Who the $&% Is Jackson Pollock?: Difference between revisions
m fixing special characters in DEFAULTSORT (WP:CHECKWIKI error 6) + genfixes using AWB (7069) |
included quote from cited source |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
According to an interview from the film, Horton purchased the painting from a California thrift shop as a gift for a friend who was feeling depressed. Horton thought the bright colors were cheery, but when the dinner-table-sized painting proved too large to fit into her friend's trailer, Horton set it out among other items at a yard sale, where a local art teacher spotted it and suggested that the work could have been painted by Pollock due to the similarity to his [[action painting]] technique. At one point Horton and her friend decided the painting would be good for target practice, but they never got around to trying that tactic.<ref>[http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117932130.html?categoryid=31&cs=1&p=0 "Who the #$&% is Jackson Pollock?"] Scheib, Ronnie. ''[[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]'', 15 November 2006</ref> The film depicts Horton's attempts to authenticate and sell the painting as an original work by Pollock. Its authenticity is doubtful, because the painting was purchased at a thrift store, is unsigned, and is without [[provenance]]. In addition, Pollock had many imitators during his lifetime. However a [[Forensic science|forensic]] 'specialist' matched a fingerprint on the painting with those on two authenticated Pollocks and a can of paint in his studio, as well as finding other evidence. On another level, the movie explores the challenges faced by the average uneducated, but determined, citizen who takes on the elitist, high-stakes world of art dealership. |
According to an interview from the film, Horton purchased the painting from a California thrift shop as a gift for a friend who was feeling depressed. Horton thought the bright colors were cheery, but when the dinner-table-sized painting proved too large to fit into her friend's trailer, Horton set it out among other items at a yard sale, where a local art teacher spotted it and suggested that the work could have been painted by Pollock due to the similarity to his [[action painting]] technique. At one point Horton and her friend decided the painting would be good for target practice, but they never got around to trying that tactic.<ref>[http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117932130.html?categoryid=31&cs=1&p=0 "Who the #$&% is Jackson Pollock?"] Scheib, Ronnie. ''[[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]'', 15 November 2006</ref> The film depicts Horton's attempts to authenticate and sell the painting as an original work by Pollock. Its authenticity is doubtful, because the painting was purchased at a thrift store, is unsigned, and is without [[provenance]]. In addition, Pollock had many imitators during his lifetime. However a [[Forensic science|forensic]] 'specialist' matched a fingerprint on the painting with those on two authenticated Pollocks and a can of paint in his studio, as well as finding other evidence. On another level, the movie explores the challenges faced by the average uneducated, but determined, citizen who takes on the elitist, high-stakes world of art dealership. |
||
Some art connoisseurs, including [[Thomas Hoving]], former director of the [[Metropolitan Museum of Art]] in [[New York City|New York]], believe the painting to be inauthentic, while Nick Carone, an artist and friend of Pollock’s, is uncertain. Teri hired Peter Paul Biro, a Montreal-based forensic art expert,<ref>[http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2009/10/14/2009-10-14_new_evidence_suggests_profile_of_the_bella_principessa_might_be_a_leonardo_da_vi.html "New evidence suggests ''Profile of the Bella Principessa'' might be a Leonardo da Vinci original"], ''The Daily News'' 14 October 2009</ref> who matched a partial fingerprint on the canvas to a fingerprint on a can of paint in Pollock’s studio, as well as to fingerprints on two authenticated Pollock canvases. Additionally, through an analysis of paint samples from Pollock's studio, he was able to confirm a match with particles of paint found on the canvas in question, in what he calls a "3-point-match". |
Some art connoisseurs, including [[Thomas Hoving]], former director of the [[Metropolitan Museum of Art]] in [[New York City|New York]], believe the painting to be inauthentic, while Nick Carone, an artist and friend of Pollock’s, is uncertain. Teri hired Peter Paul Biro, a Montreal-based forensic art expert,<ref>[http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2009/10/14/2009-10-14_new_evidence_suggests_profile_of_the_bella_principessa_might_be_a_leonardo_da_vi.html "New evidence suggests ''Profile of the Bella Principessa'' might be a Leonardo da Vinci original"], ''The Daily News'' 14 October 2009</ref> who matched a partial fingerprint on the canvas to a fingerprint on a can of paint in Pollock’s studio, as well as to fingerprints on two authenticated Pollock canvases. Additionally, through an analysis of paint samples from Pollock's studio, he was able to confirm a match with particles of paint found on the canvas in question, in what he calls a "3-point-match". Biro was recently cited by [[David Grann]] of "[[The New Yorker"]] as a "triumphant scientist who had transformed the art world". <ref>[http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/07/12/100712fa_fact_grann?currentPage=all "The Mark of a Masterpiece"] by [[David Grann]], ''[[The New Yorker]]'', vol. LXXXVI, no. 20, July 12 & 19, 2010, {{ISSN|0028792X}}</ref> In the film, Tod Volpe, an art dealer who had served two years in prison for defrauding clients including [[Jack Nicholson]], and Horton become involved together in a business venture, Legends Art Group, to manage and sell works of art with ambiguous or questionable authenticity; the formation of this venture is discussed in the documentary. |
