This is just on the topic:

Despite the author's signature - a real job!

Shishkin and Aivazovsky - corn antique market! Lord be with you! Corn antique market - is ill-educated art historians, collectors and dealers. Those who in their ignorance and snobbishness forget that at the masterpieces Aivazovsky and Shishkin brought all subsequent generations of Russian artists. You do not like their work? Well, well! Not all train admire them. Let it be, and that view! Moreover, the denial of the significance of their art can not be taken seriously! Well, judge for yourself. Whose opinions will be considered? In the opinion of Tretyakov, Diaghilev, Wrubel, Juon, Nesterova, Krymova, Serov, Levitan, Polenova and the other, or with the opinion of those who have a very superficial understanding of creativity Shishkin and Aivazovsky? The question, of course, rhetorical. Everything I mentioned above and many others appreciated the artistic and wrote about it. And many of them had their work in their collections.

For example, I wrote about the artist AYVAZOVSKOE Juon: "Among the artists of the XIX century the name of the largest marine painter IK Aivazovsky are most popular. Who has not dreamed of seeing the sea at least once in your life? "Who did not see the sea, he prayed to God not" - says a folk proverb. The element of the sea - great captivating beauty, has always deceived people. However, it is a blind force that needs overcoming. With deep truth Aivazovsky showed the tragedy of sea storms, the beauty of peace, pictures sunrises and tales of moonlit nights. "

 And this is what he's napisalal on Shishkin: "How to Kuindzhi was steppe, and for Aivazovsky sea, so to Shishkin was a forest. He admired them during the day, in full light, in the sunlight - like a true realist. Rigorous tapestry ship and mast of the forest were to him like a stately colonnades of classical architecture. Inhaling warm resinous air, he heard "rustling their peaks" and cries of songbirds. He loved the woods as his master, as a connoisseur of qualities and characteristics of tree species. Growing up on a lonely expanse of pine-tree he - love - listened to the same extent as the dense forest porch. Realism Shishkina its unique tactile truthfulness and aromatic picturesque completed skill. "

 I still agree with the opinion of the masters, but I'd add. Man can not understand Malevich or Kandinsky, because of their inexperience (unprepared), but to be indifferent to the masterpieces of Shishkin and Aivazovsky impossible. To do this you have to be a snob, or just too unsympathetic man!

"The circus is not love, anyway, that children do not love", - sung in a well-known ditty Soviet times. :D
I was somehow frightening to listen to this song in my childhood. I did not like the circus and realized that I was some kind of wrong. For children it must be love!
But I quickly realized that the authors of this song and her aunt sang ... shall we say, not very smart people ... :D

The statement is divided into halves. I am a circus for some reason do not like. Every time I see vootchiyu injured people, a nightmare of some kind. But children do not love - this is nonsense.

Not divided. It is not divisible.
And this is such a clever device. Therefore slushesh and say something about his nelyubviktsirku. :D

It's called manipulation.
/Circus can not stand /:D

I do not understand why a nelyubleniya Shishkina follow callousness and snobbery nelyubiltsa.

By Shishkin am well, I recognize him great skill, the right to massive admiration for his creativity. Moreover, appealing to the authorities to improve "rating" of the artist Shishkina not think it necessary and even somewhere offensive to him.

Meanwhile, insist on their "callousness and snobbishness ":p

Well, I wrote about the blisters, it is because once the market has a new work of these authors, all, literally all screamed that it fufel! Another reaction is no. Appear on corn came :)
With regard to these opinions you great - I am not afraid of the word people, then I am not an art critic, but I have my little veritsya that Diaghilev and Vrubel valued creativity Shishkina too high. Why then "World of Art", created in defiance Wanderers? What could be further from Shishkina than Vrubel and Diaghilev? Or I have something confused. Skinte ссылочку, I am happy to admire, well, if not difficult. I am not without irony, be grateful.

Well, turns out I'm not alone in my childhood did not like the circus (and now), why everyone around believe that children should love the circus?
but what if the children do not like the circus? (always refused, when adults tried to lead me there).
As for Shishkina, has a favorite work ( "The Wild North"), to some indifferent.

To love or not love Shishkin and Aivazovsky's personal choice of each. Treat or not to consider them great .. concept is too loose ..
Large relative to what? for their contribution to Russian art and influenced the artists and ordinary townsfolk, or for their picturesque qualities? The contribution is enormous, the impact is obvious what the specific case of painting, nothing more than a unique, good realistic, not more .. the global level Shishkin is not a figure of no first-or second-line .. only in demand among Russian consumers

Shishkin is advertised brand. Russian brand. First, even the Soviet regime, today, the maintenance of many collectors and other rich buyers, many of whom began their collection with the acquisition of these names, as it is prestigious enough .. understandable, in certain circles.