Comment 38994

By ??????????? (anonymous) | Posted March 22, 2010 at 22:06:40

As far as the Terri Horton doc goes, it already been pretty much proven that they were commiting fraud themselves. The "forensic" scientist in cahoots with Horton still refuses to open his work for crticism: a practice the forensic community lives by. And still forensic "science" is not science. There's still quite a bit of interpretation involved. That's why the community lives by an open forum policy.

There is one key point to the film that gets overlooked. Why was she so petulant against having it validated when she and her family had the chance to sell it for a healthy price? My opinion is she knew it was a fake and didn't want it to come back and haunt her and her family later. Besides it was already proven she herself is a liar by her bulls**t provenance story.

Another interesting point, a talentless painter (who's name escapes me but look it up), who lived in Florida at the time, believes the painting might be his? He asked to see it; Horton and crew adamantly refused. Hmm?

Personally, I love Pollock's work, and there is a vast difference between Horton's painting and an actual Pollock! I agree, it doesn't "sing" like a Pollock. There's flaws in the composition. And the close-up comparsion study done is pure schlock. The point is Pollock's work works as one compostional whole: the color, the rhythm and harmony -- not just a single close-up!

Funny thing is the filmmaker sided with Horton and has the same biases against the art world so many else have. Its a class issue. But the fact that so many have been DUPED by this documentary proves the power of art to influence and mold ideas.

As for the individual who started this thread, your critical aesthetic is very closely in-line with others that call modern art "degenerate." Check the white power forums to find some kindred spirits. Not a slippery slope just the truth.

Many think anyone can create Pollock's drip paintings: I would like to see them try. I don't think its as easy as the insolent claim. Besides, part of Pollock's aesthetic is the process he went threw to get to the point of his drip paintings. Only a fellow artist understands this. Simply put, art is a process.

As far as his personal life is concerned, sure he had his problems but should that destroy his credibility as a great artist? I hope not as most movers-and-shakers of his caliber have skeletons in the closet and crosses to bear. Average is dumb, but the dumb don't understand that.

P.S. If Pollock and Krasner were such con-artists, you should be impressed by their ability to dupe the art world which you seem to rage against.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds