Colette Loll Lecture Art from the Ground Up Symposium First, I want to thank Dr.

Francis OConnor and Helen Harrison for enlisting my support in organizing this symposium. While conceptualizing the conference, it

became clear that the key words Art & Authentication were certain to stir up trepidation, given the swirling and simultaneous controversies present in the art market today. I suggested we orient the speakers and discourse around the collective goal of cultural heritage protectiona key element of which is the need to stem the tide of fakes and forgeries from entering the legitimate art market. As Helen

mentioned, I am the founding director of Art Fraud Insights, a small specialized consultancy based in Washington, DC. As a curator as well as an art fraud investigator my work integrates the ideals I am passionate about: truth, authenticity and stewardship. My activities center on educational awareness and include: Curating exhibits on the topic of art forgery and art fraud Supporting private collectors, cultural institutions and law enforcement agencies in art forgery investigations
1

 And Serving as a liaison between art forensic labs and those seeking to engage scientific testing services In addition, I am committed to educating the next generation of cultural heritage professionals by teaching and integrating the topic of art fraud and forgery into museum studies curriculums and law enforcement training manuals. I just taught a seminar on art fraud to one of the only high school level museum studies programs in the country; in DC we are educating the next generations of art scholars, registrars and curators to be vigilant and mindful of works of art with dubious attribution. Like many other professionals committed to cultural heritage protection, my foray into this field started with a painting. After my post graduate studies in international art crime, I was asked to guest curate an exhibition at the National Crime & Punishment Museum. Entitled The Dark Arts: Thieves, Forgers and Tomb Raiders, I had several paintings on display that were executed by renowned forgers, including an Elmyr de Hory forgery executed in the style of Modigliani. As a result of that exhibition I was contacted by an individual who had inherited the estate of this

rather infamous Hungarian forger. If you havent heard this name before, he was one of the most prolific, truly global forgers of the 20th century, inspiring the 1972 Orson Wells Film F is for Fake. Over several decades he entered close to a thousand forgeries into the legitimate art market, many of which ultimately found a place in prominent private collections and were displayed in reputable fine art museums. I believe that many more are still hanging today, as authentic works. This particular work hung for over a decade in a Miami art museum. You can still see the museum label on the frame. The owner of this estate had inherited a treasure trove, well, at least to a forgery researcher. He possessed not only a collection of over 200 works of art, but also a sizeable personal archive of photographs, ephemera, correspondence and sales records from a man who had successfully conned the art world for almost 4 decades. It was an astonishing collection of primary source information that I was asked to sort through in an effort to inform both a historical biography and a documentary film about this forger whose life and work remained an enigma. I led the research effort and began a lengthy investigation in order to determine fact from fiction--spending

almost two years living and travelling in Europe tracking down artworks, interviewing personal contacts & witnesses, gaining access to rare archives, accessing Interpol arrest records and analyzing suspect artworks in an art forensics lab. The result was the creation an artistic, scientific, criminal and psychological profile of a great art forger. I went on to use this same methodology to study and profile almost a dozen of the most prolific forgers of the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries. I now use this knowledge to consult and support investigations for museums, private collectors as well as law enforcement agencies. Why should we care about fakes and forgeries in the art market, beyond our obvious fascination with stories that involve intrigue, misrepresentation and criminal intent? This subject is especially relevant today as it cuts to the heart of the rationale for the importance of art and the justification for museumsnamely the essence of the creative process and the existence of a public space where any citizen may experience the thrill, seduction, and authority of original works of art. More importantly, art forgery is a type of crime against cultural heritage. Preventing forgeries from entering the art market protects the art consumer, the legacy of individual artists and
4

preserves art historical scholarshipessentially protecting our collective cultural heritage. This was a central theme of the first International Conference on Counterfeit Art, held last year at Interpol headquarters and attended by international law enforcement agencies and many European artist foundations. Several of the speakers present today attended this conference and participated in the formation of a set of Conclusions; which included RECOMMENDATIONS that member countries: (1)RAISE public and political awareness of the increasing trend in counterfeit art, fakes, forgeries and intentional misattribution, and the impact on cultural heritage, the art market and historic and scientific knowledge, (2)ENFORCE, review and, if necessary, adapt existing national laws to be able to fight the above-mentioned crimes effectively; (3)CALL FOR counterfeit art to be explicitly included in regional and international laws criminalizing other types of counterfeiting, and finally, a call to (4)DEVELOPE mechanisms and procedures to fight counterfeit art more effectively, if necessary by creating working groups and inter-sectorial commissions.

