Discussion of Henry Moore's Essay Notes on Sculpture

No preconceived problem to solve, this is what Moore describes as he addresses his initial beginning of drawing. He sits down to draw, with no problem to solve; he is just simply drawing. Eventually he finds a problem to solve, in which art is found and developed. This sentence struck me because I never thought of art in such a logical way. I've always been one who sat down and designed. I never thought there was a problem there to solve, but Moore is correct. As I sit here to write this essay, I can see I have a problem I have to solve: I have to write an essay summarizing his essay. So how do I go about it? I see the white page in front of me. I turn on the media player, put on shuffle so I can hear the mix of Phil Collins, Tori Amos and Delirium. I place my fingers on the keyboard, and stop. How do I solve this problem?

Does each word I type have singular personality, sound, shape and definition within my mind? Or are they only formed when placed within the confines of a sentence and paragraph? I struggle with the notion of solving the problem I have created simply by writing down a few simple words. I fear that my ramblings will prescribe a psychosis within my subconscious mind that I never knew or did know, but refused to address. I feel I have given too much thought to the rhetorical questions brought up by Moore, so that my art is now borderline theory and I am now a psychological mess. If I can't make sense of my own works, according to Moore, it is well-advised that I not discuss them; but I have to turn this essay in. Therefore, I have to speak in non-logical roundness. I have defeated the purpose of creating and being an artist; I have spoken before being spoken to.

Granted, comparing writing to sculpture may be farfetched, but does a writer not construct form as a sculpture does, just in a different medium? If so, then am I not bound by the same laws and thought of form and shape as a sculptor? I have to keep my plot tight. I have to concentrate on the form of the story line and the evenness of my characters. My thoughts have to be as comprehensive as a sculptor. I have to solve the problem of my characters and plot, if I want to be an artist.

Yet, if a sculpture is the personification of the sculptor, then a novel must be the representation of the psyche of the novelist. "But with more experience the completed work in stone can be kept within the limitations of its material, that is, not be weakened beyond its natural constructive build, and yet be turned from an inert mass into a composition which has a full form existence, with masses of varied sizes and sections working together in spatial relationship" (Moore 70). As is my novels. I am bound to the same rules. Creation and problem solving are not limited to the artistic endeavors of sculpture, painting, and drawing. Though it is a succession of words on a page, writing has a spatial form and construct of its own. It may be something visual, but it is still bound by the thoughts put forth by Moore in his essay. Characters and plots have problems in which the novelist must resolve. Writing is my sculpture. I see the flow of the characters; I pluck the stones from the storyline that hinder the progression of the novel. I polish it into a form in which to be looked upon by an audience. It is a part of me on paper: a silent combination of my psychosis and my creativity; a mixture of my personal experience and my imagination. It is me on paper, flawed and formed, such as any sculpture.

Moore, Henry. Notes on Sculpture,The Creative Process. Brewster Ghiselin, ed. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985.