I think that all these literary debriefing about the locomotives, nadergannosti plots, etc. become worthless at first glance at the work itself. Seriously you can discuss what is taken seriously. With regards to "running girls" - the infant thin. school. The author would like to wish to engage in the figure, in practice, study tsvetoizlozhenie, because painting - this is not a lot of different colors, and the ratio of one color with another, that there is such a thing as planned and so Agent weight.
A major benefit of peer review in Deineki can not be because the person (self-respecting expert), even slightly familiar with the creativity of the artist (even from reproductions) before the age of the material to evaluate, assess the picture and laugh.
"Picturesque", in my opinion, Deineki not the strongest quality (but with that he's all right), and too graphic artist he was, as they say "from God".
"Anatomical error" from the knowledge of anatomy and the anatomy of ignorance - two different things, and can be seen without a ruler and compass.
In the end, the notion of "manner of writing", "handwriting" - clearly without glasses.
There are things, looking at who can say "knows" or "can not". So there is no single work Deineki that I can say that he "can not". "Traveling Girls" - the first.
These pictures do not even call counterfeiting seriously.
|