Opinion on the level of art
 

really want to hear an authoritative opinion on this film, rather interested in your opinion about the level of painting:
(Work, 1944)

a couple of fragments, I want to delete the photos tomorrow
(I like it and that some are confused, that's more interesting to someone else's opinion to hear)

Tana, And who is the author? Dimensions?

$ 65 * 80, by John Wheatley

Tana, and that for technology? We have not seen oil.
But generally nice, nice bunch of chrysanthemums later. Even their sentyabrinkami called, if I'm not mistaken. :)

Cyril Syzransky is the oil, but it kakoto "transparent", that's me too, first they liked (like flowers), and then looked carefully and saw (the right side of the bouquet) on the fragment and the overall picture shows an artist paint it a couple of leaves and this shading is visible (at first thought it was just dirt).

So? Visible and invisible. It's so bad?

Cyril Syzransky, still do not like it when you look and see how some pieces of "sketch" shine, as if unfinished, such works are not for show, more like an amateur or incompletely (though the flowers themselves, warm von liked).
  the same line of the table on the left below 0.5 cm, than the right, that's all this is confusing.
We thought that the museum had never stared, now interesting to go back and see imnenno so interesnovalo view the forum.
I wonder how often such incidents have known hudozhnikov (I think may be in the sketches, sketches), but in completing the work hardly (although it may be the impressionists, non-conformists), but a realist, I think not.

Tana, often unregistered plots paintings are part of the composition picture itself.
Suppose that you are not scared. This is normal.
The work itself is very pleasant and likable.

Absolutely agree with you. Here are some examples.