Miro Painting?
 

is this work.
it is what or value? again or the trash?
If anyone is interested you can meet

One of two things: either it's really original Miro (if you are fabulously wealthy), or fake.
Personally, I distinguish one from the other can not ...

kamenskiy1967, there is again signature!

You'll then write to: picture of the artist is not known to me

Toinen, but the signature is.
but whose job it can be?

How?
You have all thrown out?
So cried my $ 300?
<! - ~ 2 ~ ->

When an honest artist makes a copy of the fair , he puts his signature on it . If the artist puts on a copy of someone else's signature , such a copy is called a fake, and the name of the man who performed the already exactly no meaning and no one is interested.

IV, do not understand your humor

Added after 2 minutes
Marassa, why did you decide that this is a fake?

What kind of humor ? You yourself have suggested in this thread : http://forum.artinvestment.ru/showth...199971&page=2:

take flowers " Gorbatovskaya ." I wanted out of kindness to help you save money, said give "so" anyone.

" So ," as you can see, no one takes . So I wanted to take them from you for $ 300 ( not enough, of course , but oh well ) , money, of course , go ahead ...

And you all have taken and thrown out ! .. (((( (

This picture, by the way, is willing to take a $ 200 - it 's more like it , though bright and looks like Miro . So hey ​​throw .

If you decide - in a personal email , tell us where to send your money.

Marassa, that you just had to deal with this artist?
For your information, I showed this work at the Tretyakov they said that it is likely the original attribution but they will not do so as not properly authorized. engaged in this advisory council which is located in Paris

And where I thought it was fake?
I f you from the very beginning has written that one of two things: either the original or fake.

Added after 8 minutes
PS And to ask "who is the author" is meaningless in this situation: either Miro, or it does not matter who.

Well what is Miro?
He has always linked the pieces together, he objects, actors flowed into each other, and everything is placed in application.
And unshaven homeless I do not remember it.
Hooliganism is, not Miro ...

And you write to the expert Council , in Paris . Send photos of them . Let's see what they say . <! - ~ 1 ~ ->

Vladimir Vladimirovich, I wrote.
but the photos it does not work.
asked me to himself brought this work.
but the problem with the removal of the picture more than 50 years

kamenskiy1967, I am very well aware of the fact that many self-respecting members of the board will not even speak to the themes you have created. This is for many reasons.

You have not answered my question in the subject of the film "Clover" from Romania, and dramatically changed the development of his monologue in the opposite direction.

http://forum.artinvestment.ru/showpost.php?p=2570311&postcount=10

I do not want to criticize, but your 26 posts they make me do it. Material and names that you ask (Miro, Clover, humpback) somehow does not correspond to the shape and setting of questions asked by you. About grammar will be silent.
There can be MIRACLE! That a person with a problem to speak normally, are original paintings Miro! It is strong, mutually exclusive of each other factors.

Well, can not a person with an adequate level of development and thinking, twisting, twirling in the hands of a ceramic souvenir figurine with the label "Made in Spain" to ask the forum:
Regarding the discussion presented in your picture with the caption "Miro".
It can only relate what they see with irony. Well what is Miro? It also compiled a fresh forgery designed for certain stratum of society.
5 minute visual journey on the famous paintings of Joan Miró reveal all the secrets.
Your painting is composed of elements of several works of Miró, two of which are shown below in miniatures.
First - it's "Carnival of Harlequin" 1924-1925 and the second - "Weasel" stars, 1938. It was the second vklepali in your picture unshaven bum (as expressed above about the Aleksandrov). But a terrible monster with the language acquired a new mirror image. That is, the painting, dated 1929, fall into the elements of the picture in 1938. The rest of the details with pictures and other personal fantasy forger.
About the colorful surface "84-year-old" pictures and I will no longer speak. And so everything is clear.

kamenskiy1967, do not do what I do not. If you like to stay in the theme of art, start with the books from the beginning. Go to the Tretyakov Gallery, but not to the examination, as well, to see the look of these pictures. And do not spread false information about the expertise of your paintings produced in the walls of the Tretyakov Gallery.
While it may be experts on the basis of the current situation and for their own safety, you were afraid to open their eyes to the truth.

Jane Doe, with regard to Joan Miro that neither they nor anyone when not engaged.
canvas of the stretcher or when not taken out. examination subframe has given a positive result that he more than 70 years.I do not think that in those years, Joan Miro was known to so many of his forge.

Добавлено через 9 минут
Jane Doe, I disagree with you that this is a remake.
this is an old picture