Traduccion automatica al idioma espanol por Google-Translations, inserte o copie y pegue URL o direccion de esta pagina en el cuadro de:
|Two paintings hung with honor at El Prado and praised with pride... then denied, repudiated and taken away..all by the same person, Manuela Mena! A shocking case of self reversal.|
|"La Lechera de Burdeos" Click on image for Original Spanish Article (In Spanish language)
Excerpt from "El Esceptico' (The skeptic, a Spanish newspaper) Nro. 10. "If this looks "strong" is just a tender caress compared with the following statement of Mrs.Grasa, a Goya expert and restorer of several of his works, and that are reproduced in "Aragon Digital" last 5 of April:
"This woman is a merchant, pure and hard. Horrific paintings that are for sale she says are from Goya; and those which really are she says "NO", and, "She is charging millions of pesetas for giving her "expert opinion" about the authorship of particular paintings being put for sale..."
Initial highly complimentary praise of "La Lechera de Burdeos" from notoriously controversial Prado "expert" Mrs. Manuela Mena: "The perfect unity between the pictorial technique and its emotional content...,the highest quality in which the technique, as well as the masterfully expressed depth evidentiate the presence of the hand of an exceptional master... " The pictorial freedom of Goya has reached its peak here!"
About "El Coloso" (The Colossus)" this is, partially, what was then said and proudly published the world over by the very same Prado "expert" about it : "The Colossus is one of the most dramatic, most poetic and mysterious images from Goya's whole mature period. Its pictorial beauty, its enigmatic strength..., lend this painting and extraordinary appeal. The canvas is admirable by the assuredness of its touch.., of a singular precision and energy."
Thirteen years later, the deprecation was total ! And, inexplicably all done by the very same person, Manuela Mena Marquez, who before had so publicly praised and elevated the superb artistic value of these very same masterpieces by GOYA."
Among the things she later said: "La Lechera de Burdeos' (The milkmaid of Bordeaux).) "Is a "plain work"..not painted by Goya! It doesn't even resemble any of Goya's paintings during the last ten years of his life!"
"The Colossus" didn't escape vilification either...as it was described: "a pastiche, of a very rare painting from the genial work of the Artist..!"
How can the same person go from one opinion in 1988 to a totally opposite and self contradictory one in 2001? And all of this without any scientific basis no specialized analyses of any kind done to support this absolute and self-contradictory "change of heart"... and no explanations made at all...!
Manuela Mena at the Prado Museum determines, by just looking at a simple, single photo, whether a painting attributed to Goya really is it or not!
(Published in Madrid Spanish ABC Journal, Sunday 5/5/02, pages 52 and 53).
A whole intertwined scaffolding of interests overshadows our first pinacoteque, one of the world's most important, where some official "wise" people, sometimes with a manifest incompetence, cast their opinions in an itinerant career, plagued with failures. (Vid: ABC, Journal ,Sunday 5/5/2002, pages 52 and 53).
Whereas an inserted opinion of a qualified Goya specialist, Mr.Niegel Glenndining, without any doubt one of the world's utmost experts in Goya, during an interview pronounced about "The Milkmaid of Bordeaux" La Lechera de Burdeos) did not agree with this denial of attribution. Furthermore,added with his characteristic British "flair":
It troubles me that they denied them without demonstrating why!" Later criticizing his fellow Londoner Juliet Wilson Bareau as well as the Goya curator in chief-civil-employee Mrs.Manuela Mena also a participant in the outrageous deed.
This "infallible technique" that we, quite modestly believe is totally un-scientific, is equally shared by the present Director of the Prado Museum Don Miguel Zugaza who did not have any further considerations in answering the questions that were put to him by the journalist Don Jesus Garcia Calero:
Such a statement, as if it was expected by both of them, found a fulfilled answer, right the next day, when in page number 51 of the same newspaper, their manifestations against Mr. Glenndining appeared, as a reply: The British Juliet Wilson Bareau defending her "famous eye technique" expressed herself in this manner, (verbatim): "When you see a painting the fundamental thing is the EYE, I have my EYE and my own way of seeing and Nigel has another one very different. Manuela Mena and I are convinced that the fundamental thing is the "EYE"?
