| | |  | Documentry | Home » » Who the #$&% Is Jackson Pollock? | | | | | | | Description: | | When Teri Horton, a 73-year-old former long-haul truck driver with an eighth grade education bought a painting in a thrift shop for five dollars, she didn't know that it would pit her against the most powerful people in the art community and perhaps forever change the way art is authenticated around the world. Who The #$&% Is Jackson Pollock? is a rollicking adventure that documents a 15-year war with the art world's inner circle, lifts the veil on how art is bought and sold in America and introduces audiences to the funny, profane and utterly unforgettable Teri Horton. | | | Features: | |
• When Teri Horton, a 73-year-old former long-haul truck driver with an eighth grade education bought a painting in a thrift shop for five dollars, she didn't know that it would pit her against the most powerful people in the art community and perhaps forever change the way art is authenticated around the world. Who The #$&% Is Jackson Pollock? is a rollicking adventure that documents a 15-year
| | | Product Details: | | | Actors:
| Teri Horton | | Director:
| Harry Moses | | Format:
| Closed-captioned, Color, Dolby | | Language:
| English | | Subtitle:
| Spanish | | Number of Discs:
| 1 | | Studio:
| New Line Home Video | | Run Time:
| 74 minutes | | DVD Release Date:
| May 01, 2007 | | Average Customer Rating:
|  based on 32 reviews |
| | | | Customer Reviews: | |
Average Customer Review:
 ( 32 customer reviews )
Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
17 of 20 found the following review helpful:
 Trucker momma proves the emperor has no clothes!Jun 16, 2007
By E. Karasik
This film just tickled me; delightfully done with a light touch, it pits a down-to-earth dumpster-diving trucker named Teri Horton against a pretentious boatload of art world snobs, and she proves (in the words of a famous author) that they don't know their scrotums from Kentucky-fried-chicken. The film stands up well as a documentary, covering a lot of ground to interview witnesses who knew Pollock, as well as forensic, art, and legal experts. Bottom line is that the fingerprint and other physical evidence pointing to the authenticity of the painting is just overwhelming; if this were a murder case, there would be more than ample evidence to send someone to the electric chair. The only thing standing between Ms. Horton and $50,000,000 (the estimated value of the painting if it were deemed authentic) is a bunch of arrogant blowholes who can't utter a single coherent or persuasive sentence in support of their position that the painting is a fake. If I ever had any doubts about the credibility of the art world, this certainly settled the issue once and for all. As for Teri, a phenomenally feisty, if complicated and self-destructive woman, she makes one of the most interesting lead characters I've encountered in fact or fiction.
9 of 10 found the following review helpful:
Fair and RealJun 11, 2007
By Jokie X Wilson
"jokiex"
I am an artist of thirty years and consider myself well-read and aware in regards to artworld issues and painting, my main form of expression. Having grown up with people who became the world's most profound art critics once they got a little alcohol in them and who regularly counseled me that what I was learning in art school was all wrong, I found this DVD quite fun. It was fair to both the experts and the philistines.
I am sure that the experts will seem quite funny to a lot of folks. Yes, it looks weird the way elderly men twist and dance in front of Teri's painting to visually test it for it's possible Pollockness. But, those feelings are ironic in the context of this story. While experts are questioned as to how they know what they know, other experts are touted as being experts, and therefore right. I suppose it is a matter of expert against expert.
This DVD has something for everyone. Beyond its entertainment value, it offers a great lesson in how artworks are authenticated. It also offers an insight into the world of people who decide what we will see in museums, a world that almost none of us has anything to do with. Finally, it's a real kick for those persons who would love to tell off artworld experts once they get a little lit. You get to watch Teri Horton do this with great verve.
Personally, I'm on the side of the artworld experts. But, you can decide for yourself. Whether you laugh more at the experts or Teri, you will get some good chuckles out of this DVD. Watch it! :-)
8 of 9 found the following review helpful:
 Is the provenance of the film as important as the provenance of the painting?Apr 30, 2010
By Bryan Byrd
On the surface of it, 'Who The #$&% Is Jackson Pollock?' is the struggle of 73-year-old Teri Horton, a retired long-haul truck driver, to authenticate her five dollar flea market find as a genuine Jackson Pollock painting. As the film progresses though, the emphasis subtly shifts from recording Teri's authentication efforts to highlighting how the established art world dismissed her claim based solely on her outsider status. From their perspective, she's a kook, one who's wasting their time with a pipe dream of having found a fifty million dollar painting in a thrift store. To her, their refusal even to return her phone calls when she began her quest was tantamount to a declaration of war. So she enlists the help of Peter Paul Biro, a forensic specialist, and Tod Volpe, a former art dealer to Hollywood film stars - who had also served two years in prison for defrauding those same celebrities.
As I watched this film, and as the filmmakers documented the evidence to support Horton's claim, I began to feel amazed at the colossal dunderheads who were refusing to consider seriously the authenticity of Horton's painting. The smug egoism of Thomas Hoving, former director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, was especially infuriating, and the sheep-like mentality of the rest of the establishment, who marched in lock-step with Hoving's - and others - verdict that her painting was not genuine, imparted at least some of the frustration that Teri must have felt during her years-long battle. However, after reflection, and some slight internet research, I have fewer convictions now than I had at the film's conclusion.
A Google search of Thomas Hoving Teri Horton will produce an article from Artnews, written by Hoving, that presents alternatives to the proof offered in the film - but to my mind, the authenticity of Ms. Horton's painting is secondary to determining the objective of the filmmakers. The fact that Tod Volpe is credited as Art Consultant for the film, and Peter Paul Biro as Science Consultant (both of whom were enlisted for their experience and knowledge to ultimately assist in the sale of the painting), raised red flags for me. These potential conflicts of interest don't signify anything by themselves, but after reading the Artnews article, I started to re-examine my initial feelings about the film and took a closer look at the way it was constructed, and then I began to wonder, despite the patina of neutrality, if the slant toward Ms. Horton was orchestrated.
If Thomas Hoving's antics and outlandish statements regarding his expertise were removed from the film, the other representatives from the art world would sound reasonable and measured - a point that couldn't have escaped the filmmakers' attention. Without him, Ms. Horton's story would still be interesting, but there would be no face to represent the gated community of the art world - no bad guy - and much of the sympathy for Teri Horton's quest would be sucked right out of the film. At the same time, Hoving's reputation and résumé made him a legitimate source, regardless of his behavior, and so the choice to include his comments is certainly justifiable. But with his presence, the argument is principles, not necessarily authenticity, with Ms. Horton winning easily. Although all the facts of the case would remain the same, we would essentially see two different films based on whether he appears in the film or not. As it stands, as a disinterested viewer, I want Teri's painting validated simply because Thomas Hoving comes across as a big jerk.
The question then is no longer about the authenticity of the painting, or even about the class prejudice Teri Horton ran into during her efforts. It is a matter of whether the filmmakers deliberately constructed the film as an appeal to spite to bolster other evidence. If so, then it's more agitprop than documentary. If not, and I assume no one twisted Thomas Hoving's arm to make him act as he does, then the filmmakers simply found an excellent example to reflect the conditions that exist between the Teri Hortons of the world and the restricted environment of art connoisseurship.
Although I understand that this is only a review of the film, I do think it is appropriate to bring up these questions about the film's objectivity, especially since its emotional appeal is so effective. While it would be impossible to say definitively that the filmmakers had ulterior motives, I obviously have some muted suspicions, which in turn influences how I perceive the other issues. Still, the film was informative, and I would recommend it with severe qualifications, but lingering questions about the filmmaker's intent prevents me from giving it a full four stars. Three and a half, rounded down.
13 of 16 found the following review helpful:
Really Enjoyed It!May 07, 2007
By Hutchinson Persons
I'm tough to please and this film held my interest all the way through, though I'll bet it's easier to enjoy on DVD (as we did) than in a theater because we found ourselves commenting, sometimes quite emotionally, about what was happening.
Without giving away the conclusion, I'll tell you only this: Teri Horton has some pretty convincing evidence--the kind a Gil Grissom would value. Forensics are changing the art world. Digital vs. Analog. Objective vs. Subjective. Evidence vs. opinion. Of course art experts are bound to disagree, to resist such changes. In the face of mounting evidence those experts find it difficult to change their minds. Their reputations depend upon them being right--the first time.
Would I sell for $2 million or even $9 million? I think maybe I'd have to agree with Teri--so far. If I could fault Ms. Horton in any way, she ought to take her problem as to how much she would actually accept for it, and turn it into a straight business decision--leave the emotion out. Set a minimum reserve, stick to it and auction it off. Make the decision as objective as her evidence.
