Цитата:
Сообщение от heir
Although ... there are such "fans" may, masochism and will prevail.
|
In this section of the forum 80%of requests, especially from beginners, it is of assistance in the attribution or in reading the inscriptions, or for information about the artist. If anyone can and will assist, it must be perceived solely as a noble cause, worthy only of gratitude. And to those who can not help, or who supposedly knows everything, but for someone to help another is a "masochism", so better keep quiet and not expose themselves to all in a very neblagovidnom light. And then inquiring would have to embed in your question the phrase: "And who can not help, so please do not worry"?
Now in the case. It seems that in the signature occurred any manipulation. Initially, the paint layer in this area has been softened in some solvent, because there the marks of the brush hairs smoothed. Then - even part of the unpainted surface of soil or debris - was applied to the signature. And then the upper part of it was somehow smeared out, and also clearly solvent. The top nine in number 97 drove to unpainted ground (or scree?), And there subjected to erosion.
Read the full signature of such a photo, I can not, need the best, with high resolution. But what is strange: 97, probably means the 1897, but the signature ends in "s" - and does not show any traces of the presence of a solid mark on the end.
Sometimes, of course, that the artist signs the work much later than the time of its writing. The paint layer in place for the signature of this has to soften, or adhesion will be poor. It is possible that the signature was applied after the spelling reform in 1918, and the hard sign fell. But why then smudge the top of the signature, make it unreadable? Riddle, however.