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)
40 comments:
I really liked the painting, I like how its not really a picture of anything its just an abstract painting..Something I think I would try and be like "look what I just did" I deff think this is a work of Pullock.I think she should drop the price but not too much.Its real I just think the art world isnt trying to come out of the pocket for her listing .The way he layers his painting and elegantly swipes his brush is remarkable. The designs thats come to life when its finished is like WOW!!! Something that would be awesome on a T-Shirt.Deff digginh the aftermath. Who ever knew how much fun it would be to get wasted and paint! lol
After watching the movie, I definitely have a new perspective on Jackson Pollock an his work. Speaking on the specific piece in the movie, regardless of who mae it; I think it it unappealling. I actually feel uncomfrtable looking at it. I don't enjoy the colors or the size. I do however, beleive it to be an authentic Pollock, based on the evidence suggested in the film. I view fingerprints as hard, concrete evidence and to compare and validate three separate prints, for me, is positive grounds for belief. Regarding Pollocks work, I love that he was inspired from within--DEEP within. I get the sense that he allowed that primitive part of himself to come to the surface-then he took it a step further and extended those feelings, ideas, nightmares, cravings and fantasies-onto his panels. I can really appreciate that rawness that an artist, like Pollock, offers. THAT-is art, from my perspective. It may be hideous, and stir uncomfortable feelings; but it is art nonetheless. As for Teri Horton, yesyesyesyesYES she should sell for a lower asking price. Although she's been on a long journey with this painting, I didn't get the sense that she appreciates it at all. So, I say Teri would be wise to take a few million, pass it on to others who LOVE it and understand it and all of its' complexities, and be thankful she got to share in something so extraordinary and wild.
After watching the movie, it definitely leaves open the possibilities of Teri Horton’s painting being an authentic Pollock painting. The debate between the experts on what classifies this work of art as being real and the scientific research to prove the painting as an authentic was to me the most significant. The art world seems to be closed minded to the idea of anything outside of their inner circle. The experts were more interested in their own emotions and feelings and didn’t want to consider the scientific research that was done. Why not look at the possibilities of where the artist’s works could have ended up? This pioneering abstract painter, nicknamed “Jack the Dripper,” was a tortured alcoholic who swung between sensitivity, elation and despair. His work had a rhythm and flow in the threads of the paint. There seemed to be layers of paint that caused web like mass of colors. In my opinion, Teri Horton, yes, should sell the painting. The price, well like anything else, it’s only worth what someone is willing to pay.
I would have taken the two million dollars! Look at all of the stress that Terry went through in trying to prove that it was a real Pullock. She could've been on easy street and let some other big-wig decide if it was real or not. She thought the painting was ugly for crying out loud! I could see if she was emotionally attatched to the artwork but she wasn't. As for what I thought about it, I would definitely hang the painting up in my house, but I wouldn't pay more than $100 for it. I think I could produce something relatively close to that artwork. Maybe I should...
After watching the movie, I feel that the painting is authentic. It was scientifically proven. I think that the people who are so called experts were closed minded to Terri, because she was from a lower class than they are. If that painting was in the hands of some wealthy person, the painting would have already been sold. The offers have been coming in because the art community knows that it is the real deal. I do not feel that Terri should sell for a lower price, because she based her decision on principle. As for me, I would have already taken the money.
Michele Y.
This was the first time that I saw the movie, "Who is Jackson Pollock?" I was suprised at the ending. I thought this was going to be about some lady who becomes very rich after finding a Jackson Pollock painting. If it were me, I would have accepted the first offer of 2 million dollars and never looked back. In my opinion, I don't think the painting is real. Eventhough, the movie said he randomly passed out some of his paintings, it still would of had his signature on it. After all, the experts lookied at it and all of them said the painting was a fake. I think they should know. Especially, that one expert who was very familar with Jackson Pollock paintings, agreed it was a fake. The forensic studies does make me wonder, but not enough to convince me. When comparing this painting side by side to a real Jackson Pollock, it was hard to tell the difference, but there were alot of copy-cat artists at the time. Just like the man in the movie who paints forgeries for a living, if you were to put one of his paintings next to the real artist's painting, besides the type of paint he uses, it would be very hard to tell the difference.
