May 6, 2007

A Thrift-Shop Jackson Pollock Masterpiece?

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

  • Play CBS Video Video Thrift Store Masterpiece?

    Teri Horton, a retired truck driver, talks with CNN's Anderson Cooper about a painting she bought years ago that she believes is the work of famed painter Jackson Pollock. Some experts disagree.

  • Video Cooper's Reporter's Notebook

    Only On The Web: CNN's Anderson Cooper discusses his report on Teri Horton, a former truck driver who says she bought a Jackson Pollock painting worth millions for $5 at a thrift store.

    • Is it or isn't it? This is the painting Teri Horton maintains is a real Jackson Pollock. Horton believes her painting is worth about $50 million. Photo

      Is it or isn't it? This is the painting Teri Horton maintains is a real Jackson Pollock. Horton believes her painting is worth about $50 million.  (CBS)

    • Teri Horton Photo

      Teri Horton  (CBS)

    Previous slide Next slide
(CBS)  Teri Horton is a 74-year-old retired truck driver with an eighth grade education. She likes to gamble a bit, and now she thinks she has hit the jackpot. Not in a casino, but in the high-stakes world of modern art.

Teri isn’t the kind of person who knows—or cares—much about art. But as CNN's Anderson Cooper reports, she has caused a stir in the upper reaches of the art world because of a painting she bought years ago, a painting she now believes is the work of the famous abstract expressionist Jackson Pollock.

If Teri's painting is by Pollock, it would likely be worth tens of millions of dollars. Not bad, considering she bought it as a gift for a friend and only paid $5 for it in a thrift shop in San Bernardino, Calif.



"I picked up the canvas and took it up to the lady in the thrift store," Teri remembers. "And I asked her what she wanted for it and she said, 'Oh, give me eight dollars. And I said, 'I love my friend, but I don't love her that much.' So she gave it to me for five. And that's why, how I bought, why I bought it."

Teri, who drove big rigs for 20 years, says she never liked the painting much, and only bought it as a joke. 60 Minutes met her in a New York warehouse where she now stores it.

"We were gonna get the darts and throw at it, but we never got around to it," Teri recalls, laughing. "We got to drinking too much beer and never went in the trailer and got the darts."

The painting was too big to fit through the door of her friend's trailer, so Teri put it in a yard sale, where an art teacher from a nearby college saw it. "He looked at it and he said 'I’m no expert,' he said, 'but this could be a Jackson Pollock.' And that’s when I said 'Who the f--- is Jackson Pollock?'" she remembers.

Asked what he told her, Teri says, "He just started laughing. And he went on to tell me who he was."

Jackson Pollock was, and is, one of the most important American artists of the 20th century. His work was stunningly original and extremely influential; the Museum of Modern Art in New York has devoted a whole room to his paintings.

Pollock made those paintings by dripping, splattering and pouring paint on a canvas. He barely eked by, until those so-called "drip" paintings started to sell in the early 1950s. His reputation continued to grow after he died in 1956 in a drunk-driving accident, and so did the prices for those paintings.

One Pollock work, called "Number 5," recently sold for a record $140 million.

Teri may not know much about art, but after studying Pollock's works, and talking to people, she became convinced her painting was the real thing.

Teri thinks her painting is probably worth around $50 million. "And there are collectors that would love to have it, if they could get the art world to back it," she says.

Getting the art world to back it has been the problem for Teri; very few in the high brow world of art take her seriously.

"They tried to be kind about the names they were calling me, but I still figured out that they thought I was absolutely squirrelly," she says.

Teri the trucker was used to long hauls, and began stirring up so much controversy that a documentary was made about her struggle to win approval for her painting. The film, which has just been released on DVD, was made by Harry Moses, a former producer at 60 Minutes. It is called "Who the #$%& is Jackson Pollock?"

To get an idea of the art world's opinion of Teri's painting, the filmmakers showed it to Thomas Hoving, the legendary former director of New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art.

"My instant impression, which I always write down, you know, the blink, the 100th of a second impression was neat-dash-compacted, which is not good. He wasn’t neat. He wasn’t compacted," Hoving said in the documentary. "It's pretty, it's superficial and frivolous. And I don't believe it’s a Jackson Pollock. It has no appeal. It's dead on arrival. Dead on arrival."

They also showed it to Ben Heller, a collector who bought his first Pollock painting 50 years ago. "I'm looking for the cracks in the, in the paint, and the way the paint is applied. That is, layering of one color on top of another. Makes me uncomfortable. This stuff, it just doesn't, this doesn’t look like a Pollock. Doesn't feel like a Pollock, doesn't sing like a Pollock, doesn't fail like a Pollock," Heller told the filmmakers.

Continued



Produced By Michael Rosenbaum
© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Recent Segments
Scroll Left Scroll Right
Add a Comment See all 100 Comments
by glasslady54 May 6, 2007 7:56 PM PDT
Hey there Teri! I am on your sign. I can't believe they say"don't understand fingerprints." Don't let them rip you off. They are hoping you will cave in and sell it to them for peanuts, afterall, folks like you and me aren't supposed to have such things like a Pollock painting. Hang in there young lady. Good buy!!! :}
Reply to this comment
by mcamiolo May 6, 2007 8:01 PM PDT
I love how on the same night 60 Minutes choses to accuse Lou Dobbs of not being fair and balanced; they make the same mistake. In particular, they accuse the art world of not accepting the "fingerprints as proof" of this being a Pollock Masterpiece. However, there is only 1 finger print; thus 60 minutes mispoke and became unfair and not balanced. They clearly want the work to be authenticated. At least we know where Lou Dobbs stands.
Reply to this comment
by May 6, 2007 8:08 PM PDT
If a Dupont, Rockefeller or folk of like ilk had bought this painting it would have been authenticated in a NY minute, and without a fingerprint. But a low brow truck driver, with such a find, heaven's forbid. The sad part of this story is that it may not be authenticated in Teri's lifetime, I hope she has a favorite grandson to leave it to, maybe s/he might benefit from this Pollock.
Reply to this comment
by nylimoman May 6, 2007 8:09 PM PDT
Teri,
I also have an original Pollock where there is a conspiracy against us regular people wherebouts they don't want to authenticate for us. They are afraid that if more Polllocks come out it will lower the value of those snobs. I have provenance & know mine is real.
Reply to this comment
by mudboneslim2 May 6, 2007 8:12 PM PDT
Hey Teri! Why not have them lay your painting on the floor of his studio and see if any of the patterns already on the floor match? Also, maybe the one you have was his first attempt at this style and is different due to his improvements with experience...
Reply to this comment
by artnairplane May 6, 2007 8:15 PM PDT
I have 2 masters degrees from UCLA and Yale in painting. It resembles a Pollock to me but I would really have to see more of it to be sure.
Pollock drew in Bio-Morphic forms. The same forms used by Dekooning, Gorky and Conrad Marcarelli.
If the paint is the same, the forms are the same and the colors are similar to others he used it has an excellent chance of being genuine. The fingerprints are icing on the cake
Tom Hoving was a Medieval Art expert not a Pollock expert and in fact left the Metropolitan Museum under a cloud of inappropriate acquisitions both real and fake.
Reply to this comment
by mudboneslim2 May 6, 2007 8:19 PM PDT
By the way, I'd take the two million just in case it's not a Pollock,pride goes before a fall...
Reply to this comment
by artnairplane May 6, 2007 8:20 PM PDT
I have 2 masters degrees from UCLA and Yale in painting. It resembles a Pollock to me but I would really have to see more of it to be sure.
Pollock drew in Bio-Morphic forms. The same forms used by Paul Klee, Dekooning, Gorky, Matta and Conrad Marcarelli among others. Bio-Morphism was huge in the 30's and 40's

If the paint is the same, the forms are the same and the colors are similar to others he used it has an excellent chance of being genuine. The fingerprints are icing on the cake.

