Glen Score’s Techdirt Profile

glen

About Glen Score




Glen Score’s Comments comment rss

  • Aug 10th, 2010 @ 11:04am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: The big deal

    Yes, I did really mean an English Teacher.

    Nice apology. That was a (very) long paragraph.

    We've said enough concerning the paragraph, I think. It's really all a little bit off Subject anyway.

    Jacksonpollockstudy.com

  • Aug 6th, 2010 @ 7:31pm

    Re: Re: The big deal

    What are you, and English teacher? I know all about paragraphs and how to use them. Thankyou. This happens to be a subject I'm a little passionate about and sometimes (especially in a forum such as this) I kind of let my form slip and seem to think the subject is a little more important than the form. Sorry.

    Sometimes I write a bit spontaneously when I'm trying to get a point across. And (I should never start a sentence with an "and") But ....we are talking POLLOCK here (the guy who flung paint unconventionally onto his canvas) so maybe you could also give me a little lead way on artistic liscense.

    OH, I'm also sure a couple words here are probably misspelled: perhaps you could point them out. I'm not a real big fan of perfectionists only because I truly believe people who think they are really are the furthest things from it. And (oops...did it again) there is a reason ASTM invented standards...it's to keep people moving forward and to produce, it's called acceptable standards. And for a forum such as this, I think I have met that criteria.

    But thanks for telling me about paragraphs. Now go drive somebody else crazy with something that doesn't really matter.

  • Aug 4th, 2010 @ 6:45pm

    The big deal

    Elizebeth, I am very aware of everything you have stated. And I have been in contact with many of these people. Eugene Thaw, I think is really a pretty good guy. He at least did me the favor of responding a couple times. He was safe in his response as far as neither confirming or dening the possiblity of my painting. But his respnse was generous in that he actually took the time to write a response in the form of an actual letter. Eugene apparently got his start as a young art history student, was sharp and purchased what he believed to be old master's sketches, and then had his suspicions varyfied and authenticated by senior experts which started him on his way to the success he finally realized. Really a pretty cool story and history. In communicating with Mr. Thaw and sending him the information I had gathered concerning my painting, I did make a personal appeal that he might consider the same favor done for him long ago, and repeat the favor. Well, I am really quite aware of the pressure that would be placed on him if he did choose to help. It is not the same pressure that his seniors of the day (especially concerning old masters) would recieve in their aggreement with his opinion concerning his finds. He has been the President of the Pollack Krasner Foundation, and though I believe he's a pretty real and straightforward person, unfortunately I understand his hesitants to jump on board such a prospect with a stranger when it could ruin a lifetime reputation of service to the arts. And I'm pretty sure that it would hurt him to acknowledge such a find by (basically) a nobody in the art world. As far as the responses I've recieved from other worthy experts (and really there is a crowd of people who's opinions are "worthy" concerning this subject)they choose to respond in very short, concise responses concerning this painting. And they are rarely of denial, They are rarely "NO" they are generally one sentence responses that basically say "I can not help you with this". Though this type of response may not seem to say much, it really says quite a bit. It is essentially supreme safe ground; they never told me they thought it was or could be, or it clearly wasn't a Pollock. This puts them in a position that is safe with the foundation and safe if some renegade expert takes the painting on and pretty much proves that it is...safe ground. Now if I had a painting that was on the wrong stuff, the wrong colors, the wrong images, the wrong signature (and I'm talking style here) I'm very sure they would have absolutely no problem or delay saying "Don't waist my time, this thing is definately not a Pollock." Because they do do that...If they "Know" they don't hesitate, don't mince their words, their is no liability (carreer or reputation-wise). I know the from the Pollock claims I have seen whic would fall into this "very safe" category. So basically, I'm quite convinced that their are experts (that matter) that truly understand what they are looking at when I send them detailed information and comparisons concerning this painting, but they have carreers, books, their institutions have donated Pollock paintings, they have carreers that literally depend on the continued support of the foundation. One 40 million dollar painting could potentially screw up the market. God forbid some guy in the middle of nowhere has a painting better than the foundation owns, better than anything that will come up for aution in the next ten years that isn't already owned by an institution (or somebody with a name); this could potentially have an effect on a contrived market. Not tooo may people are out there who will buy a 40 million dollar Pollock. Those are the people that they would prefer to sell their 6 million dollar Pollock's to. And I'm not talking conspiracy in any way, shape or form here...all I'm suggesting is control. We, as the public, believe what we hear concerning Pollock's impact (the importance to modern culture REALLY being more than the silly prices people exchange this art for), or a DeKooning, or a Warhol...we've been kind of brainwashed to believe that these people are cultural icons; not that they were propped up by some small (very small) avant garde snob culture that was very limited in it's acceptance of all this really being art...the masses shook their heads (they still shake their heads) but somehow this enttire market was manipulated to eventually become an exclusive (EXCLUSIVE !!!) multimillion dollar industry. We, the people on the outside who actually thing the "art" is the important part, are sooooo mistaken. What's important is the biographies, the manipulation, the "exclusivity of works that have been catalogued", The rubbing elbows and donations. exhibits and the list of majors that are really minors go on and on. Somewhere deep inside these foundation suspect but will never say (accept perhaps under CIA torture tactics) that "No, this isn't about art...AT ALL". So, Biro, yeah sure he might have a sketchy past...but he's also got equipment and I guess there's the possibility that he could prove that Horton has a Pollock (sounds a little like Horton hear's a Whoo...pretty hard for him to convince others of also)...but the powers that be (and rest assured there truly are "powers that be") would very likely dispute a proposed Pollock even if there was a picture of him painting it. I challenge Grann to go deeper than Peter Paul...go all the way to the bottom, because if you can write an article where nobody speaks...than you will truly have something.

  • Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 3:54pm

    Re: Response

    Elizabeth...I agree. I really think everyone has really been missing the point here, and all along. Biro really is only the top of the story and reporters have never dug deep enough. Forget about Biro, a reporter should ask this question "What if I had a real Pollock, what could I do?" Or perhaps a DeKooning or anybody else that has a controlling foundation. One might falsely believe that these people who base their lives, careers, incomes around something they deem so important would jump at the chance to view or acknowledge a possible painting by the artist with which they associate their passions. My conclusion is your better off finding a painting by a longgg dead artist, rather than one who still has a controlling foundation; because truth or reality doesn't really matter (or science) when it comes to a (controlling) foundation concerning possible treasures; they don't care about anything but their assets. It's almost like we've been fooled concerning the TRUE meaning of modern art.

  • Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 10:08am

    Re: Re: Pollock and authentication

    No it wasn't Grann's article that influenced my opinion of Biro as sketchy. My opinion is kind of general in regards to any "experts" who claim they can authenticate a Pollock. Unless they have not ever really confronted such a possibility, perhaps they think they can. I'll give the naive the benefit of the doubt. But Biro is not naive. I read the Grann article, and believe me my "sketchy" opinion was far less negative than what I gleened from the article; I'm still digesting that. As far as the experts that really matter....they have locked zippers on their mouths and I'm pretty sure the foundation is holding the keys.

  • Aug 3rd, 2010 @ 9:30am

    Re: Re: Pollock and authentication

    You are correct Elizebeth, that is what the foundations site states. They even make clear that they do not/will not authenticate possible works; they won't discuss it period. Of course the foundation also legally controls all reproduction rights and permisions for publications of catalogued works, and still retains an inventory of Pollock works represented by two exclusive galleries. So the foundation still has some horses in this here race. And though they will not discuss such a prospect, they do have a knack of becoming very vocal when a painting has any likelyhood of being recognized as a "new" Pollock. So, if you have a Pollock that is recognized by experts such as Biro, and you publish it (for financial gain or advertise it as such) as a Pollock, yet the foundation does not recognize it (or hold any copyrights)...than is it really a Pollock...even if it is a Pollock? And this is what I mean by the foundation playing a passive/aggresive role in such possibilities. Will Biro tell a client "yes, I can authenticate this for you, I can put my signature on some official looking document, but unless it is recognized and acknowledged by the foundation as being a Pollock...well, than you essentially have a 35 dollar painting and a piece of paper with my signature on it"? And...if it is otherwise, please explain.