Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Ms. Koehly's Summer semester MFA Class
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(45)
-
▼
June
(10)
- And Here's One We Didn't Discuss in Class: What i...
- One more
- More News on the Teri Horton Jackson Pollock
- Relevant to Today's Class - June 19, 2008
- Week One: Assignment
- Week One: Art History is not Art or History
- Class Sylabus Summer 2008
- Deadlines and Opportunities from Latino PBS
- More Summer Deadlines
- Summer Festival Deadline
-
▼
June
(10)
10 comments:
I'm sure that the snooty-tooty artsy-fartsy guy was thinking just that.
And frankly, it wouldn't surprise me.
People who spent their lives following professional artists and their styles didn't think it was real.
I more than believe that if it were real they'd be ecstatic.
Finally they found one more! Yay!
The paint matched... the particles matched. - hey. anything is possible, it could be real.
I'm also sure many people would forge a fingerprint for 75 Million.
/shrug.
Just remember... people who dedicated their lives to studying artists, don't believe it's real. It's like replacing your mom or father with an android and someone trying to tell you it's your real mom or dad - so I think????
I'm starting to think we have the makings of a good CSI episode. There's scientific evidence that links the painting to Pollack. For example, the painting had gold flecks in it similar to those found in his studio. And then there's the fingerprint match.
This would would lead us to the conclusion that it's a Pollack. I'd venture to say it is. It doesn't have the flare that his other pieces do, but so what? It took him some time do develop that messy abstract style. Maybe the garage sale piece was one of his earlier pieces that he didn't quite get right, but was a stepping stone to his later works.
As far as the fingerprint being forged... Who knows? They should have picked a better piece to forge and made the big bucks. We'll have to get the CSI team on it, to be sure.
I think it would be exceedingly difficult to forge a fingerprint with any accuracy onto a canvas. Isn't the mark of the fingerprint in the same paint as the rest of it? Also, it isn't like the nice lady who bought it in the first place is a forensic expert, so know you are calling into question the ethics of several specialists who would have a lot to lose if it were ever proven they had a hand in forging the print.
Oh I definately agree with Justin and Kamer. I thought when the fingerprint part came up in the film, that would be the selling point to the art community. Obviously not. The fingerprint expert definately had a point: if a fingerprint can put someone to death for a crime, how can it not prove someone painted the painting? I find that very contradictory.
I also was very agitated by the pompass art critic. I am so glad I am not in that realm of the art community. I believe we are much more accepting in the outer regions of art because we all interpret art more loosely. We view many things types of art and use many different means to achieve them.
How the heck can you forge someone elses fingerprints!? I don't know. You'd have to really really really desperate to try and pull something like that. But, she is a bit crazily determined to "bring down the art world" one art historian at a time. I can't blame her. The guy they brought in to examine the art piece was defiantly an over-pompased, arigent, person. I'd want to prove him wrong as well. I think the fingerpint is real, but there is really no way to prove it.
Fingerprints have been faked. i t can be done using a gelatin mold. the head would be difficult but the proogf of concept and fooling of simple fingerprint scanner has been proven, however, it is not effective in faking people touching things and leaving an oily residue that can be detected. it would invalidate using fingerprints as conclusive evidence in crimes, it would be used but only as supporting evidence.
Anim8tr has a good point about the double standard. If fingerprint data can exonerate or condemn someone in a court of law, then it should hold water in the art world as well. I can't remember the exact line from the "art expert", but he called fingerprint evidence "hooey science". Talk about being out of touch with the times!
However, forensic science isn't 100% right all the time. But it's asking a lot to begin with. Solving a crime or finding the truth with little more than an oily residue.
Back to the original question. If the fingerprint truly was forged, then I'd conclude that his wife must have created the garage sale piece. She knew his style, and played around with abstraction herself. She could have used the same paints, materials, and even painted in the same studio.
Pollock's work has grown on me this semester. I've learned to appreciate it where before I thought it was little more than scribble. That said, it was certainly one of his weaker pieces. The mechanics of the paint spill are similar to his, I guess, but the color palette that was used was awful. I think all that supports the hypothesis that the garage sale painting was
If the finger print was fake? Will could they photoshop the finger print and add it to the canvas? What about if some forged the finger print? In my opinion I think that the work could be Pollack's. Who knows that Pollack made that and gave it to someone in his drunken stupor. Pollack was always drinking and when he can to it, he was not happy with the work. Thats why it doesn't match his famous
work that are in the museums.
The painting had close resembles of his style of splatting paint Think that the art critics do not want to admit that they were wrong. So that they do not look stupid because they know everything. Right!!!!
Post a Comment