Letter to the Editor: What the ‘Inconsistencies’ Among Degas Bronze Casts Really Mean, According to a Sculpture Specialist

Walter Maibaum is a sculpture specialist who, in 2001, brought to light a previously unknown plaster cast of Degas’ Little Dancer. In 2004, he uncovered 73 additional Degas’ plasters. The below letter is a response to a Patricia Failing article published by ARTnews on May 22 that addressed a recent donation of Degas bronzes to Purdue University. With Carol Conn, he runs the Degas Sculpture Project.

In her article, Patricia Failing pointed out the “inconsistencies” of Degas’ bronzes cast by the Valsuani foundry, when compared with the Degas bronzes cast by the Hébrard foundry. In some cases, there are considerable differences. This is likely the reason why she and some scholars associated with Degas, and powerful forces in the art world with strong vested interests in the bronzes cast by Hébrard, have continued to raise questions about the validity of the bronzes cast by Valsuani and the Degas plasters from which those bronzes were cast.

Why is it that some forms and details on the Valsuani bronzes differ from those on the bronzes of the same figures cast by Hébrard, and how can we account for those differences?

The answer: Hébrard and Valsuani cast bronzes under different circumstances in different years using different casting techniques and using different sculptural masters from which to cast their serialized bronze editions. For example, about two years after Degas died, Hébrard took molds from 74 of Degas’ original sculptures made by the artist with wax, sometimes mixed with soft clay. Today his original sculptural creations are known as his “waxes.” Hébrard then cast two plasters of Degas’ now famous Little Dancer figure from the molds taken from the artist’s wax of that sculpture, after which time the foundry cast the bronze edition of the Little Dancer from a plaster.

However, Hébrard did not cast plasters from the molds taken from the other 73 smaller waxes. Instead Hébrard cast a master set of bronzes, known as the “Modèles,” directly from the molds that were taken from those Degas’ waxes. Hébrard then used each of the 73 Modèle bronzes as masters from which to cast 73 bronze editions of each of those sculptures. About 1,400 Degas bronzes were cast by Hébrard in this manner.

Conversely, Valsuani cast all of its 74 bronze editions from previously unknown plasters from Degas’ wax figures. A large corpus of empirical evidence compiled by this author and by Gregory Hedberg has led to the conclusion that except for only a few, the previously unknown plasters were cast from molds taken from Degas’ waxes either during his lifetime—or shortly after he died in 1917 and before Hébrard began casting bronzes in late 1919.

On a related matter, it is well documented that Hébrard took molds from the waxes in late 1919, about two years after Degas died. Therefore, the resulting bronzes cast by Hébrard from those molds reflect how the artist’s waxes appeared in late 1919. Conversely, since the great majority of the plasters are now believed to have been made from the waxes at an earlier point in time, and because Valsuani cast bronzes from those plasters, the resulting bronzes cast by Valsuani reflect how Degas’ waxes appeared before Hébrard began casting any bronzes in October–December 1919. Then we must take into account that Degas continued to rework his waxes over time, sometimes for years. Therefore, in some instances, dramatic revisions to his waxes took place from the time a plaster was made from a wax to a later time after Degas had modified that same wax. This is why differences between a bronze cast by Valsuani from a plaster, when compared side by side to a bronze cast by Hébrard from a Modèle bronze are quickly apparent, as can be seen in the photograph below.

Putting aside the differences in the patina coloration and sharper details on the Valsuani bronze when compared with the bronze cast by Hébrard, notice the following: On the horse’s right front leg on the Valsuani bronze, the knee is more pronounced and the hoof is touching the bronze base when compared to the Hébrard bronze. We also notice the differences between the two bronzes in the shapes of the horse’s neck and tail. This indicates that after the plaster of the horse was made Degas modified his wax. Therefore, the bronze cast by Valsuani from the plaster reflects how Degas’ wax appeared at a previous point in time when compared with the bronze cast by Hébrard. The Hébrard bronze reflects a later point in time—how Degas’ wax appeared after he modified his wax and how his wax appeared in late 1919.