I guess I'm a skeptic, but unless it is proven 100%, the painting is not worth $50,000,000 let alone the $9,000,000, which was offered at the end of the movie. There just cannot be any doubt when dealing with this amount of money!
In my opinion, regardless of wether or not the art world agreed it was or was not a Pollock, the painting was. There was definitely a significant amount of evidence to show it. However, I do not personally think regardless of the amount of money I had I would buy such a painting just to say I had it, so I think she should have sold it especially if the only reason she hadn't was because of greed. Her main case for not selling it for two million was that she wanted definite proof, and once she had proof she wouldn't sell it because 9 million wasn't enough for her. That is pure greed.
I believe she should sell this painting to a non-anonymous buyer with a contigency contract, "that if the buyer re-sells the painting or is able to get it authenticated, that the seller, Terry will recieve a percentage of that buy." That's what I think!
She shouldn't be too stingy since she is living in a trailer and her kids could probably use some money. I hope she decides to do something useful before she passes.
First, I must say I really enjoyed watching this movie. I found Teri Horton quite humorous. If fingerprints are enough evidence to convict people for murder...why is not enough for the art community to accept the painting as a Pollock. Teri Horton is standing up for something she believes in and I feel its wonderful. But, I wonder though...is it a really good idea to keep passing up these money offers? I keep going back to no. The art community never came off as being receptive towards this painting. Their opinions seemed meaningless because of their attitudes and demeanors. I love the fact Teri Horton keeps challenging them. Jackson Pollock's work I feel is timeless and wonderful. I would love to see his work in person.
Personally, I dislike ALL of those paintings and paintings tht resemble this, but thts just me. To me it has no form and it doesnt make any sense to me in terms of shape and form. Is it an authentic Pollock? I think it is an auuthentic Pollock, because I cannot remember the last time that forensics was "wrong", simply because these scientists are very detailistc about everything, so it could NOT have been a coincidence tht his fingerprints were all over tht painting. Me, I wouldnt pay one penny for tht because I could get my three year old niece to do the same painting with a box of crayola and construction paper. Should she sell it for less? Yes!!!
I really really liked the painting. On our first blog I was one person that stated that I do like the splatter paintings by Jackson Pollock. Do I think the painting was an authenic Pollock painting, Yes.. I mean the other guy saw a finger print and tested it with other finger prints and it showed the same. I just think the art industry is being cheap about it .. and not want to pay her just cause she got it at thrift store for such a little amount. If I were 70 something years old and had the Pollock painting I would keep it for myself but then again, if it didn't interest me I would def. sell it for less than the 50million that no one is offering me. But overall Pollocks painting are beautiful, I feel they are the type that you can just sit there and think about a variety of things by just looking at a single peice of work.
“You ain’t going to believe this shit”-Teri Horton
After watching “Who the #$&% is Jackson Pollock?” I do not feel the painting is an authentic Paul Jackson Pollock. However, I think Ms. Horton is a tenacious woman, but she will be waiting for recognition; moreover, a $50 million pay off that will never come into fruition. Second, I do not like the art work done by Paul Jackson Pollock. I do not understand why he received such publicity for a “drip” technique that a child can do. Although, I do respect his rooted commitment to the art of painting. Lastly, I think Horton should have sold the painting for $9 million.
I was ill on Wednesday and not able to watch the video. However, after doing some research on Pollock, I would say that the piece is one of his works. Is it worth 50 million? I don't beleve so and I think she should lower the price. I bet somewhere out there, someone is willing to pay it though. To me, it is not a very appealing piece and not something I would want to hang in my house, but I'm sure to many this would be a beautiful piece of art someone would pay a few million to hang in their home and Teri Horton should take advantage of that.
