Comments on: A Thrift-Shop Jackson Pollock Masterpiece?

Ex-Trucker Claims She Scored A Multimillion-Dollar Painting For $5

[jwebber37]

The painting is an obvious fake. Everything is wrong about it. It is repulsive. To say that it is "too controlled" is wrong, it is too uncontrolled. Pollack knew how to paint, this artist doesn't. And Pollack painted with a logic that is completely absent in this painting. The marks on the surface are random and not designed.

When a painting is so obviously fake, there is no need to consider fingerprint evidence. If someone brought me the scribbles of their three year old and said they had fingerprint evidence that it was done by Picasso, I would throw them out. Ms. Horton cannot hold the art world hostage to a fingerprint report when she refuses to allow CBS to submit the evidence to their own experts for a second opinion. This entire thing is a charade.

I am reminded of a much better painted fake Diebernkorn that was offered on Ebay around five years ago. I took one look at it and, even though it was in a garage just 2 miles from where I live, I did not think it was worth paying a visit to examine the real thing. I was therefore surprised when the bids reach $35,000. Then the FBI stepped in and eventually the seller was charged with fraud.

I think this thing has gone too far. Ms. Horton should offer the painting for sale as "unknown artist." Let whoever wants to buy it form their own opinion and call their own experts.

[a19752]

I can relate to all of the research that Teri has done only to be pushed to the side by the so called "art world." Teri keep in mind that it is your painting. You are not part of the "art world." I do believe that you have something that they want. I am going through a similar situation. When you know from all of your research that you could very well have the real thing, don't let anyone shake your belief. I wish you the best.

[artbounty]

Part 2 of my take on this story.
I forgot to mention the shameful exploitation of the story, it had every element of a sucessful tabloid splash. "Hapless Truck Driver vs. Rich Snobs" and better yet "ART SNOBS" the abstrascty kind of art we "little people" (the audience) don't understand and don't really like. Terry provided the true elite, with their cameras and editing booths a perfect vehicle for their formulaic message. Does she understand just how stupid they made her look, along with Thomas Hoving with his silly scanning and gestating infront of the painting. We're all supposed to laugh, what stupidity. It's not stupid, it's lowbrow journalism exploiting people like Terry and Hoving
who clearly love nothing more than having a camera to talk into, primate behavior. Shame on the "journalists" for not ultimatly finding out the truth (of course the truth is not in their interest, it might kill the story).
So we're left knowing nothing more at the end of the story than we knew at the begining. Just reinforced in the belief that art is money and
snobs will be snobs.
Oh and for Anderson Cooper, his Pollack hangs in the mudd room, the living room is where he hangs
the Picasso's. Thanks Mom.
Keep Cool Don't Panic.

Art Bounty Hunter

[savsmith]

Regardless if it is a Pollock or not (I am arguing that no it is not, far to "controlled" as another commented) it is a pity that all this lady sees is dollar signs and not a work of art. Are we really becoming that materialistic?

[artbounty]

I've followed this case for a while, give it up Terry, let a true forensic fingerprint expert take it on, why not. You did all the wrong things, ALR is an orginization that is inherentaly and political, they're agenda - do the bidding of the "Art market" any problems and it's out (DOA). You should have made your own path to finding out the truth, it may well be to late. For the love of Pete let a certified tech examine the fingerprint. What are you afraid of. The simple fact is that anybody who is willing to plunk down 100m for a painting is insecure, from any objective view that amount of money could be better spent, probably in 100m different ways! The art market is a system built mainly on artifical controls, marketing,hipe,the poor rich.
If indeed a savy collector could pick up an overlooked painting on EBay or at a garage sale (which can and does happen,all the time) one of the markets most important controls could be lost, that of exclusivity. Terry at this point you have a canvas with a bunch of paint splashed on it, and most importantly, a fingerprint. Get the finger print matched (with certainty). And ram that painting up their......If it's indeed real and you proved it, old Jackson would be proud, it's all about the truth honey, just like his art.

