec Art," Arts, XXXV,
no. 8-9 (May—June, 1961), pp. 28, 29, 101.

 

Leal, Antonio Castro. "Los Animales en la Excultura
Mexicano," Mexico pp pl Arte, II (August, 1948),
Figure 9.

Marceau, Henri. "The Philadelphia Story on Sculpture,"
Art News, XLVIII, no. 3 (May, 1949), p. 18.

. «.
"Hill

”WI