| What's Wrong with this Picture? Dear Sirs, I read Nicola Behrman's review of Who The #$&% Is Jackson Pollock? (Doc Spot in the April/May 2007 issue) with great interest, and I was very pleased that she showed some skepticism. I have a few more questions to ask the filmmakers as well. Teri Horton, the foul-mouthed truck driver who claims to have a real Jackson Pollock says that she was dismissed by snobbish art world types because she could not provide a provenance for the painting. After first ridiculing the word "provenance" (it's just a traceable history for the painting), Horton then creates a false one involving drunken movie stars in an orgy of painting that is so unlikely I'm not surprised many gallery owners never called her back. They probably thought someone was playing a prank on them. But with galleries getting between a 15 and 20 percent commission on sales, if Horton's Pollack is genuine and worth $100 million, why wouldn't they be interested? It doesn't make any sense. Unless you consider that Horton's alleged "Pollock" is being represented by Tod Volpe, a thief and embezzler who has already spent time in jail for fraud. That doesn't inspire confidence among prospective art buyers. At one point, Volpe (the convicted fraud) says it is the art world's job to prove that Teri's painting is NOT a real Pollock. What? Is he an idiot as well as a liar and thief? Hey, Volpe, you are asking millions for this painting. You have to prove it IS a Pollock; the burden of proof is on the people making the claim. There are other things stated in the film that need to be questioned. The fingerprint evidence presented by the self-proclaimed forensics expert Paul Biro is shaky at best. Especially when he tells us that there are no known fingerprints of Jackson Pollock in existence. If that's true, then how does he know that the fingerprint on the back of Horton's painting belongs to Jackson Pollock? What is his baseline for a comparison? But the clincher for me was when I discovered the existence of a painter named Francis Hogan Brown, who was well known for painting copies of Jackson Pollock's work that were virtually identical to Pollock. Brown says that he distributed lots of these knock-offs in the Southern California area on or around the time Teri Horton claims to have purchased her "Pollock." In fact, Brown says the painting in the film (which he has seen in photographs) looks just like one of his. He says that for several years now, he has repeatedly asked to see Teri Horton's "Pollock" up close, but that Tod Volpe and Teri Horton have refused to let him anywhere near it. Why is that? If William Hogan Brown can prove that the disputed "Pollock" Teri has is one of his own paintings, doesn't that settle this case? One final thing. The film goes to great lengths to show that the former museum director Thomas Hoving is an arrogant, know-it-all jerk. So what? You don't have to look very hard in the art world to find a pompous ass. I am willing to bet that it would also not be difficult to find a truck driver who is also a pompous jerk. But what does that prove? Absolutely nothing. Michael McGonigle, CTS
Philadelphia Museum of Art | 
