'Pollock' divides the old and new

For nearly 60 years, a small painting with swirls and splotches of red, black and silver has stood as a symbol of enmity between Lee Krasner, Jackson Pollock's widow, and Ruth Kligman, his lover.

Until her death, in 2010, Kligman, herself an artist, insisted the painting was a love letter to her created by Pollock in the summer of 1956, just weeks before he died in a car crash. But the painting was rejected by an expert panel set up to authenticate and catalogue Pollock's works by a foundation established by Krasner.

This month, it seemed the dispute that outlived both women might finally be settled. Kligman's estate announced that forensic tests comparing samples from the shoes Pollock died in, his rugs and his backyard had linked the painting with Pollock and his home.

But instead of resolving one dispute, the findings only reignited another, one that pits traditional ways of determining whether a work is genuine against newer technologies.

On one side stands Francis O'Connor, a stately "old world-style" connoisseur with a beard and curled moustache, who believes erudition and a practiced eye are essential to judging authenticity. O'Connor, a co-editor of the definitive Pollock catalogue and a member of the now-disbanded Pollock-Krasner Foundation authentication committee, said did not look like a Pollock.

On the other side is Nicholas Petraco, a retired New York detective who investigated at the request of the Kligman estate. Approaching the canvas as if it were a crime scene, Petraco said he had no doubt the painting was made at the Pollock house and was linked to Pollock.

As technology advances, the art world has turned to microscopic analysis to verify or challenge the judgments of a tiny club of experts whose opinions have long been treated as law.