Fakes and forgeries were once the dirty little secret of the art world, and no gallery, museum or auction house has ever been entirely free from the embarrassment of a costly error of misattribution or faulty provenance. In todays art world, the bungling of authentication makes big news and can no longer be silenced or swept under the rug. Duped museums and art experts, though by no means vindicated, may now find comfort in a growing interest in deciphering these costly mistakes. A recent flurry of articles, books, conferences and exhibits dedicated to fakes, forgeries, mistakes, and misattributions is evidence that the age-old art of forgery has never intrigued the public nor confounded the art market more than it does today. Even though profit and greed are often assumed to be the underlying motive for forgery, the psychology underpinning these grand deceptions is actually far more complex than a simple scheme for financial gain. The artistic and psychological profiles of the forgers featured in my upcoming exhibition, Intent to Deceive, combined with a detailed description of the techniques and tactics used to create massive fraud in the art world, serve as a cautionary tale for any serious collector,

investor, or institution accepting patron donations. The exhibit also serves as a wakeup call to those dedicated to preserving cultural heritage. The disquieting implication of the actions of these criminals, is that their misattributed works have the ability to effectively sabotage the hierarchy of art and culture. A forgery pretends to be something that it is not, affecting our concept of originality and distorting the art historical record. Ascribing authenticity to an object is to provide a verifiable link to its makera connection to the author, moment, location and circumstances of its creation. A forgery severs the thread that connects a specific work to a specific artist, distorting the relationship upon which its value is determined. It appropriates an original idea from another creative personality, assuming a false pedigree and, undiscovered, occupying a place in art history that it does not deserve. Marketplace complicity may well be the greatest obstacle in remedying the proliferation of art fakes and forgeries. The inability of the art market to self-police or lobby for enforceable civil and criminal laws creates the opportunity for robust criminal enterprise. In an industry that suffers from a lack of transparency, the
7

problem is one everyone recognizes but few have the incentive to fix in the face of indomitable self-interest. It is the rare dealer or auction house that has not

transacted, inadvertently or intentionally, in works of doubtful integrity. Recent developments in forensic science offer a promising weapon in the fight to slow the proliferation of these crimes against cultural heritage. The art market, law enforcement and cultural agencies have begun to take advantage of emerging advances in scientific-based techniques that can aid in accurate attribution and successful prosecution. Although connoisseurship has historically been the first line of defense against a convincing fake, given the oft-proven fallibility of the experts in the face of psychological, economic, and social pressures, an approach free from bias such as forensic science is a welcome tool in the kit of authentication. One of the greatest problems in this field is the complexity of what constitutes an authentic work when viewed against a vast array of faked, forged, copied, attributed, misattributed and replicated work. The types of copies are endless; whether made by an artist or by his students, whether made for educational purposes or deceptive purposes, whether authorized or unautho rized .and those
8

are only a few of the possible variations causing untold confusion in the art marketplace. And then we have the internet. The great online democratization of the art market has also become the great equalizers in terms of art fraudnow anyone can become a victim. In the vast, anonymous, transnational network of online art marketplaces, fraudsters play by a whole different set of rules, but for the same objectives and outcomes. Although these large, high profile cases, like that of Knoedler Gallery, expose multi-million dollar forgery scandals, it is my suspicion that the collective sales of fraudulent art through online auction sites generate annual losses that are even higher than some of the cases we have heard about today. I have worked on several Federal criminal investigations of art fraud, and the investigation methodology often conforms to the standard three-legged stool analogy. In order to prove fraud, one must first prove a work is not authentic. In order to do so, one must solicit information from the following areas: Connoisseurship is generally used to validate whether the artwork is stylistically
9

