woman with red hair
Pfannstiel Lanthemann Ceroni J. Modigliani Parisot Patani Restellini Wayne
? Nº 57 NO YES YES NO ? ?
Date 1915 ?
Title Woman with red hair
Materials Oil on canvas
Size 41 x 31 cm
Signature: "Modigliani" bottom left
Actual Location Private Collection?
  • -?-
    Private Collection

Bibliography -?-

Lanthemann, Modigliani, catalogue raisonné: sa vie, son oeuvre, son art, G. Condal, Barcelona, 1970 - nº 57
Genova, Palazzo Duccale, Modigliani , 2017 - nº 53 , p. 88
The description of the painting could fit perfectly under Nº 91 in Pfannstiel, Modigliani et son oeuvre, etude critique et catalogue raisonne, bibliotheque des arts, Paris, 1956
with a provenance in Guillaume > Private Coll. Paris, dated in 1916 and therefore also recorded at Pfannstiel, "catalogue presume" Modigliani. L'Art et la Vie. Preface de Louis Latourrettes, Seheur, Paris, 1929 page 14.

in process

Exhibitions -?-

Barcelona, Modigliani, Centro Cultural de la Caixa de pensiones,Curated by Christian Parisot, 1983 - nº 16
Madrid, Modigliani, Sala de exposiciones la caja de pensiones, Curated by Christian Parisot, 1983 - nº 16
Genova, Palazzo Duccale, Modigliani , 2017 - nº 53

in process

The painting was seized by the police after a report by C. Pepi an Italian connoisseur and finally this is the conclusions of the investigation:

Conclusion of the Prof. Isabella Quattrocchi (- JUST A COPY- TRANSLATE - PASTE of her report)

Oil painting on old recycled canvas, signed by Modigliani in the lower left hand corner with an underlined black brush,
similar to the portrait published in n. 93 - pg. 92 of the Ceroni catalog, coming from an indefinite private collection, depicts the portrait of a female character.
The face in the shape of an egg with the hair that is surmounts like an ogival leaning backwards from the neck, with a hint of fringe that acts as a connection between the two distinct elements.
On the left there is an unlikely, excessively volumetric, round ear with an element circular like an earring.
The definition of the eyebrows, the eyes, the nose and the mouth contribute with the stiff and long neck to give the portrait a sculptural effect rather than pictorial, drawing the elements of the image with a
black-blue pigment. The complexion is chromatically orange. The same pigments mixed with black and a blue surface of the bottom and the portion of clothing. The brush strokes are given with a
flat brush, to body.
On the reverse side stamped on the frame of the rudimentary frame, the poorly pulled canvas has been severely cut and reassembled on the frame with old rusty nails letting glimpses of the holes with a halo of rust
previous nails.

The work is false.
Images next to the report :
back of the painting

I am not the person to say if this work is original or fake, but this report is absolutely naive, simple and with a total lack of professional knowledge.
This stamp correspond to the exhibition of 1983 in Madrid and Barcelona where the work was on display so I don't see the point of destroy anything based on this.
it does not give any proof of forgery, maybe of a lack of care and a non informed opinion of the provenance but only that.

With this I do not say the work is genuine or fake, I personally don't like not even a single brush, but it does not mean that my taste make the difference.

This report should be made on the basis of X ray, pigments and then we could have a real opinion.
Seems that Ms. Quattrocchi want to say it's fake on her personal opinion, not in incontestable facts...

All the experts claiming to destroy this or other works should be aware that under the same rules many of the works they
present at many exhibits should also be in the same position in a future.

This is a total nonsense

I would only add this 3 points:

1.- A legal report should be consistent and bullet proof, this is mere opinions, maybe the work is false or not, I am not the person to decide it but definitively this report is not consistent or bullet proof.

2.- Art even if false is not forged NIKE sport shoes, so to destroy it is an absurd mistake that place art even if original at the same level of value as a nike sport shoes.

3.- The damage to the art experts claim to solve by destroying works is in terms of market not of Knowledge, stamp it in the back as false and do not destroy nothing, just in case we are wrong.

  This page is a work on progress, nothing in this page should be considered as final or definitive.