Please ask the guest about the connection between Modigliani's TB and his giving up sculpture (his first love) for painting. As I understand it, his illness forced him to give sculpture up because of the stone dust produced in the sculpting process. (I realize I posted this too late). Leonard's stated preference for Cezanne over Modigliani made for an interesting tension in this interview. I don't think it is necessary to take sides, but I believe Cezanne was the more subtle and profound painter, as did Kenneth Clark. I found the guest informative, but a bit too much of an apologist for the artist.

In the end of your interview Ms Secrest conceded that, yes, she does feel that her book seeks to retrive Modigliani's reputation, history has been too harsh on him. In the next breath she agrees that it was too bad that his wife jumped from a window killing their unborn child less than an hour after his own suicide and that "well it isn't clear whether or not he knew he was spreading TB." This last answer to your brilliantly timed question was delivered with that telltale "Wellll...." that usually precedes something like "boys will be boys". Listening to rhetoric like this reaffirms my theory that, by enlarge, the definition of an intellectual is someone who is educated beyond their capacity,

It is stunning, given what we know about art-making through the ages and around the planet, that anyone, particularly a "scholar", can still talk about a handful of European artists taking image-making "toward abstraction". They learned abstraction from the African carvings – she stated as much – who learned it from cultures before and around them. It's just silly (and so shockingly biased).

Funny how Leonard predictably bristled at Mz Secrest's dismissal of Cezanne. You don't mess with Cezanne. It's sacrosanct. I'm waiting to see how he can bring Rothko into the conversation. He always does.

Can you discuss how Modigliani's art has transcended his poverty, his alcoholism, and his addiction to drugs?