Art Bounty Hunt

[srrlock]

REGUARDING THE POLLOCK PAINTING:


MAYBE IT HAS NOT BEEN SAID OR DONE BUT THERE IS A SURE WAY TO KNOW WEATHER THE PAINTING IS REAL. IF AUTHENCATED, THE COST WOULD JUSTIFY THE MEANS..IF THE STUDIO WHERE ALL HIS PAINTING WERE DONE IS LEFT AS IS AS REPORTED, THEN THERE'S SURE TO BE SPLATTERS OF PAINT ON THE FLOOR OR OTHER PLACES......JUST TAKE THE TIME TO EXAMINE THE HUES .IT IS KNOW DOUBT COSTLY BUT A DROP IN THE BUCKET COMPARED TO THE PRICE THAT WILL BE PAID IF SOLD ..I WANT MY CUT....... FOR THE THOUGHT

[gadgetchick8]

I am not a qualified art "expert" but I have studied Pollock, which is probably more than most can claim.
-This looks too controlled to be real, to me. It's not usually evident when you look at print or web pictures of his paintings, but in person they have a life to them, and an energy that is almost boundless. The artist here was very conscious of the canvas edges, and Pollock was not. The colors are also distributed a little too evenly. The artist seemed focused on making sure all the colors ended up equally distributed on the canvas, which Pollock didn%u2019t do. That all being said, who knows. If this is a Pollock, it is almost certainly one he discarded as a failure. It absolutely lacks the dynamic characteristics of his other works. Once someone compares attributed works to this, I think the differences become pretty evident.
- I don't think "art elitists" are unjustly separating Ms. Horton from what she feels is her "well-deserved" $50 million out of snobbery. I think that anyone familiar with Pollock's work has well-founded doubts about whether this is the real thing.

[way2tookool]

$50 million will buy brand new livers for Teri and her friend!

[athenanona]

When I saw the article posted I did not think of jackson pollock but of a friend of mine who uses the same technique and creates similar works as the painting shown. I wonder if it had the MCM initials in the bottom. Pollock has been admired and many new artists have adapted his way of painting. If someone on the show gets to read my comment...you can visit: www.imcm.net
Marcela is a very talented artist, not only painting but she also writes. This reminded me of her, but then again she uses a similar technique that resembles Pollock.

[sabatoni]

This painting is just plain hideous. Even if it is a Pollock, its a bad Pollock. If Ms. Horton really is intersted in proving that it is a Pollock, she should allow independant researchers to examine it.

Sure, nobody likes the "effete snobs" in the art world, but I do think that there is such a thing as "connoisseurship" - the opinion of someone who has studied and is familiar with Pollock's work is not just "bull***"

Sure, that Hoving guy comes off as a pompous tool, but Ms. Horton, who seems to be playing up some very tenuous evidence to support the painting's authenticity(I'm sorry, but I don't think a partial match of a fingerprint that can not be conclusively identified as Pollock's) would stand up in court) comes off as a cynical grifter.

[curator23]

Hoving has no business even commmenting on Pollack.
For starters, his tenure at the Met was punctuated by repeated purchases of art that were unverified and unauthenticated. he even bought some fakes.
I have spent 33 years in art research.It is troubling to see this woman unwilling to submit the painting for further testing, but I suspect the reason may also be emotional and not purely out of evasion.
But it is also possible that Biro ( with no print identification expertise) could have had the means and motive to "plant" the fingerprints after receiving copies from the Pollack museum
I am reminded of the "Edlinger Mozart" that used biometrics to attempt to prove that the sitter was indeed Mozart.Th results were spetacular but the science is not taken seriously.
Still, a Mozart portrait is worth perhaps 20 million and we know there are a number of portraits of Mozart that were lost or unrecorded.
The same applies to Pollack.
The Edlinger Mozart is now on exhibition in major museums in Europe and is probably worth serious money, even though the attribution is shaky.
That, in a nutshell, is how the art world works.

