Who the #$&% Is Jackson Pollock?

source: Who the #$&% Is Jackson Pollock?

This movie is a hoot. A hilarious look at the art market but also an endearing portrait of a tough little lady, Teri Horton. Something for everyone--well, except art critics who believe that an artist´s fingerprint on the back of a canvas is no substitute for a signature! I absolutely enjoyed watching this story play out and found the pacing and perspectives to be very well planned by the director. In addition to the sheer entertainment vaiue, the film provides lots of food for more serious thought. Why do certifiably ¨genuine¨ paintings by artists essentially christened saints fetch offers of many millions of dollars, while paintings which might be by those same artists, but also might not, are considered worthless?

This Documentary shows how Beliefs are the most essential part of our Life... In Swann's Way, Marcel Proust wrote : « Facts do not find their way into the world in which our beliefs reside; they did not produce our beliefs, they do not destroy them. » Nobody will destroy Teri Horton's Belief that she has bought a $50 million Pollock... As nobody will destroy the Expert's / collectors Belief that Teri has bought a $5 Fake. Science (also a Belief) does not enter the Realm of Art Experts, as Experts' Judgement does not enter Teri Horton's Realm. Because they both stick to their respective Beliefs, and, as said Proust : Facts do not enter the world of Beliefs... Thus, Teri Horton & the Experts are Both right. We simply all BELIEVE that Da Vinci has painted the Mona Lisa...

Spoiler alert. Read the other reviews to determine whether you want to watch this movie. I definitely think it's worth the viewing, and my opinion of the answer to the main question raised might constitute a spoiler. I won't bother to give a summation of this movie, which is been done already umpteen times. I'm surprised nobody seems to have drawn what to me seems an obvious conclusion. The forensics are fairly conclusive as to the authenticity. Why can't people just see that this probably (or surely) is a Jackson Pollock, just not a very good one. That may even explain why he got rid of it. Not everything done by a master is a masterpiece, unless you just want an autograph. Marc Chagall used to write checks for everything, a loaf of bread, a cup of coffee, knowing that people would not cash his checks, preferring to have his autograph in their hands, also knowing his signature was more valuable than the value of the check. Look at a Jackson Pollock in the Museum of Modern Art in New York. Pictures and posters of those same paintings never really capture it. There is an inexplicable power when looking at these paintings in person. I don't understand it, nor can I articulate what it is, but it is a visceral experience, supra rational. The painting in the movie did not have the same power. It was probably done by Jackson Pollock, but probably one he was not proud of.

This one certainly makes good entertainment - which may be half the trouble. It's the story of a California grandmother buying an abstract painting in a junk-shop for $5, and then being tipped-off that it looks like an original Jackson Pollock, worth up to $50 million, if proved genuine. You don't have to dig very deep into the story before it starts to rattle, and not only because California is the natural habitat for wild theories of this sort. There is just too much of the pantomime about it all. The woman in question (Teri) is a long-distance truck-driver, who looks surprisingly genteel for one of that trade, as though she is posing as trailer-trash, with philistine opinions about abstract art - as echoed in the somewhat bowdlerised title of the film. She claims that a picture ought to 'look like something'. Well then, why choose such an unlikely present for a friend, when she could have found a nice harmless landscape or a bowl of fruit? On come the experts, who are quick to remind us about 'provenance' - a word she claims she has never heard before. Thomas Hoving of the New York Met talks in an impossibly conceited way about his status as an authenticator of paintings, clearly acting a snob character-part, to get us taking sides in the big contest: connoisseurship v. folksy fireside wisdom. Well, we certainly do take sides, even sometimes changing sides, as the evidence gradually comes to light. Apparently fingerprints have a lot to do with it, since Pollock despised the brush and palette. They even bring in a fingerprint expert from the Canadian Mounties - another over-theatrical touch. Two of the so-called experts insist that the painting is genuine, but it turns out that both of them were previously jailed for fraud. It is even claimed that the painting doesn't show enough evidence of Pollock's permanent drunkenness on the job! Unfortunately, the closer you look at Teri, the more you conclude that she is just a little unhinged altogether. When she finally understood what provenance meant, she invented a colourful ancestry for the painting, and at least one expert swallowed it whole. Last heard-of, she had turned down a $9 million offer, still holding out for the big fifty, even though authentication is looking more elusive than ever. And it will take more than Joe Beam and his (excruciating) country song about her to get me voting against the smart-and-smarmy experts, as I believe I'm meant to.

