Talk:Who the $&% Is Jackson Pollock?

The Ring of Truth

Veridicality of the Fingerprint

Currently text refers to a "claim of a partial fingerprint". I believe this dramatically understates the case and that the film is important because it contrasts with exceptional clarity the scientific approach to truth vs. the other thing. The text "claim of " is of the other thing. Since this is virtually a current event, the current value of the object in question will be the determinant and if it sells for more than a certain amount (say $25 million USD, half it's valuation if it had accepted provenance) then the "claim", while it will then be no more factual than it is now, will have become an established fact. Lycurgus (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Should we have more on the artistic merits of the painting? If it is a Pollock, it's a pretty mediocre one. 76.115.59.36 (talk) 05:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Even if I hadn't given up mainspace edits for Lent, I wouldn't want to change the current text, as it is classic. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Quote from the article:

"Teri hired Peter Paul Biro, a forensic specialist, who matched a partial fingerprint on the canvas to a fingerprint on a can of paint in Pollock’s studio, as well as to fingerprints on two authenticated Pollock canvases. Additionally, through an analysis of paint samples from Pollock's studio, he was able to confirm a match with particles of paint found on the canvas in question, in what he calls a "3-point-match". " -

I have seen the documentary just last night and this is not what was shown there. In fact the real forensic evidence seems to be significantly weaker. The forensic specialist could only find one single painting by Pollock that seemed to contain a fingerprint. This painting was/is in the possession of a German owner in Berlin. However the two fingerprints (the one on the back of Hortons painting and the one in Berlin) were "different in size" and Biro did not give any explanation to why this is (only partial print, different fingers), he simply discarded this particular find and did not even bother to contact the owner in order to get a proper look at it. He never found a second Pollock painting containing fingerprint, as claimed in this article.

Actually he did. At the end of the movie it stated that he had since found a second authentic Pollock with a matched fingerprint.Antagonising (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Also the "Three-point-match" refers exclusively to the fingerprint analysis and comparison, it has nothing to do with the idea to track down characteristics of the paint used in the painting. Specifically it means three distinct characteristics shared by two fingerprints compared (in this case the one on the can of paint and on Hortons painting), which together would make both prints a "100 % match", as far as criminology would be concerned. Overall the documentary has done the "scientific truth vs. the other thing"-angle little service, since this evidence at best proves that the same person, who has been in Jackson Pollocks studio, also left a print on Hortons painting. Biro insinuated that only the artist could have left the print, since it was his studio and to assume anything else would be ludicrous. It is interesting to note that the Jackson Pollock House and Studio is publicly accessible for tours by interested parties for some time now, since the death of Pollock it is managed by third parties who have access to all aspects of the property and certainly handled the equipment there (whole scientific investigations took place there). Those are points the documentary conveniently "forgot" to mention and which puts the value of any evidence found there in a certain perspective. The analogies made by the forensics ezpert with a murder case and prints found on a "bloody murder weapon" used as evidence in court are, in my opinion, quite a bit off the mark, to put it mildly. I am not even sure, if it would qualify as any kind of circumstancial evidence. Para-OZ (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

They addressed the 'same person theory' at the 57minute mark in the film by stating that IF it were some third party it would be highly unlikely that they could gain access to his studio and be able to paint like him. The film segued to a forger at which time they asked him if he could forge that painting and he said no. I disagree that the 3 point match refers exclusively to the fingerprint. I think it accounts for the fingerprint, the same kind of paints (shown to match by an independent chemist in the film) and the matching overspray on the floor and canvas. One of the most telling moments in the film for me was a close up of Teri's painting and a known Pollock. With similar colours and strokes it was certainly hard to tell them apart. The art experts discount it as not a Pollock because while similar it lacks certain 'Pollockness', yet they go on to say it is documented he throws out paintings he doesn't like. I think this would account for a shoddy painting he didn't want to sign and throws away. IMHO.Antagonising (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