But don't our readers believe that the so called "eye technique" is of the exclusive use of the Mrs. Mena and Wilson.
"But, Sir, don't we run the risk of condemning some innocent (legitimate) painting with this proceeding?
To which he plainly answered:
"In the Arts it is always difficult to prove affirmations, but we must try, like I am doing now being conscientious that the "eye" is formed in an epoch, with all the perspectives of that epoch. From that point on we must follow to form the coherent group of works painted by Goya."
"What IF some (real) works do not totally "marry" that "coherence"?
Answer: "Well, in such cases an appendix of doubtful works can be catalogued. There are better paintings and no so good ones, but what really disturbs me is to see bad paintings with the name of Goya".
Our readers ought to understand that with such "full" answers little or nothing can be done and very little does it matter the modern, sophisticated and advanced technology that exists today: electronic microscopy, chemical pigments analysis, rigorous detailed examinations and study of the media support of the painting, mass spectography, Raman effect, chromatography, radiography, O.C.R. examinations, etc, etc.
It looks like all the available technology is arrogantly considered nothing more than than ""a Chinese fairy tale" at least for The Prado Museum, which is much more interested in the un-scientific, fallible, flawed, aechaic and obsolete "eye technique". Regrettable, very.
But as the most universal of all medieval poems go: "Cosas veredes, mio Cid, que haran fablar a las piedras". (Quote from the Spanish "El Cid Campeador"): "Things you will see, my Cid, that would make the stones speak."
Once more, again, another piece of work by Goya has been ignored and not attributed to him by the simple observation of a plain photo, the sole and only data received by the Prado, because this "non-plus-ultra technician's eyes" have been decided it not to have the necessary pedigree!
Recently, and given that in this country (refers to Spain) certain chosen persons enjoy the prerogatives of the "Pontiff Maximus"(refering of course to Manuela Mena) and they neither agree nor intend at all to listen to scientific arguments and much less to accept certificates issued by widely recognized, highly qualified and respectful professionals, if they are not of "their" ($) convenience"!
As we denounce these facts we do not pretend anything else but the defense of our own legitimate interests, and we encourage from here our authorities to, once and since for all , act and end these "califas kingdoms" in which our prime pinacoteque (museum) is divided into, and that business be conducted with more sense and scientific rigor in order to prevent further and greater damage to thirds.
Recently, we read in the "Subastas Century XXI" magazine , with stupor, how Sr. Zugaza the very same one, the director of the Prado Museum, judges with banality the Museum's acquisitions with unfortunate phrases like these:
"Many times the art market is like a gamble. A gamble that, sometimes becomes speculation. It is the same as a Casino Roulette, sometimes you win, and many others, you loose everything"!.
The reality is that public opinion is sick and tired of the "inner dealings" and controversies around the Prado Museum and they demand "light and records" to put in order and once since for all with the unfortunate incompetence of some of their "civil servants" who have gone on for decades abusing their tool of the "eye technique" without ever given the least consideration to actually existing science and technology to determine the authorship of a painting.
It's been more than fifteen years at the Prado Museum since Manuela Mena who occupies the highest rank of "specialization" in Goya, said, among other things, these trivialities:
"I do not know if these paintings are from Goya or not , who can tell?"
(Published by the Spanish Newspaper "El Mundo" on October 22, 1993.)
Had not been for the time gone by, dilated for its prescription, this wouldn't' have gone further than a mere sad anecdote, but the saddest part of this case is that this very same person continues to be a part of the Museo del Prado and enjoys all the prerogatives of her high status. End of article.
