Three art-scene controversies from New York’s archives that are worth revisiting. 1. When the Met almost became a theme park.In 1977, the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s then-director Thomas Hoving and billionaire Walter H. Annenberg were surreptitiously planning for the “Fine Arts Center of the Annenberg School of Communications at the Metropolitan Museum of Art.” In a clear conflict of interest, a recently retired Hoving would have assumed the role of overseeing the new center’s creation. Besides sidestepping public participation and undermining the democratic principles of a public trust, the proposal for the center promised a new “Technotronic Era” at the Met, with “communications devices and ‘superb software’ through which … the Imaginary Museum would come to pass.” Hoving’s Epcot-like vision was eventually foiled, but not without the help of Barbara Goldsmith’s investigative report for New York. 2. Public funding for scandalous art.Before subversive art became all but...
- 12/15/2014
- by Samuel Anderson
- Vulture
On Tuesday, March 5, business cablenet CNBC expands its prime-time brand with the premiere of "Treasure Detectives."
Expert Curtis Dowling and his team of investigators seek the facts behind collectibles, artwork and antiquities using high-tech science, innovative technology and street smarts to discover if they're sophisticated forgeries or true collectors' items.
They not only trace an item's origin and manufacture but also, if it is a fake, how the deception was accomplished.
"Thomas Hoving, at the Metropolitan Museum of Art," Dowling tells Zap2it, "said 40 percent of all his art collection was fake. He just wished he knew which 40 percent it was. And that's a fair indicator, to be honest, of the art world.
"When you get called to look at these things, the first thing people say is, 'Nothing I've got is fake.' All of a sudden, you start going through that collection of porcelain or paintings or baseball cards or whatever,...
Expert Curtis Dowling and his team of investigators seek the facts behind collectibles, artwork and antiquities using high-tech science, innovative technology and street smarts to discover if they're sophisticated forgeries or true collectors' items.
They not only trace an item's origin and manufacture but also, if it is a fake, how the deception was accomplished.
"Thomas Hoving, at the Metropolitan Museum of Art," Dowling tells Zap2it, "said 40 percent of all his art collection was fake. He just wished he knew which 40 percent it was. And that's a fair indicator, to be honest, of the art world.
"When you get called to look at these things, the first thing people say is, 'Nothing I've got is fake.' All of a sudden, you start going through that collection of porcelain or paintings or baseball cards or whatever,...
- 3/5/2013
- by editorial@zap2it.com
- Zap2It - From Inside the Box
Picturehouse
NEW YORK -- It's appropriate that Don Hewitt is the executive producer of this documentary, because "Who the #$&% is Jackson Pollock?" resembles nothing so much as an extended segment on "60 Minutes". But that doesn't detract from the fascinating nature of the story, about Teri Horton, a 73-year-old retired long-haul truck driver who bought a painting in a California thrift shop for $5 that may or may not be a lost Jackson Pollock.
The title question was delivered in more graphic form by the feisty Horton, who had no clue that the bizarre canvas she purchased as a gag gift for a friend could conceivably be worth millions. Her lengthy and continuing battle with the art world over the painting's authenticity is the subject of this film written and directed by Harry Moses, which at times plays like a Capra-esque comedy about the little guy vs. the establishment.
Said establishment is entertainingly personified here by former Metropolitan Museum director Thomas Hoving, who dismisses both Horton and the painting with a snooty officiousness that provides the film a wonderfully entertaining villain.
Other colorful figures on display include: Peter Paul Biro, a "forensics art authenticator" who, through the use of CSI-like techniques, discovers matching fingerprints on the found painting and a can of paint from Pollock's East Hampton studio; Tod Volpe, an art dealer who once spent time in jail for fraud, who is enlisted by Horton to sell the painting; and friends and colleagues of Pollock's who offer varying opinions as to the authenticity of the canvas.
Prosaic in its storytelling and feeling overlong even with its brief 74-minute running time, the film isn't impressive on any stylistic level. But its fascinatingly ambiguous tale and bizarre cast of characters make it one of the more entertaining documentaries in recent memory.
NEW YORK -- It's appropriate that Don Hewitt is the executive producer of this documentary, because "Who the #$&% is Jackson Pollock?" resembles nothing so much as an extended segment on "60 Minutes". But that doesn't detract from the fascinating nature of the story, about Teri Horton, a 73-year-old retired long-haul truck driver who bought a painting in a California thrift shop for $5 that may or may not be a lost Jackson Pollock.
The title question was delivered in more graphic form by the feisty Horton, who had no clue that the bizarre canvas she purchased as a gag gift for a friend could conceivably be worth millions. Her lengthy and continuing battle with the art world over the painting's authenticity is the subject of this film written and directed by Harry Moses, which at times plays like a Capra-esque comedy about the little guy vs. the establishment.
Said establishment is entertainingly personified here by former Metropolitan Museum director Thomas Hoving, who dismisses both Horton and the painting with a snooty officiousness that provides the film a wonderfully entertaining villain.
Other colorful figures on display include: Peter Paul Biro, a "forensics art authenticator" who, through the use of CSI-like techniques, discovers matching fingerprints on the found painting and a can of paint from Pollock's East Hampton studio; Tod Volpe, an art dealer who once spent time in jail for fraud, who is enlisted by Horton to sell the painting; and friends and colleagues of Pollock's who offer varying opinions as to the authenticity of the canvas.
Prosaic in its storytelling and feeling overlong even with its brief 74-minute running time, the film isn't impressive on any stylistic level. But its fascinatingly ambiguous tale and bizarre cast of characters make it one of the more entertaining documentaries in recent memory.
- 11/17/2006
- The Hollywood Reporter - Movie News
IMDb.com, Inc. takes no responsibility for the content or accuracy of the above news articles, Tweets, or blog posts. This content is published for the entertainment of our users only. The news articles, Tweets, and blog posts do not represent IMDb's opinions nor can we guarantee that the reporting therein is completely factual. Please visit the source responsible for the item in question to report any concerns you may have regarding content or accuracy.