So I'm listening to 60 Minutes and there's this report of a little old ex-tucker lady who bought a potential Jackson Pollock painting for $5. Problem is that the 'art community' - who ever that is - doesn't accept her print as original. She has no provenance on the painting. Anyway, that doesn't bother me so much as the following excerpt when they talked about fingerprint evidence: So even with fingerprint evidence, if the 'art community' doesn't think it's a Pollock, than it's not a Pollock? You decide and discuss. Full story can be found here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/03/60minutes/main2758110.shtml Regards, Art.