« this is what you wanted--here, dear, here it is | Main | ouch »

February 18, 2007

Comments

Greg Cook

I think it's great that BC plans to show Matter's "Pollocks." It would be fun to make our own anaysis. And if they're fakes, the story behind them is as interesting as if they're real -- maybe moreso.

In fact, it would be cool to see BC include other suspect Pollocks. The 1978 Pollock catalogue raisonee lists a whole bunch that have fascinating back stories.

But I think that Geoff mistakenly implies that the question of authenticity is still pretty much up in the air. As I've blogged (http://gregcookland.com/journal), no one has significantly challenged Harvard's report which identifies the Matter "Pollocks" as fake. And additional research by a Williamstown firm only seems to supports Harvard's claim.

JL

But I think that Geoff mistakenly implies that the question of authenticity is still pretty much up in the air.

Thanks for your comment. The Harvard report certainly sealed it for me, though I want to see them anyway. To be precise, though, I don't think the word "fakes" is the appropriate one, at least at this time. What we know is that Harvard's report indicates that some of the materials involve only came into production after Pollock's death. It can't say who painted them, or why. At least at this time, I'm willing to take the story of how they were found at face value. But you're right--it would be great to show them with some other suspect work.

The comments to this entry are closed.

From the Bookshelves

Email

  • Send email to modkicks at yahoo dot com