But that brings me to an important point. I don't give a damn what the EXPERTS say about art. I only care if _I_ like it. And I like Teri's painting well enough to value it around the price she paid for it. It takes a valuer to provide a value. I'll bet if Teri really thought about it she'd agree.
2 of 2 found the following review helpful:
A Film about Epistemology, Art, and CultureJan 14, 2010
By Douglas Groothuis
"Douglas Groothuis"
Thinking this was a documentary about Jackson Pollock, I borrowed it from a local library. It turns out to be more of a real-life mystery than a study of Pollock, the man or his work. But along the way, one learns quite a bit about this strange and intriguing figure and his abstract painting (if that is the proper label). The plot-line is simple: an uneducated and plucky female truck driver, named Teri Horton, buys a large, odd painting for a friend from a thrift shop for $5. She is later told that it looks like a Jackson Pollock original. She eventually learns who he was (she had no idea, and thought the the painting was essentially junk, since it was nonrepresentational), the tremendous worth of his painting (a new original work would fetch fifty million dollars), and approaches the art world in the hope that it will be authenticated as a genuine Pollock.
The film is about how we know things (epistemology)--in this case, how do we know whether a painting is painted by a particular painter. That is, how to we come to a justified and true belief about this painting? Was it painted by Pollock or not? To answer this, one must consider criteria for authenticity. We find (at least) two cultures in conflict here. The culture of the experts in the art world and the culture of forensics. Those in the art world largely rejected the painting as inauthentic. Some rejected it forcefully, others more hesitantly, but no recognized art expert certified the painting as a Pollock for the following reasons. (1) It is unsigned. (2) It has no provenance. Provenance concerns the documented genealogy of the painting, its causal ancestry or pedigree. Mrs. Horton bought it as a thrift shop and was not able to gather information beyond that. That is, it simply appears as a painting without a history. (3) It does not look enough like a Pollock work to the trained eye.
However, there is another angle to pursue--forensic evience. Mrs. Horton hires a forensic expert who has authenticated several annonomous paintings as legitimate works by well-known artists. He finds a fingerprint on the back of the painting that matches one found in Pollock's studio. He also finds paint like that used by Pollock. The art world cares nothing for this: forensics is not art criticism. They are two different worlds, with two different sets of criteria.
This epistemological debate is what I found fascinating about the film. I did not warm to the crusty, seventy-three-year old who discovered the painting. One may pity her hard life and appreciate her feistiness, but she strikes me as crass and pointlessly stubborn--refusing to sell a painting of at least questionable pedigree for nine million dollars. She says her unwillingness to sell for anything less than the full worth of a Pollock is a matter of "principle." But what principle might that be? Apparently, she is convinced it is a Pollock, and hired a professional art dealer to sell it as such (a rather slick and slimy character, to be sure). But is any moral principle violated if one sells a painting for nine million dollars when, in fact, it may be worth fifty million; however? There is, after all, still good reason to question its authenticity.
What is intriguing is the epistemological elements (at least to this philosopher). What criteria are normative for identifying a work of art? When the experts evaluate the work, they size it up rather intuitively, based on previous knowledge of Pollock's style. But they do not all agree. Moreover, artists do vary their style to some degree. The other side has to do with trying find in the extant painting some forensic (not aesthetic) quality that identifies it as having been painted by Pollack. This involves photography, chemistry, and some speculative history (since documented provenance cannot be established). One large question is whether one can establish a plausible scenario in which Pollack, an established if eccentric painter, somehow lets one of his works lose such that it ends up in a thrift shop in California, as opposed to having it displayed in a New York art museum or as part of an art collector's collection.
It is difficult to come to a conclusion about the identity of this painting. But working through the questions is fascinating and rewarding. To make a more accurate assessment, one would need much more than simply a film on which to base a judgment. This is not a film that directly addresses the aesthetic value of Jackson Pollock's paintings or the worldview behind his work. (At some point, Pollock set up mechanical means by which to make paintings which attempted to leave out his own personality and rely on chance. Francis Schaeffer assesses this philosophically in "How Shall We Then Live?") However, the film stimulates significant thought about the art of knowing. Who is a reliable witness? What are the proper criteria for truth assessment. For those reasons, I delighted in the film and may use it for teaching on these subjects.
See all 32 customer reviews on Amazon.com
| | |
|