P.S.To further illustrate the situation concerning these two paintings this link will direct you to another reporting article at E.Weems Goya site:
|"I have seen eight thousand (8,000) works attributed to Goya and only five (5) were authentic." Manuela Mena|
Are we to blindly take Mrs. Manuela Mena on the face value of her own words, and believe her... ? so let's see: If we analize her statement that of 8,000 works she said she has seen since 1984 when she started at El Prado, the mathematics break like this:
Since 1984, date she began working at El Prado, there are 6,600 working days up to present date (she made these declarations on 11/18/05 that is a year ago!), of which 660 are vacations (could be more...) Saturdays and Sundays total 1,144 days, thus working days left are 4,796 not taking into account official trips, conferences, sick absences, national holidays, Christmases, etc,etc. we divide 8,000 by 4,796 and we get: 1.6 non Goya painting PER DAY! , well, it could very well be over 2 each day!
Every single day of her active life work, or you can also bunch them up if you prefer....but how long does it take to deny (she denied 99.999%!) a work by Goya?
Why don't you ask her about these statistics? Ask El Prado: firstname.lastname@example.org
|Manuela Mena shortly before begining her conference. Photograph by: Jose Miguel Marco.
"I have seen eight thousand (8,000) works attributed to Goya and only five (5) were authentic." Manuela Mena.
Manuela Mena, chief curator of the Prado, gave yesterday a conference in the Camon Aznar Museum and defended the necessity to review the work of the Aragonian painter.
By: Mariano Garcia. Zaragoza.Article published on 11/18/2005 in the "Heraldo" newspaper, Aragon, Spain.
"Since I began at El Prado I have done many things in the pinacoteque. During all this time everything that entered the museum went through my hands, and it hasn't been a day in which one or two paintings attributed to Goya didn't come in.
I calculate that I have seen between 7,000 and 8,000 works of this type."
"Even yesterday (that is on Monday) a gentleman from Mexico showed me three paintings that had been offered to him for sale. None was a Goya.
"Of the almost 8,000 pieces that I have contemplated during that time, the only ones that can be considered as authentic Goyas can be counted with a hand's fingers: a drawing, a painting and three pieces that I have bought for El Prado".
That's the way Manuela Mena , the Prado Museum chief curator of the XVIII Century Painting area and of Goya began yesterday her conference in the Camon Aznar de Ibercaja, her second in the cycle "The Real Goya", and she gave clues to which, in her judgment, might be the criteria to establish the authorship of these works, nonetheless, she evaded references to some of the recent polemics generated around this author.
About the hypothesis defended by Don Juan Jose Junquera concerning the "Black Paintings" as not being of Goya, but rather from his son, Mena shows herself prudent.
"I do not say neither YES, nor NO." I only say that one must have respect for Junqueras's ideas, that are based in documents which have brought to light things that no one had until now imagined."
An about another recent polemic, like the one sprung around the authorship of "La Lechera de Burdeos" (The Milkmaid of Bordaux), Manuela Mena did not even speak.
"Insofar of what concerns The Prado works-she said-:
"You must understand that I cannot make any commentaries" We are now doing a work that is going to take a long time and which results will be seen."
Note: No actual oficial announcement of ANY "work" has been published and there is no evidence that anything whatsoever is being done at The Prado, to put his infamous crisis of credibility at rest. No explanations have been given at all. Period.
And those of the Zaragoza Museum, she asserted:
"Among them there are very good Goyas, some not so good and even others that no longer appear in any of the studies on the work of the painter." This is an artist that must be reviewed deeply, even when this might result in an enormous work. To me, particularly, there is a painting that I like very much and it is a "Virgen del Pilar", one of those youth works that very few give value to, but in which you can find everything"
She did show herself belligerent, and a lot more so about the possibility that Goya made micro signatures in his works, a hypothesis that several specialists are presently studying as some universities art departments are doing, too.
"To believe in that of the micro signatures is madness"-she stressed-. "An authentic madness. That happens with painters like Rembrandt or Goya. With that type of technique, with that usage of the pictorial matter, one can, if you insist, see anything in those painting. It may well be, given the case; to even read "El Quixote". It is absolutely false that Goya did micro signatures in his paintings."
Mena inclines towards another type of methods.
