They should have taken them out in handcuffs for multiple accounts of fraud. It’s the same (just at a lower scale) as if I sold a Jackson Pollock that’s in reality was made by a monkey throwing shite at a canvas.

How do you tell the difference?

The difference is that he was an artist. Many may not like his abstracts (I do), but he was capable of making things others would find more palatable.

I didn't say I liked it or not. From an observers point of view what would you look for in his abstract art to tell a fake from an actual work? Think Kostabi.

the types of paint used and the technique mostly from what i've heard

It's not a matter of palatable. Once upon a time an 'artist' put a crucifix in a jar of piss and called it art The thing is a lot of his paintings could not be differentiated from spilled paint - and I was curious if there was a sign of his technique that could be seen and used to prove an original

Most us sadly know little about art. Like most things, it only becomes apparent when we hear those who really know about it talk about it. Hannah Gadsby is knows her stuff, and is funny. Sadly she only did three episodes of her explaining pieces. Well worth a watch. youtu.be/Eqq0B21fhAA?...

Pollock was a better technical painter than you’d probably even know if you’ve never painted

I have not. That's why I asked.

oh, no, no shade...it's a whole thing... his ability to maintain smooth textures and even thickness with that level of intense detail, no matter how thick the paint shows a mastery of the medium that few could match

also, like, a lot of his stuff included objects that were symbolic and colors that were meant to evoke specific emotions as you surrounded yourself in it... like, these things aren't generally a 3.5x3

You couldn't because the difference would be obvious to anyone spending a cool million on a piece of art.

If you've seen a Pollack in person (I have) the work is DEFINITELY not random. I'm sure an art historian could describe it better, but there is meaning in every drop. And I generally don't like modern art, but I can study a Pollack easily.

This part. The first time I saw a Pollack in person, I was like "OHHHH, now I get it!" It's a very different experience than seeing a photo. (Also true for Van Gogh's Starry Night, but oddly, not for the Mona Lisa.)

It's like a calculated insult. I know the family, and geniuses they all were in that generation. Amazing work and,oh, BTW why don't YOU get a painting into the Met or Modern? Annoying.