How many times do I have to read about the fact that Teri Horton, the owner of a Jackson Pollock painting with disputed authenticity, only has an eighth grade education? She may not have finished school, but there's no way you would know that if director Harry Moses hadn't chosen to emphasize this bit of biographical information in his new documentary Who the #$&% is Jackson Pollock? (opening Wednesday at IFC Center), a film about a retired truck driver who has dedicated the last 14 years of her life trying to get the presumed Jackson Pollock painting she bought for five dollars authenticated. It doesn't help that virtually every writer in the country (barring dealer and blogger Edward Winkleman) is dutifully repeating the information as though it is of great relevance to a story that actually has less to do with class in America than it does with perhaps the biggest unwitting thrift store find in history.
But this is what happens when you let marketing tell you what a movie is about rather than just watching the film and figuring it out on your own. The narrative itself is set up by Horton, whose crassness is uniquely charming. "You ain't going to believe this shit," she says, launching into a story about how she haggled a second-hand store owner down from eight dollars to five for a painting she intended to give to her friend. Said friend rejected the work, and upon Horton's attempt to unload the piece at a yard sale, an art teacher suggested she hold on to it because it might be valuable. "Who the fuck is Jackson Pollock?" Horton asks, thus christening Moses' film.
The rest of the film recounts Horton's struggle to enlist the help of galleries who she said wouldn't give her the time of day because of who she is. In 2000, she sent the work to the International Foundation for Art Research for authentication; they returned it with a document stating they don't believe the painting to be a Pollock. There is no evidence implying that this has anything to do with Teri's education or profession, but that didn't mean she was satisfied with their decision either; Horton responded by hiring forensic scientist Peter Paul Biro to investigate the painting and enlisted the help of dealer Tod Volpe, who, in addition to having clients the likes of Joel Silver and Jack Nicholson, was sentenced to two years in prison for fraud in the 90's.
I suppose if anyone knows about corruption in the art world, it would be Volpe, but I doubt his name is carries any weight with figures such as Thomas Hoving, the former director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Not that this matters greatly, since it seems like there is virtually nothing that could have curtailed Hoving's arrogance, who at one point declares "[Horton] knows nothing. I'm an expert. She's not." In fairness, however, had he heard the same fabricated provenance (the painting's lineage of ownership) Horton unabashedly tells the audience earlier in the movie, this would undoubtedly inform his poor behavior (not that it excuses it.) After all, Horton (left) openly admits that once it was clear that the painting's lack of provenance was preventing her from getting her foot in the door, she began inventing a history which concludes with Pollock signing the painting with his cock. It's a mystery, really, why the art world didn't take the woman seriously.
The point here, though, is not why Hoving won't consider the painting, but why, now that new research has been produced by forensic scientist Peter Paul Biro, the International Foundation for Art Research won't revisit its original finding that the work was not done by the hand of Jackson Pollock. This proves to be a more difficult answer than I suspect the filmmakers anticipated, because for all the evidence put forth in the movie -- including finger print identification, matching paint samples and compelling comparative studies of similar Pollocks (and less compelling evidence, such as famous ex-forger John Myatt's testimony that he couldn't produce a painting as good as that himself; this is a man noted for such laughably bad forgeries as a Giacometti drawing featuring a male head on a female body) -- there are no statements made by the art world establishment.
I'm no Pollock expert myself, but I have worked at enough blue chip galleries over the years to learn a few things, and the first is that this matter is more complex than a film about "class" is ever going to be able to address. Of course, if you can't get any of the leading authorities to speak with you on the authenticity of the painting, perhaps your moviemaking options are limited. I asked Moses about this, who told me it wasn't for lack of trying. "We went to Eugene Thaw, who is one of the three or four top Pollock experts in the world," the filmmaker said. "He would not give us an interview. We went to Francis O'Connor, who was right up there with Thaw." Both men authored the four- volume Jackson Pollock catalogue raisonne (a complete inventory of the artist's works) which means they have more first-hand knowledge of the artist's paintings, drawings, and other ephemera than probably anyone else in the world. "They were on the board of the Pollock-Krasner Foundation," Moses continued. "You may not know this, but they were evaluating which was a Pollock and which was not, and then they got sued so they passed it on to IFAR."