Tom Hoving was a Medieval Art expert not a Pollock expert and in fact left the Metropolitan Museum under a cloud of inappropriate acquisitions both real and fake.
Reply to this comment
by barbaraf4 May 6, 2007 8:22 PM PDT
Teri, hang onto your painting. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck.
Reply to this comment
by artnairplane May 6, 2007 8:24 PM PDT
I have 2 masters degrees from UCLA and Yale in painting plus 35 yrs personal experience in contemporary art. It resembles a Pollock to me. Perhaps not a vertical and also a little unusual. I would really have to see more of it to be sure it is a Pollock.
Pollock drew in Bio-Morphic forms. The same forms used by Paul Klee, Dekooning, Gorky, Matta and Conrad Marcarelli among others. Bio-Morphism was huge in the 30's and 40's

If the paint is the same, the forms are the same and the colors are similar to others he used it has an excellent chance of being genuine. The fingerprints are icing on the cake.

Tom Hoving was a Medieval Art expert not a Pollock expert and in fact left the Metropolitan Museum under a cloud of inappropriate acquisitions both real and fake.
Reply to this comment
by artnairplane May 6, 2007 8:27 PM PDT
I have 2 masters degrees from UCLA and Yale in painting plus 35 yrs personal experience in contemporary art. It resembles a Pollock to me. Perhaps not a vertical and also a little unusual. I would really have to see more of it to be sure it is a Pollock.

Pollock drew in Bio-Morphic forms. The same forms used by Paul Klee, Dekooning, Gorky, Matta and Conrad Marcarelli among others. Bio-Morphism was huge in the 30's and 40's

If the paint is the same, the forms are the same and the colors are similar to others he used it has an excellent chance of being genuine. The fingerprints are icing on the cake.

Tom Hoving was a Medieval Art expert not a Pollock expert and in fact left the Metropolitan Museum under a cloud of inappropriate acquisitions both real and fake.
Reply to this comment
by jaymoney1718 May 6, 2007 8:29 PM PDT
Just wanted to note my only objection to the piece was the mere mention of Pollock and art in the same sentence. The man was a total hack and a self-desructive psychopath with absolutely no self control which ultimately led to the death of an innocent person. Crazy is not universaly synonymous with genius. Teri, god bless you, I hope you get every single cent you want for the collection of splatters on your canvas. Just wanted to bring to the surface the fact that Jackson Pollock is the Britney Spears of the art world.
Reply to this comment
by artnairplane May 6, 2007 8:32 PM PDT
I have 2 masters degrees from UCLA and Yale in painting plus 35 yrs personal experience in contemporary art. It resembles a Pollock to me. Perhaps not a vertical and also a little unusual. I would really have to see more of it to be sure it is a Pollock.

Pollock drew in Bio-Morphic forms. The same forms used by Paul Klee, Dekooning, Gorky, Matta and Conrad Marcarelli among others. Bio-Morphism was huge in the 30's and 40's

If the paint is the same, the forms are the same and the colors are similar to others he used it has an excellent chance of being genuine. The fingerprints are icing on the cake.

Tom Hoving was a Medieval Art expert not a Pollock expert and in fact left the Metropolitan Museum under a cloud of inappropriate acquisitions both real and fake.
Reply to this comment
by librablue-2009 May 6, 2007 8:39 PM PDT
I loved this story Anderson; the little %u201Clady%u201D truck driver against the elitist art world! As an art history major, I would have to agree that the painting looks a little compact to be an authentic Pollock, but then stranger things have happened in the world of art. I don%u2019t know if the canvas and pigments have been analyzed for comparison to Pollock%u2019s known works, but if they have not, and the art world refuses to do so, it may be because the museums do not want to pay the price of an authentic Pollock.



