Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,973   Posts: 1,558,699   Online: 853
      
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 26
  1. #1
    gr82bart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Culver City, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,224
    Images
    37

    Art versus Science

    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:
    "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.
    So even with fingerprint evidence, if the 'art community' doesn't think it's a Pollock, than it's not a Pollock?

    You decide and discuss. Full story can be found here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2758110.shtml

    Regards, Art.
    Last edited by gr82bart; 05-06-2007 at 07:01 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    Visit my website at www.ArtLiem.com
    or my online portfolios at APUG and ModelMayhem

  2. #2
    Sparky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,100
    Well - it seems like some big pieces of the puzzle are missing here! We have no idea how she originally approached these artworld cognoscenti. That may have a lot to do with it. It seems like so much trouble for nothing. She could simply have taken the painting to christie's and put it up for bid. No doubt Christie's and potential bidders would throw some forensic money at it. Perhaps if it was found to be a Pollock by someone like that - then people would change their tune.

    No doubt there's a bit of snobbery going on, too.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Italia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,680
    Quote Originally Posted by gr82bart View Post
    So even with fingerprint evidence, if the 'art community' doesn't think it's a Pollock, than it's not a Pollock?
    What would the fingerprint prove? That he touched it? Or that he painted it? Big difference between touching the back of a canvas and painting one isn't there?

  4. #4
    Sparky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,100
    my thoughts are that - if the guy touched it while the paint was wet - it's not too likely to have been printed by anyone else - considering his style was so unique.

  5. #5
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,786
    First thought: that art teacher was stingy.
    Second thought: that lady intending throwing darts at that painting bought as a joke is not worthy of the money
    Third thought: no painting is worth 50million$
    Fourth thought: this is a capitalistic world where one can do with ones property as one like; and the art world (rather the art trading business) is part of this world and has got it’s very own rules and nobody is obliged to buy something
    (That lady is said to be a bit into gambling. I guess this was fun to her up to now and thus she got her (first?) revenue already.)

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Italia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,680
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky View Post
    my thoughts are that - if the guy touched it while the paint was wet - it's not too likely to have been printed by anyone else - considering his style was so unique.
    He touched it while moving a blank one and never touched it again.

    He started it and threw it out half finished. Some body found the half finished one and "finished" it for him

    Some body brought a painting to him to look at in his studio. He touched. Later somebody else painted over the first painting but leaving the finger print.

    From the posted article it seems most agree it isn't his style. Now maybe that's why he threw it out. But the finger print at most proves he touched it.

  7. #7
    my_lonely_eye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    20
    And who exactly is this "art community"? A panel of art snobs? The art community encompasses many mediums, not just paintings.
    By the sea is where I'll make my living.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Shooter
    Plastic Cameras
    Posts
    1,298
    At first glance of the picture I really did not think it was an original Pollock. I work at the art museum here in Tucson, AZ where we have a few Pollock drip paintings, and this one just seems very different. However, I realized that the photograph they took of the painting was very poor and judging by the picture they used in the article, the painting is really off. I'm sure it was meant to be displayed horizontal also, and not vertical and you cannot really see the color or detail.

    Here is another article with better pictures- http://www.thereeler.com/features/th...n_question.php

    I'm sure over the years there has been hundreds of people that have copied Pollock's style. Could this be done by someone that just wanted to copy his style? Possible. But after really looking at it, I'm starting to feel it's real.

    And AGX, clearly you are not familar with the art market. $50 million for an important painting from one of the most famous painter is history is just a low estimate. I'm sure if they prove this to be a real Pollock painting, it will sell closer to $100 million.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NYC
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,346
    For the record, when I typed "record painting prices" into Google, the FIRST item to pop up was a Jackson Pollock:
    http://www.artnewsblog.com/2006/11/r...on-pollock.htm

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Shooter
    Plastic Cameras
    Posts
    1,298
    While on the topic of highest selling artwork, here is the record for the highest selling photography from a living photographer. This was just a few months ago.

    Andreas Gursky 99 Cent II Diptychon, $3,346,456, February, 2007

    http://incident.net/users/gregory/wo...99cent_pop.jpg

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin