Museum will show disputed Pollocks

The Plain Dealer ^ | 10/12/06 | Steven Litt

[Republicanprofessor]

The director of the only museum that has agreed to show a group of recently discovered paintings attributed to Jackson Pollock said today she'll show them even if laboratory tests show that the works are fake.

"At this point, there's no question that they'll be shown," said Sandra Trop, director of the Everson Museum of Art in Syracuse, N.Y.

But she added, "call me back afterwards. I might change my mind."

The discovery of the disputed Pollocks in 2003 has triggered one of the hottest controversies in the art world. Case Western Reserve University professor Ellen Landau thinks the works are authentic. Scholars of the Pollock-Krasner Foundation in New York, named for Pollock and his wife, Lee Krasner, have serious doubts

[Republicanprofessor]

Art ping.

Let Sam Cree, Woofie, or me know if you want on or off this art ping list.

[steveo]

nevermind

[paddles]

What's all this about disputed bollocks?

[Darkwolf377]

How could you tell if they were fake?

Just kidding. I was at Boston's MFA today and glanced at their Pollock. The guy's stuff does nothing for me, though I do appreciate its historic importance.

[Jack Hammer]

Interesting movie of the artist's life, starring Ed Harris; not an art aficionado, so I don't know what to make of it, but it was entertaining.

[Mr Ramsbotham]

How is it possible to tell a real one from a fake one?

[BenLurkin]

[traderrob6]

I was looking for the joke.

[Parmenio]

The fake but accurate principle again. We've had a hundred years of "found" art starting with Marcel Duchamp's urinal, which has slowly removed all meaning and significance from the creative process and the results of that process.

[Hawthorn]

A museum exhibiting a few fish? What's controversial about that?

[lump in the melting pot]

Actually, a physicist found in the late '90s that many of Pollock's paintings (especially the later ones) had fractal properties. The original article was in the December 2002 issue of Scientific American (which is not online), but mash here for a summary. As I recall the author of the study proposed subjecting any questionable "Pollocks" to an analysis to determine their fractal dimension, which could be correlated to genuine paintings produced at around the same time. Neat stuff (for nerds...)

[perfect stranger]

Fun link

http://www.jacksonpollock.org/

[deadmenvote]

Very nice site.
I just created several master pieces.

[perfect stranger]

You're welcome. I found it here a few months ago.

[Natural Law]

Oh darn, I thought this was an ethnic joke.

[Dajjal]

ROTFLMHO!!!! THAT'S GREAT!!!!

[BunnySlippers]

I like it.

[L.N. Smithee]

Never mind the Pollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols.

Sorry, somebody had to say it.

[leilani]

Interesting link, thanks for posting that, but I wonder why wouldn't any painting produced by someone else using the Pollock splatter technique also produce discernable fractal patterning?

I'd say the question of authorship is moot, because you could really say that "authentic Pollocks", the canvases documented to have come from his studio, weren't really Pollocks either; gravity (+ momentum?) was ultimately responsible for the arrangement of paint on canvas. The abstract creation for which Pollock can be credited was the action technique itself, i.e., the process, & not the end result.

In that sense, the paintings we all made in grade school using the splatter technique were as much Pollocks as his were.