Reply to this comment
by jolsonbear May 6, 2007 9:02 PM PDT
This lady should schedule a public event---notify the entire artworld that on a certain day and time, in a public venue and on international television she will burn this painting to symbolize it's inauthenticity as declared by the artworld. Then let's see how many of these artsy-smartsy idiots come running to try and save it.
Reply to this comment
by aprilrain5 May 6, 2007 9:04 PM PDT
Why not take the painting to the place where Pollock did his so called artwork, (I just don't understand some peoples idea of what art is!)and see if you might be able to match up some of the strings of paint on the floor to where the paint ends on the canvas? It could happen!! Lynda McDonald
Reply to this comment
by ababij May 6, 2007 9:07 PM PDT
A previous post called Pollack the Britney Spears of art. Please don't insult Ms. Spears like that.
I am an art lover who finds it incomprehensible how the art "elite" don't make Pollack out for the hack he is.
Reply to this comment
by aprilrain5 May 6, 2007 9:17 PM PDT
Why not take the painting to the place where Pollock did his so called artwork, (I just don't understand some peoples idea of what art is!)and see if you might be able to match up some of the strings of paint on the floor to where the paint ends on the canvas? It could happen!! Lynda McDonald
Reply to this comment
by wildkat69 May 6, 2007 9:31 PM PDT
Her Pollock with the proof of the finger print is real.But since the art snobs know she did not pay millions for it, as they most likely did for theirs, they wont accept it. Its the same way on the Roadshow. Send pictures of your art to Sothebys, Christies, Swanns and they make you feel like it's worth nothing, they say your print is not worth the $4,000 level, or 7,000 that we start at, or that its not worth anything at all. If you checked their sale catalogs for print sales, many of the prints listed are below the price level they just told you that yours has to be in order to be in the sale. Others are in the book and up for auction for less, why? Is the print in their catalog from customers that buy from them or are they known to be rich that the auction house hopes they can do more business together? Then bring them the same item on the roadshow, they know their company is getting all that free publicity for consignments, then your piece is worth money. 60 minutes should put it to the test. Buy an original print at a antique store with a some what known artist name. Send the pictures to the auction houses and wait for their answers. Go to one of their roadshows with the same piece and see if you get the same story. I'm selling in the art world so I can't tell you my name. They are trying to steal it from Teri. The person who offered her the 2 mill for it, will have it re-tested and it will be proven real and that person will sell it for over a hundred mill.

been there
Reply to this comment
by NeilKalmanson May 6, 2007 10:02 PM PDT
I'm a retired art professor and a Pollock lover, and in my opinion it's not done by Pollock's hand. I would rather see it in person to be sure, but it's too "pretty," the space is too compact and superficial, it doesn't open up.
Reply to this comment
by jwebber37 May 6, 2007 10:14 PM PDT
I don't think it is authentic. The image online is too small for a good analysis, but even at that scale the rhythms seem wrong. Pollack was not that incompetent, even when drunk. This was done by a person who knew nothing about art. Don't know how to explain the fingerprint. I think both the fingerprint analysis and the painting are botched. She should have taken the $2M. A bird in hand is better than two in the bush. Suggest she put it on Ebay with a reserve of $5M and see how things sort.
Reply to this comment
by jwebber37 May 6, 2007 10:26 PM PDT
I don't think it is authentic. The image online is too small for a good analysis, but even at that scale the rhythms seem wrong. The colors also seem to be wrong. Biomorphic forms have nothing to do with it. If the design is obviously incompetent, the artist is incompetent. Pollack was not an incompetent artist. This was done by a person who knew nothing about art.

Don't know how to explain the fingerprint analysis except that it must have been botched. The reason the experts aren't interested in the fingerprint analysis is that they simply don't want to waste their time chasing down such things on an obviously wrong painting.

Teri should have taken the $2M. A bird in hand is better than two in the bush. Suggest she put it on Ebay with a reserve of $5M and see how things sort.
Reply to this comment
by tswheel May 6, 2007 11:04 PM PDT
I think its real, the size is right, looks like a real Pollock to me. the finger print is there that should seal the deal...........the art world should honor the print..........seeing the finger print would had been really hard to copy...pay the woman what she deserves for finding the painting..............this is what America is all about rags to riches.............
Reply to this comment
by olivia1010-2009 May 6, 2007 11:10 PM PDT
This is art?

