Made You Look: A True Story About Fake Art

A very well presented documentary and a scathing indictment of abstract expressionist art, in that it can be so easily forged and accepted as original art by every top, bona fide art expert. Well not ALL the experts. The forensic scientists that were called upon to test the paintings, proved beyond all doubt that these were100% forgeries.

The eminently guilty gallery director, Ann Freeman, had a one of the fake Jackson Pollock's hanging on her wall for ten years....WITH HIS SIGNATURE'S NAME MIS-SPELLED! That's right! Pollock mis-spelled his own name when he signed the front of his painting. I think that's a big red flag, huh?

What was so startling in this doc was, much like Bernie Madoff and his greedy clients, there was enough blatant, drooling avarice on the part of gallery owner, the gallery director, the painting's seller AND the painting's buyers, that I think they ALL got what they deserved....sort of.

Disheartening at best, as the rich never really lose, never feel remorse and everyone pretty much gets back to business as usual.

Made You Look: A True Story about Fake Art. It is an American documentary, directed by Barry Avrich, about the largest art fraud in American history. A number of paintings falsely attributed to Jackson Pollock, Willem de Kooning, and Mark Rothko were sold by a total of $ 80 million to covetous collectors. The movie focuses on the forgers and the art gallery owner and manager's cynicism and meanness. Yet, I was more shocked by the billionaires that bought the artworks and then asked for a reimbursement when the fake was revealed. Suddenly, they did not appreciate the beauty of the paintings they had purchased and hanged at their mansions. Had they ever done? In the broad picture of things, I think the documentary's most interesting message is about how some art has become a luxury good. This is defined by economists as a product that that must be sold in small quantity in order to maintain its reputational value, independently of their utility or, in this case, the aesthetic pleasure it might provide. It involves a total challenge to the abstract art originated in the 1950s that was despised and derided for many years but became the object of braggadocio and speculation a few decades later. Perhaps an ephemeral outburst?

I have to admit, I was not eve aware of this story. And the story is real ... unlike the art on display here. Which is fake - and either apparently fake or not so much. Now are we gullible and believe one side or are we with those who were confident from the start? Not an easy question to answer for sure.

The really good thing here is that you get both sides (or even more) and can make your own ... picture! Just be sure not to pretend your own picture isn't a classical painting by someone else ... wait does that make sense? Maybe not, but it sounded funny. And while the subject matter is quite serious I personally found quite a lot of comedy in this too. What's your verdict then?

Startling look into the abstract art world.

It amazes me how these rich people are willing to spend millions of dollars for a painting with a blue square on an orange background. Clearly I picked the wrong field, because I definitely could paint a Rothko. 100% guaranteed. Give me the right paint and a couple weeks practice and I'll have you a Rothko look a like and I'll only charge you 2 Million! 80% discount!

A documentary that show that the art critics and experts are the same as wine experts when you ask them to asses a wine blindfolded. Sad to see that the "cultivated" people don't buy art because they make them feel something but because it's a Kooning (or other famous name) presumably.