[mpariseau47]

This is really a story about how the so-called legitmate art world operates and not so much about this particular painting. Hoving is really only an expert at being Hoving and certainly not in Pollack's work. His opinion is just that his opinion. Unless one has a vested interest in the work there is no incentive to uncover the 'truth' about this painting. Ms. Horton is rightly upset about being treated like a second class citizen by the efete snobs who make such pompous, unfounded pronouncements. But this is a little like an herbal remedy looking for validation. The is no incentive to validate it and once you have the incentive you are not objective. You can bet that if a wealthy Arab offered her $50 million and she took it. The next buyer would be willing to accept that sale a validation. Ms. Horton wants fair market value but she is discounting the fact that in the art world she is considered a "nobody" and therefore not entitled to fair market. It is the next owner and the one after that who will be entitled. And that does not make any sense at all but that unfortunately is the way it is. It is both a strength and a weakness of the market. One piece of cloth and wooden sticks with paint is worth $50 million the next one, almost identical in not. Ain't that a sad reality.

[gordon.couger]

Working as Pollock did he had time to try lots of things. Many he sent to the dump. because it doesn't look like other Pollock's is no grounds for over riding the forensic evidence. But the forensics need to be stronger for piece with no provenance.

I would retain the best respected experts in the field, The McCrone Group comes to mind. But there may be some one better at that kind of work. With today's tools using Back Scattered X-Rays they can compare the canvas, wood paint and dust with Pollock's that have iron clad provenance, no one who have any question of the provenance of there works at all will let you sample their painting. The art world at large may resist this approach as it has the ability bring forgeries accepted as real to light.

They would need to examine a number of Pollock's paintings to get a data base of the paint, canvas, tacks and wood he used. If he worked though WWII he had to compromise on many things. But a good data base of his work could date his work as well.

I don't know if the art world wants to open itself up to this kind of rigor. Replacing opinion with fact put people out of work.

In art I don't bad mouth your *** and you won't bad mouth mine.

Gordon

[tedjoseph]

Hey Dummies,

Take the painting, which was created by an artist who dripped messily all over the place, and check it against the paint-covered floor of Pollock's studio. If you can match the lines of paint from the canvas to the floor, you have proof it was painted by Pollock.

Of course, when this method works, I'll expect my cut.

Ted L
Oak Park, IL

[wsmout]

The "ART BUSINESS" The MUSEUMS are players to! If they want funding they will play the "GAME"
All the dealers and museums already knew about this painting and what to say.

[feedback3-2009]

I thought Teri Horton was an interesting character and I wish her the best, but I don't think this is a Pollock. It is not similar to any palette I've seen in his work (e.g. I'd like a reference to any other Pollock that has that orange in it). Second, despite the popular view Pollock did not just randomly splatter the canvas with paint as this one appears. His composition is beautiful and sophisticated. Then again Pollock was very prolific and threw away a lot of stuff - who knows.

The finger print "evidence" was not as compelling as it may appear. It is based on very few points and could have been made by anyone who picked up the can of paint.

[l888883]

As a certified latent print examiner with the International Association for Identification, I would personally love to compare these two fingerprints mentioned in last nights story. My short research shows that neither Mr. Biro or Mr. Turcotte were ever certified latent print examiners with our professional association. With just "six ridges" and "six points of identification" it would take an examiner with many years of education, experience and training to come to the conclusion that they reached. I am curious to the fact that the only fingerprint that was located at the Museum was the one that was "matched" to the questioned fingerprint. That's a one in ten chance. Also who is to say that the fingerprint in the Museum was Pollack's? Did someone witness him touching that can or is one only assuming? I also find it strange that the fingerprint in the Museum includes all the ridge detail that is also found in the questioned print. Please make these two prints available to the International Association for Identification so that we as Certified Latent Print Examiners can make our own independant conclusions.

[godseyesore-2009]

The painting doesn't quite look like the published pieces, but notwithstanding, fingereprint evidence is compelling. Why doesn't she allow a thorough examination? Vey suspicious, as she has much to gain if it is authenticated. If not, she's only out $5.
Of course, "usadvisor101"'s suggestion is likely best if she isn't willing to authenticate.

[stezzer]

Pollock was a genius, a true original. And so is Teri Horton.

I hope this painting is the real deal and she proves all the "experts" wrong.

[ddaymichael]

Jackson Pollack embodies the phrase, "Art is a conspiricy between artists and rich people to make poor people feel stupid."

The man chucked paint at a canvas! This is worth millions of dollars?

Gimme a break!