Now we must consider that Hébrard cast editions of 73 bronzes using each of the 73 bronzes in the Modèle set as masters (Hébrard cast 73 bronze editions from other bronzes). Such second-generation bronzes, known as surmoulages, are not usually accepted in the art world. Why? Because casting a bronze from another bronze would be like making a photograph from another photograph—a generation of details would be lost. This is why, as shown above, the details on the bronze cast by Valsuani from a plaster has sharper details than the one cast by Hébrard from another bronze. In addition, we must take into account that bronze materials shrink in the casting process by about 2 percent. Plaster has no such shrinkage. Therefore, if we were to cast a bronze from another bronze, and then cast a bronze of the same figure from a plaster, the bronze cast from the plaster would be about 2 percent larger than the surmoulage bronze. This is why the Valsuani bronze shown above is slightly larger than the bronze cast by Hébrard.

Now we take into account the Modèle bronzes were made from Degas’ waxes and the plasters were presumably made from the waxes as well. With this in mind about 500 internal (point-to- point) measurements were taken on the bronzes in the Modèle set, and those measurements were then compared with the same point-to-point measurements on Degas plasters of the same figures. The measurements on the plasters proved to be accordingly larger by about 2 percent. This provides strong evidence for us to conclude, these plasters were made from Degas’ waxes.

As we can see in the above comparisons, and in most instances, the measurements on the plasters proved to be greater. For those that were not, highly likely it was due to Degas’ modification of his waxes. Basically, after a plaster was made from a wax, he then modified the wax, so by the time Degas died, details and measurements on his waxes had changed. Molds were then taken by Hébrard from the modified waxes, and thereafter surmoulage bronzes were cast by that foundry.

Of utmost importance, the large corpus of physical evidence, along with the preponderance of other evidence, leads us to conclude that the plasters were made from Degas’ waxes. Thus the plasters are authentic, no matter who made them or when. In fact, we may never know for certain who made the plasters or exactly when. Therefore, we must rely on the large corpus of empirical evidence that supports the facts detailed above pertaining to authenticity.

This was confirmed by the French body of authorities, the Succession Degas. After examining each plaster, taking measurements, and reviewing the research, they came to the same determination about the dating of the plasters and agreed, the plasters were made from molds taken from Degas’ waxes. The Succession Degasthen certified the authenticity of the plasters and the serialized bronzes cast by Valsuani from the plasters. We must also recognize the other independent corroborators, such as museum curators, who also support the plasters were made from Degas’ waxes.

This, along with all of the details provided herein, further validates the authenticity of the plasters, from which Valsuani cast its editions of Degas’ bronzes.

Patricia Failing Responds:

Purdue University educators have expressed optimism about the “exceptional educational opportunities” afforded by debates about the history and authenticity of 74 Edgar Degas sculptures recently donated to the university. Walter Maibaum’s letter illustrates some of the ethical and technical challenges the university faces in presenting historical information about the collection to students and the public. Evaluating the merits of Maibaum’s claims requires, first of all, acknowledgement that Maibaum is the primary US purveyor of sets of Degas bronzes cast from plasters discovered in the now-defunct Valsuani Foundry in Paris, including the set donated to Purdue.

The origin of the plasters is unknown, but Maibaum and his dealer colleague Gregory Hedberg offer what they regard as historical and empirical evidence that the plasters are authentic records of Degas’ original wax and clay sculptures, even though many differ from them in form and detail. The dealers account for these discrepancies by contending that the Valsuani plasters represent “earlier versions” of Degas’ wax and clay sculptures, although there are no records to verify this claim. Other Valsuani examples do resemble the well-known and documented Degas bronzes cast from his extant original sculptures by the Hébrard Foundry. In this case there are records to explain the alignment.

A number of the Valsuani plasters were in poor condition when they were discovered in the early 1980s. They were later restored by technicians at the Valsuani foundry, who repaired the casts by matching the plasters with photographs of the Hébrard casts and carving lines in some of the plasters to match cracks visible in the Hébrard bronzes. Both types complicate the claims of authorship and empirical evidence offered by the dealers.

Purdue now takes credit for acquiring “the most comprehensive collection of bronzes based on Degas’ original wax models in the country.” Whether this statement is correct or not, as Maibaum’s letter attests, will hinge on the definition of “original wax model” the university decides to support.