Customer Reviews

Who the #$&% is Jackson Pollock?

5 star:		(15)
4 star:		(12)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This film just tickled me; delightfully done with a light touch, it pits a down-to-earth dumpster-diving trucker named Teri Horton against a pretentious boatload of art world snobs, and she proves (in the words of a famous author) that they don't know their scrotums from Kentucky-fried-chicken. The film stands up well as a documentary, covering a lot of ground to interview witnesses who knew Pollock, as well as forensic, art, and legal experts. Bottom line is that the fingerprint and other physical evidence pointing to the authenticity of the painting is just overwhelming; if this were a murder case, there would be more than ample evidence to send someone to the electric chair. The only thing standing between Ms. Horton and $50,000,000 (the estimated value of the painting if it were deemed authentic) is a bunch of arrogant blowholes who can't utter a single coherent or persuasive sentence in support of their position that the painting is a fake. If I ever had any doubts about the credibility of the art world, this certainly settled the issue once and for all. As for Teri, a phenomenally feisty, if complicated and self-destructive woman, she makes one of the most interesting lead characters I've encountered in fact or fiction.

I am an artist of thirty years and consider myself well-read and aware in regards to artworld issues and painting, my main form of expression. Having grown up with people who became the world's most profound art critics once they got a little alcohol in them and who regularly counseled me that what I was learning in art school was all wrong, I found this DVD quite fun. It was fair to both the experts and the philistines.

I am sure that the experts will seem quite funny to a lot of folks. Yes, it looks weird the way elderly men twist and dance in front of Teri's painting to visually test it for it's possible Pollockness. But, those feelings are ironic in the context of this story. While experts are questioned as to how they know what they know, other experts are touted as being experts, and therefore right. I suppose it is a matter of expert against expert.

This DVD has something for everyone. Beyond its entertainment value, it offers a great lesson in how artworks are authenticated. It also offers an insight into the world of people who decide what we will see in museums, a world that almost none of us has anything to do with. Finally, it's a real kick for those persons who would love to tell off artworld experts once they get a little lit. You get to watch Teri Horton do this with great verve.

Personally, I'm on the side of the artworld experts. But, you can decide for yourself. Whether you laugh more at the experts or Teri, you will get some good chuckles out of this DVD. Watch it! :-)

I'm tough to please and this film held my interest all the way through, though I'll bet it's easier to enjoy on DVD (as we did) than in a theater because we found ourselves commenting, sometimes quite emotionally, about what was happening.

Without giving away the conclusion, I'll tell you only this: Teri Horton has some pretty convincing evidence--the kind a Gil Grissom would value. Forensics are changing the art world. Digital vs. Analog. Objective vs. Subjective. Evidence vs. opinion. Of course art experts are bound to disagree, to resist such changes. In the face of mounting evidence those experts find it difficult to change their minds. Their reputations depend upon them being right--the first time.

Would I sell for $2 million or even $9 million? I think maybe I'd have to agree with Teri--so far. If I could fault Ms. Horton in any way, she ought to take her problem as to how much she would actually accept for it, and turn it into a straight business decision--leave the emotion out. Set a minimum reserve, stick to it and auction it off. Make the decision as objective as her evidence.

But that brings me to an important point. I don't give a damn what the EXPERTS say about art. I only care if _I_ like it. And I like Teri's painting well enough to value it around the price she paid for it. It takes a valuer to provide a value. I'll bet if Teri really thought about it she'd agree.

On the surface of it, 'Who The #$&% Is Jackson Pollock?' is the struggle of 73-year-old Teri Horton, a retired long-haul truck driver, to authenticate her five dollar flea market find as a genuine Jackson Pollock painting. As the film progresses though, the emphasis subtly shifts from recording Teri's authentication efforts to highlighting how the established art world dismissed her claim based solely on her outsider status. From their perspective, she's a kook, one who's wasting their time with a pipe dream of having found a fifty million dollar painting in a thrift store. To her, their refusal even to return her phone calls when she began her quest was tantamount to a declaration of war. So she enlists the help of Peter Paul Biro, a forensic specialist, and Tod Volpe, a former art dealer to Hollywood film stars - who had also served two years in prison for defrauding those same celebrities.

