Henry Moore’s “Draped Seated Woman,” 1962 (Image courtesy groovyf.co.uk)
The UK has been facing austerity measures and budget cuts for the past few years, particularly in the arts, but this particular case seems to present a poignant illustration of the conflict between economic hardship and visual art. A Henry Moore sculpture first installed in a public housing development might be sold for $32 million to pay for social services in London’s Tower Hamlets borough.
“Draped Seated Woman,” a 1.6-ton monolithic female figure sculpted in Henry Moore’s simplified, classical style, was originally placed in the center of the Stifford Estate, a towering public housing complex. (Moore, a socialist, wanted the piece to be installed in a poor area.) Concerns about vandalism caused it to be moved to the Yorkshire Sculpture park. Now, the possibility of selling the piece is being explored in order to compensate for budget cuts in the areas of affordable housing, education, and community projects.
There’s nothing ambiguous about the situation — the sale would literally trade public art for public services. The Tower Hamlets council is being forced to make $161,000 in budget cuts, and the $32 million from the sculpture could offset that sacrifice. But then the sculpture would likely be lost from public accessibility. In times of extreme economic difficulty, could this kind of sale actually be justified?
