To determine whether a work is authentic or not, there should be a combination of provenance, subjective authentication, and forensic authentication. In the specific case of the Tori Hurton painting which is believed to be a Jackson Pollock original, all three attributes do not agree with each other, however from my point of view it appears that the painting is authentic. Its authenticity is mainly associated with the fingerprint that matched both the paint can and the painting. This should be considered firm proof that the painting is authentic, however, since the origin and chronology of where this painting was located and under who owns it are unfounded, people argue that it is not authentic. However, it may be that Pollock had simply given his painting away, and so in time it was discovered in the thrift store. There are numerous ways and paths that could allow the painting to end up in a multitude of places, so the fact that it was obtained at a thrift store should not serve as a determining factor in determining the authenticity of the painting. Just because the painting was not in the hands of a wealthy art collector does not mean that the painting is not authentic. Ignoring these notions, numerous individuals within the artistic sphere, some with extensive experience, institution and knowledge in the field, subjectively analyzed the work and all came to the similar conclusion and determined that the painting was not authentic. It is also noted by the International Foundation For Art Research that the painting is considered inauthentic due to what appears to be "intentional splattering when there should be more of a paint mix", however this criticism and observation is made anonymously, thus the credibility of the statement decreases. Furthermore, Thomas Hoving, eliminates fingerprint evidence and states that there is no resemblance to Jackson Pollock's heart in the painting. The very demonstration of Thomas Hoving's immediate inclination to dismiss forensic evidence demonstrates his passive judgment. He continues to maintain his belief that the painting is not authentic without even considering it for a moment. This stubbornness seems to be common among countless numbers of individuals in the artistic sphere. Furthermore, if the painting was not authentic, the question of how Jackson Pollock's fingerprint ended up on it should be further addressed, however this issue is not raised. Forensic authentication contradicts all the above-mentioned evidence due to the unshakable evidence of matching fingerprints. The main problem in determining whether the painting is authentic or not is associated with the conflict between subjective authentication and provenance versus forensic authentication. However, since the fingerprint was confirmed by both the laboratory and the sergeant, there should be no argument that the painting is authentic. Their claims are based on scientific and tangible evidence, while like other individuals they have no similar basis. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay The role of art experts is crucial in scenarios where authenticity is questioned. These art institutions and cultural intermediaries are the individuals who have the power to imbue the work with a corresponding priceless or worthless value. To “isolate a gallery if ownership of the work can be traced from the artist to the current owner, this constitutes clear evidence that the artist created the work.” The problem with this statement is mainly associated with the keyword.