There is an article in the July 12, 2010 New Yorker (accessible here: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/07/12/100712fa_fact_grann) that not only mentions the film, but casts tremendous doubt on the Biro's work (including the presentation of evidence suggesting that Biro made a silicon cast of the fingerprint in Pollock's studio and placed it on the back). At the very minimum, based on the article, I think the description of Biro as a "forensic expert" is misleading -- his background is in art restoration and he claims in the New Yorker article to be self-taught as a fingerprint examiner (I don't know that this would commonly qualify one as an "expert"). There is also a long history described in the article of allegations of fraud and forgery in the Biro's art business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.147.240 (talk) 15:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

If you want the information in the article, cite it there. Heiro 20:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Adjusted the indent of entries above. I very rapidly scanned the New Yorker article on Biro. I dunno if he was the person I saw in the film as it was a few years ago. Certainly that was the critical evidence and if it was a fraud then the Ring would be hollow. Don't have enough interest in this to follow up. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 05:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Just saw a page by Hoving that also suggests the fingerprint could be a forgery. Unsure if the painting was actually sold, or Horton is alive or what. Obviously intricate scams have been run before now and it's possible that Horton happened upon a reject from such a process. I never really considered that possibility, may have been misdirected by the fact there fraud from Horton's acq on unlikely. As far as the matter of acrylics, that would seem to be consistent with Pollock's use of industrial paint and could represent a trashed experiment. 98.4.124.117 (talk) 02:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Title

I think the title of thise page should be changed to an edited version, but show up in searches for the original name. And, the name should be used within the article for the sake of full disclosure. Any suggestions? --InvisibleDiplomat₆⁶₆ 21:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No, because this is against policy, as we've already notified you on your talk page. —  scetoaux (T|C) 21:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Even the title on the poster is edited. It seems to be a weak dilusion of what the original author of the cited work intended. Great debating skills btw. --InvisibleDiplomat₆⁶₆ 21:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

IMDb lists it as fuck. It would help to know what the title screen of the movie itself says. Also, do not insult people by calling their opinions "dilusions" or calling into question their debating skills. For someone who claims to know policy, you seem to be quite adept at ignoring it. The359 (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Twaz might have meant to say "weak dilution", in the sense that using the alternative title is only a slight deviation from the filmmaker's intent. Wikipedia is not a debating club. We're here to build an encyclopedia. Bovlb (talk) 07:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

So IMDB lists the title as "Who the #$&% is Jackson Pollock?" as does the title screen of the film, so why is title listed incorrectly here? 65.188.175.244 (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I am watching this movie right at this very minute via Netflix, and everything (Netflix, IMDb, and the movie title screen) lists it as "#$&%," not "fuck." It seems that the Wikipedia article should match the movie, rather than trying to make a point via heavy-handed anti-censorship policy. 67.164.72.148 (talk) 06:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing that out. It seems clear from IMDB and from the various screen captures of the case and movie poster that the title is "#$&%". Unfortunately the # cannot be reproduced in titles on Wikipedia due to technical limitations, but I have replaced it with a * and added a note. I think this may have been why the word substitution was made in the first place, but it seems there is no validation for the word replacement. Don't know why this conclusion wasn't reached earlier. -- Renesis (talk) 06:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Definitely was originally 'fuck', not sure when it became minced. 98.4.124.117 (talk) 09:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Current status of painting

"As it turned out, Teri Horton's painting which was authenticated by Peter Paul Biro, in fact sold for $50 million.[9]" This is simply incorrect. Two points:

1. Biro's credibility is, to say the least, questionable. His "authentication" of the painting is far from generally accepted.
2. The cite given, ^ "Renowned Forensic Art Inspector Sues The New Yorker For Calling Him A Fake" by Julie Zeveloff, Business Insider, July 6, 2011, does not state anywhere the the painting has been sold.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Boss shark (talk • contribs)

this does though. The thing with the floor alignment, if true, I don't recall ever hearing of it, would cause it to be snapped up and likely by an anonymous buyer as with the Salvator Mundi Leonardo. If you are sure of the value/transaction, your ability to realize your investment in the future but the current state is ambiguous, low profile, anonymity is to be expected and unlike the Leonardo, not a flashy historical tx. It may not be a great Pollock and may have even been discarded by the artist but the backstory would assure high value. At some near point though it's sure to be known (if it sold). Is Horton even alive? 98.4.124.117 (talk) 08:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)