"In order to study Goya-she assured in her conference- one must begin to study the perfectly documented works, which do not offer any type of doubts. And, once you are in front of them, to study its pictorial technique, the range of colors, its composition, the use of l light, which might perhaps be the most distinctive element of the quality of an artist".
There are, according to her judgment,
"between 150 and 200 exclusive characteristics of Goya as a painter,, and when you face a painting that is wanted to be attributed to Goya, either you find them or not. And that's it. There isn't anything else. That's the way you establish the authorship of a painting."
As an example, she brought forth something relative to portraits: the way in which the hair and the forefront meet, the hair-line. "The great immensity of artists paint the forefront first"."
And, she concluded: "As a rule of thumb, something pasted, dirty and without light can never be a Goya. He was an artist of an impressive clean technique."
HERALDO.es (copyright Heraldo de Aragon, S.A. 2005)
|Forceful, overwhelming and flagrant contradiction between "eye technique" and science!|
|Electronic microscope view of 4 specimens of different areas of the examined painting.
The differences between a letter officially written by a Prado "expert" in an undeniable negation and direct conflict with the analyses and tests results of an internationally recognized and respected chemical and scientific expertise of one of the most respected and known specialized Spanish Chemical Laboratory in the art media, are astounding. See for yourself.
(Original of both documents will be timely exposed in appropriate forums.)
Here exposed to public scrutiny by the first time are shown two graphic extremes examples of what is being presently debated, sometimes "sotto voce" and intra-murals, (whether explicitly or implicitly) nevertheless, in this occasion, it is openly exposed for everyone to draw his own conclusions and opinions in this case.
Partial translation of the official letter dated March the 13th. 2003 from the Prado Museum follows. Sender and addressee identities have been kept confidential as well as the painting' name by express demand of its actual owners.
I am in receipt of your letter of last 16th. of March, as well as the photo.
"The painting which you are interested in is a typical devotion painting. It follows the established patterns of the old, but in this case it concerns a painting considerably modern , as indicates the cloth that can be seen on the margins, that in spite of being a photography, permits to see that is of MECHANICAL FABRICATION . The lack of preparation of the cloth, that is evident in the zones where painting is missing, is likewise of a MODERN WAY OF PAINTING , but, furthermore,it is, besides, the work of an artist of scarce technical quality. It may have been painted in the XX Century.?
In reality it is a work of devotion without any artistic worth whatsoever."
Aclaratory note: This painting has excruciatingly been examined, analyzed and authenticated as by the hand of Francisco Goya by Goya expert Professor Antonio Perales Martinez, besides, its preparation, material and canvas have been chemically analyzed and given a certificate consistent with the Goya attribution. Its pigments are similar to those found in Goya's palette at that particular time. It also has a second authentication certificate as made by Francisco de Goya from a totally independent cathedratic expert in Goya,who is in no way professionally or otherwise related to Prof. Antonio Perales or his work. Furthermore in an exceptional case of multiple redundancy , the painting in question also has a third certificate of authenticity as by the hand of Francisco de Goya y Lucientes obtained by the computerized "Roure method" of electronic detection of graphic imprints. (See page 6 "Prestigious validation".) Further substantiating its authenticity, there are three different references to this painting in Goya's private letters to his friend Martin Zapater.
Furthermore, the pigments of this unique painting have been scientifically found to have the exact same chemical composition and structure as those of the palette of Francisco de Goya that he used in two very distinct of his famous creations, the very well known: "Retrato de la Familia de Carlos IV" y "Pinturas Negras". As it appears so stated in Page #6, Section "Color layers" of the chemical certificate issued by "Larco Quimica y Artes, S.L. cif B-84090109, Madrid, Spain..
Now, here are excerpts of the nine (9) pages of the Scientific Analyses Report expedited over the exact same painting referred to in the above letter from the "expert" at El Prado.
1.-Introduction: "As part of the work several micro samples specimens were taken for chemical analysis purposes. This procedure is performed to aid to the conservation efforts, by attempting to detect materials present and determine the distribution thereof within the original layers as well as in any subsequent added or repainted layer.
Determining the materials used will likewise assist in dating the painting."
(An extensive battery of scientific tests were performed whose graphics and whole text would be impossible to reprint here for reasons of space, which conclusions follows):
CANVAS SUPPORT FOUNDATION.-
"From specimen No. 2 (graphic scheme shown) is deduced that the support consist of a very old, very light woven fine linen threads made of a "taffeta" fabric with a density of 21 threads X cm, approximately."
(Note of editor: Obviously NO "modern mechanical fabrication evidence..at all!)
"The priming is constituted by two layers of white color. The lower layer, of 40 to 50 u, contains Gypsum as its main component, together with traces of calcite and soil and the binding agent used is animal glue. The uppermost layer is very thin and it does not surpass the 10u, in thickness. It is a mixture of Gypsum, white lead and calcite and it is perfectly fused to under the laying priming. It is also agglutinated with animal glue."
Note of editor: Total negative results of any "modern" way of painting as chemistry has absolutely proven the components to be of old origin.
"The pigments detected are consistent with a chronology posterior to 1724, date of the invention of the "Prussian" blue color."
Note: An unequivocal contradiction of the Prado letter stating:
"It may have been painted in the XX Century."
(Official scientific analyses report signed by noted Academic Chemical Science Professor Enrique Parra Crego of "Larco Quimica y Arte", S.A. laboratories highly specialized in these examinations.)
It is painfully obvious that a totally opposite and contradictory opinion of science versus "eye technique" is at hand! One of them MUST be wrong, such diametrically opposed results can not be simultaneously accepted!
They can't be both correct....then...
Who is right? Three independent experts, a complete battery of the most modern,sophisticated electronic devices...or Mrs. Mena's eye technique...?
Note of editor: This case is by no means unique, other examples of total and absolute contradiction versus the scientific tests will eventually be exposed, too, as developments might require it.
|"Mrs.Wilson is leaving us without Goyas!" |
|"Mariano Goya"...no longer a Goya either?
Article appeared in the Spanish newspaper "El Heraldo de Aragon" in its section "the edge of actuality" written and published by: Juan Dominguez Lasierra.Article translated from Spanish language follows)
Title: "Mrs. Wilson is leaving us without Goyas! "
I don't really know whether Mrs. Wilson is such an authority as they say, but the truth is that if we leave her rampant we will be left with no Goyas! Because what harm have "La Lechera de Burdeos" and "El Coloso" done to her? Two paintings already inserted in our goyaesque retina, to now come and tell us that HE did not paint them? That they were painted by Rosarito and Javier, his children, if, after all, all is in the family?
It doesn't hurt to remind us that this lady, in her infamous depurating efforts, has already stripped away the authorship of the gracious "Marianito de Goya", and also that she almost leaves the Metropolitan "naked" from paintings of the Aragonese painter and that, some from here, some from there, out of the 550 oleos attributed to the "One from Fuendetodos", she has disavowed 150!
But the list goes on! And, mind you, this is not the worst thing, if, at the end she were the only one brandishing the purist campaign nothing would be the matter. To each one his (or her...) own criteria!
The worst is that in her fury she has dragged with her Mrs. Manuela Mena, who says: Amen! to whatever the Wilson says!
What would the great Old Masters have said about the Wilson, Harris, and Gassier? All of them so weighed? But, misfortunes never come alone. Because nobody can stand against this feminine front. In this country (Spain) we have art "specialists" so "accomplished..." that whatever Mrs. Wilsons says is The Gospel. So, nobody even thinks to bring her to our neck of the woods, our Aragonian corners, because she would leave us without a single Goya. It would be an impossibility for the "Goya Room"!
By the way, speaking about "impossibilities", it wouldn't hurt bring to collation the recent fact that our witty mayor of Fuendetodos, Joaquin Gimeno, has already claimed for himself, I mean for his people, the impossible "Espacio de Goya" given the lack of interest that Zaragoza shows.
