Read p. 156-157 Works in Progress about artist Jackson Pollock
After watching Who the #$&% is Jackson Pollock in class, what do you think about the painting. Do you think it is an authentic Pollock? How do you feel about the artist's work? Do you think Teri Horton should sell it for a lower amount than what she thinks it is worth? (fifty million)
55 comments:
I feel as though there is too much information proving that the art work in question is authentic and I feel the art world should just accept it. I did not like the fact that all the art critics or experts what ever they wanted to be called were arrogant and did not like the fact that she found it in a thrift store. I feel they should just be happy that they found another piece instead of discrediting it and causing this lady headaches for over ten years. I do not like the high powered critics and business people trying to dictate what is art and how much it should be worth.
Ashley Fawcett
I feel like in todays time that with all the facts that has been provided is enough to know that this picture is the real deal. I think the fingure print is better then the painters name. I think that because the art world is different sometimes it is very hard to teach old dogs new tricks and feel like she should have taken the 9 million they offered her. I think that this picture should now be worth more sence it has now had a movie made about it. If she does not get the 25 million, I think her kids will.
Kelly Hayes
I defiantly believe it is a piece from Jackson Pollock. There is too much evidence pointing in that direction. Personally, I believe a person that has the visible evidence, such as, Jackson's finger-print, opposed to the style of how Jackson paints. I like Pollock’s work. I don’t think I would ever pay millions of dollars for it, but everyone is different. I think the elderly woman should have sold the painting when she had the chance. Two million dollars is a lot of money, and she will never have that kind of money in her lifetime because she was stubborn. I don't believe she will ever get 50 million dollars for that piece of art.
After watching Who the #$&% is Jackson Pollock in class i thought it was an intresting video that actually caught my attention.
from seeing all the eviedence that led to Jackson Pollock, i think it might have a high chance in being one of his long lost paintings.At first look at the painting i thought, it was just a waist of paint, but then hearing how he painted and how this one painting caused so much attention i thought it was a painting i would think about purchasing. it gave me second thoughts.i didnt know how paintings can be worth so much.Do you think Teri Horton should sell it for a lower amount than what she thinks it is worth? well, after hearing how much a real/ ordinary Jackson Pollock painting cost and knowing there might be a high chance this painting might be from Jackson Pollock, well i think Teri Horton should follow her heart, and keep fighting for the rights of the cost of that painting because if she doesnt whoever buys it for a lower price might turn back around and try and sell it for far too much,(what it should cost from the start).i give this video an A+( it really did catch my attention)lol.
Andrea rodriguez
After watching Who the #$&% is Jackson Pollock I am more interested in the painter than the art. If fascinates me that a drunk man, who slings paint on a canvas on the floor could have these abstract pieces selling for millions. It also amazes me that these high-class art “pros” talk down about Teri Horton. An English teacher once told me that rich people were crazy and this film backs that comment up. The one man who bends over, cocks his head, and argues that Teri just isn’t art educated enough and she has no idea what she is talking about, really made me believe that rich people are CRAZY! I think he made himself look like an ass!
I do believe that Teri has an authentic piece of Pollock’s art. It was also stated a fact that when he was drunk, he would just give pieces away. How can you provenance that? I understand now that a provenance is important to a piece of artwork and the fact that the art work and the justice system are different but there is physical evidence that Pollock painted this piece. The forensic man, Paul, said he does basically CSI work but on art work. It works for me.
This generation is all about the money. Right now I would settle for the nine million but I do understand where Teri Horton is coming from. “The principle,” she said. I agree with her 100%. The art world is probably just mad she got her Pollock for five bucks! If I were in Teri’s shoes I would hold out for the 50 million that way when someday it is sold for 50 million she will be laughing in their face and they will feel awful about the things they said about her and the art.
After watching the film, I felt the same way about the painting – I like it. To me, it did not matter whether this piece was worth $5.00 or $9 million, it still looked the same. I do not believe that everything that is expensive is nice or that things that are inexpensive are not good. After the tests and investigations were performed and hearing the results, my guess is that this is an authentic Jackson Pollock art work. It seems like the “experts” in the art world did not have any intention of authenticating it because perhaps they were too proud to admit their mistakes and that they may lose credibility as “experts”. The finger print alone was an excellent proof of its genuineness. In spite of valid verifications, these experts still would not change their decision.