I have a painting my 2 yr old did that looks quite similar.

Think I can get $50 million for it?

Good Luck Teri, hope you get the last laugh (and the money)
Reply to this comment
by stampandgo May 6, 2007 11:47 PM PDT
You Go Girl! Stick to your guns - that thing is genuine and worth a bunch. Have you considered loaning it for a time to an important museum - that would lend it authenticity.
Reply to this comment
by bookworm19 May 6, 2007 11:47 PM PDT
My husband thinks it's a fake, should take the $2 million and run; I think the fingerprint information makes it the real thing. I hope Teri takes it to an auction house, gets $50-100 million and then has a blast with the rest of her life.
Reply to this comment
by rjcooley1 May 6, 2007 11:51 PM PDT
In response to many...

Art can be art without being good art. It's subjective and debatable. That is the point of art, to make people think and to create conversation. Pollocks paintings are valued for many reasons, but the original being that it was a new idea. Would peoples children being making splatter painting without him doing it first?

I don't believe that this is a Pollock. The point of his paintings (one at least) was the loosening up of brush strokes and to fight formal, traditional compositions. This painting has a defined composition. From what I can tell the artist or whoever seemed to feel restricted when creating this, as though they had to keep the paint on the canvas. The other possibility is that it is an early work...

Beyond that the art world is not always snobby, but more skeptical. Even finger prints can be subjective and we only have the word of one person that it matches up. Even scientists disagree sometimes. This, of course, is all my opinion.
Reply to this comment
by whinee2 May 7, 2007 12:29 AM PDT
The art world wants Provenance...and even then it has to be authenticated at the mercy of these illiterate snobs that barely know what's real or not. Provenance often has huge gaps.They hate thrift store,garage sales and ebay findings..How misguided! HISTORY and Masterpieces could be LOST FOREVER!! They look no further than they have to. On behalf of collectors, museums etc,they're afraid of lawsuits for selling fakes and humiliation. If a painting is not listed in the Catalogue Raisonne where it's rather easy to check,then it must not be the real mccoy. Many paintings were not logged, missing at the time of publication or passed from one family member to another until the present owners don't even have a clue. The best resources admit there are missing artworks unaccounted for. Who's in charge? Credentials? Auhentications guaranteed?Comparing many paintings of any artist will leave questions on some works as to authentication. Masterpieces are becoming fewer. Save our history for our children and grandchildren.Curators,historians and research organizations need to do more and dig deeper.Why aren't there FREE AUTHENTICATIONS backing up research on art just as an anthropoligist or geologist would for mankind and prehistoric finds.Why does it cost so much? We need grants and fundings for free research!
Reply to this comment
by tunman-2009 May 7, 2007 12:43 AM PDT
The self absorbed snobs that pass as experts in the art world cannot and will not admit that she has a treasure in her hands. I hope you get the validation and sell it for 100 million dollars!!
Reply to this comment
by whinee2 May 7, 2007 12:43 AM PDT
ALWAYS ALWAYS QUESTION AUTHORITY! (They are human and make mistakes and errors the same as everyone else!) We need FREE RESEARCH AND AUTHENTICATIONS by the BEST PEOPLE we can find!
Reply to this comment
by johnfcook May 7, 2007 1:11 AM PDT
Go to eBay and see what I found the thrift store a few months ago! Priced at $6.5 million. Search ebay stores for item #150088010397. The title may change but right now the title is "HRH KING KALAKAUA Kaiulani ANTIQUE HAWAIIAN FURNITURE". I%u2019m getting a similar reaction here. Once "white trash" touches great art it becomes contaminated and it is no longer worth preserving. The elite here in Hawaii would rather see it destroyed.
Reply to this comment
by grammawhamma May 7, 2007 2:51 AM PDT
I thought the so called "art" was awful but I also think it is authentic. Stick to your guns lady and demand the right price. I felt Teri was a work of art herself....I would love to have her as a friend. She was delightful.
Reply to this comment
by cathaleen May 7, 2007 8:58 AM PDT