Although many find Pollock’s work to be child like. I find his work to be astoundingly creative. I think that his work has a sophisticated feel and I love way he uses color and movement to interpret emotion. Now would I pay 50 million for his work? No, because I don’t have 50 million to spend on a painting. If I did have 50 million to spend on a painting I don’t believe that I would purchase any of his pieces, but I would defiantly pay to view his work in a museum. Now, should Teri Horton sell the painting? I believe so. I say this because she did not appreciate the painting. I could see her holding on to it if she found it truly beautiful, but she didn’t. To top it off she could definitely use the money; and I don’t think that 2 million is a bad price for a painting that could possibly be a fake. I’m riding the fence on whether the painting is real or fake. The forensic evidence pushes me to believe that it’s real, but we will never know for sure.
-Jennifer Bentson
I do not like abstract paintings, so I do not care for this work of art. I do believe however, that if Peter Paul Biro, who is a forensic specialist, can prove that the finger prints on the printing really do belong to Jackson Pollock, the painting must be real. I feel that Thomas Hoving, the former director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, is just saying it is not real because he does not want someone outside of the "elite world of art" to own what is consider to be a priceless work of art. I also feel that if she is not an art lover, she should not be asking such a high price for a painting she has no attachment to, does not care about, or even like it as a work of art. Maybe if she thought the painting was pretty and liked it, rather than just trying to make a profit, then maybe the price she is asking would be ok.
After viewing the movie I think the Pollock painting is authentic. I enjoy the abstract style he utilizes with a collage of color that seems to have an endless image. His art almost hypnotizes the viewer because of the different swooping splatter effects. All the color is conected in a unity. There is a manipulative manner in the way the painting flows. Each stroke seems to overlap another and take the viewer on a roller coaster ride. As for Teri Horton,she is the poster child of a greedy grandma. She doesn't have provenance on the painting and her family could use the money. She should sell the painting to the Japenese for 9 million and give up dumpster diving. Then she could take the money and help out her family by starting their own trucking buisness and buy that little bar they all hang out in. The painting seems too much of a headache for an elderly woman to worry about in her final years. She don't even like the artwork and all she cares about is getting the greatest possible amount. The purchaser of the painting would appreciate the true value of the work. Money isn't everything but I think I would settle for 9 million.
Art is art. Every artist has a different creative imagination that is usually seen in their artwork. I think the painting is an expression of how Pollock felt. He always wanted to feel like he was literally in in paintings while he painted. I like the painting because it is odd and has alot of colors. Eventhough I dont understand the painting, I think it is breathtaking. I think it is an authentic Pollock based on the forensic evidence in the movie. I feel that he had great potential that was quite visible in his work. Due to his problem with alcohol and depression, he was not able to be all he could have been. I do not think Teri Horton should sell it for less. In the art world, Pollock work is worth alot. I saw where one of paintings sold for 140 million.
Derrica Hawkins
it
So, I really liked the painting; Pollock or not. Although I believe it was done by him. Towards the end of the movie, when they showed an actual Jackson Pollock, it look to me as almost the same. I know I'm not a so called "expert" but they both looked amazing, and a lot alike. Now the subject of Teri Horton, and if she should sell the painting for less than she thinks its worth; I dont think so. I see a lot of people disagree with me, and think that she is being greedy. At the beginning of the movie it was said that Jackson Pollock himself wouldn't sell a painting for a penny less than he thought it was worth. So, why should she? If she thinks it is authentic, and if so the worth would be a lot more than she has been offered. So I think she is doing the right thing.
Personally I believe that Teri Horton's found treasure is indeed an original Jackson Pollock. With the forensic evidence that was found I believe the art community is just not wanting to admit that they were wrong. They are trying to save face. Simply because if they were wrong about this one, what others could they be wrong about. I love the feel of Pollock's work; so freeing and liberating. You can see that he was an extremely brilliant man in his views of what is art. As far as the money for the painting found by Horton, I do believe that her original amount of fifty million is a little outrageous. She needs to consider the fact that she has already been turned down by the art community and once that word gets around, the reputation for the painting will be looked down upon for quite some time. With the few proposals of 5 and 8-9 million, I would have jumped at that and she should have to in my mind.
-Amanda Young
I enjoyed the movie and thought that it was both interesting and entertaining. Entertaining because Teri Horton is very funny in her stubborness and raunchiness. From the first glimpse I had of the painting, I thought it was very pretty even though the characters were commenting on its ugliness. I think Jackson Pollock's work is intrigueing but I cannot figure his worth in the art world. I don't think his authentic works should be so overpriced.
I was convinced by the forensic detective in the movie that the painting was indeed authentic and I thought it was absurd that this was not proof enough for the art dealers. Since I already think the Jackson Pollock paintings are overpriced, I obviously think Teri Horton's price is ridiculous. Her stubborness in pursueing the high 50 million price is stupid. She was lucky first to get the two million dollar offer; and then a nine million offer. I guarantee that as soon as she dies her son will sell that painting and will settle for much less. Thank you for sharing this movie. It was so interesting!
After watching the video about Teri Horton and the possible Jackson Pollack painting she found I learned a lot about authenticating paintings. I think that the painting she found could very easily be a Pollack painting and I believe this because of the fingerprint found on the back of the canvass. Most of the art world didn’t want to authenticate it only the only proof being a fingerprint, but if you can solve ac rime on a fingerprint I think you can authenticate a painting by a fingerprint. I personally don’t like Jackson Pollack’s paintings because there seems to be no organization or pattern to it but I can see where some may adore his works. When Teri Horton was offered nine million dollars for it and refused it was appalled. It may be worth that much but to Jackson Pollack it wasn’t worth that much if it ended up in a thrift store.
From watching the Movie about pollocks painting I would have to say that it is an authentic genuine Pollock. This is just my opinion however. What really swayed my opinion was when they brought in the forensic scientist. He provided scientific evidence that this was in fact painted by the hand of Jackson Pollock. Looking at the situation as a crime scene he provides concrete evidence to support his and the owners claim. As far as selling the painting goes, I think Terry should wait until someone makes the offer around the neighborhood of what it is really worth. I don't think she should compromise her position, but at the same time, it's ok to calibrate the situation and make a decision based on the circumstances.
I do believe that this is a painting from Jackson Pollock. Just the way the colors are layred and with all the information from the movie is what leads me to believe this is an original painting. My feeling however is that I can't see how this is art work or painting. To me its still just a punck of colors splashed together something a little kid could do. So I really don't care for this type of painting it kind of makes my eyes hurt if I look at it for a while. Now with Terry Horton and if she should lower the price, I do believe she should lower the price. I would probably have taken the 2 million she was offered in the first place. 50 million dollars is a lot of money for something a little kid could wether its an original or not, thats just my opinion. Also look at all the stress Terry had to go through for people to believe her that the painting was real, to me the paintings definitely not worth all the stress.
Although I missed the movie, I did read up on it online. It fascinates me to know what goes on behind the scenes in some areas of high society. I can't really say what I think about this painting. It's odd because, yes, it is art. However, it's not something that would seem as hard to paint as a lot of the art out there. I wouldn't really argue though that I could do that or that a kid could to it. If I go splatter paint and try to sell it for millions of dollars, well, it's not going to happen. In what I read it was said that the woman in the movie turned down nine million dollars for the painting over principle. It's just my opinion, but I can think of many more principles that are much better that nine million dollars could help with.
