Цитата:
Сообщение от Barvikha
It is the expected result! With these works, even very good.
|
Which, in the sense that work?
What a bad Savrasov or Makovsky? (I personally Makovsky just can not stand, but for him it is a good thing, or do not you think?).
Added after 2 minutes
=================
=================
Цитата:
|
Сообщение от Santa; 1812483"
I, for example, D. Nalbandian really like.
|
Could you explain why?
He's a bad painter, he is even more difficult given just tsvetosochetaniya all disharmonious in his paintings, all colors are crawling on you and scream galdyat ...
In the tone is never ever got, the compositions are always approximate and even slovenly.
However, Pollock is no better.
Pollock - a collapse * of painting is its absence, it is a blank space instead of painting.
While too much.
Malevich did a quarter century before, not only worms, and a square.
The principle is the same.
But since NAUS - Provincial country and she wanted to have their modernist, and the desire to have them was as large as the ability to influence world public opinion, and made themselves sasshovtsy "geniuses" in the first podvernuvshegosya material - some Pollock, de Kooning, Rothko and others.
_________
* What is skazanul, eh?
Was not expecting much as Pollock - Collopy - collapse (if you read back a bit and distort).