Who the $&% Is Jackson Pollock?: Difference between revisions
Magioladitis (talk | contribs) m →External links: clean up using AWB (9234) |
removed action against Grann as now dismissed. |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
According to an interview from the film, Horton purchased the painting from a California thrift shop as a gift for a friend who was feeling depressed. Horton thought the bright colors were cheery, but when the dinner-table-sized painting proved too large to fit into her friend's trailer, Horton set it out among other items at a yard sale, where a local art teacher spotted it and suggested that the work could have been painted by Pollock due to the similarity to his [[action painting]] technique. At one point Horton and her friend decided the painting would be good for target practice, but they never got around to trying that tactic.<ref>[http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117932130.html?categoryid=31&cs=1&p=0 "Who the #$&% is Jackson Pollock?"] Scheib, Ronnie. ''[[Variety (magazine)|Variety]]'', 15 November 2006</ref> The film depicts Horton's attempts to [[Authenticity in art|authenticate]] and sell the painting as an original work by Pollock. Its authenticity was doubtful, because the painting was purchased at a thrift store, is unsigned, and is without [[provenance]]. The main problem with the painting is that it "does not have the soul of a Pollock," according to collectors. 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 an average, 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 [[Authenticity in art|authenticate]] and sell the painting as an original work by Pollock. Its authenticity was doubtful, because the painting was purchased at a thrift store, is unsigned, and is without [[provenance]]. The main problem with the painting is that it "does not have the soul of a Pollock," according to collectors. 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 an average, 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 [[Nicolas Carone]], an artist and friend of Pollock’s, is uncertain. Horton 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". However, in a June 2008 article in ''[[ARTnews]]'', Sylvia Hochfield cited two forensic experts who called into question Biro's fingerprint analysis;<ref>[http://www.artnews.com/issues/article.asp?art_id=2504 "The Blue Print"] by Sylvia Hochfield, ''[[ARTnews]]'', June 2008</ref> similar concerns were raised in July 2010 by [[David Grann]] in an article for ''[[The New Yorker]]''<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}} |
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 [[Nicolas Carone]], an artist and friend of Pollock’s, is uncertain. Horton 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". However, in a June 2008 article in ''[[ARTnews]]'', Sylvia Hochfield cited two forensic experts who called into question Biro's fingerprint analysis;<ref>[http://www.artnews.com/issues/article.asp?art_id=2504 "The Blue Print"] by Sylvia Hochfield, ''[[ARTnews]]'', June 2008</ref> similar concerns were raised in July 2010 by [[David Grann]] in an article for ''[[The New Yorker]]''.<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 a pivotal point in the film, Horton's painting is compared side-by-side with Pollock's ''[[No. 5, 1948]]'', a drip painting once owned by [[Samuel Irving Newhouse, Jr.]], CEO of [[Advance Publications]], owner of [[Condé Nast Publications|Condé Nast]], publisher of the ''The New Yorker''.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/02/arts/design/02drip.html "A Pollock Is Sold, Possibly for a Record Price"] by Carol Vogel, ''[[The New York Times]]'', November 2, 2006</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; the formation of this venture is discussed in the documentary. |
||
Volpe approached producer Steven Hewitt, who, along with his father, 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 his father, 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 05:05, 7 August 2013
| 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 |
| Distributed by | Warner Bros. |
Release date |
|
| 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 was doubtful, because the painting was purchased at a thrift store, is unsigned, and is without provenance. The main problem with the painting is that it "does not have the soul of a Pollock," according to collectors. 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 an average, 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 Nicolas Carone, an artist and friend of Pollock’s, is uncertain. Horton 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". However, in a June 2008 article in ARTnews, Sylvia Hochfield cited two forensic experts who called into question Biro's fingerprint analysis;[4] similar concerns were raised in July 2010 by David Grann in an article for The New Yorker.[5] In a pivotal point in the film, Horton's painting is compared side-by-side with Pollock's No. 5, 1948, a drip painting once owned by Samuel Irving Newhouse, Jr., CEO of Advance Publications, owner of Condé Nast, publisher of the The New Yorker.[6] 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; the formation of this venture is discussed in the documentary.
Volpe approached producer Steven Hewitt, who, along with his father, executive producer Don Hewitt (creator of 60 Minutes), had formed the Hewitt Group to produce documentaries. Harry Moses,[7] 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, and says she will take no less than $50 million for the painting.[7]
A May, 2012 article reveals a 2006 audio tape interview with Nicolas Carone, in which he admits being "advised" not to give his true opinion on camera, when in fact he believed the painting to be authentic, as did his family.[8]
References
- ^ "Woman’s quest to authenticate Pollock art riveting", Deiner, Paige Lauren. The Monitor. 13 July 2007
- ^ "Who the #$&% 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 Blue Print" by Sylvia Hochfield, ARTnews, June 2008
- ^ "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 Pollock Is Sold, Possibly for a Record Price" by Carol Vogel, The New York Times, November 2, 2006
- ^ 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."
- ^ "Nicolas Carone: Jazz, Poetry, and Jackson Pollock" by Frank Messina, Fine Art Investigations International Edition, May 2, 2012
External links
- Who the #$&% Is Jackson Pollock? at IMDb
- Who the $#%&[sic] is Jackson Pollock? at AllMovie
- Who the $#%@[sic] Is Jackson Pollock at Rotten Tomatoes
- Who the #$&% Is Jackson Pollock? at Box Office Mojo
- "One man's wallpaper" by Ben McGrath, The New Yorker (October 22, 2007)
- Who the $#%&[sic] Is Jackson Pollock?, review by Stephen Holden, The New York Times (November 15, 2006)
- "The case of Jackson Pollock's fingerprint" by Cameron Skene, The Gazette, Montreal, November 8, 2006