Jackson Pollock’s work was particular. If he was really drunk most of the time when he was painting, maybe that was where his uniqueness comes from. It’s possible that he channeled his frustrations along with everything else that he was feeling on his work and went with the flow. I think that it’s great to be able to express yourself through art.
As for Teri, I understand what is behind her reasoning for declining offers. Not everything has a price and principle is one of them. I do not always identify with the logic of overpricing anything, but I presume that the value is really up to the person with interest. Who is really to say what should cost what?
I also wanted to say that the movie was great. The film was funny, direct and an eye opener for me. It definitely showed different sides of the art world that most of us do not know about. It also changed how my thinking is now about buying anything. Is it really worth what I am paying for?
That was of the most intriguing videos about an artist's work I have ever seen. Do I think it is an authentic Jackson Pollock? I do. I find it hard to believe that there would be a crazy coincidence of Jackson Pollock's fingerprint being on the back of the canvas as from the same studio. I mean it is possible that it isn't one of his works, anything is possible, but is it likely? No, it is not. In my opinion I believe it is jealousy of the art experts that they have never found a priceless work in such a place. They probably believe that somebody who has ignorance of the modern art world shouldn't find such priceless treasures. I would believe forensic evidence before an art expert who says it just doesn't “feel” like a Jackson Pollock. I mean, how would they feel if they had been murdered by a serial killer and one of the detectives said it just didn't “feel” like a certain killer's work? They are just being snobs.
I am not a huge fan of the modern art movement but I do enjoy his process. It's not so much about the work of art as it is making it. His work is about energy not subject matter. Being a part of your work rather than just making the work a representation of the physical world. In a way, it makes his work far more intriguing. During some works I've done... I've used those sort of splatter techniques to make backgrounds for paintings and other types of work. Nothing to that magnitude... but I understand how it just adds something nothing else can to your work. Sometimes, it's not quite the destination but the journey.
As for Teri, i stand behind her thoughts. Art people have a habit of being snobs and the fact that they probably won't authenticate it because of who she is and the circumstances is ridiculous. If it were me, I would have sold it (because I really need the money) but she has a need to fight for what she believes is right. The fact that a buyer could buy it for two or nine million and then sell it again for five times that amount is taking advantage of someone. I hope eventually she gets what she gets her asking price for it and proves those arrogant people wrong.
-Jessica Montgomery
It is hard to say whether or not the painting in question is a Paul Jackson Pollock. I do know that his wife Lee Krasner was incharge of the estate after his death and anything could have happened to it, but why wouldn't it have shown up sooner. Pollock did have other women in his life, especially one girlfriend that was actually in the car when it crashed at the time of his death. She could have been given that painting and held on to it for a while, then passed it along to another and so on.
With the figerprints being a match why hasn't the "art world" said it is the real thing? Just because it lacks history! What about the person that found one in the dumpster? The strokes and flings of the paint seem to close together and smushed to be his. He painted slow, then more fast and dancelike, but he was drunk ninety-five percent of the time! He could have painted a few differently.
Personally, I have a gut feeling that it is his, although my mother is a painter and she has produced one that is very similar. I think that Teri Horton should hold on to it for a few more years, then sell it at auction. Pollock's No.5, 1950 sold at auction in November, 2006 for $140,000,000. So anything is possible.
I thought that was a real Jackson Pollock because of the forensic evidence. The fingerprint on the back of the painting matched a fingerprint from his studio from a can of paint.He did'nt let anyone but his wife in there with him, and even that was very rare.The fingerprints matched up. Science has proven it's his. Just how it was mentioned in the video if this had been a murder suspect and this was the evidence, it would be clear, case closed. For further proof, that the forensic scientist took close up shots of Teri's painting and another similiar painting of his to examine, the paintings were almost identical. I hope in her lifetime she is able to sell that painting and enjoy the profit that she discovered and only paid 5 dollars for. I give her credit for not selling for 2 million, and again for 9. 50 million dollars is unimaginable to me, so I can't even fathom what it would be like to have that kind of money, I think she should settle for less because again she only paid 5 dollars for it, she could use this money now in her lifetime and enjoy it, why hang on to it and when she passes her family will do the same she could be doing now. Maybe just settle for say 20 million. Still sounds pretty sweet to me.
