Letter: Moore could draw very well
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.'THE fact is that Moore couldn't draw at all.' So ends Tim Hilton's review of the National Portrait Gallery's show of Master Drawings ('Every picture tells a life story', Sunday Review, 28 August).
I do not always understand everything that your art critic says but I usually assume that, if I was clever enough, I would. However to assert, without further explanation, that Henry Moore couldn't draw at all is plain silly.
Why then were we all so deeply moved by the drawings which he made in the London Underground during the war? And why were we again so moved by his drawings of sheep, which must surely seem to most people (and even apparently at first to Moore himself) to be such unpromising subjects for such close scrutiny?
While it may be true that Moore had little interest in individual human portraiture, either in his sculpture or in his drawings, it is just nonsense to say that he couldn't draw at all.
Peter Coate
Nr Axbridge, Somerset
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments