MovieChat Forums > Who the #$&% Is Jackson Pollock? (2006) Discussion > Are there not Pollock finger prints EVER...

Are there not Pollock finger prints EVERYWHERE


In his studio?

Why would they seemingly be so scarce as to only find one on a can?

All the time spent in there he certainly would have left hundreds of finger prints everywhere

reply

I wouldn't think there would be too many:

1. After his death his studio was preserved/made into a museum sort of site, which involved removing a lot of stuff, cleaning, and reorganizing.

2. It's been half a century, I'm assuming prints would wear away or other people who visited the studio might touch areas as well--there may have been a lot of prints that weren't Pollock's in the studio or on the materials. I think that was one of the issues brought up in the film--it's possible the same person who wasn't Pollock touched the paint can and the painting.

3. How well would prints keep in wet materials? How would the drying of wet paint or varnish affect the way the print was preserved?

4. Was he touching things in a way that would leave discernible fingerprints that often? I imagine he would have paint and other materials on his hands and would touch a lot of surfaces, however, touching to leave a readable print would be a more gentle or a more deliberate act than picking something up and moving it here to there--a lot of prints would be smeary. Think of your own house--there are probably marks on glass or furniture that are from hands and fingers, but they might not be clear enough up close to distinguish an actual finger print.

reply