Who the #$&% Is Jackson Pollock?

I feel like Pollack is one of those artists who most often elicits the "I could do that" appreciation from the typical viewer. I can hear it now: "Paint drips, big deal." The prices his work earns certainly makes a case for it being a big deal. I'd definitely call him an innovator. Maybe we all could drip paint, but he did it first. Nevertheless, I am not going to dive into the realm of abstract expressionism or the tortured psyche of Jackson Pollack right now (maybe later). For now, my question remains Who The #$&% Is Jackson Pollock?


It's the title of a 2006 documentary film about a woman named Teri Horton, a 73-year old former long-haul truck driver, who bought a thrift shop painting for $5 for her friend in 1992. She bought it as a joke because it was ugly, but she had to take it back when it didn't fit in her friend's trailer. So she brought it home and tried to earn her money back, attempting to sell it at a yard sale. There a local art teacher informed her it may be a Jackson Pollock. Guess what she said next?

For almost 20 years she has been searching for answers. And the answers are shrouded in intrigue. Initial responses from the art world dismissed her painting as "pretty, superficial, and frivolous." One of her loudest critics has been Thomas Hoving, a former curator and director of the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art. It's no Pollock says Hoving, because "It has no Pollock soul or heart."


In his own words, Hoving describes why he thinks the painting is NOT a Pollock:

* It is too neat and too sweet, using soigné colors that Pollock never used.
* Some lines are perfectly straight. It’s hard to drip straight lines.
* The canvas is commercially sized, which means that paint does not come through the back of the canvas. All real Pollocks are unsized and his paint patterns can easily be seen from the back.
* The thing is painted with acrylics. Pollock never used acrylics.

"I figured that the $5 picture was not a fake, but a decorator’s piece. You know, 'Gimme some big abstract -- like Pollock -- but make it with the colors of my new living room.' There are dozens around."


So the art world said no to her and she turned to science. Horton hired a respected, Canadian forensic scientist, Peter Paul Biro, to scientifically authenticate the painting. What he found was compelling: a fingerprint on the back of the canvas matches a fingerprint on a paint can in Pollock's studio. (The studio is preserved as a museum.)

The fingerprint on Pollock's paint can.

He also went on to match the fingerprint to another painting which is recognized as a true Pollock, giving him three points of similarity. And as for Pollock never using acrylic paint? An article in the New Yorker from July 2010 explains, "Biro, undaunted, visited Pollock’s old studio and extracted pigment samples from the floor, where the artist had once spread his canvases and applied paint. In a report, Biro wrote that he had used a 'microchemistry test'—a method of mixing a paint sample with other chemicals to analyze its characteristics. 'The very first sample of paint I tested,' he said, 'turned out to be acrylic.' He also revealed that gold paint from a matchstick embedded in the floor was the same as gold paint found in Horton’s picture."
Game over. It's a Pollock. $50 million dollars please.
Not so fast.


With her evidence in hand, Horton applied to the International Foundation for Art Research (IFAR) to officially have the painting attributed to Pollock. IFAR said it was a fake. The painting is "too obsessively finespun," and the colors "too coyly, too consciously chosen." As for the fingerprints, the report states "Biro's methods of analyzing fingerprints have not been universally accepted." He used somewhere between 6 and 19  points to positively identify the prints, but "some experts in the forensic field believe that those numbers are too low. Interpol, for example, uses a minimum of 12 points."


Sylvia Hochfield then wrote an editorial in June 2008 for ARTnews claiming that both the print on the paint can and its matching print on the attributed Pollock are forgeries. The prints were reexamined by Pat Wertheim, a criminalist in the Arizona Department of Public Safety and an expert on fingerprint forgery and fabrication detection. Biro reacted strongly to Wertheim’s report, accusing him, in an e-mail to ARTnews, of “supercilious interfering” and calling his work “suspect.” Wertheim responded, “My report is scientifically verifiable.”

So is it real? Some experts say yes. Other experts say no. A friend of Pollock isn't sure.
Here is an interview with Teri Horton herself, talking to Anderson Cooper about her painting:

Thrift Shop Masterpiece?