As I watched this film, and as the filmmakers documented the evidence to support Horton's claim, I began to feel amazed at the colossal dunderheads who were refusing to consider seriously the authenticity of Horton's painting. The smug egoism of Thomas Hoving, former director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, was especially infuriating, and the sheep-like mentality of the rest of the establishment, who marched in lock-step with Hoving's - and others - verdict that her painting was not genuine, imparted at least some of the frustration that Teri must have felt during her years-long battle. However, after reflection, and some slight internet research, I have fewer convictions now than I had at the film's conclusion.

A Google search of Thomas Hoving Teri Horton will produce an article from Artnews, written by Hoving, that presents alternatives to the proof offered in the film - but to my mind, the authenticity of Ms. Horton's painting is secondary to determining the objective of the filmmakers. The fact that Tod Volpe is credited as Art Consultant for the film, and Peter Paul Biro as Science Consultant (both of whom were enlisted for their experience and knowledge to ultimately assist in the sale of the painting), raised red flags for me. These potential conflicts of interest don't signify anything by themselves, but after reading the Artnews article, I started to re-examine my initial feelings about the film and took a closer look at the way it was constructed, and then I began to wonder, despite the patina of neutrality, if the slant toward Ms. Horton was orchestrated.

If Thomas Hoving's antics and outlandish statements regarding his expertise were removed from the film, the other representatives from the art world would sound reasonable and measured - a point that couldn't have escaped the filmmakers' attention. Without him, Ms. Horton's story would still be interesting, but there would be no face to represent the gated community of the art world - no bad guy - and much of the sympathy for Teri Horton's quest would be sucked right out of the film. At the same time, Hoving's reputation and résumé made him a legitimate source, regardless of his behavior, and so the choice to include his comments is certainly justifiable. But with his presence, the argument is principles, not necessarily authenticity, with Ms. Horton winning easily. Although all the facts of the case would remain the same, we would essentially see two different films based on whether he appears in the film or not. As it stands, as a disinterested viewer, I want Teri's painting validated simply because Thomas Hoving comes across as a big jerk.

The question then is no longer about the authenticity of the painting, or even about the class prejudice Teri Horton ran into during her efforts. It is a matter of whether the filmmakers deliberately constructed the film as an appeal to spite to bolster other evidence. If so, then it's more agitprop than documentary. If not, and I assume no one twisted Thomas Hoving's arm to make him act as he does, then the filmmakers simply found an excellent example to reflect the conditions that exist between the Teri Hortons of the world and the restricted environment of art connoisseurship.

Although I understand that this is only a review of the film, I do think it is appropriate to bring up these questions about the film's objectivity, especially since its emotional appeal is so effective. While it would be impossible to say definitively that the filmmakers had ulterior motives, I obviously have some muted suspicions, which in turn influences how I perceive the other issues. Still, the film was informative, and I would recommend it with severe qualifications, but lingering questions about the filmmaker's intent prevents me from giving it a full four stars. Three and a half, rounded down.

Thinking this was a documentary about Jackson Pollock, I borrowed it from a local library. It turns out to be more of a real-life mystery than a study of Pollock, the man or his work. But along the way, one learns quite a bit about this strange and intriguing figure and his abstract painting (if that is the proper label). The plot-line is simple: an uneducated and plucky female truck driver, named Teri Horton, buys a large, odd painting for a friend from a thrift shop for $5. She is later told that it looks like a Jackson Pollock original. She eventually learns who he was (she had no idea, and thought the the painting was essentially junk, since it was nonrepresentational), the tremendous worth of his painting (a new original work would fetch fifty million dollars), and approaches the art world in the hope that it will be authenticated as a genuine Pollock.