hi . am i the only person who noticed that when the painting was compared with the known Pollock that the two seemed to be part of the same piece of canvas, like the piece had been cut to a smaller size? there were lines that crossed over at the right places, like a puzzle would fit. i especially followed some of the yellow lines and they were continuous on both paintings. seems worth a closer look to me. i enjoyed the movie.since we are a love Pollock,hate Pollack family , it was fun to watch this film together although no one changed their mind on their position.we tried to get to MOMA recently but picked the one day that it was closed. i'll try again the next time we are in new york.

This documentary is one of the most interesting ones I have ever seen. It's about an elderly woman who happens to drive a 16-wheeler truck for a living and who lives in a trailer park who buys what she believes is a Jackson Pollock painting from a thrift shop for $5. When she takes the painting to renowned art dealers, she is met with snobbery and disbelief that the painting is authentic. It's as much a tale about the clashing of the ultra rich high class society versus the the low class and least cultured society. There is a nice scene where a country musician sings to the woman and a group of her friends as they munch on chicken wings, smoke cigarettes and drink beer. On the flip side, the art experts all talk in pompous-accents. The most intriguing element of the story, however, is the forensic investigator who the woman hires to see if there is any evidence that can link Pollock to the painting. This documentary is a must see. Rating 8 of 10 stars.

This is a unique and terrific documentary which flows seamlessly along. The story is incredible and the direction is creative. What is most striking is the filmmakers' ability to retain the simplicity of the story while weaving it throughout a feature-length film. To accomplish this in such an entertaining way is the mark of a creative storyteller. The director smartly frames his cast of characters, capturing their idiosyncrasies and succeeding in making a film that is perhaps more about the people than the painting. The result is a colorful and fun movie which exposes how people can affect the world through imagination and personal determination. The film deserves a high rating because it stands out in its genre as a very well done, unique endeavor. Interestingly, the creation of the film itself is as important to the story as anything in the film and, to that end, it proves the power of its own message.

This movie always keeps its tongue in its cheek. It could have made characters such as Hoving out to be despicable know-it-all who refuse to be wrong. The movie does have a "60 Minutes" feel to it, which is not surprising considering the involvement of Don Hewitt. A tendency to shade things might be expected, but really, no matter which side of the story one supports, there's plenty there to appreciate. Even the heavies in the film seem to be having a good time, maybe because they realize this isn't about some evil art forger trying to pass off a masterwork while bilking unsuspecting art lovers. It really is about the principles involved - and everyone in the movie truly does appear to be driven more by principle than anything else (with the exception of the sleazy art agent, perhaps). If nothing else, the film should end up encouraging viewers to learn a bit more about art appreciation and art history. With the ongoing controversy about the Alex Matter alleged-Pollocks, the story is timely and provoking while remaining highly entertaining. Side notes: I disagree that Teri Horton comes off as money-hungry. She reportedly turned down at least two multi-million dollar offers for the painting. The comment in a previous review regarding her unwillingness to meet with Frankie Brown, the Pollock-esquire splatter artist, is a bit inaccurate. You can read more about him and Teri Horton at www.fine art registry.com/articles/ Further investigation into the matter by Paul Biro, the art forensics specialist, is reported at his web site (Biro fine art restoration).

Documentary about one Teri Horton, a 73-year-old former truck driver (with a colorful and precarious past) who bought a peculiar painting one day in a California thrift shop--only to discover it might be a lost masterwork from famed artist Jackson Pollock. Horton, eager to sell the painting and get on her feet financially, is unable to convince the skeptical art world of her treasure, with naysayers far outweighing the handful of experts who find evidence the painting is indeed a Pollock (the artist left the work unsigned, though a fingerprint on the back is an exact match to the now-deceased maestro). Elements of Pollock's life are explored and intersected with Horton's own background; she tells at one point of a suicide attempt that went amusingly wrong, and her no-nonsense manner and pithy, seen-it-all demeanor are both funny and touching. Short at 74 minutes, the documentary is entertaining, perhaps minor, though a testament to the stubborn human spirit. Offered nine million dollars at one point, Horton refused to give the painting up, wanting her share of the American dream for what it is rightfully going for on the artists market. **1/2 from ****