Dear Igor, I do not want to move away from the topic I'm interested in philosophical jungle - but you sprotivorechili themselves - obektivka "as you put it, and in my opinion (not vzala exact quote from your neglect commentary) - are two completely different categories .
The fact that you do not find this picture interesting and artistically valuable, your personal opinion of the historian of art, as you called yourself. And as any opinion, it can not be objective in nature. You taught art historian as a basis of philosophy?
I have nothing against your opinion. I am far from your professional skills, but I'm sure that on any art-known name among your fellow art could flare heated battles on their interesting and artistic value ... Is it not? Just today, with interest ran on about the Russian avant-garde ...
particularly recommended to read that your colleagues writing art historians in the response to the first exhibition of avant-garde association ... How many were those who saw in them the artistic value and interest for the future?
If this painting was was bought at a flea market - I would absolutely not interested in the question of its authorship, it would simply just liked me and everything. But this picture is very "noble" origin, namely - bought from the heirs of a Hungarian professor by the way your colleagues, who died in the beginning of this century in the age well for 90-some years ... And from what I know about his collection, he is not at flea markets, bought his paintings.
Maybe after all I could hear something more substantial ...
|