Turzhansky it?

[Тютчев]

Сообщение от tandem

This is the answer to your positiveness statement "Definitely - it's a copy from work Turzhansky to set the signature of the author copied the work, and hence falshaka! So positiveness might argue, perhaps, the master for the production of these very "falshaka" Although, I do not know why, below, write "...... for pictures of this quality (resolution) we do not can determine the work is Turzhansky, or a copy. "
What kind of discussion can be discussed after the following statement "But the point is that even if the copy is better than the finest copy ever written in the history of painting, I still can not believe it." In contrast, your emotional arguments of the type "All work Turzhansky crying that he could not even think about what to write redo.", I just joined the opinion of Altim

tandem, what can I say to that? Nothing, except what has already been written. I really have nothing to add. I think you're not quite me ponyali.Poprobuyte read this text again (I've highlighted the key words):

Сообщение от Tiutchev

What do you mean "like"? "Such" what is written Turzhansky, or like what I wrote copyist? I agree that painting Leonard Viktorovich hard copy, but still possible. I think if a professional will put such a task, he will be able to solve it technically, at least so that the pictures of this quality (resolution), we can not determine the work is Turzhansky, or a copy. But the point is that even if the copy is better than the finest copy ever written in the history of painting, I still can not believe it. Just because the logic of creative method Leonard Viktorovich Turzhansky, he was unable to make copies their work. Why would he needed it! Name at least one motive, from which he would have done it?! 

Posted 59 minutes

Сообщение от tandem

In contrast, your emotional arguments of the type "All work Turzhansky crying that he could not even think about what to write redo.", I just joined the opinion Altim.'m quoting his message "There is a signature and a number of other items available for technical studies, these tests will remove half of the questions. If the signature is on-wet, if a set of pigments and painting and other elements everything in order - manner will discuss separately.
Once burned, twice repeated, and in "both sides" as the pros and cons - the technical expertise prefer to launch "ahead" :-)
Good roads of all the technical questions should answer confidently and without alternative. "
What else can you add?

  What meaning do technological expertise, even if at all "positive" (relatively speaking) the results of examination of all art criticism dash? From this should not be inferred that the examination of art criticism always is more important than technology. Their ratio in the final decision depends on features researched the subject. In this particular case, technological expertise - it's monkey work. This - in principle!

   Perhaps the reason for our misunderstanding lies in the fact that this problem is much deeper and requires a more serious attitude. creative method - is as much a concrete thing, as the technology for creating works. Ignoring this fact does not make it less real, but narrows the scope of possibilities for the expert.