The film is about how we know things (epistemology)--in this case, how do we know whether a painting is painted by a particular painter. That is, how to we come to a justified and true belief about this painting? Was it painted by Pollock or not? To answer this, one must consider criteria for authenticity. We find (at least) two cultures in conflict here. The culture of the experts in the art world and the culture of forensics. Those in the art world largely rejected the painting as inauthentic. Some rejected it forcefully, others more hesitantly, but no recognized art expert certified the painting as a Pollock for the following reasons. (1) It is unsigned. (2) It has no provenance. Provenance concerns the documented genealogy of the painting, its causal ancestry or pedigree. Mrs. Horton bought it as a thrift shop and was not able to gather information beyond that. That is, it simply appears as a painting without a history. (3) It does not look enough like a Pollock work to the trained eye.

However, there is another angle to pursue--forensic evience. Mrs. Horton hires a forensic expert who has authenticated several annonomous paintings as legitimate works by well-known artists. He finds a fingerprint on the back of the painting that matches one found in Pollock's studio. He also finds paint like that used by Pollock. The art world cares nothing for this: forensics is not art criticism. They are two different worlds, with two different sets of criteria.

This epistemological debate is what I found fascinating about the film. I did not warm to the crusty, seventy-three-year old who discovered the painting. One may pity her hard life and appreciate her feistiness, but she strikes me as crass and pointlessly stubborn--refusing to sell a painting of at least questionable pedigree for nine million dollars. She says her unwillingness to sell for anything less than the full worth of a Pollock is a matter of "principle." But what principle might that be? Apparently, she is convinced it is a Pollock, and hired a professional art dealer to sell it as such (a rather slick and slimy character, to be sure). But is any moral principle violated if one sells a painting for nine million dollars when, in fact, it may be worth fifty million; however? There is, after all, still good reason to question its authenticity.

What is intriguing is the epistemological elements (at least to this philosopher). What criteria are normative for identifying a work of art? When the experts evaluate the work, they size it up rather intuitively, based on previous knowledge of Pollock's style. But they do not all agree. Moreover, artists do vary their style to some degree. The other side has to do with trying find in the extant painting some forensic (not aesthetic) quality that identifies it as having been painted by Pollack. This involves photography, chemistry, and some speculative history (since documented provenance cannot be established). One large question is whether one can establish a plausible scenario in which Pollack, an established if eccentric painter, somehow lets one of his works lose such that it ends up in a thrift shop in California, as opposed to having it displayed in a New York art museum or as part of an art collector's collection.

It is difficult to come to a conclusion about the identity of this painting. But working through the questions is fascinating and rewarding. To make a more accurate assessment, one would need much more than simply a film on which to base a judgment. This is not a film that directly addresses the aesthetic value of Jackson Pollock's paintings or the worldview behind his work. (At some point, Pollock set up mechanical means by which to make paintings which attempted to leave out his own personality and rely on chance. Francis Schaeffer assesses this philosophically in "How Shall We Then Live?") However, the film stimulates significant thought about the art of knowing. Who is a reliable witness? What are the proper criteria for truth assessment. For those reasons, I delighted in the film and may use it for teaching on these subjects.

I couldn't help but cheer for Horton as she brushed up against snobby art world academia while viewing this documentary, but it's not very hard to realize that art world jerkfaces don't make her painting an authentic Pollock. Horton begins by saying she just wants to find out if the painting is real or not, but by the end of the film she's shifted to accepting nothing less than $50 million for it. A similar pattern of behavior can be found throughout the film in the attitudes of Horton's forensic expert, Biro, who says something to the tune of, "How can I prove this is a Pollock," rather than, "I'd like to find conclusive evidence either way." The lack of objectivity on Teri's part is understandable, the lack of it from an independent "expert" is not.

This film was made in 2006. I watched it in 2010. With the credits still rolling, I wondered if Teri ever wound up selling her piece, so I hit google for a little follow-up. First stop: wikipedia, where I found that her last offer was $9 million. She turned it down. Then I started uncovering all sorts of troublesome information.
* Biro has been accused of fraud and forging forensic evidence (more than once).
* FineArtRegistry . com launched an independent investigation into the fingerprint evidence, from a bona-fide fingerprint expert with decades of experience in the justice system.
* He went to Pollock's studio and collected the very same samples Biro used. He identified massive problems with Biro's "conclusive" evidence, including heavy doctoring of the fingerprint photo, and a lack of evidence matching the two prints (apparently the 3 match points would never be enough to convict anyone of anything in a criminal court setting). There's plenty more, but I'll leave that up to you to research on your own: fineartregistry.com/articles/far_investigates/jackson-pollock-teri-horton.php
* FineArtRegistry's investigation uncovered Frankie Brown, and artist who's mission was to "pick up where Jackson Pollack left off." When he saw an article in a magazine on Horton's painting, he immediately said to his wife, "That looks like one of mine." Horton found the painting in the general area he worked in, where he says he has distributed over 100 paintings since the 70's, even buying some of his own paintings back in thrift stores! Horton and her "experts" initially refused to let him see the painting in person. fineartregistry.com/articles/phillips_david/frankbrown_jackson_pollock_11-18-2006.php

My doubt started when they compared a close up shot of the painting right next to a genuine Pollock in the film. My instant reaction, despite the fact that I was still rooting for Horton at that point, was simply, "These are not painted by the same person." It's actually pretty easy to see if you look at the consistency of the actual paint. The paint on Horton's piece forms pools, where the paint on the Pollock seems thicker. The lines and techniques simply do not appear to have come from the same hand to me, but having a feeling is not very scientific or objective, so I hit google. I've become convinced Teri's painting was not done by Pollock (not that I would really mind seeing her take the art world for a ride).

Ultimately, this film is an interesting waste of time.

This is a splendid documentary that reveals a great deal about the art world, about its exclusivity, its disdain for outsiders, and its inherent irrationality. The story starts when truck driver Teri Horton buys a painting in a thrift shop for $5. Later, when trying to sell it at a carport sale an art teacher suggests that it might be a Jackson Pollock. What ensues is a story of Teri being constantly rejected by the art world in her attempts to get her painting validated as a Pollock. A string of art experts deny its authenticity and many whom she attempts to contact will not even respond to her. Eventually, however, forensic experts become involved, turning up apparently incontrovertible proof that the painting was indeed painted by Pollock, showing that the paint is completely consistent with that which Pollock used, but more importantly that a fingerprint found on the painting was identical to fingerprints found in Pollock's studio. (In the closing credits a note tell us that an identical print to the one on the back of Teri's painting was found on an authenticated Pollock painting.) As a forensic expert says, responding to art experts who want to deny the painting's authenticity despite the powerful and apparently conclusive proof, "What is the difference between a finger print on a painting and a finger print on a murder weapon?" His point is that a fingerprint is sufficient proof to convict someone of murder, but the art world rejects such powerful proof in this instance.

What we see, in the end, is a clash of cultures. Teri is working class; in fact, poor working class. She is low brow, unsophisticated, and earthy (though quite likable). The ultimate contrast in the film is between Teri and an art expert who is a former head of MOMA, whose disdain and sense of superiority are utterly repulsive. Others in the film also reject the validity of the painting, but none are quite such horrid specimens of humanity (this individual proves that there is absolutely no connection between a deep understanding of the humanities and being a good person). The film reminded me a great deal of some of the writings of Columbia University professor Arthur Danto (with whom I was able to take a graduate seminar with as a guest professor at Yale), where he talks about the art world, which is many ways is an artificial construction. The art world dubs one painting an authentic Pollock by one set of criteria, but rejects Teri's painting as an authentic Pollock, refusing to acknowledge a competing set of criteria that is objectively convincing in a way that the subjective criteria employed by these particular critics. The art establishment is revealed as an artifact in no less way than a painting is.

My own feeling looking at the painting is that it is not a very good Jackson Pollock. It isn't as compelling as his other paintings. But I don't see how it is possible to deny its authenticity given the fingerprint. That is the sort of evidence that ought to end discussion. Creating a scenario under which someone both created a pretty convincing Pollock, including adding a finger print, seems close to impossible. In the end, what this documentary does is explain less about Pollock than it does about the world of art. Anyone interested in the art industry needs to see this film.