||
Volpe approached producer Steven Hewitt, who, along with executive producer [[Don Hewitt]] (creator of ''[[60 Minutes]]''), had formed the Hewitt Group to produce documentaries. Harry Moses,<ref name=KennedyNYT>{{cite web|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/09/arts/design/09poll.html|title=Could Be a Pollock; Must Be a Yarn|author=Randy Kennedy |work=[[The New York Times]]|date=November 9, 2006|quote=The filmmakers were initially fascinated by the science-versus-art angle of Ms. Horton’s story, about how forensics may be starting to nudge the entrenched tradition of connoisseurship from its perch in the world of art authentication. But as they spent more time with her, they began to see the movie as being about something more important than whether the painting was a real Pollock, a question left very much for the viewer to decide. "It became, really, a story about class in America," Mr. Moses said. "It’s a story of the art world looking down its collective nose at this woman with an eighth-grade education."}}</ref> an [[Emmy Award|Emmy]], [[Peabody Award|Peabody]], and [[Directors Guild of America]] award-winner, and a recipient of a lifetime achievement award from the [[National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences]], is the film's other producer, as well as its director and writer. |
Volpe approached producer Steven Hewitt, who, along with executive producer [[Don Hewitt]] (creator of ''[[60 Minutes]]''), had formed the Hewitt Group to produce documentaries. Harry Moses,<ref name=KennedyNYT>{{cite web|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/09/arts/design/09poll.html|title=Could Be a Pollock; Must Be a Yarn|author=Randy Kennedy |work=[[The New York Times]]|date=November 9, 2006|quote=The filmmakers were initially fascinated by the science-versus-art angle of Ms. Horton’s story, about how forensics may be starting to nudge the entrenched tradition of connoisseurship from its perch in the world of art authentication. But as they spent more time with her, they began to see the movie as being about something more important than whether the painting was a real Pollock, a question left very much for the viewer to decide. "It became, really, a story about class in America," Mr. Moses said. "It’s a story of the art world looking down its collective nose at this woman with an eighth-grade education."}}</ref> an [[Emmy Award|Emmy]], [[Peabody Award|Peabody]], and [[Directors Guild of America]] award-winner, and a recipient of a lifetime achievement award from the [[National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences]], is the film's other producer, as well as its director and writer. |
||
Revision as of 20:34, 3 September 2010
#
| Who the #$&% Is Jackson Pollock? | |
|---|---|
 Promotional movie poster for the film | |
| Directed by | Harry Moses |
| Produced by | Don Hewitt Steven Hewitt Michael Lynne |
| Starring | Teri Horton Peter Paul Biro Jackson Pollock |
Release date | November 9, 2006 |
| Language | English |
Who the #$&% Is Jackson Pollock? is a documentary following a woman named Teri Horton, a 73-year-old former long-haul truck driver from California, who purchased a painting from a thrift shop for $5, only later to find out that it may be a Jackson Pollock painting; she had no clue at the time who Jackson Pollock was, hence the name of the film.[1]
According to an interview from the film, Horton purchased the painting from a California thrift shop as a gift for a friend who was feeling depressed. Horton thought the bright colors were cheery, but when the dinner-table-sized painting proved too large to fit into her friend's trailer, Horton set it out among other items at a yard sale, where a local art teacher spotted it and suggested that the work could have been painted by Pollock due to the similarity to his action painting technique. At one point Horton and her friend decided the painting would be good for target practice, but they never got around to trying that tactic.[2] The film depicts Horton's attempts to authenticate and sell the painting as an original work by Pollock. Its authenticity is doubtful, because the painting was purchased at a thrift store, is unsigned, and is without provenance. In addition, Pollock had many imitators during his lifetime. However a forensic 'specialist' matched a fingerprint on the painting with those on two authenticated Pollocks and a can of paint in his studio, as well as finding other evidence. On another level, the movie explores the challenges faced by the average uneducated, but determined, citizen who takes on the elitist, high-stakes world of art dealership.