And here is the other side. Thomas Hoving's article in full: The Fate of the $5 Pollock as well as Hochfield's editorial The Blue Print.

Whose side are you on? Is this controversy about proving the authenticity of the piece? Or is this a story about the challenges faced by an average citizen taking on the elitist, high-stakes art world? If this painting had been found in a loft in New York City would the story be different? Can science prove something meaningful while "experts" say it's not? If science someday does authenticate it for sure, how will people react to the piece?

Teri Horton gets the last word today. She told the New York times in 2006, that she remained confident she, and her painting, would be vindicated. Despite the lack of confirmed attribution, Horton has been offered several single-digit million dollar prices for her painting, which she constantly turns down on principle. She maintains that she she will sell her painting at her price — no less than $50 million — within her lifetime. And if that does not happen?

“Before I let them take advantage of me,” she said, smiling broadly, “I’ll burn that son of a bitch.”

Art or Not? #1

This is the first in what hopefully becomes a series of posts titled Art or Not. I am going to present a controversial artist/topic/exhibition/etc. You get to decide if it is art or not. Share your thoughts, please.


Today's Topic: Shepard Fairey
He gained national attention during Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign, creating a poster that even garnered praise from Obama himself. Since then he has been criticized for not having artistic talent, but, maybe worse, for being a plagiarist. The "Hope" Obama poster was made from a photograph owned by the Associated Press, and which is the artistic work of photographer Mannie Garcia taken in 2006. At the start of the controversy the AP director of media relations announced that the "AP has determined that the photograph used in the poster is an AP photo and that its use required permission." Without the AP's permission the photograph became an icon worldwide, posters were selling on Ebay for upwards of $500, and Shepard Fairey became famous. So the AP sued. The AP claims infringement on its copyright and wants "payment for the use of the photo and any money he makes from it." The New York Times explains further. Fairey replied with a lawsuit of his own, claiming that the AP photo was only the starting point for his art and that he went on to create a "stunning, abstracted and idealized visual image that created powerful new meaning and conveys a radically difference message." (For more on Fairey's artisic point of view see his website obeygiant.com)

Here are the two images side by side. What do you think?

Under such intense scrutiny, Fairey's entire artistic career has come under attack. He has also had exhibitions at the Institute of Contemporary Art Boston, the Warhol Museum, the Stolen Space Gallery in London, and the Contemporary Arts Center Cincinnati. So did plagiarism gain him unearned fame beyond his wildest dreams? Or is the AP unjustly using its might on a borderline case of fair use art and First Amendment rights?

Listen to some of the experts argue:

What do you think?

p.s. In the name of fair attribution, I got the title of this post from the video and the images from here.

"You can do a museum of teddy bears and, within that context, people will consider teddy bears art."

The title of this entry is a quote from a video that will be part of a later entry. Most likely the next one in fact. But this particular quotation got me thinking about the environment that art lives in. Depending on its location in a museum, a gallery, or on a particular wall, meaning is imposed on an object by where it has been placed. Something you can touch is probably less important than something behind a velvet rope. At least that's the message I get. Forget velvet ropes, some pieces even get bulletproof glass. (Did you know the Mona Lisa has had a ceramic cup thrown at her in 2009, and someone tried to spray paint her in 1974?) To view art critically, try to recognize what emotions or assumptions are being imposed on you. Usually, it is not even from the artist--if it is, then the viewer must consider intended messages. Many museums displays, however, have no input from artists. Be aware that others may be forming your opinions before you even get a chance.

A display of photographs at the Tate Modern in London seems to make it clear which photograph takes precedence on this wall. Because of the arrangement, a viewer will probably stop longest at the one in the middle. It is by itself. It's at eye level. It allows for multiple people to look at it at once. It stands out from the other 10 on display. This particular photograph announces its supremacy from those around it because of how it has been arranged.

What about these works of art?

These works are in storage and may never be shown to the public. Does that mean they are less worthy of our viewing time? Because they are in storage, the harsh reality is that have been deemed less important than those on display. Maybe they are, in fact, of lesser quality. But maybe they simply did not fit the color, size, or subject matter of the room they could have gone into.

