Bekenev

[artcol]

Сообщение от belmar

Hello,


Please help evaluate:


Bekenev M.

According to relatives student Roerich.

dimensions in the file names

Good processing.
I think up to 30 TR
can be given safely, and maybe above - if you can find arguments.

[тандем]

Сообщение от artcol; 2436361"

Decent processing. I think up to 30 TR can be given safely , and maybe above - if you can find arguments.

Ochchen interested to hear your assessment of the arguments and in general , citing Ms. Magnolia" it would be good to say a few words about the author and his work , not to turn the forum into a flea market "

[artcol]

Сообщение от tandem

ochchen interested to hear your assessment of the arguments and in general , citing Ms. Magnolia" it would be good to say a few words about the author and his work , not to turn the forum into a flea market "

Well, what's to argue ? It's not even 30 t.dollarov , right?

All can be seen in the works. Artist cultural. Set on a paper in 1928 , the other in 1951 , but not socialist realist . EXP does not mention it .

If the biography of the artist (or other factors) to add something to it ( to work) - they may be higher.

But you can be and its TZ on this occasion - ozvuchte it.

[bykinist]

Сообщение от artcol

Artist cultural.

In the extreme.
Bon mot !

Pictures are great, agree with artcol - especially like the birch trees and clouds.

Hello from St. Petersburg!
... The eagle has landed ...
tee-hee

Added after 3 minutes 36 minutes
The emergence of these pictures in this branch and my movement's cultural capital, I visited - I think - a very simple, but extraordinary idea.
And it is in the next ...
Although, who owns the painting - and we are talking about a genuine and uncompromising works of art - no matter where they are (including on this forum, see prices, assessment & attribution), eventually even on Mars, Whatever they flaunted museum whose collection they would not have decorated - and whether an impoverished aristocrat descended or grown rich and conceited lumpen - none of the holders of such divine things can not deny these things their innate, inherent qualities. Moreover, none of the holders of such treasures is not something that is not in the law, but can not - a priori - appropriate the characteristic features of these items for yourself, exclusively on the fact of ownership. Certainly, the presence of such items at the person - in the eyes of the blind - give "happy" owner of such status, but of course imaginary, emasculated true meaning. In this case, the discrepancy is only getting worse, paradoxically emphasizing his (human) failure and misery, baring his ridiculous quirkiness.
Genuine and uncompromising works of art can not be destroyed (and humiliate) - not stupid or arrogant assessment attribution or caustic or passionate word or bad taste, let alone an ordinary light. If it came to light, then it is eternal and omnipotent.