After watching the movie I think the painting is actually pretty cool and unique. I do believe it is a authentic painting from Pollack. I think that Teri should def sell the painting lower the want she think it is worth but I see its greed thats stopping her from selling it.
Well personally I really can not say if the work of art is a Jackson Pollock or not. So far all of the art critics say it is not a Jackson Pollock but then again a forensic scientist had matched a fingerprint on the back of the canvas to a paint bucket in Pollock’s studio where no one was allowed besides his wife. However, the critics say that is not enough evidence to determine if it is by him or not. Which I can agree because say one of my friends buys a car, and I open the driver side door and put my hands on the steering wheel and people find my prints on the car, does that mean it belongs to me. The answer is no and like the critics say since it does not look like a Pollock to them that it needs circumstantial evidence (documentation) a history line to determine the authenticity. So with that said and the fact that they probably will never get that, I personally think that Teri should have sold the piece for $9,000,000.00 because that is $8,999,995.00 more than what she paid for it. And for the business point of view, the interest from $5,000,000 alone on average can yield $750,000 a year with absolutely no chance of loss if you divide the amounts up equally.
Pesonally it looks like something a kid does with a set of actual paint to the liveing room wall. I think it is a Jackson Pollock with the proof of the triple match of the fingerprint found on the back of the piece. If Terri got an offer of 40 million then yeah she should sell it but she probably still wouldnt sell the piece for anything less than 50 million.
After watching the movie who the #$&% is Jackson Pollock makes me realized that anything insignificant like a thrift store painting can turned into a treasure. I do believed the painting belong to him just for the fact of the perfect match of the finger print. I’m not an art expert but I do believe forensic sciences are in off evidenced to prove that Jackson Pollock at some point of his life got his hands on this piece of art. In the other hand it seems like the art experts are jealous that a drunken truck driver found this treasure. Therefore, they will never be on her side. I believe she is being socially discriminating. Thus, she should sell it for $ 9.50 million it is enough money to retired and leave money for her family. I don’t know what that the #$&% is her problem. She doesn’t understand that this people don’t like her. Mrs. Teri is being greedy, remember life is short and she is old.
The art critics in the movie are complete idiots for saying that the work was not done by Pollock. Science showed that the fingerprints were found on other Pollocks and that the paint from this particular piece was a match to the paint in Pollock’s shack. So I feel that Teri is doing the right thing by not backing down. Who is to say that the work doesn’t resemble Pollock’s work. Those critics never gave any proof against that painting. They never once gave evidence of it not being a Pollock other than them saying , “It Doesn’t feel like a Pollock.” So until one of those worthless critics actually tries to prove that this Pollock is not a Pollock with actual evidence, then I will not believe what they have to say. I think they are actually afraid to admit they are wrong.
Who the **** is Jackson Pollock was probally the most hilarious movie I have ever seen!
Teri Horton has alittle high expectations with a 50 million dollar price on the painting. However, Teri Horton is a character who is just not ready to settle. As far as wheather I think the painting is a true Pollock....I'd say yes.
I've watched alot of forensic files/ cold cases on TV about murders, and bottom line is fingerprints dont lie. If it is in fact, a duplicate fingerprint on the back of Horton's thrift store painting as it is on the paint can in Pollock's studio....then I'd have to say the critics are ignorant and crazy to not authenticate it.
On the flip side, Teri is a little crazy. Nine million...man that woman is a red neck crack up not to take it! But thats why I loved this movie. That b**** is crazy!
Andre Ward
After watching Who the #$&% is Jason Pollock, I feel the painting is as real is indeed an authentic Pollock. One person interviewed in the film said it best, something along the lines of “If we can convict someone of murder with a finger print, then why can’t we call this an authentic painting?” I feel the art critics and experts interviewed have no reason to deny the authenticity of the painting. As for Teri Horton and her asking price, I feel she needs to sell the painting for what she can get. She has gone through to much and might be running at of time. It may not be 50 million, but a few million dollars is better than a poke in the eye.
Daniel Abbott
See Please Here
I feel neutral when it comes to Pollock's work but I do believe the piece in question is in fact authentic.She should ask for what the piece is worth and nothing less. After all, the random offers she gets have gone up in value 7,000,000 dollars. Maybe, the money actually comes from the critics who claim the piece is a fake. Perhaps theyy know the piece is real and want to get it on their hands at a cheaper price.
After watching the video in class about the Jackson Pollock painting I had a much better understanding of the art world and Jackson Pollock himself. At first glance of his art I don’t really get how someone could pay such huge amounts of money for just a simple piece of canvas with paint just splattered all over it. I don’t get why after all the evidence, “the finger prints, the same paint on the floor and on the canvas of the painting” how could anyone think anything other than the painting is a real Jackson Pollock. To me the art world is screwed up, how can you sit there and say that a finger print isn’t better proof of a painting then a simple signature; that is absurd. Due to the art world the elderly women has not been able to sell the painting for the value of an “original” Jackson Pollock. Due to those reasons I do think she should sell the painting for the few million that she was offered. I think she is nuts to hold on to something that may not even be worth the amount of money she is hopping.
-Matt Brooken-
Very interesting film...but I believe that the film is just as much about Teri Horton as it is about Jackson Pollock. Horton is uneducated, but believes that she has a valuable painting, and the art critics cannot take the painting at face value. It has Pollock's fingerprints and matching paint samples, so I believe it is authentic, and should be treated as authentic. As to what it is worth, who knows? Similar paintings have sold for over $100 million, but what good does it do Horton to spend the rest of her life trying to prove that such an enormous price should be paid for it. Take the millions now and enjoy the money, Teri, you can't spend it all anyway.
Caitlin Brody
After watching the movie, I do feel the painting was authentic. The critics were to hard on the woman, she should be commended for sticking with what she believes is the truth. Most people would have just given up by now, especially someone who knows nothing about art and could possibly be wrong. I actually liked the painting. I like that the feel of the painting is very chaotc and its all over the place. Its very interesting to look at. Teri Horton should take the money she was offered since shes been dealing with this issue for quite sometime now. It would give her a snese of closure and that amount of money is better than nothing. She may wait until shes too old to even enjoy the money so she needs to take any offer she can get at this point.
I really like Jackson Pollock's artwork. I enjoy making paintings the same way. I do not think that Teri Horton actually has an original Jackson Pollock. There are so many good artists and imitators out there that there is no way that anyone can be sure that Pollock painted it without asking Pollock himself. It is crazy of Teri Horton not to sell her painting. She would be making a huge profit. There is absolutely no reason not to sell it. She says it is the principle of the whole thing, however, she is not losing anything by selling it for 2 million dollars. Even if she didn’t fully convince the art world to accept it, she pulled one over on someone, because they paid far more than she even thought about paying for it.
Kelsey Darby
After reading the text and watching this movie, I do indeed think this an authentic Pollock painting. Personally I am not a big fan of the painting, but that doesnt mean that this painting to someone else is incredible.! The painting should def. be sold for the crazy amount of money with no questions asked. Im not really sure if the painting will ever be sold, but it is def. worth a shot to try and sell it!
~Samantha Fritzsche~
I would like to start off saying I would never pay over a one million for a piece of art that anyone could make. This art work is very modern, but clearly to me isn’t worth that much money. Like someone before mentioned a drunken painter shouldn’t be making so much on his paintings! The painter is more interesting then the art work. I would find seeing him paint his artwork to be entertaining. I do believe this is his artwork. I can’t see any other painters doing this type of painting besides Pollack.
-Alex Santos
I was not there for the movie on Monday and pretty sure that I missed valuable information to do this blog. Although, I did google the info and watched the summary and trailers of the film. I personally would not pay 50 million dollars for any piece of art unless it is certified and guaranteed to appreciate in value very soon. People always want something for nothing. It is crazy to demand that amount of money for something that cost you less then 2 gallons of gas. I would've jumped on the 9 million that was offered at first.
When the video began, I sided with the art community. 50 million is a lot of money for something that could be a fake. It was completely understandable at that point for them to have no faith in the painting. Once the evidence started to pile up, it convinced me at least that this is a genuine Pollock. There were to many things that matched up, the thumbprint most off all. It makes me feel that the art community is an elitist bunch who are so stuck up on themselves they cant see things for what they really are. That self-proclaimed expert was the worst of all. I personally enjoy Pollock’s work. I find it a refreshing twist on how a painting should or shouldn’t be. I feel Teri should hold out, she started with this painting being worth nothing, then a 2 million dollar offer, and the last being a nine million, if this rate continues then she will get close to her 50million mark relatively soon.