Some art connoisseurs, including Thomas Hoving, former director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, believe the painting to be inauthentic, while Nick Carone, an artist and friend of Pollock’s, is uncertain. Teri hired Peter Paul Biro, a Montreal-based forensic art expert,[3] who matched a partial fingerprint on the canvas to a fingerprint on a can of paint in Pollock’s studio, as well as to fingerprints on two authenticated Pollock canvases. Additionally, through an analysis of paint samples from Pollock's studio, he was able to confirm a match with particles of paint found on the canvas in question, in what he calls a "3-point-match". Biro was recently cited by David Grann of "The New Yorker" as a "triumphant scientist who had transformed the art world". [4] In the film, Tod Volpe, an art dealer who had served two years in prison for defrauding clients including Jack Nicholson, and Horton become involved together in a business venture, Legends Art Group, to manage and sell works of art with ambiguous or questionable authenticity; the formation of this venture is discussed in the documentary.
Volpe approached producer Steven Hewitt, who, along with executive producer Don Hewitt (creator of 60 Minutes), had formed the Hewitt Group to produce documentaries. Harry Moses,[5] an Emmy, Peabody, and Directors Guild of America award-winner, and a recipient of a lifetime achievement award from the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, is the film's other producer, as well as its director and writer.
Horton, who appeared on The Montel Williams Show, The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, and the Late Show with David Letterman with the painting, once turned down an offer of US $9 million from a Saudi Arabian buyer, but says she will take no less than $50 million for the painting.[5]
Reception
Who The #$&% Is Jackson Pollock was well received from critics, garnering a 100% "Certified Fresh" at Rotten Tomatoes and a 70% at Metacritic.
References
- ^ "Woman’s quest to authenticate Pollock art riveting", Deiner, Paige Lauren. The Monitor. 13 July 2007
- ^ "Who the #$&% is Jackson Pollock?" Scheib, Ronnie. Variety, 15 November 2006
- ^ "New evidence suggests Profile of the Bella Principessa might be a Leonardo da Vinci original", The Daily News 14 October 2009
- ^ "The Mark of a Masterpiece" by David Grann, The New Yorker, vol. LXXXVI, no. 20, July 12 & 19, 2010, ISSN 0028792X Parameter error in {{issn}}: Invalid ISSN.
- ^ a b Randy Kennedy (November 9, 2006). "Could Be a Pollock; Must Be a Yarn". The New York Times.
The filmmakers were initially fascinated by the science-versus-art angle of Ms. Horton's story, about how forensics may be starting to nudge the entrenched tradition of connoisseurship from its perch in the world of art authentication. But as they spent more time with her, they began to see the movie as being about something more important than whether the painting was a real Pollock, a question left very much for the viewer to decide. "It became, really, a story about class in America," Mr. Moses said. "It's a story of the art world looking down its collective nose at this woman with an eighth-grade education."
External links
- Biro's documentation of his forensic work on Horton's painting.
- The New Yorker (October 22, 2007) article about the film.
- Who the $#%& Is Jackson Pollock?, review by Stephen Holden, The New York Times (November 15, 2006)
- Who the $&% Is Jackson Pollock? at IMDb
- Cameron Skene, Montreal Gazette, Nov. 8, 2006. Profile of Paul Biro, interviews with Horton and filmmakers; a further look at the authentication of Pollock in this case.
