Thursday, May 21, 2009

Pollock Matters

Of which persuasion would you consider when determining whether a work of art is authentic or not? Example: would you follow the connoisseurship, forensics, provenance, etc.


  1. Forensics. But I may have been persuaded to move against that pompous prick in the Pollock film. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, flies like a duck, and has a matching finger print from Pollock's studio like a duck, it's probably a 50 million dollar painting.

  2. I would pose a question to Nick asking what if the "index" (i.e. the fingerprint from the back of the painting) is not by Pollock? How does this change the evidence?

    What seems to me to be very convincing is the provenance, however I would not rely on this alone.

    Other thoughts?

  3. In this case, I would consider the forensic evidence as a possibility. However, as Grey suggests, there is a chance that the fingerprints might belong to someone else.

    I would look into other scientific measures for this piece, such as the mathematical theory within the "In the Hands of the Master" article. I would also look for various art historian reports, not just this guy, and research Jackson Pollock myself. By combining the various sources, one can reach an valid conclusion on whether or not the work is indeed the real deal or not.

  4. Even if the prints came from someone else, we can at least link Pollock's studio with teh painting, which is a huge step.