~David Hodges
The movie "Who the fnck is Jackson Polluck" was by far the best art film i have ever seen. How a little old lady comes upon an authentic Jackson Polluck painting beats me. Yes i do believe the painting is authentic due to sheer facts and hard evidence. They discovered matching finger prints in numerous paintings and on one of his original paint cans in his studio that no one entered but himself. I think the painting looks like the rest of his paintings- a jumbled mess of splattered paint. No I do not think she should sell it less than 50 million because it is a real Jackson Polluck and it is worth 50 million and anyone who buys it for less will be making a profit off of it sometime in the future.
After watching the movie, I believe that the painting is authentic. How did it end up in a thrift store? The previous owner probably just saw it as another piece of clutter, and didnt even know who John Pollock was. I believe its authentic because after so much research and investigation, what could be more reassuring than a fingerprint.
Before watching this video I never realized that a piece of work that looks so careless to me could be worth so much more in someone elses eyes. But after taking a deeper look into the piece I realized the real appreciation for such art.
I think that Teri Hrton should sell the piece for less than its estimated value. First of all because these days its not easy to make the amount of money she is being offered. Secondly, she might not get an offer as high as her last one. After all this investigation and still no positive conclusion, people will start to loose interest in the piece.
-sara kadoura
-Tyler Ellis
At first glace the art looks cool, it’s very abstract. As far as all this 50 million talk they are CRAZY, Teri Horton is smart as hell for trying to sell it for full price (I would too). I think drunken painting is pretty sad to be honest with you, art is suppose to be appreciated by the artist and he probably doesn’t even remember the night he painted it. In conclusion the day that painting sells for any where in the millions, will be the day I get drunk as hell and become an artist.
There is no way that i would ever dream about pay 50 million dollars for a painting, hell ill prob never make close enough to even pay for that. Its also pretty funny that he was drunk when he painted it, in my opinion he shouldnt make that much off of it if he was drunk, its stupid.
I only really like some of Jackson Pollock's work, and the one Teri Horton found was probably one of his ugliest, but I do believe it is one of his. The art world needs to realize that a finger print is some of the most solid evidence one can get. It was sickening to see how arrogant these art world elite were, an how cowardly they acted by not signing the letters they sent Horton. It was obvious that they knew deep down that that was a Pollock, they just refuse to accept it. Horton is definitely justified in waiting to sell that painting for around $50 million. The painting is worth it and the art world will finally accept it someday. Horton should definitely give me some of that cash when it does sell though...
I don't think that its unreasonable to think that she has a real Jackson Pollock. The art "experts" said there was no way that a Pollock could've ended up in a thrift store, but if you think about it how many stories are there of starving artists who give away paintings and such for food or shelter. Like the movie mentioned the antique roadshow has shown us that people can find great things in unlikely places. The main thing is that there is a legit fingerprint on the back that matches up with the paint can from his studio; I can't think of anyway that someone could ignor that evidence.
As for myself I don't see much in Jackson's paintings. I wouldn't pay 9million for a Pollock, but I'm sure there are pretentious art critics out there who eat it up.
-Grant Olsson
I thought that the movie was actually really interesting to watch. It gave way for many people who believe that they may ahve the works of art from actual artists. I thought when I first saw the painting I thought that she actually did have the painting I have gone to many thrift stores and they mostly have smaller paintings. So whenI saw the actual size of the work, I hada a feeling that she did have a real one. I think that she did the right thing buy going out and get to the right people to help her get the right information she needed to make the painting real.
Firstly fifty million is a lot of money to spend on anything. Secondly without any documentation proving that it is an authentic Pollock she wont get it. Today the world is flooded with wannabes and frauds, and due to this most people I believe would be skeptical about spending that kind of money reguardless as to what evidence is present. To me this is like buying a house without an abstract. Even though you have the title to the property, unless the title is clear there maybe someone with other rites to it.
After watching the Jackson Pollock video in class, I do think that the painting found by Teri is authentic. I think that there was enough proof for it to be a real Pollock painting and I felt like all the other critics and experts didn't really have a good reason to say it wasn't authentic besides that it was found in a thrift store. Maybe Teri should sell it for a lower amount because you never know what will happen tomorrow and it's better to get something instead of losing it all. I still do believe there can be a time where that painting can be sold for the amount Teri thinks it is worth.