Now, you can't sue anyone for a wrong opinion -- even if there is a fair amount of money attached to it, it is, after all, only his or her thoughts -- but you can launch an antitrust suit if you believe that the organization is engaging in unethical business practice. Public court records indicate that the Pollock-Krasner Foundation has not defended a serious suit of this nature recently, (which makes sense since they have been deferring to IFAR for nearly a decade), but you can see why they've passed the responsibility of authentication on to an outside source and why the art world is generally so reluctant to make a statement of any kind. Of course it would appear as though the foundation is not entirely out of the business: This past February they engaged in a rather messy public affair, using the work of Richard Taylor, a scientist who identified the artist's drippings to be fractal, to dispute the authenticity of Pollocks owned by the son (Alex Matter) of friends of the artist. I contacted Taylor for comment on Horton's piece, but have received no response. And Mike Bidlo, an artist with an excellent reputation for imitation Pollocks, simply expressed to me his disinterest in the legal squabbles surrounding Pollock authentication.
Moses will tell you it doesn't matter though, because the film isn't about art anyway. "She could have just as well taken out a patent and invented something and because of who she is, couldn't get anybody to see it," he said. "I mean, I'm inventing that out of whole cloth, but that's really what the movie is about. The movie is about this little person who is taking on the system." But this conclusion has the feel of something that came to him after he realized he wasn't going to get the interviews he needed to do the movie he intended in the first place. You can't fault Moses for not being able to crack the art world elite, but it has to be said that if his intention was to reach those in the establishment (which on some level it has to be, since the movie will be a landmark if IFAR reconsiders its evaluation), then it has to be done on their terms.
And I'm not sure he's managed that. As someone who works in this field, I can tell you that all the forensic science in the world isn't going to convince a fine art professional if he can't come to the same conclusion based on what he sees. While it may seem a relatively minor point that throughout the movie the painting is displayed resting on an unattractive easel backed by a garish cinematic blue-gray light, I can guarantee you that the people Teri Horton, Harry Moses and Peter Paul Biro want to be taking this piece seriously don't have anything to work with. For a film that by entertainment standards is a fine success, it will be an awful shame if the evaluation of the painting is held up because of lighting issues.
Paddy Johnson is the editor of the New York City art blog Art Fag City.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The $50 Million Question:
» Paddy Johnson wrote a nice feature on Teri Horton's $5 thrift store Jackson Pollock from kottke.org remaindered links
http://www.thereeler.com/features/the_50_million_question.php... [Read More]
In the 1970's there was an art teacher at Santa Clara University, Terrence Netter, who emulated the work of Pollock. Perhaps one should ask Mr. Netter, now Dean, College of Fine Arts, Jacksonville University, who might be able to shed some light.
Posted by Alfonso | November 16, 2006 8:13 AM
Pollock has got to be one of the easiest painters to forge because he sucked. He was a poser. And the fact that he is easy to forge should give the art world a clue that maybe the "genius" was nothing more than a schmuck like most of the other modern art hacks. OH, but he was THE FIRST to do what he did. SO WHAT! He still sucked. Hopefully, if we get enough Pollock forgeries the true value of his paintings will be realized. I have a warehouse full of Pollocks that will be "discovered" soon. Hell, I could use the quick $50 million or more! Please talk about real painters instead of whatshisname.
Posted by Santa | November 22, 2006 1:23 AM
Ithink I may have a jackson pollock small painting . I havent seen it sence I left home . Im going back some time in 2007. but I know it,s a jackson pollock.
Posted by eddie bishop | December 8, 2006 3:11 PM
Mr. Johnson, thank you for
the nice review you wrote.
I would like to correct the statement, "you can't sue for a wrong opinion"
Most likely your referring to the Lariviere v. Thaw
case..art experts would like you to believe you can't.This case was based on the fact that Lariviere
signed an agreement he would not sue, when he received the rejected opinion he filed suit anyway. Judge Goodmans judgement for the defendants, was strictly because he had signed the agreement...there was no judgement that you cannot sue an art expert for their opinion.
The following is the answer to art experts and the"feeling" with visual
authentication.After the holidays I intend to file in Federal Court a Dispararagement Suit against those "experts" who
claim the painting is a fake when forensic science has proved it is authentic.
It's time they stand accountable.If you are wondering how I can use the following evidence code, Diversity of Citizenship puts the case in Federal Jurisdiction.