correct, Art Historical Research, can often confirm provenance, and more and more often, scientific research can determine whether or not a work is what it purports to be, based upon a materials analysis. Historically, we would contact artist foundations, experts and/or professional authenticators for an expert opinion regarding the authenticity of the workwhich is becoming more and more of a challenge. The fear of litigation is causing the rapid disbanding of artist foundations authentication boards, leaving no recognized entity with the professional expertise and legal standing to clarify the status of a picture. Independent experts are reticent to give opinions for fear of being pulled into costly and potentially reputation damaging law suits. Additionally, many of the art scholars who have the training and expertise to necessary to authenticate a work of art are employed by museums or other institutions whose conflict of interest rules restrict them from commenting on the authenticity of privately held works of art. This can be very challenging for an investigation. During the course of an investigation, it is not uncommon to submit work to scientific testing in an art forensics lab, and then bring results of all the initial research to a law enforcement official with jurisdiction over the fraud. If there is sufficient evidence to convince the agency that an investigation is warranted they
10

may elect to proceed with a criminal investigation. It is important to remember that we do not have anti-forgery legislation in this country, unlike many European nations. You cannot be tried or convicted for the crime of forgery in the US, so we often have to rely on wire fraud, mail fraud or customs violations to find a legal basis for prosecution. Prosecuting art fraud carries a heavy evidentiary weight that may be difficult to prove in court, first: 1) The persons committing the fraud must be aware that the item being sold is, in fact, a fake and must INTEND to commit fraud by passing it off as the original Subjective intention can be hard to establish, especially if the seller is not an art expert and protests his innocence 2) The prosecuting agency has to have jurisdiction over the fraud, which can be tough, as many sellers purportedly sell from one location and actually ship from another country altogether 3) It is difficult, if not impossible, to identify the true culprit as much fraud is perpetuated over time, in many locations, and usually involving several people. Often times, there is a substantial gap between when the work was purchased and when
11

the fraud was discovered. In order to have a successful prosecution, as Dave Hall will no doubt discuss in the next lecture, you need to PROVE that the work in question is inauthentic, AND that there was a deliberate intent to deceive. This can be a costly and time consuming process Ironically, even given these difficult evidentiary requirements, sometimes it is actually easier to prove fraud and have it result in an actionable consequence than it is to prove authenticityand have that proof accepted and recognized by the art world. I have been involved in a case where the same investigative methodology, utilizing our same three-legged stool of attribution, resulted in a conclusion that a suspect work of art should be inserted into the art historical record. I have been asked to consult on, and subsequently have become intellectually intrigued with, this example of a case where an artwork has taken almost 20 years to authenticatea work most credibly attributed to Jackson Pollock. To my knowledge, this is one of the most comprehensively analyzed works of art, utilizing new methodologies that could set a new standard for the process of authentication. It begins with an impressive provenance, an eyewitness account of its creationfew works of art have a firsthand witness to the moment of its creation.
12

According to Ruth Kligman, who testified to the fact in an affidavit, dated December 3, 1996, the work was made one afternoon in late July. One afternoon that summer in 1956, in an effort to get Jackson painting again, I decided to challenge him to create a painting. I had been amazed at how Jackson could create, as if by magic, paintings in the sand on the beach at night with his hands, and he would laugh when I could not do the same. So, I asked Jackson to show how he painted in his way, trying to engage Jackson in a bit of playful and carefree activity that would be second-nature to him, with the possibility of motivating him to engage again with his talent. He agreed. I retrieved one of my canvas boards, on which I had begun a painting at an earlier time (the strokes I had started are visible underneath Jacksons painting). He brought painting materials to the lawn. This all happened as a spur-of-the-moment activity. I stood near him and watched him paint: saw him pour the silver aluminum, and drop the black form on the board, and quickly gesture with the red enamel. It was an expression from Jackson to me, born of the emotions of the moment; done with joy and effortlessly, as had been his drawings in sand on the beach. When he was done, he gave the painting to me. Red, Black and Silver (24"x 20") was painted just a few weeks before Jackson Pollock's death in a car accident on August 11th, 1956. With the intention of getting him to return to painting and at the prodding of Ruth Kligman, a 26 year old art student and his lover at the time - he made the painting for her atop a still life she had begun on
13

one of her canvas boards. At the time the two were living together at his house in Springs, near East Hampton. Kligman held the finished work in her possession from the time of its making until her death in 2010. The painting has never been shown or exhibited publicly. There is considerable confirmatory evidence that such an event took place. In an effort to demonstrate the validity of her account, Kligman took and passed a liedetector test in 1996. In the professional opinion of the expert Polygraph Examiner administering the test, Kligman spoke truthfully when she answered Yes to the four questions she was asked regarding the circumstances of the paintings creation. These questions were: Did Jackson Pollock make this painting? Did you see Jackson Pollock paint this

painting? Did Jackson Pollock give you this painting? Did Jackson Pollock make this painting on a canvas board you gave him? Bette Waldo Benedict, a friend of Kligman, remembers being given the work for safekeeping just two days prior to Pollock's death, while Kligman was taking a short break from life with him at his home in the Springs. In an affidavit on November 15, 1996, she swore: When Ruth arrived [from East Hampton], she unpacked her things from a small suitcase and brought out this small painting that was painted by Jack for Ruth several weeks before. She asked if she could leave the Pollock painting with me along with

14

some other things, and I said yes. We discussed this painting and her relationship to Jackson for several hours. I could never forget it, as long as I live. Throughout her lifetime, Bette Waldo was unwavering in her reaffirmation of the account given in her affidavit. Bette unfortunately passed away last month. Pollock and Kligman met in the spring of 1956. The account of their intense 5 month relationship is public record. Living together in his home at Springs at the time of his death, on August 11th, 1956, Kligman was the only survivor of the car accident which killed both Jackson Pollock and Ruth's good friend, Edith Metzger. Kligman sustained critical injuries, which required a 3 months hospital stay and significant convalescing afterwards. A now famous photograph taken that afternoon shows Kligman sitting on Pollocks lap behind his house. This is the last photograph of Jackson Pollock. Soon after Pollocks death, his widow Lee Krasner began to think of commissioning and overseeing the research and publication of a catalogue raisonn. Steps to this end quickened in 1972 when the Jackson Pollock Authentication Committee was formed. Their work initially culminated in 1978 with the publication in four volumes of the first edition of Jackson Pollock: A Catalogue Raisonn of Paintings, Drawings and Other Works. In her writings, Kligman recalls being "intimidated" as a reason for not bringing the work forward for consideration and inclusion in the Catalogue Raisonne since she and Krasner, who was a powerful figure in the world of art, had an adversarial relationshipfor obvious reasons.
15

In 1986, after Lees death, Kligman, approached the Board via a third party. This attempt at authentication appears to not have gone very far or been very thorough. In 1992, Kligman made a second approach directly - the Board asked Kligman to answer a number of questions regarding the work as part of its study and due diligence process. By 1994 - Kligman had organized a more complete submission to the Board for its consideration -including affidavits from Kligman and Benedict, a lie detector test, technical studies of the painting and letters of endorsement of the authenticity of the painting by eminent qualified experts. Expert Opinions One factor that strengthens the case in favor of the work's attribution to Jackson Pollock is the number of respected experts who presented to the Board opinions endorsing the paintings authenticity. The experts who wrote in support of the work were Elizabeth Frank, Dore Ashton and Leo Castelli. To the best of our knowledge, none of the experts was compensated for writing his or her opinion or had any other stake or interest in the outcome of the Board's decision. (Later, in 1996, Professor Jeanne Siegle of the School of Visual Arts in New York, also wrote an opinion endorsing the picture). This is a very impressive and reputable group. Frank is a

Pulitzer-Prize winning biographer and the author of a book on Jackson Pollock. She concluded her December 3, 1994 letter to the Board with the statement, my eye tells me that in all probability the painting is by Pollock, and I believe in actual fact it is. Formerly Associate Art Critic for The New York Times, Dore Ashton is Professor of Art
16

at Cooper Hewitt and among the greatest experts on Post-War and Contemporary art. She is the author of more than one hundred books and articles, including reviews and studies of Pollock. In her December 8, 1994 fax to the Board, she wrote, I have known Ruth Kligman for many years, and knew of the existence of Jackson Pollocks Red, Black and Silver, in her possession since before Pollock s death. I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of this painting, which, it seems to me, is utterly characteristic of Pollock. Castelli was one of the most influential and highly