This is a terrific documentary and should be seen by anyone who is interested in art and/or human nature. Most of the other reviews cover the essential details, so I won't repeat them. However, for a movie with a running time of only 74 minutes on a DVD with no special features, outtakes or anything else, it's way overpriced at $25. Rent it, buy it used, or wait till it's $15, but don't get gouged.

Remember the story about Galileo's trouble with church authorities--how bishops refused even to look through his telescope to see phenomena that called into question the old Aristotelian model of the solar system they insisted was correct? Well, that's the first thing that came to mind as I watched this film about Teri Horton's on-going struggle with artworld authorities over whether her alledged Jackson Pollack canvas is authentic. I don't know if it is or isn't--although the film does suggest there's good reason to think it is--but it's pretty clear that the artworld epigones are highly resistant to looking through her telescope.

That's what most fascinated me about the film. There's an insularity to the artworld that goes way beyond snobbery. Thomas Hoving, the former MOMA director interviewed extensively in the film, personifies the insularity perfectly in his continuous dismissal of Horton as an uneducated lout who, unlike he, is no "connossieur," no "expert." Expertise in any field is, of course, important, and experts ought to be taken seriously when they offer their judgments. But the presumption that only experts can speak with any authority is dubious. And their right to belittle others is nonexistent.

Another fascinating aspect brought out by the film is the artworld' essential conservatism. Peter Paul Biro, who applies forensic techniques to determine the authenticity of artworks, demonstrates in the film that Horton's canvas has one of Pollack's fingerprints, uses pigments that match samples taken from his studio, and is comparable in technique to his other paintings. Yet because the painting lacks provenance--a paper record of lineage--and (one suspects) because Horton is seen as an uncouth interloper--artworld authorities refuse to take Biro's findings seriously. Again: they just won't look through the telescope.

Why the resistance? Partly, no doubt, for noble reasons. But it's also the case, as Tod Volpe observes in the film, that art is big bucks. The artworld, he says, is all about "high leveraging. It's about power, money, and greed." The powerbrokers in the artworld aren't about to forgo any of their influence, and mightily resist mavericks who try to break in.

All of this makes for disillusionment with the artworld, but not much of a surprise. After all, Tom Wolfe pretty much pointed out the same thing in his magnificent The Painted Word years ago. But what one isn't disillusioned about at the end of the film is Teri Horton. Right or wrong about the Pollack canvas as she may be, what she's done is to stand up to the guys in hand-tailored suits and preciously decorated Manhattan apartments who think that the artworld belongs to them.

Teri Horton bought a five-dollar painting from a thrift store, only to be told that it just might be a Jackson Pollock, worth millions. So begins Horton's strange journey into trying to get the art world to say that her painting is the real thing. I don't think I'm giving anything away by saying she fails: Horton never gets any respect from experts, and the question regarding the authenticity of the work is still unanswered. But whether you believe this is a Jackson Pollock or not, this is a fascinating documentary, with a unique cast of characters.

There's Horton, of course, a woman in her seventies, who's had more than her share of hardship and sees in the "ugly painting" a much needed lottery ticket. But Horton's motivation is not just greed. What she wants is respect and recognition--she wants the world to recognize that she has a Jackson Pollock and until they do, she rejects offers as large as nine million dollars (!). The problem is she encounters unbelievable arrogance, in the way of so-called experts who will dismiss any piece of evidence that contradicts their beliefs and interests. I'm referring, of course, to Thomas Hoving, and Tod Volpe, who are on opposite ends of this fight, but who are equally bad. Hoving is a pompous jerk who dismisses the existence of a fingerprint as evidence of anything--what's a fingerprint against the expert testimony of an infallible god as himself? And Tod Volpe's not any better. He takes on Horton's fight to try to recover his reputation, and financial situation, after being convicted and jailed for fraud--and then he tries to get rid of Horton, whom he allegedly "loves." With two such horrible men playing a role in her destiny, it's no wonder Horton is still, all these years later, stuck in the limbo of having a painting that might be a treasure or a piece of junk.