http://www.artfagcity.com/2006/11/15/an-interview-with-teri-horton-and-peter-paul-biro-of-who-the-is-jackson-pollock/ New York art news and reviews. Mon, 13 Feb 2012 04:20:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 http://www.artfagcity.com/2006/11/15/an-interview-with-teri-horton-and-peter-paul-biro-of-who-the-is-jackson-pollock/comment-page-1/#comment-282274 Bob Thu, 15 Jul 2010 23:58:40 +0000 http://www.artfagcity.com/?p=347#comment-282274 Read David Grann's article in the July 15, 2010 New Yorker. In a very detailed articles Grann exposes Biro for the fraud that he is. Turns out the the curator at the Metropolitan Museum of Art was right all along! Read David Grann’s article in the July 15, 2010 New Yorker. In a very detailed articles Grann exposes Biro for the fraud that he is. Turns out the the curator at the Metropolitan Museum of Art was right all along!

]]> http://www.artfagcity.com/2006/11/15/an-interview-with-teri-horton-and-peter-paul-biro-of-who-the-is-jackson-pollock/comment-page-1/#comment-311492 Bob Thu, 15 Jul 2010 23:58:00 +0000 http://www.artfagcity.com/?p=347#comment-311492 Read David Grann's article in the July 15, 2010 New Yorker. In a very detailed articles Grann exposes Biro for the fraud that he is. Turns out the the curator at the Metropolitan Museum of Art was right all along! Read David Grann’s article in the July 15, 2010 New Yorker. In a very detailed articles Grann exposes Biro for the fraud that he is. Turns out the the curator at the Metropolitan Museum of Art was right all along!

]]> http://www.artfagcity.com/2006/11/15/an-interview-with-teri-horton-and-peter-paul-biro-of-who-the-is-jackson-pollock/comment-page-1/#comment-216082 annonyomous Tue, 19 Jan 2010 01:33:56 +0000 http://www.artfagcity.com/?p=347#comment-216082 And we are all proud of Mr.Biro he has earned his respect well in his field and i give him 2 thumbs up. For the great pieces he has saved from ruining. Good For you Mr.Biro And we are all proud of Mr.Biro he has earned his respect well in his field and i give him 2 thumbs up.
For the great pieces he has saved from ruining. Good For you Mr.Biro

]]> http://www.artfagcity.com/2006/11/15/an-interview-with-teri-horton-and-peter-paul-biro-of-who-the-is-jackson-pollock/comment-page-1/#comment-311491 annonyomous Tue, 19 Jan 2010 01:33:00 +0000 http://www.artfagcity.com/?p=347#comment-311491 And we are all proud of Mr.Biro he has earned his respect well in his field and i give him 2 thumbs up. For the great pieces he has saved from ruining. Good For you Mr.Biro And we are all proud of Mr.Biro he has earned his respect well in his field and i give him 2 thumbs up.
For the great pieces he has saved from ruining. Good For you Mr.Biro

]]> http://www.artfagcity.com/2006/11/15/an-interview-with-teri-horton-and-peter-paul-biro-of-who-the-is-jackson-pollock/comment-page-1/#comment-216079 annonyomous Tue, 19 Jan 2010 01:29:21 +0000 http://www.artfagcity.com/?p=347#comment-216079 I Guess in simple langauage, it would result to ! to many good pieces of Art work getting tossed out from guessing and to many frauds getting reconized, as forensic science does not play guess work it is 100%. And there is many That have given up and tossed good pieces out due to discouragement from beliving what i like to call the ole school guess ,r,s. And that is by far out dated , As Emily carr stated that modern day experts may be baffled at what they may find. And if you really no and understand her spirit, she has been quite unsettled to this very day. I Guess in simple langauage, it would result to ! to many good pieces of Art work getting tossed out from guessing and to many frauds getting reconized, as forensic science does not play guess work it is 100%. And there is many That have given up and tossed good pieces out due to discouragement from beliving what i like to call the ole school guess ,r,s. And that is by far out dated , As Emily carr stated that modern day experts may be baffled at what they may find. And if you really no and understand her spirit, she has been quite unsettled to this very day.