William Palmes
Although from watching the movie, Jackson Pollock's paintings didn't seem to line up with the painting that Teri Horton had, I do believe her painting is authentic. Jackson Pollock could have tried a new style on this particular piece. We don't really know. This painting was not kept in mint condition and it cannot be 100% verified that it is a Jackson pollock so I think Teri Horton should have settled for the 2 million dollars. Who would want to pay that much money for a possible fake? Jackson Pollock's paintings were very valuable in his eyes so her art provenance story did not match his character to me at all. I think that ridiculous story could have stumped her progress on learning more about the painting. His art work is unique in its own way but I would not care to own one. His work doesn't really capture my attention when I look at it.
I really liked Jackson Pollock's work it was the start of something new.His style is unique like nothing I've ever seen before his contrast with colors was very interesting.As for the painting being authentic I do believe that with the evidence of fingerprints it validates the paintings author.If I owned the painting I would have it sold for the first offer of 2 million considering all the spectulation surrounding the authenticity.
After learning about Jackson Pollock, I have a new view of his work and of how people look at art in general. To say that his work is not art doesn't seem to be true if others do feel that it is art. The movie seems to offer a good taste of what many feel is art and how many people can be snobbish and mean towards others. I most likely would have sold the painting and been done with it, but I can't say that I know what it would have been like to be in that situation. I guess if someone can accurately display their emotions in a painting like that, then they do have a talent for it.
Danielle Palmes
I am positive that the piece is an authentic Polluck painting. The piece itself is ok, nothing spectacular, but the movie was incredibly interesting! I do like the colors and the design, but I would not pay a lot of money for one. However, I do feel that Teri should not take anything lower than 50 million for it because that is what the other painting is worth. If she took a lower price, the person who buys it will probably just sell it for the 50 million after finding a way to authenticate it. Overall I enjoyed watching this movie!
I enjoy paintings like this its more than just a a picture, but then again I enjoy this type of art, even if "anyone can do it". I also believe that it was a genuine Pollock the evidence backs it up. The lady is being a little greedy seeing how she did think it was ugly in the first place. She definitely should have taken the 9 million that was offered, it would be understandible if she was some how related to him or something. The contingency contract "if its viable" would be the best decision, although that wasnt my idea I just agree.
In my opinion, it appears that the old trucker lady's painting is in fact a Jackson Pullock. The painting titled "number five," with the gold dust, and finger print were more than enough proof for me. It looks like the art world is filled with pseudo experts who hold the "vibe" of the work above hard scientific proof.
It looks like a growing trend in America that people side with feelings over evidence. It is in my opinion absolutely ridiculous in the art world and elsewhere for educated people to deny science.
As for the hard ridden trucker's asking price on her bargain bin Pullock, I wouldn't pay 50 cents for it, but if the market says 50 million, and you want to be the talk of your social circle then by all means buy it.
It should be treated as an authentic Pullock, but is anyone else wondering why such a skid mark of a work is commanding such a price? Perhaps I should let my drunk brother do some splatter painting and let the pseudo intellectuals of the world go broke looking at it.
Before watching the film, I didn't really know anything about Jackson Pollock or about the importance of provenance. The Webster's New World Dictionary defines provenance as origin or source. It is from the Latin word, provenier which mean to come forth. However, provenance seems to come from the word prove and has two definitions: 1. to test by experiment and 2. to establish as true. With those definitions in mind, Teri Horton has chosen to test by experiment and use scientific methods to establish her painting as a Jackson Pollock. In contrast, Thomas Houng, the past museum curator, clearly is trying to prove the artwork is genuine through provenance. Looking just at the language, they are trying to prove the same thing, but have different methods.
In my opinion, Teri Horton, wants a battle to fight. If she enjoys the painting and thinks its a Jackson Pollock, then enjoy it. If it's money she wants, 9 million dollars is more money than she could ever spend. However, the world of art has a system of authentication that is accepted and ties the work through a type of geneology tracing the origin to the artist. Just because Teri didn't gain acceptance, doesn't mean the system is flawed. Until scientifc methods are accepted for art, she should confine her collections to archeological finds that rely on scientific testing.
Who cares if Teri's painting is an original Jackson Pollock. Enjoy it, or sell it.
After watching the movie "Who the ______ is Jackson Pollack" I was really intrigued about the artist. Everyone knows something about him and the work that he produced but I think the movie brought some insight into the man himself which helped me understand his artwork a little more. I think that if Teri Horton feels her painting is worth fifty million dollars than she should not sell it for anything less. This painting has taken her on quite a journey and I think it's the journey she enjoys the most. Some other factor that I learned after watching this movie is how the scientific world can somethimes collide with the art world. It really surprised me that it could can be done to prove who painted a painting.
C. Dogbe
I think that the painting was an authentic Pollock. The title of the painting that looked very similar was “Number 5”. Couldn’t her painting be Number 1,2,3 or 4. I think the art world doesn’t like the fact that a truck driver bought it for five dollars. If they would have presented it as an authentic painting to the experts, I believe they would have went along with it. The scientist was very convincing and I think he proved it was a Pollock. She should have taken the nine million. I don’t understand why she didn’t take it. Plus once someone in the art world has this painting, I believe the experts will change their minds.
-Bridget Raimondo
I believe that painting in particular is not really that impressive as such. However, from seeing his other art, it does show what an incredible artist he was. I do believe the painting is truly an original piece from Jackson Pollock, and find that the art world is full of pre-Madonna’s who even with as much evidence that has been provided still can’t accept the work. Regarding a price, I would probably have gone with the 9 million from the Saudi’s, however I see her point regarding the principal of the entire painting. All she wants is recognition. Acceptance from the art world that it is a true Jackson Pollock.
This movie cracked me up if only in the fact that Terri is in many ways like Pollock. I like Pollock's work a lot, I find it to be free and emotional. Whether she has an original Pollock, I'm not sure. Scientifically she has a good argument on her side and I do feel that the art world is more repulsed by the idea of a woman of her nature has fine art than whether the Pollock is legit or not. I'm curious if they had told the critiques a different story before they viewed the painting if the results would have been different. As far as selling the painting, I would sell it for the highest price I could get and without professional verification or a paper trail I think Teri was a fool not to sell it for 9 million.
This was a very interesting movie. I truly appreciate Jackson Pollock as an artist now. This painting may seem worthless because of the technique it was constructed in but it comes to appreciate the artist who painted it. I enjoyed hearing and seeing the story behind this painting; it was very humorous seeing how others perceived the value of Jackson Pollock's artworks. From the film i can conclude that the painting has much monetary value, just like his other works have. From the evidence shown on the film this shows to be an authentic painting. I do not agree with others denying when the facts when they are very evident. Jackson Pollocks works came from the heart, as do works of other artists. I appreciate his work; it was unique in its own way. From what i can conclude about Terri Horton is that she is making it more of a social statement more than for what the painting and the artist are worth. But then again, personally if had such a painting in my possession, I would also make the biggest profit I could; it seems to concour with the other art industries that reap the greatest benefits from paintings that, mostly, while the artist is alive are worthless but when the artist dies are worth significant amounts of money.
MY NAME IS TRACEY DAVIS AND I TOOK THIS CLASS ALMOST 20 YEARS AGO, OF COURSE IT WAS NAMED ART APPRECIATION BACK THEN. I"M WELL INTO MY CAREER AND DECIDED TO FINALLY GET BACK IN COLLEGE AND FINISH WHAT I'D STARTED. I HAVE 3 KIDS AND A GRANDDAUGHTER AND AM REALLY STRETCHED FOR TIME BUT I'M FINDING IT FOR MYSELF. I DON'T HAVE A FAVORITE ART TYPE BUT I'M SLOWLY DEVELOPING A CURIOSITY THANKS TO MATURITY AND EXPOSURE TO PEOPLE FROM MANY DIFFERENT WALKS OF LIFE. TO BE HONEST, THE CLASS ISNT A BORE AS IT WAS 20 YRS AGO, WHICH IS WHY I DROPPED IT.
Post a Comment