Eugenio Chicano, the director of the Picasso Foundation in Malaga, Spain, said he believed the 1934 drawing could be by Picasso and he related numerous stylistic and other reasons for this opinion. In a series of extremely encouraging letters, he described the drawing as 'amazing and mysterious, possibly a masterpiece!' He even tried to locate a fingerprint comparison, but when he learned that Claude Picasso had been antagonistic toward the discovery, he discontinued correspondence and reversed his opinion.
Francis Morris, an assistant curator of the Modern Collection at the Tate Gallery, said in a telephone conversation in April 1992, that "...nobody but Picasso could have done the drawing," she refused to put the Tate's opinion in writing and in regard to the drawing's authentication, she indicated that there were "sharks" in the artworld who would prevent it.
Christopher Green, a well-known Piacsso scholar and professor at the Courtauld Institute in London, conceded that the drawing may be authentic and remarked that " the fingerprint would be the only way of knowing."
Victor Pasmore, the well known British artist, who has had a lifetime interest in Picasso, wrote in 1993, "the 'Crucifixion' could be one of the series which Picasso made on this theme, based on the famous painting by Grünewald, because its image is extremely sensitive and original".
Eberhard Fisch, a German Picasso scholar and author of, "Guernica by Picasso a Study of the Picture and its Context", said, "...the drawing is fascinating and there can be no doubt that it was executed by Picasso in 1934, " he listed a wide range of reasons for this conclusion and has since written an interpretation of the drawing placing it squarely in the context of Picasso's other work. He also said that it was "an excellent work of art and its discovery was of world wide interest."
Melvin Becraft, author of 'Picasso's Guernica Images within Images', has stated that the drawing is a "...major discovery which will one day be recognised the world over". He has made an extensive study of the drawing, which he compares to Guernica in terms of its importance.
David Douglas Duncan, photographer and former friend of Picasso, telephoned from his home in France in 1993 to say that the drawing was "typically Picasso," and that he "couldn't understand why Picasso ever let it out of his sight." He offered to help locate a fingerprint comparison but after corresponding with Angela Rosengart, a Swiss art dealer connected with Pierre Daix, he went back on his opinion and stated that I, "was in very deep water and had the whole art establishment ranged against me."
When shown to Sotheby's in London, the drawing was immediately rejected, for no apparent reason. After further discussion, photographs of both the drawing and the fingerprint were sent to Sotheby's 'expert' in Paris, whose identity they refused to divulge. It turned out that Sotheby's anonymous 'expert' was none other than Picasso's daughter, Maya. Who according to knowledgeable sources at the Tate Gallery, "is not even an expert in her father's work."
Maya responded by asking Sotheby's to send her the original for research. Sotheby's dispatched the drawing to Paris without consulting the owners for permission. It then took four months for a three word response from Maya. It simply stated, "...Not by Picasso" . No explanation was ever given and nothing was put in writing.
As far as we can tell Maya did not compare the fingerprint in the drawing with fingerprints known to belong to her father. She later refused to correspond on the matter of authentication, despite being presented with a wide range of evidence indicating the drawing's authenticity.
SPADEM, who until recently represented the copyright interests of the Picasso Estate, said in 1993, that, "Picasso's were not being authenticated at the present time because the committee which presided over such matters is closed." They had no idea whether it would reopen and would not say why it had closed.
Claude Picasso, the administrator of the Estate has repeatedly stated that the "drawing is not by his father." Evoking copyright control in 1993, he prohibited the continued publication of an illustrated report revealing the 1934 drawing's high-level of correspondence with other works by Picasso. He twice threatened the gravest consequences should the drawing ever be put on sale and personally refused access to the collection of the Musée Picasso to search for a fingerprint comparison.
John Richardson, the renowned Picasso biographer, and former director of Christie's in New York, has claimed over and over that the drawing, " has nothing whatsoever to do with Picasso". When asked why for three years he had refused to correspond about the discovery, he said he had "been instructed by Claude Picasso not to put anything in writing or pronounce on the matter." He also revealed, inadvertantly, that the Picasso committee had been closed down under instructions from Claude Picasso.
The Picasso Museum in Paris has played cat and mouse over the issue of the fingerprint since 1992. They have denied access to look for a fingerprint comparison. The chief curator, justified her refusal to help by saying there were not enough staff at the museum to open the cabinets. On being approached again to search for fingerprints, they insisted it would only be possible with Claude Picasso's permission.
Multi-millionaire art collector, Dr Peter Ludwig put his entire Picasso collection at my disposal in April 1994, to search for fingerprints. He advised me to make the necessary arrangements with Dr Evelyn Weiss, the vice-director of the Ludwig Museum in Cologne. She refused to allow the inspection on the grounds that it would pose technical problems. When I approached Dr Ludwig about her refusal to comply with his wishes, he stated that it was out of his hands. I later discovered that Dr Weiss has very close connections with the Barcelona Picasso Museum, who, like the Paris Picasso Museum, are under the covert control of Claude Picasso and the Picasso Administration.
Robert Rosenblum, a Picasso scholar and professor at New York University, a close friend of John Golding and John Richardson, commented that the drawing, '... "looks slack and second hand' and he would probably side with John Richardson's view that even were the fingerprint to be Picasso's, the drawing would not be" He suggested it might be by the Spanish artist Bores or Picasso's mistress Françoise Gilot, working under the shadow of the master.' Strangely enough, Dr Rosenblum seemed to have forgotten that in 1973, he wrote about Bertillon's system of artistic fingerprinting to prevent fraud, in an article entitled, 'Picasso and the Typography of Cubism.'
A number of leading historians and institutions have refused to comment, they include: Pierre Daix, Werner Spies, Lydia Gasman, Ellen Oppler, Josephina Alex, the Museu Picasso in Barcelona, the Centro del Arte Reina Sofia in Madrid (site of Guernica).