Federal Evidence Code - Rule 702 amended 12/1/2000
ARTICLE VII. OPINIONS AND EXPERT TESTIMONY
Rule 702. Testimony by Experts
If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.
Dramatic changes in rules governing admissibility of expert testimony impact all areas of law. Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and the evidence law of many states impose a requirement that judges admit expert testimony only if it is based on a scientifically sound foundation.
Posted by Teri Horton | December 20, 2006 3:38 PM
Go get'em Terry!! I saw the movie last night with my mom and sister, we loved it and hope that it is an original and is proven soon. I saw the Pollock retrospective a few years ago at the MOMA and it was breathtaking! I can only dream of possessing something so beautiful... yes beautiful... because it is to MY eye, screw critics!! One of my favorite quotes is...“You know who the critics are? The men who have failed in literature and art.” Benjamin Disrael
Posted by KJ | March 7, 2007 2:10 PM
Teri may have a case... but it appears that the Cites she is using are for expert opinions given under oath in a trial.
It would be very possible to successfully sue persons for rendering false testimony when testifying as an expert witness in a trial. It is quite another for someone to sue another for an opinion - you are entitled to your beliefs in this country - and they could easily defend themselves by stating that the forensic evidence purported was either non-compelling or that they questioned the validity of that evidence.
I wish her the best of luck in proving her paintings origins, but I think sueing folks who disbelieve it may be a long shot at best.
I still think that it should be possible to find paint on the floor of Pollocks studio which expert chemists could prove are identical in batch to the paint used on hers... if it was painted there. The fingerprint, if confirmed by unbiased experts is a good start at provenance, but additional evidence would be helpful; especially since there is evidently a huge gap in the history of this work. Also, with no other known evidence of the painting, there needs to be more than 1 thing that is correct with the work. I hope it is real and is eventually proven so - but I believe it would be better that an authentic work is forever questioned than that a forgery be wrongfully acknowledged as real.
Posted by Barry | May 7, 2007 5:21 PM
If it has Pollock's fingerprints on it, it's probably his. If the paint matches his paint-soaked floor, even more likely. Teri, offer to split the profit with the ASPCA - they have expert lawyers and are used to crushing people who interfere with wills involving pets. Seriously.
Posted by Alien8 | May 8, 2007 3:59 PM
That will NEVER be a Jackson Pollock painting.
Posted by Art | May 11, 2007 1:06 AM
Terri's painting, in my opinion, is most definitely not a Jackson Pollock. It's lacking the rhythmic patterning of his drip paintings (of which I've experienced 15+). Even at his drunkest he wouldn't confine his bolder lines to the interior of the canvas. Go to MoMA and take the kids' tour - the docent has the children sit in front of the largest canvas and trace the lines with their finger. physically imitate how pollock's hand/wrist/arm would have to move to make the marks, feel the rhythm and the dance involved in the making (native americans were major influences), and then try it with Terri's painting. It simply is not the same. Also, is there a full, clear fingerprint on the canvas or only the tiny fraction of one i saw on 60 minutes?
Posted by Jason Mullis | May 11, 2007 1:14 AM
Whether or not this woman's painting is a real Pollock is not even that important, I don't think. The whole experience and story behind the painting is probably going to be enough to fetch a huge price tag in the art world eventually, especially when you consider what sells for big bucks (including known-Pollock knock offs that sell for millions). Is it real? Is it a copy-cat? Who cares at this point? The fact that a Pollock is so "easy to imitate". You have to be an expert to authenticate one, and even then how can anyone say with any certainty? All of this hype makes it an equally significant piece of art in my opinion, whether or not it is by Pollock's hand is not relevant anymore. It's modern art, so who says a trucker lady can't sell a $5 piece from the thrift shop for $50 million.
Posted by Melissa | May 22, 2007 2:31 AM
More like a Jackson Floppock.
Posted by Jerseydevil | June 2, 2007 10:24 PM
I think its a pollock, but not a very good one. Remember even home run hitters get base hits.
Posted by troybett | June 14, 2007 9:21 PM
How can anything be authenticated when the so-called experts won't even review it. And those that have looked into the matter are either trying to dubunk it or profit from Ms. Horton's find. If it is indeed a Pollock it could fetch upwards of $100 million in this market. Why wouldn't a prominent art dealer/collecter spend a little bit of money evaluating it firsthand? The could double their investment. If Terry Horton was a corporate attorney and had purchased it on a antiques store in Martha's Vineyard it would be hanging in a gallery right now.
Posted by Schlomo David Sperling | July 1, 2007 2:54 PM
I think all you need to do is to sell this painting to someone who is a collector as a start at any price and then bid up the value along the way. Sign a contract with that collector so that you will get % of the profit. The art world can't just let you insult their invested career by 1 lucky pick at a 2nd hand shop.
Posted by Ming | July 3, 2007 2:50 PM
Is she holding the painting upside down?
Posted by eric | July 3, 2007 2:53 PM
The Painting has no provenance. Pollocp painting don't just come from nowhere. The shop burned down and the former owner is dead. There is no way of proving the womens story. I believe the finger print is a "partial print" which means very little, if anything.
The paint, matches the paint on the studio floor? Perhaps but lets not forget Lee Krasner worked in the same studio for many years after Pollocks death. She was an artist also.
The video gave me the impression that everything in the studio just frozen in time after his death. The studio was used for years as a studio after his death....something left out of the video.
The video did show some paint containers with prints on them. There was no mention of an inventory of the studio after Pollocks death. Who knows what was there and what wasn't. It's not discussed.
I'm sure Ron Spencer could clear this up.
Posted by Dwayne | July 16, 2007 4:46 PM
there was another fingerprint match found on another pollock in england i believe...partial prints are enough to convict a person and send them to there death...i understand that such a large sum of money is @ stake so skeptics abound...but, in my opinion, all the money in the world could not equal one human life...yet we are so readily casting away said human life on far less evidence...i believe the work to be real...furthermore, i am a living, breathing, working, educated artisan living in texas...i have a southern drawl and a current commission for a catholic chapel...some others who received chapel commisions include the likes of rauschenberg (originally from my home town), twombly, and rothko...ms. horton looks and acts like my late mother...although my mother did have an art educator's degree...someone like mr. thomas hoving would take one look at my mother or i and instantly espouse some form of inaccurate judgement...yet, here i sit as somewhat of a working expert in my area (SE texas)...does this mean that my expertise is less valuable than say a "mr. thaw's" or "mr. hoving"s" expertise because they are from new york and i from beaumont...i think not...so to you ms. horton, GOD'S SPEED...and if you can not receive what you are due for the work then put on a huge production/performance piece and burn the damn thing...that will make any skeptic squirm...thx, beau from beaumont
Posted by beau | July 25, 2007 11:51 AM
Anyone who has read The Legacy of Mark Rothko should have an idea about some of the despicable and manipulative people at the controls in the art world. This doesn't make Hoving or any of the other "experts" into monsters; it's just an indication that there's a culture of snobbism, elitism, and exclusion that rails at the notion that anyone but a member of their clique could have an opinion that matters, even if it matches their own! The Horton ostensible-Pollock makes me uncomfortable. Part of me wishes she would win in the end, but I'm afraid that the only clear resolution of this that would be possible would be a discrediting of the painting. I'm not saying it's fake; I'm saying that proving it a fake would be much easier than proving it genuine, because there are art world insiders who will never accept it.
The fingerprint evidence is questionable, because there's no discussion of what controls were in place to ensure that the fingerprint supposedly found on a paint can was there before Biro visited. In other words, the possibility of a scam has to be considered. Frankie Brown, a longtime Pollock-style painter in California, requested to see the painting in person but was denied. He thinks it might be one of his knockoffs but can't tell without seeing it up close, if at all.
The story is a great one, and Teri Horton is really someone I would love to see prevail. Her consolation, if it is one, might be that she made some decent money from starring in the movie and has been able to become a minor celebrity on the talk show circuit. She probably should have dumped the thing for $5 million when she had the chance.
Posted by Eric | September 2, 2007 3:11 AM
As someone with ovr 30 yeasr experience in both fine arts and forensics, I would have killed to be able to take part in the forensic research done on this painting.
My opinion when faced with the visual and the forensics evidence is this is more likely a Pollock than not. Very simply put, it is amusing to see bow tied old men stating unequivacly that fingerprints don't count. What a crock. Or should I say, what a Ming Vaaaase. The fact that four fingerprints match up as does microelectron sythesis of paint in both the painting in question and the floor of the studio make it a closed case for me. The match between color, texture and swing movements in the number 5 and the Horton painting convince me. If Tod Volpe needs more investors I will be very willing to lay out some cash.
