But nevertheless, ladies and gentlemen, as this ant may be worth today?

tulalawyer, if we assume that this work is really gr.
B. L.Muraveva and given a year of its creation, size, and the basis (cardboard, which is not typical for him), we can, I think, to proceed from the start of a 20 m long.

Uriart, His Excellency, with the writing, with no better, sir. Onex-with-wrote with another.
In my opinion, the picture presented for discussion, even stylistically can not work is V.L.Muraveva.
It seems to me that the picture - do not just copy from Muravyev, but generally has to "creativity" of the graph is very indirect relevance. That is, subject + time. You're like no, you know: these subjects readily used by other local artists, and the fourth or fifth row, worked in the 1880s - 1910s. So you just remember all the names (ha ha), and reasoning contradiction (I - not about a picture, if Th <! - ~ 1 ~ -> NO Ants, Tikhmenev NOT NOT Khrenov NOT Vysotsky, NOT Spring ...
Why - not ants? And - at all. The composition (too loaded with short-range plans, stems - trimmed and in a form similar to the fence, between them there is no single progala, not a single piece of dalyushki and nebushka), a drawing (all too hard, accurate, correct, Ants, then so could not . Kosor, carelessly, anyhow - might as well here and so prescribe twigs, sticks, Christmas trees, ferns, goutweed - sumleva-ah-ah-ah-yus ...) The coloring, again. Not evoyny flavor. And the methods - not to be seen. Finely.
The second picture. The diagram looks like a photo print photos ... (Although the grain of the canvas and the like can be seen). Maybe because of the fact that under the glass? Somehow, in one word.

Everything just bullshit!

ANTIK, well, bullshit too?
It would not want to believe it.



Looked at other jobs Muravyev, something quite different fulfilled, the color is different.
But suddenly something of an atypical?

And you do not sumlevaytes!