Yes, this is the most expressive work. To this list you can add a few more works. 37 and 41 are very good. I really look at the artist as a whole.
In the '80s, composites finds Dmitri Bisti, Gury Zakharov, Minas Avetisyan, and some other artists seemed incredibly brave. Sometimes it was breathtaking. A Konstantinov for me and now incredibly rare on the skill and depth.

I'm already "spoiled" dealership. I looked involuntarily at this angle. Well, often, so to speak. :)

Is a terrible thing. I have myself noticed. Began to invest in the exhibition, in the printing of booklets. Spending overlap profits, or rather, no profit. Need money for new projects. You begin to think that to sell. Look at pictures of eyes Vasya Pupkin, Vasya buy or not. The most contrary, those works are loved and valued, relegated to the corner as not suitable. Worldview is changing, and not for the better. A middle ground here.
I already wrote, "I can see only what I know"
Therefore, the gap in Vasin education about fine art, is reflected in the form of large blisters in your head.
I like not very clear why react poorly to no substantive art (the same Konstantinov). The artist is a person who inflicts his (I emphasize their) thoughts with a brush to canvas. In this aspect, I wonder what the artist thought that he wanted to say?. And the external form in this case does not matter. Everything should be based on one to write laws for the plastic arts. Therefore, the main component of the beauty of the artwork is always and everywhere been the movement of the brush, then there is a song - formal. And if the viewer does not see the beautiful in the abstract, I do not understand that his real-dazzle.
The artist must engage in creativity, and beautiful thing here is creativity itself.

In reality how many times they see something real, that are accustomed to see in life.
And in the abstraction that you can see?
You can see and guess, but what the artist wanted to say? And so and left without an answer!
My opinion may be conservative, excuse me, this really is.
So in the first row of the more understandable than in the non-objective.
It also plays a form with color. This is beautiful, in my opinion.

In my opinion, if the artist paints such an abstraction, so he does not understand what it is and for what.
Rather paid tribute to the fashion-objective art.
A fashion is changeable!

  I wrote, "I can see only what I know, you'll need to think over these words.
Impressionists meatball is not received, not by what was not routinely drawn,
and by the fact that this is not perceived color harmony. Just did not see the new colors, knowledge were different. is all from the psychology of perception. To undertake such scientific experience, in the Australian tribe showed black-and-white photos of local animals. Aborigines did not see the image, for them it was just gray pyatna.Mozg they had no information that the two-dimensional sheet you can see three-dimensional image.
And what about the most abstract of the arts - music? Think without music education can be perceived correctly and completely? No.
All will be at a level like or dislike. Only a musician, he heard some sort of short loss, can be seen in its innovative, new sounds, new idea.

[color="# 666686"]Posted by 41 minutes[/color]
Unfortunately fashion followed by most artists of all directions.
Everywhere there are good and bad. This bread can be assessed - fresh or not fresh, the art a lot of criteria defining dignity
work. I accept all art, all directions, all the "isms" the main thing it should be interesting figurative.
As I can not help loving Konstantinova, if I am since 1983 in the course of events, exhibitions taking place in the country and for rubezhom.Konstantinov-a rare example of good. Energy in the paintings of positive because the life of the artist's beautiful.
Sometimes you look like a masterfully done, but seen from the picture that the artist was drunk or sold, and I do not want to look at the picture for a long time. Clean air in it.