Posted by Judith Cole | September 13, 2007 9:56 PM
There is a great deal of additional information about this painting and its "authentication" at www.fineartregistry.com and a video by the man who thinks it may be one of his own paintings, and not a very good one at that, here:http://fineartregistry.com/articles/videos/pollock-frankie-brown.php
We are currently making a documentary about authenticating Jackson Pollock which looks at another painting also "authenticated" by Paul Biro on the basis of the exact same fingerprint he says he foundon the Teri Horton painting and claims belongs to Jackson Pollock. This will help clear up the "forensic evidence" side of things although of course it won't prove that it's NOT a Jackson Pollock, just that the evidence used to say it IS a Jackson Pollock is very iffy. If you are interested in the subject then the articles and video at www.fineartregistry.com are worth looking at.
Posted by David Phillips | September 30, 2007 7:52 PM
Any plans that start with "all ya got to do" concerning authentication of a Jackson Pollock painting are wrong. Currently there exists no magic formula for such a problem. Experts do not recognize forensic evidence unless it is compelling towards the negative. All experts will currently refer a person proposing they have a Pollock to IFAR. IFAR will research the piece, but not authenticate. You will not receive an opinion from an expert. And right now given the Pollock climate, I seriously doubt you will find any expert who will even claim that they can authenticate a Pollock. Of the top Pollock experts (4), One has had enough of the media for a dubious call, one is retired, and two are of the belief that all Pollock's are catalogued. No museum will study or acknowledge a proposed Pollock, the same goes for Universities or reputable auction houses that require the Pollock Krasner foundation/ ARS seal of approval. If you have what you believe to be a Pollock, preserve it and give it to your kids, maybe they can give it to their kids and maybe after the old guards are replaced, then perhaps your Pollock will be up for discussion.
Posted by Glen Anthony | October 17, 2007 3:11 PM
Sentimental and nostalgic. Great.
Posted by Edward | October 23, 2007 8:39 AM
I'm afraid it all comes down to provenance. One of the world's most successful forgers found that (sorry can't remember his name). He spent more time arranging provenence for his works than on actually doing the work. By altering major libraries copies of auction catalogs he created provenence for what were actually quite poor forgeries. The art world ingnored the quality of the pictures but gave them the tick based on provenance.
Posted by Paul Trotman | October 26, 2007 12:57 AM
i just saw the movie and ,my thing is this,wasnt the declaration of independence found in back of a picture at a yard sale!!!?no art expert wnats to look like a fool and possibly end his career for being wrong!!on sumthing so important, prove that its not .the finger print did it for me ,how did they fake that,and who would have thought to put microscopic gold flacks on a "fake"
Posted by tim | November 22, 2007 1:25 AM
oh yeah ,i saw a lady sell a damn table for i think 500,000.00 on the "antiques road show" !!
Posted by tim | November 22, 2007 1:29 AM
If this painting had been discovered in an antique shop by some socialiate wife of a high level executive or movie mogul, the art world would most certainly be more incline to give the piece a little more respect and attention. For many years I worked in galleries and ran in circles with curators, dealers, experts, collectors...the comment that it is a smoke and mirrors type of world is not a stretch. There are many respectable people in the art world but the pompous asses out number the ones with true love and passion for art.
Posted by Violetta | January 10, 2008 11:40 PM
One additional point. I think that Terri should have taken the 9 million offered for the painting. Until a substantial amount of money is associated with the piece of art, it remains a thrift store find. I was not sure what principle she was standing on at the end of the film. She believed the forensics expert (Biro) and proclaimed that the art experts were frauds so what was left to prove. She is elderly and should think about her family at this stage. Accepting the $9M would support her principle more than holding on to it, especially if the buyer were to turn it around for $50M. At the end, I felt she did not come across as principled but stubborn and foolish.
Posted by Violetta | January 10, 2008 11:46 PM
hi my name is paiden fitzpatrick im in middle school and i just watched your video in art and i just want you to no that you are really cool and one day your painting will sell 4 milloins of $
Posted by Paiden | February 6, 2008 3:35 PM
People around the globe are starving, but somehow somewhere people have millions of dollars to spend on first rate finger-paintings. It might be good art, it might not. It might be by Jackson Pollock, it might not. Somebody should buy this painting for an enormous sum of money if for nothing else then to get the money out of their greedy art collecting hands.