]]> http://www.artfagcity.com/2006/11/15/an-interview-with-teri-horton-and-peter-paul-biro-of-who-the-is-jackson-pollock/comment-page-1/#comment-311490 annonyomous Tue, 19 Jan 2010 01:29:00 +0000 http://www.artfagcity.com/?p=347#comment-311490 I Guess in simple langauage, it would result to ! to many good pieces of Art work getting tossed out from guessing and to many frauds getting reconized, as forensic science does not play guess work it is 100%. And there is many That have given up and tossed good pieces out due to discouragement from beliving what i like to call the ole school guess ,r,s. And that is by far out dated , As Emily carr stated that modern day experts may be baffled at what they may find. And if you really no and understand her spirit, she has been quite unsettled to this very day. I Guess in simple langauage, it would result to ! to many good pieces of Art work getting tossed out from guessing and to many frauds getting reconized, as forensic science does not play guess work it is 100%. And there is many That have given up and tossed good pieces out due to discouragement from beliving what i like to call the ole school guess ,r,s. And that is by far out dated , As Emily carr stated that modern day experts may be baffled at what they may find. And if you really no and understand her spirit, she has been quite unsettled to this very day.

]]> http://www.artfagcity.com/2006/11/15/an-interview-with-teri-horton-and-peter-paul-biro-of-who-the-is-jackson-pollock/comment-page-1/#comment-12075 Molly Dierks Fri, 19 Oct 2007 16:01:05 +0000 http://www.artfagcity.com/?p=347#comment-12075 I recently read a blogline about Teri Horton that focused mostly on whether or not she was seeking media attention, and “deserved” to own a possibly valuable piece of work she herself had no real appreciation for. I am intrigued with Teri Horton and her discovery of a real or fake Jackson Pollack whose authenticity has yet to be confirmed and likely never will be. What I find interesting about the Teri Horton argument is that the forensic scientific evidence regarding Jackson Pollack's fingerprint is portrayed as not being a central factor in the authentification process. The lack of acceptance of such seemingly irrefutable evidence by art institutions with vested interests in Pollack and his legacy points to an interesting phenomenon of the messy relationship between money and art in general. I would hope that any body of people that proclaims to validate works of art would include a forensic team or investigation, but that does not seem to be the case here. The Harry Moses documentary, “Who the F—is Jackson Pollack?” which focuses more on the injustice of Teri's position as it relates to convincing the art elite that what she has is the real thing and worth real money, should also seek to ask the question; why are art and science seen as such disparate interests? Or moreover, why does hard evidence not play a central role in proving the value of a supposed work of art, where brushstroke, and general “educated sentiment” do? While the appreciation of abstract art can be intellectual, mystical and elitist, the identification of a work of art should not be, because as Jeff indicates, art collections are largely an economic enterprise (though art collectors who view themselves as purveyors of high culture might find this admission distasteful) and should therefore seek to remain as accurate as possible, including scientific evidence in their quest for the “truth” behind a potentially valuable piece. What the documentary reveals is the true mysticism inherent in defining any artwork as “valuable” because this is a cultural and not a scientific judgment. And though art collecting involves itself with great sums of money, the base economic system seems to have an inability to extract itself from the cultural system that created its existence. The documentary suggests that the process of authenticating a work of art is more concerned with its economic value as it relates to its perceived cultural value, and this is where the value system begins to break down. In other words, what is deemed monetarily valuable has to first be deemed culturally valuable and if Paul Biro‘s findings in the documentary are revealed to be true, then the system that identifies