“Lee would never have destroyed a thread of canvas if it were by Jackson,” Friedman mused. “But if she ever did this could be the one.”

“Questions Remain Concerning the Precise History of This Painting”

Throughout the remainder of 1994, Kligman and her attorney Robert Blum amassed a body of evidence to pre­sent to the board. In addition to compiling affidavits and testimony from Bette Waldo Benedict, Ronald Sosinski, and John Laubach, Kligman gathered letters of support from various Pollock authorities.

Leo Castelli—widely regarded as one of America’s most influential art dealers, who’d worked closely with Pollock—wrote, “To the best of my knowledge and belief, this painting entitled, red, black and silver, is by Jackson Pollock.” In another letter, he added, “It appears that the painting was executed with skills that Jackson had. His control of the paint is evident and one can actually feel the rhythm in the painting.” Dore Ashton, a respected art critic, historian, and writer, wrote a letter to the board proclaiming, “I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of this painting which, it seems to me, is utterly characteristic of Pollock.” Kligman and Blum had X-radiograph and infra-red-scan testing conducted on the painting to determine whether it might plausibly have been created in 1956. The official conclusion of Joseph Battaglia, the conservator who conducted the tests: “Nothing is inconsistent with this painting having been created in the 1950s.” Throughout the fall of 1994, Kligman’s team submitted this material to the authentication board.

On January 26, 1995, the board informed Kligman and Blum of its final decision: they offered to include Red, Black & Silver in the “Unresolved Attributions” part of the “Problems for Study” section of the supplement, which “contains works for which the Board does not believe it has sufficient evidence to attribute to the artist.” The board offered to include a color image of the work as well as a summary of Kligman’s account of its creation, and excerpts from the testimony contributed by Benedict, Castelli, and Ashton.

However, the following language would also accompany the entry: “Questions remain … concerning the precise history and actual facture of this painting which prevent the Board from resolving whether, and to what extent, this painting can be attributed to Pollock The work is stylistically and technically atypical There is also no compelling independent evidence to corroborate the owner’s otherwise plausible account of its creation.”

The final portion of the entry would advise readers that “the Board nevertheless acknowledges the possibility that this work may well be authentic, which has led to the decision [to present] it as a problem for further scholarly investigation.”

Kligman rejected their offer. Davey Frankel, the young executor of her estate, says, “The full recognition of the painting [as] the last thing he ever painted in his life—that meant more to her than compromising certain things.” Longtime Pollock-Krasner Foundation attorney Ronald Spencer says that the board members were surprised Kligman didn’t accept what they saw as a generous offer for inclusion in the supplement, “considering the painting had been rejected in the past.”

The supplement went to print that year without mention of Red, Black & Silver. The painting had officially entered the purgatory of unattributed artworks.

“Ruth’s feeling [was] that Eugene Thaw’s relationship with Lee Krasner was the end of it; he was a dear friend of Lee’s, and he thought that Ruth had harmed his friend a great deal and was a terrible person,” says Nathaniel Bickford, an attorney who would soon take over Kligman’s affairs.

Ronald Spencer dismisses this assessment as “absurd.” “By then, Lee was long dead, so there was no question of being overly respectful of Lee’s views,” he says. The board’s conclusion, he states, was entirely based on scholarly analysis. He argues that, if anything, the foundation was prejudiced in Kligman’s favor: “The only reason they paid attention to it again was because Ruth was the source. The painting standing alone without Ruth’s ownership would not have passed. Never. But never.”