Photograph of Jackson Pollock. Image credits: Wikipedia
Horton bought the 66-by-48-inch painting for $5 at Dot’s Thrift Shop in San Bernardino, California, in 1992, according to the Los Angeles Times. Biro compared the fingerprint found on the back of Horton’s canvas with one he identified on a paint can in Pollock’s former studio in East Hampton, New York, according to CNN’s 2007 report. There is a difference in the reports about the potential buyers’ offers; CBS reported that there was at least one art collector willing to pay $2 million, while the Los Angeles Times mentioned the art dealers as the source of the offer. Horton also reportedly rejected a $9 million offer from a Saudi collector, according to The New Yorker. In a 2007 interview with CBS News, Horton said she believed the painting was worth at least $50 million, although no independent valuation or confirmed offer of that amount was established. The story became well known through the documentary film Who the $&% Is Jackson Pollock? Horton passed away on July 8, 2019, being 86 years old.
It seemed reasonable due to Pollock’s style. During his examination, Biro reported finding a partial fingerprint in paint on the back of the canvas.
The painting had enough similarities to be made by Pollock, but this conclusion didn’t confirm the artist’s authenticity without doubt, according to his conclusion. IFAR’s expert acknowledged that the painting had some strong similarities to authentic Pollock works, but concluded that it was not by his hand, according to CBS News. Her plan was to give the canvas to her friend. However, it was too big to pass through the entrance of her friend’s trailer. Later on, she decided to sell the canvas at a yard sale. Upon observing the canvas, an art teacher proposed that the artwork could be one of Pollock’s works. Initially, Horton was unaware of Pollock as an artist. Nevertheless, the suggestion urged her to find out more about it. He became popular by using drips, pours and splashes of paint on huge canvases. However, the only thing visual similarities could not prove was the painter. Eventually, Horton contacted forensic art expert Paul Biro from Canada. Biro claimed that the partial fingerprints on the canvas matched a print on a paint can from Pollock’s former East Hampton studio. He argued that the match connected the painting to the artist’s studio, although he did not independently establish Pollock as its creator. André Turcotte, a retired fingerprint examiner with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, supported Biro’s fingerprint comparison. However, apart from studying the prints, Biro analysed the paintings, material composition and condition as well. After consulting a team of Pollock specialists, IFAR concluded that the painting was not by Jackson Pollock. Nevertheless, Horton was sure that the canvas was authentic. This amount referred to the price, which she expected from the sale of the canvas. That described her attempts to prove the authenticity of the work. At the time of her death, the artist of the canvas was not established. It remained disputable and unauthenticated and there was no conclusion about the artist who created it.