regarded art dealers in the world and helped pioneer the collecting of American art of the 1950s and 1960s. Moreover, Castelli personally knew Pollock and Krasner extremely well and saw Pollock regularly in East Hampton, where Castelli also owned a house, even in the weeks shortly before Pollocks death. Castelli also curat ed shows with Pollock paintings in them and bought at least one major work by Pollock for his own personal collection. He wrote to the Board on December 1, 1994: I have seen the painting of Jackson Pollock owned by Ruth Kligman. I have known Ruth Kligman for thirty-five years. To the best of my knowledge and belief, this painting entitled RED, BLACK, AND SILVER [the present work] is by Jackson Pollock. Castelli wrote a second letter, addressed to the Boards counsel and dated May 24, 1995, in which he stated: It is my professional opinion that the work of art entitled Red, Black and Silver is an authentic painting by Jackson Pollock. It appears that the painting was executed

with skills that Jackson had. His control of the paint is evident and one can actually
17

fell the rhythm in the painting. It is my opinion that is a small powerful Pollock. I hope that above statement will help to confirm the authenticity of the painting in question. Perhaps the strongest statement in support of the authenticity of the painting was made by the well-known conservator Sandra Amman, who studied the work in her studio side-by-side with Pollocks famous canvas Number 27, 1950 from the Whitney Museum of American Art. In a letter of May 6, 1996 reporting her findings Amman concluded: The paint application of this painting was compared with that in Number 27 1950, owned by the Whitney Museum of American Art. The manner in which the paint was applied as well as the interwoven nature of the colors were extremely similar. Specific colors of painter were clearly applied more than once, appearing both beneath and above other colors. The overall oval shape of the drip forms, indicating the arm gesture, were alike in both works. While no technical analysis was

performed, the color and consistency of the paints found in this painting appeared to be in keeping with others used in works by Jackson Pollock. In addition, paints used are consistent with the selection of painting materials found in the artists studio at the time of his death. 1995 - The Pollock-Krasner Authentication Board proposed that the painting be illustrated in color and included in the Unresolved Attributions portion of the Problems for Study section of Supplement One to the Pollock Catalog Raisonn. The
18

Board summarized its position on publication in The Supplement One as follows: Publishing the work as a problem for further scholarly invest igation while acknowledging the possibility that the work may well be authentic allows it to be seen in the context of Pollocks work. Those who think it authentic have their say in the textboth sides of the matter being clearly set forth."After publication in the Supplement, any reputable scholar, as is normal in the art world, who recognizes the work as authentic could publish the work as authentic and do so without objection from the Authentication Board. Kligman felt that the section and proposed wording placed a negative connotation on the work and as a result, she chose not to have it included in the published Supplement. In 1996, after the publication of the supplemental volume, the Pollock Authentication Board disbanded. To date, there is no recognized entity or specific authority with the professional expertise and the legal standing to respond to Kligmans efforts or to clarify the status of the picture. So where did that leave this painting? In an attempt to further prove the authorship of the painting, Kligman had the work subjected to rigorous scientific analysis during the course of the next decades long journey. She would continue to amass evidence that she hoped would lead to the full authentication of Red, Black and Silver.

19

Scientific analysis In 2005, after reading the article in the New York Times regarding the failure of the Matter Paintings by Fractal Analysis, Kligman sought out the Pollock fractal scientist, Richard Taylor, a Physicist from the University of Oregon, and an analysis was performed on Red, Black and Silver. The results concluded that the painting "meets all criteria" for a Pollock work. This is the highest correlation the test is able to give and only 8 of 97 purported Pollocks brought to him have passed this test. Although the science of fractal analysis in the authentication of Pollock s work is not unequivocally agreed upon, it is important to note that Fractal analysis has been referenced by former authentication board members in their calling into question the Matter paintings. Materials Analysis Technical examinations of the painting have been carried out on a number of occasions in support of the authentication of the work. Three separate studies concluded that the painting presented no evidence against the belief that it was made in the 1950s. Although the earliest paint analysis showed no anachronistic materials, one pigment was incorrectly identified, a mistake that would be corrected in a subsequent analysis. For the 1994 submission to the Board, Kligman included a materials analysis done by Joseph Battaglia, Chief Conservator of Julius Lowy Frame & Restoring Company, Inc. Based upon the Batagglia results, the Authentication Boards main
20