It looks like what complicate matters for the creation of this "Goya's Space" is that the State is not willing to bring out its Goyas from a public place and place them into a private one.
What this is all about is to create another thing, not a traditional museum, but instead a great center for the dissemination and documentation of the goyaesque theme. And for this, we don't even need any Goyas, which anyway, in case Mrs. Wilson saw them would say that they are ALL fakes, with the exception, that is, of the one SHE sold us, HERSELF, that "Maria Luisa" which, in reality doesn't amount to much more than a little quite vulgar Court portrait!
A "goyiste" friend of mine calls me and tells me that this piece of news should reach sky high. And, really, it should. And to think how much we liked that emotive little face of the "lecherita" (little milkmaid) of Burdeos, those little breasts so...goayesques, that nobody but Goya could have painted! No, Mrs. Wilson WE WILL NEVER FORGIVE YOU!
End of article.
|Important revelations at the International Congress sponsored by the Contemporary Spanish Museum in Marbella, Spain|
|"Hannibal, the Conqueror" a Goya no more...either?
IMPORTANT NOTE: Article published in the Spanish magazine "El Eje" The Axle) in its section "Collaborations", pages 23 and 24, by journalist Jose Luis Pascual F. covering the International Congress of the Spanish Contemporary Engravings Museum. Tough it first appeared on April, 1996; it still nevertheless remains to be a testimonial document of public domain. Its actuality and present validity are to be determined by the readers.
(Article translated from the Spanish language.) Not verbatim.
Organized by the Spanish Contemporary Museum of Engravings and presided by D.Jose Luis Morales y Marin, the aforementioned Congress took place in Marbella between the 10th and 13th of April 1996. Its official documents and records having been printed and presented to the public in the main saloon and to the Superior Council of Scientific Investigations of Madrid, residing in Medicelli Street, Madrid for which we thank Dr. D. Wilfredo Rincon Garcia of the Department of Art History of the C.S.I.C.
Many and very prestigious personalities were participants, likewise, also as important have been the communications and works that have been brought to light and made known by all the different world's professors and specialists of the Art World.
"To me, personally as a member of the "Spanish Association of Friends of Goya", and a follower of this theme, what has pleased me the most is the fact that, finally, and after quite a few years, personalities with the proper and indubitable prestige and the corresponding academic formation have stepped forward to manifest that which we had suspected for a few years, and concretely speaking and to the point, it is the role that the "famous" Mrs. Juliet Wilson-Barreau is playing in the media and in the world of GOYA, more specially in the field of the religious paintings.
It could be interpreted and or qualified as that one of an authentic "impostor" that has, finally, been discovered and publicly denounced since, everything that was there said and revealed is now in "and white" for all to see and to everyone' information and general knowledge.
Now we are going to demonstrate and contribute, for a better understanding, with more information.
First of all, I would like to stress what Professor D. Jose Luis Morales y Marin said in his inaugural lecture about the "Critical Precisions of the Bibliography of GOYA", 1970-1976 which says in its second part:
"Since the first moment we were interested by the scientific aspect as well as the opportunity been offered to us by this ephemerid in order to consider latent aspects of the goyaesque problematic, which lately has been disturbed by gratuitous and arbitrary affirmations coming from "certain characters foreign" to the University and Centers of Investigation, but whose weigh in the commercial environment as "advisor" of multinational auction houses do encourage that fictitious personality for the public.
And, in page 16 of the official records, within his first point he refers to the book published by Prof. Pierre Gassier and "his then collaborator Juliet Wilson".
"It does strike me as curious that this book punctually cites in its successive catalogue-graphic references, the one shown afterwards, the four volumes of Jose Guidol. Quite to the contrary, the Spanish investigator is ignored in the publishing of Gassier-Wilson. This and other extremes will self justify by the widely known and "rocambolesque" version of Gudiol, so repeated, and whose veracity or falsity we prefer not to give our opinion of."
Personally, I can perhaps contribute to shed some light on the "negotiations issue" between Gudiol and Barreau-Wilson, on the basis of the testimony and commentaries that in certain occasion were made to me by my beloved late friend (R.I.P.) Enrique Tormo, which is the same version timely given to him by Mr.Gudiol himself, who was his great friend.
It happened that one day, out of the blue, the cited lady presented herself to buy a copy of his (Gudiol') "Study of GOYA", copy that she would publish in Switzerland in collaboration with Mr. Gassier, given that the manuscript Gassier himself had prepared had "disappeared or was lost in a fire" along the years.
The British lady imposed Mr. Gassier with the condition that she had to appear as co-author of the book and, Mr. Gassier accepted.
On the other hand Mr.Gudiol asked, in exchange, for a sum of money that looked like he never collected, or not totally, according to his covenant with the British lady. And this is stated in the same way Mr. Tormo manifested it to it me and as identical as Gudiol had told him before.
Given that the rocambolesque history of the Gassier-Wilson's publication is of public domain is that I have made the former commentaries and it explains to me two things that happened concerning this Goya's theme when this mentioned lady came to Spain in order to examine a painting of my property; "La Ascension del Senor" de Goya, painting number 538 of the Catalogue for the Paintings of GOYA by Dr.Jose Luis Morales y Marin of January the 29th. of 1992 as previously published by the professor and specialist in Goya, Don J.R.Buendia.
And essentially they are:
First.-The already cited English lady openly recognized not to know Goya's religious paintings and manifested that she would later come to Spain in order to study it.
Second.-The absolute and determined negative on the part of Christie's delegation staff in Madrid, D. Casilda Fernandez-Villaverde and D. Julieta Rafecas to provide me with a written memorandum of the meeting telling me: ?that? can not be put in writing?, stating to the detail that :"the English lady has recognized the fact that : "she has neither the authority nor enough knowledge of the religious paintings of Goya..."
These two points, previously commented, wouldn't have any greater relevance had not been for the fact that, since right then, at that time ,she was already being presented as the greatest and the best expert and specialist in Goya, as "the one who knew the most".
Nevertheless, and thanks God, I have a recognized and testimonial document of what had transpired there, dully signed by an internationally known personality that had accompanied me in that occasion.
Well, returning to the official records of the International Congress of Marbella, I do recommend all those that in one way or another are interested in the GOYA theme, to read them, since I do believe that what was said by D. Maria Teresa Rodriguez Torres , who is a great investigator about Goya's illness from 1792 to 1793, author of her book "Saturnism, Goya's illness" and since several years has been preparing the analysis of the pigments and agglutinants from the works of Goya, and who is also in communication with the International Congress about "Goya in war" and whose work, technique, scientific background and knowledge of cause has uncovered the latest maneuvers of the so often cited English lady, is of great relevance.
She (D. Maria Teresa Rodriguez) finished her intervention and work with a very important thought that I do wish to transcribe here, literally, for the enjoyment and rejoice of a few of us, Goya's admirers, and it goes like this:
"What powerful forces, foreign to common sense and to the History of Art have confabulated themselves anointing on her the "infallibility gift" so she can increment her "prestige" at the cost of that one of Goya"?
I believe little more can be said or added with the exception perhaps of noting that, lately, the behavior of this lady, in my opinion, could be interpreted or equally qualified by some people as one authentically delinquent, and here I insist that this is my personal opinion, since SHE has denied the recognition of works from Goya that were certainly known as such, like for instance, the etchings of Goya's "Hannibal, the Conqueror" when she had full knowledge that Goya had the preparatory designs by his own hand in what is called today "The Italian Handbook", both for the etching as well as the painting.
We hope and wish that in the following years we won' have to dedicate ourselves to appear before a Court of Law, demanding that her "academic titles" be produced since, according to some varied sources and inner circles, she apparently doesn't have any! This would explain the great, resounding and numerous gaffes as she has auto denominated herself as "autodidact".
End of published article of "Eje" Spanish magazine of April, 1996.
Signed: Jose Luis Pascal F.