-Ayesha Munaf
After watching the movie... I do believe it is a piece from Jackson Pollock. There is a lot of evidence to back it up. I like Pollock’s work because it's different As for Teri, I understand that not everything has a price and you cant put a price on principle. Artwork has a price and the person with the piece can name that price.. but what they will get for it is what matters. Personaly... I would never pay millions for it, but everyone is different. It's nice but there is plenty of artwork out there that is beautiful too.
I have never really understood the price value of art. There can not truly be a way to fairly price any piece of work. Each piece can be more significant to one person than another. Art seems only to be great after the artist dies anyway.It is a Jackson Pollock piece because the evidence says so. Just because some people like to hear temselves talk and actually believe that they are smarter than everyone else does not take away the credibility of physical eveidence. If i was the lady i would have taken the money!
I would have to say Who the F*** is Jackson Pollock is the most interesting movie yet in this class. After watching the movie I really do believe that teri's painting is trully a Jackson Pollock. After all the evidence found, it's more like how to prove it is not a Jackson Pollock. Im not a big fan of the artists style but I do find some interesting. Teri is right for not selling the painting at the offered price. Eventually someone in her lifetime or her kids lifetime will be willing to pay her asking price, but unfortionatly she will not be able to enjoy the money like she would like to.
Jackson Pollock one of the best painters for me. I think what he did was very different than other. I think he has his own way to express feelings i think painting can not be just drawing nice clean and ordinary envirmant or frames from life. I think he has different personality and he expresses with his uniqe paints. But I feel that paint made by Jackson Pollock because nowadays forestic science is very high status. As we watched the movie last week they explained why it his him also fingerprint is now can take you jail or not that means that for me it is trustable source to think that it is his painting. I strongly agree that she should sell more than they offer. She has with her not piece of junk fake. She has real Master piece.
Best Regards
Efe BULUTOGLU
All of the evidence points to the fact that the painting is indeed a Pollack piece. The fingerprint on the back of painting is a dead give away. Pollacks work is unique and very intense. I like how he approaches his paintings from all different sides and uses unconventional tools. I think teri horton should sell the piece for less than 50 million. If she gets 10 to 15 million for it that would be a fair deal. To buy something for 5 dollars then find out its worth millions is extremely fortunate.
This painting is not a Pollock. I do not have any proof to dispute the fingerprint evidence other then it is a partial print and from my perspective the fingerprints did not look very similar in the film.
Other then the finger prints the only thing that this painting has going for it is a very stubborn, very comical elderly woman. The painting does NOT look like a pollock, from my amatuer view, I can tell a big difference between some of pollocks pieces and this fake.
A man who's lifetime goal and career is to assess art and find authenticity found it to be a clear knockoff.
Should Horton have sold it for 2 million or 9 million, 100% yes. She she have sold it for 9million as an authentic Pollock, 100% no.
I do appreciate the old lady's fight, even though she seems very defeated after the whole ordeal, and I can appreciate the fantasical view that maybe, just maybe Pollock did this piece and thought to himself "this is ugly and I do not like how it came out, I don't wanna put my name on this and try to sell it" and somehow pollock on an overnight drunkk woke up and traded that painting for a couple bratwurst and beers.
Anything is possible I guess, and she should have undeniable proof that this IS NOT a pollock, and unfortuneately no one will give her enough respect to show that evidence to her, or maybe because there isnt any.
Today in art it seems that most people are just trying for fame and wealth. Artist seem to only have one goal instead of trying to give connection. People should be able to relate to pieces of art and not have to spend thousands of dollars on them either. Everyone has their own opinons on art and the value of art will differ. Artist should be creating for the people not themselves. Many people that are not famous are creating nice pieces of art that don't cost thousands just to own. As for 50 million for an art piece it is going have to be viewed by people to be worth that much not priced. As for me I will never pay for a piece of art for that much let alone anything I can think of.
I think Pollock's work is definately meritable. He brought a whole new plateu to the art world. Also, I believe that the painting is authentic. He probably discarded because he didnt find it as enigmatic as his other paintings, and plus you really cant argue with the forensic paint samples. The protagonist of the movie is clealry awaiting her large sum of money and I really think that she will get it eventually.