Posted by Will | February 9, 2008 9:46 PM
I am flabbergasted that all of these hoity toity art experts aren't jumping at the chance to dispell any questions in regards to Teri's "Jackson Pollock". Isn't there some University somewhere that wouldn't want to take this assignment on pro bono? Can't you photograph the entire floor at Jackson's studio, enter it into a computer program for comparisons? What about chemical compounds in the cloth? Has anyone thought of testing it? How about measuring his swings? Regardless, many questions do arise...but the bottom line is... sell the damned art, 9 million would have delighted Pollock.
Posted by Terry | February 15, 2008 2:46 AM
Jackson's painting or not....this particular work may become valuable in its own right simply for the controversial nature and doubt created by forensic info. Once Terri dies, maybe increasing even more.....ironic.
Posted by Michele | March 2, 2008 11:30 PM
Well, imagine my dashed hopes after paying just over $50 for a kooky little watercolor that some possible dyslectic stuffed (years ago) into a crappy tube which he or she then marked "pollark"; scotch-taping the ends closed with circles cut out from a paper bag. Actually, it's signed "J Pollock" and it's not drippy (I never liked THOSE paintings) at all - more like his Picasso/Miro-esque phase... a simple but amusing 15"x18" watercolor on a lovely cream-colored but slightly yellowed paper with pinholes at each corner and the most charming, smallish coffee(?) splash on the upper right corner.
If it's NOT what it looks like, I'd love to meet the goof-off who concocted it & I'd order a few more. Listen, The last thing I'd want would be a film crew around my family, and as for $ - I live well enough, thank heaven and my lovely husband. If what I have IS the real deal (my art-professor Dad is pretty convinced), I can't imagine the value would buy me a decent beach cottage, which means I wouldn't let go of it anyway - it makes a fabulous companion piece to "Blue Pumpkinheaded Scarecrow With Scared-to-Death Crows at Its Feet" by my 5 year old son. BUT, Gee, would I LOVE to just have someone knowledgeable yet plainspoken, with a genuine passion for art, tell me if I've uncovered my own buried treasure. Who needs the politics? I'm just looking for a little magic!
Posted by Dori Ribeiro de Oliveira | March 14, 2008 7:00 AM
Teri could probably make more than the painting is worth simply by displaying it at various museums under the title of "Is it Or Isn't It a Pollock?" Charge attendance, sit back, get rich and keep the darn painting.
I never thought much of Pollock - an alcoholic who simply dribbled and threw paint on canvas. I think even less of the artworld - full of pompous stuff shirts who, if nothing else, ignore truly important artists and praise nonsense like paint dribbles!
Teri - I admire you and your tenacity.
Posted by Patricia | March 30, 2008 1:19 PM
Horton is a fucking stupid. honestly? I retarted ed-neck truck driver? SHE JUST WANTS ATTENTION!!! seriouly, why is the art community even paying attention to red-neck scum like her?? 8th grade edication???? stupid-ass retard.
Posted by Van Gohen | April 1, 2008 12:15 PM
Geez Van Gohen....is it that time of the month or have you NEVER had a sense of humor? At least Teri Horton knows how to laugh...
Posted by Will | April 1, 2008 11:12 PM
No, like what I mean is she just a old greedy bitch. I hope she dosen't recieve a cent for her painting.
Posted by van gohen | April 3, 2008 11:44 AM
Is Teri still represented by Legends Art Group?
Posted by Colorado Lawyer | April 13, 2008 8:56 PM
Van Gohen - Why such strong emotions? She has been treated like a second class citizen and has principals. If she were greedy she'd be living large now on 5 or 9 million. Teri Horton and her family/friends make me proud to be an American. They are ALIVE! Those art goobers are so full of themselves and worried about appearances they wouldn't know a good time if it bite 'em in the ass. The best they can feel is superior to Old Teri Horton and her crew. Let 'em feel that we. We know better right Teri!
Also, I kept thinking throughout the movie that Pollock would probably love Teri - not that I would know - I'm not an art person so ya'll can feel better than me too if you want.
Posted by Anonymous | April 17, 2008 12:57 PM
Who is the idiot redneck here? You can't even spell.
