Ars Gratia Artis

Saw an interesting documentary, Who the #$&% Is Jackson Pollock?. It's about a woman who claims a $5 painting she bought in a thrift shop was painted by Jackson Pollock. She's in the midst of trying to get this piece verified and, ultimately, sold. (The most amazing thing is she's turned down an offer for millions, saying it's worth more.)

I doubt very much it's a real Pollock, but two things hit me:

1) Whenever I see anything about art forgery, one question arises. A real Jackson Pollock that no one recognizes is worth nothing. A fake Jackson Pollock that everyone believes is real is worth millions. Does this suggest the art world has its priorities a bit off?

2) There's an expert (or "expert") in the film who claims he shows the painting was done by Pollock. The problem is, he's trying to prove the painting is a Pollock. I'm not saying he necessarily came in with that belief, but there's certainly a good reason for him to want to believe it. Once you've got this situation, it's easy for anyone to fool himself (or perhaps try to fool others).

What you want is a blind test, where you have 20 paintings and only one is a Pollock. If he, through his methods alone, can identify the real Pollock, then I'd be impressed. But I'm rarely impressed with a mission to prove something--you can always generate evidence for a thesis if you want it badly enough.