Within the last decade many museums have begun to experiment with visible storage to allow access to things that are not displayed in galleries. Letting the visitor behind the scenes can help demystify the whole idea of a museum. It gives access not only to more stuff, but also to more thought. What if the best thing you saw was in storage? At the very least that means that you saw something memorable. It also means you would have missed it otherwise, and are still missing the experience of things that are behind locked doors at most museums. Visible storage and other Alternative Museum Spaces can help rethink the museum environment.

This is a great opportunity to connect to another form of art--music. Below is one of the best examples of art removed from its' environment I have ever encountered. 

The premise is this:

"A performance was arranged by the Washington Post as an experiment in context, perception and priorities--as well as an unblinking assessment of public taste: In a banal setting at an inconvenient time, would beauty transcend?"

And so, one of the world's most famous and gifted violinists played in the Washington D.C. subway system for 45 minutes in 2007, on a $3.5 million Stradivarius violin. He played 6 songs, the first of which was Bach's Chaconne, considered one of the most difficult violin pieces to master. It is 14 minutes long, written in 1720, and said to be "a celebration of the breadth of human possibility." The point was to see if people would stop and hear the music. Here is the Washington Post article.

Here is what happened:

The results:

"In the three-quarters of an hour that Joshua Bell played, seven people stopped what they were doing to hang around and to take in the performance, at least for a minute. Twenty-seven gave money, most of them on the run--for a total of $32 and change. That leaves the 1,070 people who hurried by, oblivious, many only three feet away, few even turning to look. There was never a crowd, not even for a second."

So what does this mean? Is it context only that that dictates beauty to us? Can modern generations not even recognize genius? Do we let others tell us what to think? About art? About everything?

Mark Leithhauser, a senior curator at the National Gallery, explains what happened in the D.C. Metro in terms of context:

"Let's say I took one of out more abstract masterpieces, say an Ellsworth Kelly, and removed it from its frame, marched in down the 52 steps that people walk up to get to the National Gallery, pass the giant columns, and brought it into a restaurant. It's a $5 million dollar painting. And it's one of those restaurants where there are pieces of original art for sale, by some industrious kids from the Corcoran School, and I hang that Kelly on the wall with a price tag of $150. No one is going to notice it. An art curator might look up and say: 'Hey, that looks a little like an Ellsworth Kelly. Please pass the salt.'"

This really doesn't sit well with me. But here and here is more of Joshua Bell. If this is happening the next time you are in the subway, I recommend listening.

Thoughts?

Name Your Price

In May 2010, eight bidders packed a room at Christie's in New York and drove up the price of a Picasso painting from an expected $80 million to $106.5 million. It is now the most expensive piece of art ever sold at auction. Here it is:

It's name is Nude, Green Leaves and Bust. The painting depicts Picasso's mistress Marie-Therese Walter, reclining naked. He painted it in one day in 1932. The canvas is a little over five feet tall. It has only ever been exhibited once, in 1961, to commemorate Picasso's 80th birthday. $100 million could buy you this 2,000+ acre, private island in the Caribbean. It could also buy you enough Twinkies to place them end to end and circumnavigate the entire planet. 

Picasso 's painting became the most expensive piece, surpassing a sculpture by Alberto Giocometti.

Walking Man I, the six-foot tall skeletal sculpture, was sold in February 2010. This time the sale was by Sotheby's in London. The bidding began at $12 million and escalated until the final price tag reached $104.3 million.

While these are the two most expensive pieces sold at public auction, the prices soar even higher in private sales. Gustav Klimt's 1907 portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer was sold in 2006 for $135 million. Later that year, the record for any piece ever sold, ever!, was a Jackson Pollack, No.5, 1948, sold privately for supposedly $140 million.

Klimt, Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I, 1907              Pollack, No. 5, 1948, 1948

       

All of these works of art are radically different. Their similarity is that they command extravagantly high prices at sale. Do you think these prices are justified? If you had the money would you buy one?

