On this page
Which Little Dancer is this?
Original waxNot picturedPlaster cast
This pageBronze casts
Not pictured
The object pictured here is the National Gallery of Art’s painted plaster cast, possibly made in 1920/1921 after Degas’s original wax modelled in 1878 to 1881. Its accession number is 1985.64.62. [1] The dates identify different stages in the work’s history. The earlier range concerns the wax model; the later date concerns this cast. A photograph with the familiar title can otherwise make those stages appear to be one object.
A girl stands with one foot ahead of the other, her arms falling behind her body and her chin lifted. The skirt opens into a broad band of yellow-brown fabric. Above it, a fitted bodice narrows at the waist, with a row of small buttons down its front. The head is raised, but the feet remain firmly placed on a square base. Start with that relationship between the upper body and the feet before deciding what the pose expresses.
Follow the stance from the feet
Begin at the base. One foot extends towards the lower left of the photograph. The other turns out towards the right. Follow each shoe back to the leg above it. The forward leg makes a longer diagonal, while the other leg rises more nearly upright. The skirt hides the upper parts of both legs, so the visible lower legs do much of the work of explaining the stance.
Lower legs and shoes. Follow the diagonal of the forward leg and compare the raised lines around the shoes. Open legs and shoes image filePhotograph via Wikimedia Commons, CC0.The feet detail gives a different task from the whole photograph. Look at the roughness along the shins and the raised lines around the shoes. Then return to the full figure and follow the same diagonal from foot to waist.
Buttons, folds and the material record
The body’s dark, uneven surface can encourage a quick guess about its material. The museum identifies this object as painted plaster with fabric and a metal armature. [1] Colour in a photograph is not enough to identify the substance beneath it. Here, the collection record supplies information that looking alone cannot settle. The medium field lists fabric without identifying which visible parts are fabric.
Compare the bodice with the skin at the shoulders. Small projecting buttons interrupt the garment’s front. Near the waist, shallow horizontal folds break the otherwise fitted shape. The neckline edge of the bodice is irregular, with light catching the raised surface. The photograph gives us changes in texture to follow, even where neighbouring parts have similar colours.
Bodice and waist. Compare the projecting buttons with the shallow folds above the skirt. Open bodice and waist image filePhotograph via Wikimedia Commons, CC0.Look at the skirt’s outline and folds
In this photograph, the skirt projects well beyond the legs. Its upper edge gathers around the waist, and the folds widen as they descend. The uneven lower edge lets sections of the legs appear beneath it. Try looking first at the skirt as an outline against the background, then at the folds within it. Those two views give different impressions of its fullness.
Compare the skirt’s silhouette against the background with the folds inside it. Cropped view of the photograph via Wikimedia Commons, CC0. Open the whole figure image fileThe Gallery’s historical study says the original tutu’s appearance in 1881 remains uncertain. [3] It also describes disagreements about skirts made for later versions. [3] A familiar pose does not guarantee identical clothing. When comparing another museum’s photograph, check which object is shown before treating a different skirt as a change to this one.
Return to the buttons above the skirt. Their narrow vertical line meets the spreading folds below. The contrast gives the costume a clear structure in this frontal view. Use the whole photograph to see how far the skirt extends across the body.
Look from the chin to the shoulders
The head detail brings the face closer without changing the viewpoint. The chin lifts above the neck, the eyelids form narrow lines, and the mouth is slightly open. The forehead catches light, while the eye sockets and the area below the jaw are darker. These features invite a reading of the expression, but they do not name one emotion for us.
Head and neck. Look at the lifted chin, narrow eyelids and modelling around the mouth. Open head and neck image filePhotograph via Wikimedia Commons, CC0.The museum study explains that display height can affect the viewer’s encounter with the face. [3] It finds no firm evidence for an intended viewing angle. [3] A photograph fixes one encounter. Enlarging it lets us examine the surface, but does not let us walk around the sculpture or change our height in relation to it.
Compare objects, not just titles
The museum identifies this plaster as accession 1985.64.62; it is one of two plasters produced at the Hébrard foundry in connection with casting the original wax. [1] The wax exhibited in 1881 is a separate object. [1] [3] These distinctions matter when a search brings together photographs of several versions under the same title.
Four objects to keep separate
| Museum and accession | Object and date | Materials and clothing recorded |
|---|---|---|
|
Original waxNot picturedNational Gallery of Art 1999.80.28 Original wax: technical study |
Original wax, 1878 to 1881. Not pictured here. | The study describes beeswax, clay, a metal armature, a cotton bodice and human hair. This is a selection of the materials it records. [2] The original tutu’s appearance in 1881 remains uncertain. [3] |
|
Pictured plaster castPictured on this pageNational Gallery of Art 1985.64.62 |
Plaster cast, possibly 1920/1921, after original wax modelled 1878 to 1881. | Painted plaster, fabric and metal armature, on a plaster base. The medium field lists fabric without naming a garment. [1] |
|
Bronze · MetNot picturedMetropolitan Museum of Art 29.100.370 |
Bronze cast, 1922. | Partially tinted bronze, cotton tarlatan, silk satin and wood; modern tutu. [4] |
|
Bronze · OrsayNot picturedMusée d’Orsay RF2137 [6] |
Bronze cast, between 1921 and 1931. | Bronze, tulle tutu, satin ribbon and wooden base. [5] |
The original wax: a separate material history
The museum’s technical study notes that the original wax’s lower bodice is wrinkled, while the creases are absent from earlier inventory photographs. It finds the creases on the Gallery’s plaster and on the serial bronzes too. The study suggests the lower bodice may have been disturbed when the tutu was removed for posthumous casting. It presents this as a hypothesis. [2]
Use the detail to look for the shallow folds above the skirt. The technical comparison gives those small marks a historical question: which features may have entered the later casts from the condition of the wax?
The wax materials recorded in the table concern that original object. They should not be transferred to the material inside this plaster cast.
The wax link opens the museum’s technical study; the other links open object records. Open those records side by side, then compare:
- The museum and accession number, to keep each object separate.
- The material and skirt outline, with the photograph’s angle in view.
- The lighting: a darker photograph alone does not prove a darker surface.
The body we piece together
A dancer between performances?
The National Gallery’s historical study records several critics describing the original figure as stretching tiredly. It also reports de Villars’s contrast between the everyday reality of the dancer’s work and the fantasy presented on stage. [3]
They offer a useful question for this pictured cast: does the stance suggest a moment of display, or a pause around the work of dancing? The raised head can draw our attention like a performance, while the planted feet and arms behind the body can suggest waiting. The photograph leaves room for both readings. In this photograph, the figure can seem both composed and watched.
The skirt interrupts our view of the legs just where they join the body. Below it, the legs slant slightly apart and the feet point different ways; above it, the bodice narrows towards the waist. We connect those separated shapes to make sense of a single stance. The clothing helps describe the body even as it hides part of it.
The wide, continuous skirt sits between the narrow waist and the gap that opens between the legs below its hem. That change in width gives the clothed silhouette a rhythm we can follow without seeing the whole body.
Try covering the skirt in the photograph, then looking at the whole figure again. The feet, upright torso and raised head still suggest a stance, but the skirt changes how those parts meet. This is a reading to test against the photograph; walking around the sculpture could reveal connections this view keeps hidden.
Common questions
-
How does this plaster differ from the Met and Orsay objects?
The pictured National Gallery of Art object is painted plaster with fabric and a metal armature, accession 1985.64.62. [1] The Met and Orsay records describe separate bronze casts, 29.100.370 and RF2137. [4] [5] [6] The museum dates the plaster to possibly 1920/1921. [1] The Met bronze was cast in 1922, while the Orsay cast dates to between 1921 and 1931. [4] [5]