art as authentic and therefore valuable is consistent with the system that gave this art its value in the first place. That to me, is far more interesting than how an abstract work of art makes you or Teri Horton feel, and whether or not Teri Horton is of a class of people who should be “allowed” to own a Jackson Pollack (which she humorously and perhaps justly calls “ugly”). Except that the audience’s focus on the former two questions reinforce the institution of value in art that the documentary highlights. Perhaps a second documentary should be made about people’s response to “Who the F--- is Jackson Pollack?” within a social structure that we naturally respond to because we are a part of what Teri is fighting against in her quest for putting an appropriate market value on her thrift store find. I recently read a blogline about Teri Horton that focused mostly on whether or not she was seeking media attention, and “deserved” to own a possibly valuable piece of work she herself had no real appreciation for. I am intrigued with Teri Horton and her discovery of a real or fake Jackson Pollack whose authenticity has yet to be confirmed and likely never will be. What I find interesting about the Teri Horton argument is that the forensic scientific evidence regarding Jackson Pollack’s fingerprint is portrayed as not being a central factor in the authentification process. The lack of acceptance of such seemingly irrefutable evidence by art institutions with vested interests in Pollack and his legacy points to an interesting phenomenon of the messy relationship between money and art in general. I would hope that any body of people that proclaims to validate works of art would include a forensic team or investigation, but that does not seem to be the case here. The Harry Moses documentary, “Who the F—is Jackson Pollack?” which focuses more on the injustice of Teri’s position as it relates to convincing the art elite that what she has is the real thing and worth real money, should also seek to ask the question; why are art and science seen as such disparate interests? Or moreover, why does hard evidence not play a central role in proving the value of a supposed work of art, where brushstroke, and general “educated sentiment” do? While the appreciation of abstract art can be intellectual, mystical and elitist, the identification of a work of art should not be, because as Jeff indicates, art collections are largely an economic enterprise (though art collectors who view themselves as purveyors of high culture might find this admission distasteful) and should therefore seek to remain as accurate as possible, including scientific evidence in their quest for the “truth” behind a potentially valuable piece.
What the documentary reveals is the true mysticism inherent in defining any artwork as “valuable” because this is a cultural and not a scientific judgment. And though art collecting involves itself with great sums of money, the base economic system seems to have an inability to extract itself from the cultural system that created its existence. The documentary suggests that the process of authenticating a work of art is more concerned with its economic value as it relates to its perceived cultural value, and this is where the value system begins to break down. In other words, what is deemed monetarily valuable has to first be deemed culturally valuable and if Paul Biro‘s findings in the documentary are revealed to be true, then the system that identifies art as authentic and therefore valuable is consistent with the system that gave this art its value in the first place. That to me, is far more interesting than how an abstract work of art makes you or Teri Horton feel, and whether or not Teri Horton is of a class of people who should be “allowed” to own a Jackson Pollack (which she humorously and perhaps justly calls “ugly”). Except that the audience’s focus on the former two questions reinforce the institution of value in art that the documentary highlights. Perhaps a second documentary should be made about people’s response to “Who the F— is Jackson Pollack?” within a social structure that we naturally respond to because we are a part of what Teri is fighting against in her quest for putting an appropriate market value on her thrift store find.

