So I'm listening to 60 Minutes and there's this report of a little old ex-tucker lady who bought a potential Jackson Pollock painting for $5. Problem is that the 'art community' - who ever that is - doesn't accept her print as original. She has no provenance on the painting.
Anyway, that doesn't bother me so much as the following excerpt when they talked about fingerprint evidence:
So even with fingerprint evidence, if the 'art community' doesn't think it's a Pollock, than it's not a Pollock?"The art world doesn't understand fingerprints any more than it understands DNA. So, you’re asking them to take what they don’t understand. You say: 'Is there a match?' 'I don’t, I don’t know what a, I don’t know what a match means.' They don’t know what a match means," art lawyer Ron Spencer explained in the documentary.
You decide and discuss. Full story can be found here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2758110.shtml