MovieChat Forums > Who the #$&% Is Jackson Pollock? (2006) Discussion > Skepticism of intellectual authorities.

Skepticism of intellectual authorities.

posted 15 years ago by jperez01
1 reply | jump to latest

I can't give an informed opinion as to whether Teri Horton's painting is indeed a genuine Pollock. I really think that is the least important part of the film though. As entertainment the real meat of the film is expressed in the story of an everywoman, warts and all, challenging high society and more than holding her own in the end (yeah, I think she should have taken the 9 mil too) and that was nice. Actually though, the most interesting aspect of film to me was the undercurrent of skepticism; the suggestion that perhaps people have reason to question or at the very least verify the opinions of authority figures, especially figures that qualify their opinions simply on the veneer of expertise. Even "experts" can be wrong and these days (or through all times really) supposed "experts" can be anything but. It doesn't hurt to be just a bit skeptical and get a variety of opinions before lending your support to anything.

[–] high_rollin2-1 13 years ago

I agree. There's a similar documentary to this one called "My Kid Could Paint That" where a 4 year-old girl was painting Pollock-esque paintings, and some people were skeptical, thinking that her dad was actually painting them. It got into the same themes this movie did, about how the art world seems to be mostly pretty random in what they see as being good art. It seems like it's more about how the painting is viewed that what the painting actually looks like.

If this painting is indeed a Pollock, and he'd sold it to a museum instead of throwing or giving it away, and there was provenance... they'd be looking at it entirely differently. If they saw the same flaws that they currently view as being evidence that it isn't a Pollock... they'd instead be thinking, "Oh, this is a unique and very meaningful Pollock... he did something different here. This must mean... etc. etc. etc." It's all about the conditions in which the painting is viewed... not about what the painting actually is.

Whether or not it is a real Pollock, the point of the situation is that art and what it's "worth" is entirely subjective, based more on circumstance than any true meaning.
I respect Horton standing up for what she believed and caring more about her principles than money.
I also think Hoving gets a bad rap. Yes, he's egotisical, but at least he was judging the painting based on how it felt to him. It didn't feel like a Pollock, so he didn't see it being worth what a true Pollock is to him. That, to me, tells me that he DOES know something about art. Even if it actually was painted by Pollock... Pollock obviously didn't believe it was a true Pollock either, because he threw it out/gave it away/wasn't happy with it. Hoving had the same reaction to it... so whether it was painted by Pollock or not... it's not a Pollock to him because it doesn't say "Pollock" when he looks at it. I think that's what he was trying to get across by denying forensics/science, because forensics/science don't have any say on what the painting actually means, only on it's physical properties.

The lesson here is that art is subjective and it's only worth what people believe it's worth. I think that's all that's meant to be taken away from this movie.

And I used to be such a nice guy.