Amusing discussion.
Oh just for connoisseurs of art, Van Gogh.
But I also wanted to "insert their 5 kopecks" (sorry for the banal phrase, but it very accurately on the site).
I would never have thought that one of the pictures - the possibility of forgery, if it were not for this topic. Looked more closely, and that's what drew the attention of:
- In the first scene, though the whole situation goes to show that it is - the room (a table with books, and light on a figure similar to the light from the lamp "on top"), von registered soon as a landscape - the slope of the stroke as on the surface of the landscape, and a the upper edge of the landscape \ sofa no zakorugleny smear "the wall" that would be needed if it were a couch (after Van Gogh when he writes, distinct strokes, always puts them "in form"). Also - for the couch already very shapeless. And given the fact that the figure is illuminated from above rather, the horizontal surface of the back of the sofa, too, must have had to be illuminated by more than a vertical surface of the back of the sofa. And so, again, more like "aerial perspective" - the gradual darkening of the illumination of distant hills.
And behind the head - much like the way he wrote the sky, and a great depth of feeling. Well somehow the sofa with the wall so do not write.
And the second scene, the line between the hills \ heaven (or the sofa \ wall?)
become more amorphous, the upper plane (the sky \ wall?) spelled out exactly how the wall (ie, as Van Gogh wrote, flat surface) - strokes, reaching under 90 degrees to each other.
Of course, if one painting - the landscape, but on the other - a sofa and the wall, it does not prove anything. But all the same gives the hook - copier did not see that written in the landscape, and made room.
And that, would not run up against possible inaccuracies, made his "flaccid" (well, kind - where he was - I do not remember). And Van Gogh is usually very relishing the situation.
Here's a IMHO.
|