]]> http://www.artfagcity.com/2006/11/15/an-interview-with-teri-horton-and-peter-paul-biro-of-who-the-is-jackson-pollock/comment-page-1/#comment-311489 Molly Dierks Fri, 19 Oct 2007 16:01:00 +0000 http://www.artfagcity.com/?p=347#comment-311489 I recently read a blogline about Teri Horton that focused mostly on whether or not she was seeking media attention, and “deserved” to own a possibly valuable piece of work she herself had no real appreciation for. I am intrigued with Teri Horton and her discovery of a real or fake Jackson Pollack whose authenticity has yet to be confirmed and likely never will be. What I find interesting about the Teri Horton argument is that the forensic scientific evidence regarding Jackson Pollack's fingerprint is portrayed as not being a central factor in the authentification process. The lack of acceptance of such seemingly irrefutable evidence by art institutions with vested interests in Pollack and his legacy points to an interesting phenomenon of the messy relationship between money and art in general. I would hope that any body of people that proclaims to validate works of art would include a forensic team or investigation, but that does not seem to be the case here. The Harry Moses documentary, “Who the F—is Jackson Pollack?” which focuses more on the injustice of Teri's position as it relates to convincing the art elite that what she has is the real thing and worth real money, should also seek to ask the question; why are art and science seen as such disparate interests? Or moreover, why does hard evidence not play a central role in proving the value of a supposed work of art, where brushstroke, and general “educated sentiment” do? While the appreciation of abstract art can be intellectual, mystical and elitist, the identification of a work of art should not be, because as Jeff indicates, art collections are largely an economic enterprise (though art collectors who view themselves as purveyors of high culture might find this admission distasteful) and should therefore seek to remain as accurate as possible, including scientific evidence in their quest for the “truth” behind a potentially valuable piece. What the documentary reveals is the true mysticism inherent in defining any artwork as “valuable” because this is a cultural and not a scientific judgment. And though art collecting involves itself with great sums of money, the base economic system seems to have an inability to extract itself from the cultural system that created its existence. The documentary suggests that the process of authenticating a work of art is more concerned with its economic value as it relates to its perceived cultural value, and this is where the value system begins to break down. In other words, what is deemed monetarily valuable has to first be deemed culturally valuable and if Paul Biro‘s findings in the documentary are revealed to be true, then the system that identifies art as authentic and therefore valuable is consistent with the system that gave this art its value in the first place. That to me, is far more interesting than how an abstract work of art makes you or Teri Horton feel, and whether or not Teri Horton is of a class of people who should be “allowed” to own a Jackson Pollack (which she humorously and perhaps justly calls “ugly”). Except that the audience’s focus on the former two questions reinforce the institution of value in art that the documentary highlights. Perhaps a second documentary should be made about people’s response to “Who the F--- is Jackson Pollack?” within a social structure that we naturally respond to because we are a part of what Teri is fighting against in her quest for putting an appropriate market value on her thrift store find. I recently read a blogline about Teri Horton that focused mostly on whether or not she was seeking media attention, and “deserved” to own a possibly valuable piece of work she herself had no real appreciation for. I am intrigued with Teri Horton and her discovery of a real or fake Jackson Pollack whose authenticity has yet to be confirmed and likely never will be. What I find interesting about the Teri Horton argument is that the forensic scientific evidence regarding Jackson Pollack’s fingerprint is portrayed as not being a central factor in the authentification process. The lack of acceptance of such seemingly irrefutable evidence by art institutions with vested interests in Pollack and his legacy points to an interesting phenomenon of the messy relationship between money and art in general. I would hope that any body of people that proclaims to validate works of art would include a forensic team or investigation, but that does not seem to be the case here. The Harry Moses documentary, “Who the F—is Jackson Pollack?” which focuses more on the injustice of Teri’s position as it relates to convincing the art elite that what she has is the real thing and worth real money, should also seek to ask the question; why are art and science seen as such disparate interests? Or moreover, why does hard evidence not play a central role in proving the value of a supposed work of art, where brushstroke, and general “educated sentiment” do? While the appreciation of abstract art can be intellectual, mystical and elitist, the identification of a work of art should not be, because as Jeff indicates, art collections are largely an economic enterprise (though art collectors who view themselves as purveyors of high culture might find this admission distasteful) and should therefore seek to remain as accurate as possible, including scientific evidence in their quest for the “truth” behind a potentially valuable piece.
What the documentary reveals is the true mysticism inherent in defining any artwork as “valuable” because this is a cultural and not a scientific judgment. And though art collecting involves itself with great sums of money, the base economic system seems to have an inability to extract itself from the cultural system that created its existence. The documentary suggests that the process of authenticating a work of art is more concerned with its economic value as it relates to its perceived cultural value, and this is where the value system begins to break down. In other words, what is deemed monetarily valuable has to first be deemed culturally valuable and if Paul Biro‘s findings in the documentary are revealed to be true, then the system that identifies art as authentic and therefore valuable is consistent with the system that gave this art its value in the first place. That to me, is far more interesting than how an abstract work of art makes you or Teri Horton feel, and whether or not Teri Horton is of a class of people who should be “allowed” to own a Jackson Pollack (which she humorously and perhaps justly calls “ugly”). Except that the audience’s focus on the former two questions reinforce the institution of value in art that the documentary highlights. Perhaps a second documentary should be made about people’s response to “Who the F— is Jackson Pollack?” within a social structure that we naturally respond to because we are a part of what Teri is fighting against in her quest for putting an appropriate market value on her thrift store find.

]]>