Now it's your turn. Below are eight paintings. Some are by famous artists. Some are not. The prices range from $438 to $45.2 million. Take a moment and examine each of the pieces. Which ones do you like? Which ones are "good"? Which one do you think is worth the most? What makes you think so? If you could have one, which would you choose? See what others have to say. Prices are listed at the very bottom of the blog, but don't look until you take a guess!

a.               b.

c.     d.

e.                  f.

g.                h.

Which piece is the most expensive?

Which piece is your personal favorite?

Looking at Art (Don't be Scared!)

The title of this blog refers to the fact that most people look at a piece of art in a museum for 3 seconds. One thousand one. One thousand two. One thousand three. Move on to the next one. That was fast. I'm not sure there is anything out there than can be explained in three seconds or less. Most definitely not the immensely important, rare, unique, expensive, thought-provoking, genius things that museums choose to hang on their walls. So why don't people look longer? I think its because they see important, rare, unique, expensive, thought-provoking, and genius things. Standing in front of something worth more than we can imagine, not being allowed to talk above a whisper, next to elbow-happy people who either are, or really want you to think they are, smarter than you is not the atmosphere to encourage deep contemplation. So we leave. We move on. We get a taste, enough to say we saw, but not the flavor.

I can guarantee that this blog allows for discussion above a whisper and there should be no one around to elbow you out of the way of looking. Discuss and debate. Argue or agree. Think. A background in art is not needed to participate. The great thing about art is that, despite how often a “right answer” is imposed on people, there really isn't one. Say what you think. Say what you want. Stay for more than 3 seconds. Enjoy!

For those who are a bit weary about looking at art, this video offers some good tips:

If you want to dig a bit deeper, Dan at emptyeasel.com has written a great article: How to Judge Art: Five Qualities you can Critique whether you’re an Artist or not. You, of course, can read it for yourself, but here are his main points:

There are five characteristics that ANYONE can use to determine the quality of art.

1. Beauty. This one might be the easiest determine. It's your natural gut reaction. Do you like looking at it?

Some common things that people tend to like are:

• Repeating shapes, patterns, and symmetry
• Colors, especially colors that complement or enhance each other
• Textures, both visual and physical
• Crops and compositions that focus the eye and keep the viewers' attention
• Movement of flow to guide viewers through the art
• Correct or appealing proportions of figures and objects
• Presentation and framing

2. Skill. Is the artist any good?

It is easiest to determine skill if you compare one piece of art to others

• Compare to others in the same medium. Is it different?
• Compare it to others by the same artist. Is this his/her best? Worst? Most extreme? Earliest?
• Look at the piece itself. Did s/he mess up anywhere?

3. Inherent meaning. What is the painting about? What meaning does it have?
There are five levels for meaning:

• 1. Purely representational art – Made simply for visual appeal, with no deeper intent.
• 2. Art that references other art – It “tips its hat” to some other work, possibly providing a fresh perspective or continuing a conversation that another artist began.
• 3. Art that tells a story, or evokes a specific emotion - This is art that begins to affect you. It might cause you to understand, empathize or feel what’s being depicted.
• 4. Art that makes a statement – Here the artist is clearly speaking through the work, actively promoting a cause or perhaps bringing attention to an issue that’s important to him or her.
• 5. Art that is an allegory or metaphor – This is art that contains more than one meaning, and possibly several. It use symbolic imagery or deal with more intangible human issues, and yet the artwork should still work as a visually appealing creation.

4. Uniqueness. Have you seen anything like it before?

5. Fulfilled intent. What is the artist trying to say? Have your opinions been challenged or changed? Have you learned anything new? Did you see anything unexpected? Did you learn anything?

I think what I would add is that good art has an emotional impact. It evokes a response from the viewer. Maybe it was instant or maybe you needed to analyze for a few minutes. You don't need any artistic understanding to feel something, and good art makes you feel something. You walk away different from when you walked up.

Do you agree? What do you think makes something a “good” work of art? Can things other than the art itself enhance a piece's appeal?

OK, OK lots of words. But good luck getting through all those steps in 3 seconds or less. Now we need to look at some art.