Dear, Hollandup - very much! Thank you!
Cyril. Had a free minute, over a cup of coffee, went to chirkanut you a couple of lines. A comparison of the Soviet era and contemporary art in the aesthetic perception - a waste of time - a banal matter of taste (some prefer fish, some meat). I'm trying in the debate (tried) - to consider only the investment aspect. About modern art himself, Mr. Markin said that he was disappointed (not aesthetically of course), and financial - rapid growth and as fast spad.Esche one aspect that impresses me in dealing with the artists of the old school - it is a hard life principles. Many (for example Korzhev, Žilina, Kabakov) have high moral principles and refuse to sell their work, or have volunteered their museums. Artists today less fundamental in this aspect, and sometimes demonstrate the absence of morality, almost openly stating that work is done for them specially hired men, and they make the final touch and the signature (the same grapes and Dubossary wrote about this a long time ). "Strike while the loot, while the people did not understand." Cost of the work of Lucio Fontana, more than a million, but from an aesthetic point of view, I was not very pretty, work Zhilinskis cheaper at times, but I was more than nice. When selecting investment (10 years) ago - I would choose Fontana, which sold 10 years later would return the enclosed, and the difference of the purchase Zhilinskis (exaggerated of course). What I sold probably tired you with my arguments, and gave rise to further reference to the statements of my humble person. Thanks again Hollandup - enjoyed reading your posts. And you Kirill:
Live as you lead a star.
Prancing like a horse in the arena for jumping.
Hi! Remembering you always!
Your acquaintance, FANTOZZI Jura.
Free interpretation of poetry Esenin
|