I thought that with all the facts presented throughout the film, that it is in fact, a Jackson Pollock painting. Teri Horton said many times that she is going on principle therefore the 50 million dollars she first heard the painting was worth, could be part of that principle. She went through all the trouble and long waits just to be shot down numerous times by so called "professional art critics". I'm really not sure who decides to dub these men professionals. I guess it just goes to show that good people usually get screwed over.
-bristol
With all of the forensic evidence done on the painting and in the studio, along with the matching finger prints on Teri Hortons painting and on an undisputed Jason Polluck painting there should be no reason why the art world won't accept it as authentic polluck painting.I believe that it is a polluck painting as for Teri fifty mollion is a very hight price especially if the art world won't even look at it.
To say whether it is a genuine Jackson Pollock, Im not 100% sure. At first I did not think it was compared to the ones shown in the museum by the video. But when it was compared to a very similar painting, I saw that it very well could be. The fact that the black and white splatters are very prominent, rubs me the wrong way. Looking at other Pollocks, the paint is layered, each covering the other with very little distinction. The fact of the fingerprint sells me though, because there are just too many "what ifs" for it not to be his fingerprint on both the can and canvas.
Personally I like splatter painting because it gives the audience a chance to create their own immage in the splatters. Drips and run, splatters and dots all effect people differently connecting them to a personal past experince or dream.
I do not think this painting is worth 50 million dollars. If it is a Pollock, it was one he did not want his name signed to (or else he would have). Instead I can see it as a portait he messed up on and disgaurded thinking no one would be interested it. But the fact of the fingerprint deffinately makes it worth more than the simple 9 million Terri was offered. Around 25-35 million is where I would place it.
Honestly I use to make paintings that look similar to that of Pollock's. The difference? I was four. The evidence in the movie points towards authenticity and that works for me. Do I think that she should sell it? personally, I wouldn't sell it...at first. Not until every possible buyer new about the painting and then see who wants it more.
To be quite honest with this piece of art, I believe that it is authentic. Why so? Because, in the art world, it is always relevant to the golden rule of "beauty in the eye of the beholder" because it is how we perceive the art. It doesn't matter what someone else thinks about a work of art. Its how I see it is what gives it value to me. I believe that Teri should sell the painting for 50 million or higher because that is the value to her!
After watching the movie in class, i've decided that I really enojy Jackson Pollocks work. As to weither or not Teri horton's painting is an original pollock or not, I belive it isn't. Even if it was real no one in the art world is excepting it, so it might as well be fake. I think Teri should sell the painting for anything she can get.
-kristen graves
I feel that Teri Horton should sell the painting she found and believes is Jackson Pollock’s painting for how much she wants. I feel that the art critics are just jealous and angry that she had found a painting from Jackson Pollock for five dollars in a thrift store. They should be happy and proud that someone has found one of Pollock’s paintings, and is willing to share it with the world. They should go by the fingerprint and not by what the type of paint used. I hope that Teri Horton gets receives her asking price for the painting.
Amber Cavender
After seeing the film I can’t believe how narrow minded those critics are. That has to be a genuine Pollock. If it were a murder and they had a suspect you better believe he’d be sitting on death row right now. As far as Teri is concerned, I commend her for sticking to her guns. If it were me I would have sold in heart beat, but obviously Teri’s not hurting for money like I am. I would like to hear that she ended up getting someone to deem it a real Pollock and one day maybe go see it hanging in a gallery somewhere.
I believe that this painting is wondefully painted to look at but to have it mounted up on the wall.. not so much. Anyways it this particular painting doesn't really catch me as much as the other paintings wich Jackson Pollock did in his movie.The earlier paintings which he did in the movie were maginificent!! I loved the way the people in his paintings looked distorted and an eye would be on one side and an ear or nose on the other. Those were my favorites! I don't believe that Teri Horton should sell his painting for a lower amount than what she actually believes it is worth because how could you do that to a painting which you consider wonderful? It's like slapping Pollock in the face.
I did not watch the film in class. However, after reading all of the different comments by everyone, I wish I did! I tried to do a little bit of research about Jackson Pollack, and discovered his unique techniques and brilliant paintings. I find them to be extraordinary. Such a simple way to paint, how come no one ever thought of it? I begin to wonder what he was thinking while painting, or shall I say, dripping and pouring? His ways of action painting are incredible, and I definitely think that his paintings are valuable.
Post a Comment