These art people are such snobs. They know this painting is a real Pollock, you could tell they weren't telling the truth. I admire her for not being taken for a fool. There are alot of dishonest people out there especially with the black market that goes on in the art world.
I wish her the best of luck.
Reply to this comment
by akpals May 7, 2007 9:03 AM PDT
Well, this painting is a prime example of what a fool can do with his money. This kind of painting took no talent, or imagination to create. Beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder in this case, but I don't think I would want to know the kind of person who could look at that all day. It's no wonder we associate "creativity" with serial killer these days! To Teri, I hope you get your millions! And may God bless all the rest of you truckers with this kind of wealth!
Reply to this comment
by asor1-2009 May 7, 2007 9:28 AM PDT
If she GAVE it to me I would NOT put it in my house. This is major league ugly and only goes to prove that money and taste are not necessarily served on the same plate.
Reply to this comment
by armor19e May 7, 2007 9:30 AM PDT
Ms. Horton, I am tired of people that think they know everything, coming up short. They have great insight to intelligence, they have great insight to leadership, they are experts on the artwork that does have the an autograph that states who did it.
Ma'am, if you do do not get your money for for the painting, a fair price as you asked for, fine. They will wait. They will figure that when you pass, your estate will gladly get what they can for it.
My suggestion is...leave it to no one. Burn it. Have it destroyed. Evidentily there are too many Jackson Pollacks and this is not important enough to warrant serious consideration. Then have ashes dropped on the cars of these art experts, the last great act of Jackson Pollack.
Reply to this comment
by rjs1955 May 7, 2007 9:32 AM PDT
The art world is as crassly $$$$$ oriented as any other business. The "art business" has a vested interest in figuring out a way to get this painting into the "business" for a song. If this old lady sells it to a collector for even $2,000,000 and it is declared a hoax, it will go for a vast sum of money within months as the "art experts" will miraculously discover that it IS a real Pollock. This whole scene reeks like hell. Notice how there is very little discussion of whether this piece bought for $5 is even very good at all?? But it would all of a sudden be goooooood if someone verifies it as a Pollock, which will in no way happen as long as it is owned by someone "outside the fold." Bueffel scheisse!!
Reply to this comment
by asor1-2009 May 7, 2007 9:33 AM PDT
This is almost as funny as the jesusCheeseBurger of a few years ago.
Reply to this comment
by justfacts2 May 7, 2007 9:38 AM PDT
The only reason the art world is discounting her is because they don't want to shell out the $50 million dollars. THAT is the bottom line. They're cheapskates!
Reply to this comment
by ubikvalis2 May 7, 2007 9:52 AM PDT

"This kind of painting took no talent, or imagination to create"

Jackson Pollock spent years perfecting his "drip" technique and is considered one of the greatest American painters of all time. I think an art historian would disagree with you.
Reply to this comment
by ddaymichael May 7, 2007 10:11 AM PDT
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!
Reply to this comment
by stezzer May 7, 2007 10:34 AM PDT
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.
Reply to this comment
by godseyesore-2009 May 7, 2007 10:55 AM PDT
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.
Reply to this comment
by l888883 May 7, 2007 11:01 AM PDT
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.
Reply to this comment
by feedback3-2009 May 7, 2007 11:26 AM PDT
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.
Reply to this comment
by wsmout May 7, 2007 11:40 AM PDT
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.
Reply to this comment
by tedjoseph May 7, 2007 12:01 PM PDT
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
Reply to this comment
by gordon.couger May 7, 2007 1:56 PM PDT
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
Reply to this comment
by mpariseau47 May 7, 2007 2:46 PM PDT
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.
Reply to this comment
by curator23 May 7, 2007 3:27 PM PDT
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.
Reply to this comment
See all 100 Comments
  • MOST POPULAR
  • Viewed
  • Commented
60 Minutes RSS Feed