Posted by Carol | April 17, 2008 11:06 PM
If you all are following this investigation, with the BS fingerprints, and maybe if Horton would do the same instead of being greedy.Horton is going by one expert(yeah right) opinion...and refuses to even send it else where, to me that spells FAKE & FORGERY. I smell white trailer trash rotting. For all those that want to know more about this case I found a whole fingerprint report that Fineartregistry.com just released.
Maybe this will bring some light to Hortons stupid little FORGED art Campaign.
P.S. What schools did Biro go to? What and where are his credentials? (besides the credentials he has convinced all the art authorities that he is real) Show me some real credentials Schools, continuing education, and spin art classes dont count.
Posted by melissa | April 23, 2008 3:35 PM
hey stop fighting,here look at my art know one knows me.
Posted by J Russum Shirley | May 2, 2008 3:05 PM
David Phillips, Frankie Brown sounds like..well. an idiot.
Was hasn't his finger print been taken to compare to the print on the Horton painting?
Posted by Dan | May 11, 2008 10:00 PM
The story of how i got to this website is really odd. First off i am remodeling my store and had a blank wall on which i wanted to add some color, so I decided to do a color splash, not remembering who this style was named after, when I sleeping that night i awoke with the name jackson pollok at which time I went to the computer and typed in his name read about him and had no idea how the name pop into my head.I then watched "pollock" and "Who the $%#@ is pollock". went back to MY MASTERPIECE and decided it was not done.After finishing I recalled the the way the Hoton and pollock were so similar, and thought maybe just maybe this is her work of art. not the painting, but the story! and to me that is priceless. she dosent want to get rich and die with knowing she may have sold a fake when she can die happy assuming she has true pollock, and will that no one could prove otherwise!
Posted by jim | May 21, 2008 3:25 PM
Melissa: Let's keep in mind that FAR itself is a dubious business as anyone with a wit of sense would identify after reading about their online holographic sticker authentication process.
Their site here:
The Art Law Blog here:
Paul Biro sues here:
Posted by Paddy Johnson | June 9, 2008 10:30 PM
I saw you and the film at the Phoenix Art Museum! I'm a believer in forensics, not opinions! You go get'em Teri!
Posted by Kari Maschino | June 18, 2008 2:00 PM
Is fighting over this really going alter anything at all for Teri?
It will either be confirmed
for her as an original Pollock or it wont be.
No amount Grumbling or Disagreements on here will alter the outcome.
Posted by SMT | July 27, 2008 1:29 AM
HOLD ON! I AM Jackson Pollock and Teri Horton has one of my paintings. It's not one of my favorites, but I did paint it on a bad day. Leave the woman alone and give her the money. People have paid a lot of money for worse paintings of mine. Now I'm going back to bed.
Posted by Jackson Pollock | December 15, 2008 11:53 PM
HEY JACKSON !!!! I knew you were
around...THANKS for confirming...Rest Well,
Paul Jackson Pollock
I wonder what Van Gohen mother would say
about the unconscionable
misbehavior of her child?
For shame !!!
THE GREATEST HOMAGE WE CAN
PAY TO TRUTH: IS USE IT.
Merry Christmas to ALL
[even you Van Gohen]
Posted by Teri Horton | December 18, 2008 10:06 AM
Would you believe I bought your DVD at a garage sale for $1.
I am so touched by you and your stance.
IT IS A POLLOCK. I knew it in my heart the moment I saw the DVD Cover.
Keep the dream alive dear.
PS. Are there prints of this exquisite masterpiece available? I would love to own one. Perhaps autographed by you.
Posted by Rawle E. Francis | January 29, 2009 9:22 AM
Terry...I have lost you...called, e-mailed, called and I know you were on your way to Canada but ?????? Call me....Up-date me !
your Buddy..Grace (CA)
Posted by GRACE BRYAN | January 30, 2009 4:01 PM
Who did the paintings that are hanging behind Thomas Hoving when he is being interviewed? anybody know?
Posted by Donovan | February 27, 2009 11:29 AM
Teri: To prove provenance to IFAR (and anyone else) I was wondering if Mr. (Peter Paul) Biro has completed any further paint DNA testing from your paint against an authenticated piece?
Posted by Ang | March 4, 2009 4:57 PM
What ever happened to Joe Beam..the guy who did the song in the documentary?
Posted by Deneece | May 13, 2009 8:16 PM