concern was that the white pigment on the picture, being white zinc, would dry slowly and would have been inconstant with Kligmans account suggesting that the work was made very rapidly in one afternoon. In 2010, still determined to authenticate this painting, Ruth Kligman passed away at the age of 80. At the time of her death, the decision was made by her Trustees to continue the almost 20 year journey to see this work recognized as the last painting by Jackson Pollock. The most in-depth materials analysis of the painting was performed by Jamie Martin of Orion Analytical in 2011. Martin is considered one of the foremost materials scientist in the art world and his expert analysis has been used previously in matters of Pollock authentication. In his report, Martin describes in great detail the method of application of the paint as well as its chemical composition. He determines that the previous assumptions of the Board were based upon faulty sciencein fact, his examination of the painting revealed that the pigment in question is not white zinc but instead was formulated with anhydrite and rutile titanium dioxide, a more rapidly drying pigment used by Jackson Pollock. His comprehensive study of the work corroborates with the testified circumstances of its creation. In the conclusion of his report Martin states: "If the claims of Ms. Kligman and her friend, Bette Waldo Benedict, are true, accurate, and complete, then Untitled[Red, Black and Silver] is an authentic work, which Jackson Pollock painted in 1956."
21

Looking for an innovative approach to proof of authorship, the trustees of the Kligman estate believed that the organic material seen imbedded in the paint had the potential to yield important answers. They contacted Nick Petraco, from John Jay College of Criminal Justice, a foremost hair and fiber scientific expert in the analysis of trace evidence and the former head of the NYPD crime lab to perform trace analysis on the painting. A trace analysis is based upon Lacards Principle of Exchange, which in this context states that an artists intimate contact with his or her work permits the primary, secondary and tertiary transfer of trace materials between the artist, the environment within which the work is created, and the work itself. Materials such as hairs, fibers, skin cells, fluid droplets, soil, dust, mineral fragments, glass fragments, seeds, plant materials, and other debris can be intentionally and/or inadvertently transferred and subsequently embedded into the work. This can occur in a variety of ways: from the artist to the painting, the painting to the artist, the environment to the artist, the environment to the painting, from the environment to the artist then to the painting, and so on. These tiny traces of particulate matter, hairs, fibers, and fluid droplets can be a valuable source of unbiased, scientific data and proof relating to who created the work, the time period the work was created, and where the work was created.

22

Red, Black and Silver was forensically examined and processed by Petraco for trace evidence. Items of trace evidence were removed from the painting and compared to materials obtained from the Pollock home and his personal effects. Let me run you through the details of this unique CSI-type forensic investigation:
Nick Petraco conducted a: 1. Physical examination of the painting for evidence of reasonable trace elements visible with naked eye a. Look at it as an object, like a crime scene investigation 2. Arrived at atlas of potential trace elements on the painting a. Used as a guideline to collect standards b. Met with Helen Harrison, Director of the Pollock/Krasner House and Studio to discuss the possibility of collecting samples. Helen recognized the value of this new research approach, and agreed to participate 3. Went to Pollock Krasner House to collect samples from house and property a. Important to note the location is a National Historic Landmark, federal designation that recognizes its significance as one of the nations most important cultural monuments b. Public space nowmuseum and study center, however Helen Harrison provided access to personal effects stored in the attic.one of the most important being shoes worn by Jackson Pollock.he was often photographed wearing loafers. This pair of shoes that belonged to Jackson Pollock, contained a considerable amount of trace evidence c. All the samples were collected according to protocols used when processing a crime scene, you can see the specialized suits and masks used during the process

d.

HEPA vacuum used to collect trace elements from the scene which were then meticulously labeled for analysis using microscopy.

Microscopy is one of the most important tools used to identify trace materials; which are particles not readily visible to the naked eye. Nick Petraco is the author of the Manual of Microscopy for Criminalists, Chemists and Conservators, which is considered an industry standard. This trace analysis allows for the consideration of not what the painting is made of, but what evidence is contained within it. This process was also aided by Pollocks use
23

of enamel paint. Similar to a mosquito being encased in amber, the paint fully encapsulated the organic material and preserved itallowing it to be removed and analyzed 58 years after the paintings creation.
Nick Petraco then conducted an analysis of trace materials found at the house, on the grounds and in the personal items stored in the attic, away from public space a. Found human hair, (Caucasian, short and light brown in color), animal hair (white), multiple colored wool fibers, plant seeds, minerals, b. He had success at getting standardsmaterial from a known source that can be used to positively identify and make positive associations c. next step was to Removed items from paintingunder the guidance of a professional paintings conservator d. obviously, this was a Sensitive process, so Nick made a replica of the work, with enamel paints, to order to practice the extraction process e. he Removed 8 samples from the work in a laboratory setting, all documented on video f. it was a very Minimally destructive process 2. then he conducted a Comparison of samples extracted from the painting to known standards and samples taken from the house a. hair was positively identified as Human hair, the same color and morphology as the hair found in Pollocks shoes and at the house b. Seed, was positively identified as American Beach Grass-indigenous to Atlantic coast, and growing profusely on grounds of Pollock Krasner house c. Colored threads were identified as course, dyed wool fibers--consistent with wool fibers found in the shoes and in the house d. mineral grains, were positively identified as almandine garnet, a component of sand, indigenous to the NE, and consistent with the sand of the area surrounding North Hampton, once again found both in the shoes and in the house 3. Surprise: Petraco made surprising discovery-originally he assumed that the animal hair was from a dog, as Pollock had two dogs. a. Using his background identifying illegally exported animal furs from endangered species for Customs cases, the white hair was identified as that of a Polar Bear-- a morphology of hair that is unique and unmistakable b. Where could this have come from? He called Pollock-Krasner house and asked the question, was there a polar bear rug? Helen Harrison confirmed there was in fact a polar bear rug in the attic. 4. Had to return to the scene, in this case the Pollock/Krasner Houseto take more samples.to confirm source of trace materials.
24

a. Went into the attic. Both the polar bear run and multicolored wool rug were there b. Became illegal to import them in the 1960s, because of the endangered species act. Here is an image, ca 1960, of the rug in the Pollock/Krasner house. c. While there Nick also collected more standards from the grounds Nick was then able to triangulate the three samples and make solid matches. He then created this atlas of positively identified trace materials that matched across all three sources, the painting, the shoes worn by Jackson Pollock, and the grounds of the Pollock/Krasner House.

Petraco is so confident that he would testify in a court of law that the work was painted at Springs. He has been an expert witness in over 1,000 cases and had never seen this unique combination of trace evidence in his decades long career d. Went from a Universe of possibilities, to a very limited subset of plausible scenarios e. Only two people there f. Is it possible Ruth created the painting? if she did, she would have been lying about its authorship, with a deliberate intent to deceive, and created the work herself, which the fact pattern does not support, i. In 1956, she was merely a 26 year old art student in New York, an amateur painter working in a figurative mode conventional in the 1950s ii. since her death in 2010, Studio still exists, completely intact iii. In it there are over 700 works, with not one example of a poured painting during her 50 year artistic career-it was not a technique she was ever known to employ

Another analysis still being explored.. The Trustees recently involved a statistical analyst, Dr. Nick Petraco, Jr. also a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, with a technical background in Quantum Chemistry. He is in the early stages of employing a Bayseian Network probability modelthis is a program that allows for the inclusion of repeatable experiences and outcomes, and includes the ability to add expert opinion in an effort to create a subjective estimation of probability of an event occurring. The model is

25

constructed in a logical, coherent and cohesive manner based upon the evidence that everyone is in agreement upon and asks. Is it more reasonable to believe that Jackson Pollack painted this work or is it more reasonable to believe he did not? This extensive search for answers, which I have just detailed, was inspired by the questions put forth almost 20 years ago by the Authentication Board, specifically Francis V. OConnor, as well as an ongoing pursuit of the truth. Thanks to new advances in scientific methodologies, questions have been answered leaving little doubt that Red, Black & Silver is in fact a work by Jackson Pollock.his last. It is an important piece of cultural heritage and, as such, should take its place in the art historical record. The story of this iconic American artists life cannot be concluded without this final piece. Thank you so much for your time and attention. If you have any questions, I can take some now.

26