Language Money

[Кирилл Сызранский]

Сообщение от Ruff

But speaking objectively paintings strongly podesheveli.Razve not? : shy:

Do you mean the paintings of contemporary artists?
I honestly did not quite understand about some pictures and what artists you mention anything.
I know about the boom in the late painting XIX-beg. Twentieth centuries. Japan. There were many high-profile purchases (Sunflowers and Irises Van Gogh, for example). And then there was talk that never had that kind of money for one picture will not.
Well? Dali and gave much more ...
Already over 100 million and the price has risen above 135 and has already made a picture.
(Incidentally, we had in September, visiting a relative of his wife: with an American wife came to get acquainted. And then he told me the story of Ronald Lauder of this whole saga with Klimt told. He was acquainted with him to work in a bank Leumi, he is there something like a private seminar for top managers of the story held.)
No, there's not so simple, this is a picture, painting, and icon- Your theme -complicated product, You know how sometimes mystical things straight around the "good" place, you too - then with his many years of experience themselves, can such stories with a dozen probably remember ... : D
As Alexander Genis wrote:
Criticizing the purchase of some critics say that with one stroke of the pen philanthropist rewrote the history of art. Paid a fortune, Lauder redrawing an established hierarchy. In conventional monographs Klimt usually characterized as modernist second-line, much inferior in value to such luminaries of the new art, like Picasso and Malevich. But now, after paying for it now as long as it is a museum, critics reluctant to take note of the reappraisal has occurred. (c)
And:
Of course, money nothing can be added to the merits of a masterpiece, but they change our attitude to it. And in this, particular case, I am extremely glad. I've long been fond of Klimt, specially went to the wonderful Viennese suburb, in the "Belvedere", which previously held the very same work that is now on display in New York. Now they will be at your side. For our city is - priceless acquisition and luxurious gift. Even so, that the cosmopolitan and sophisticated Vienna has never been a more worthy successor than New York. (c)
I have identified.


Read more: http://www.svobodanews.ru/content/ar...#ixzz0Tn2skguN

[gans]

Сообщение от Cyril Syzransky

In the conventional monographs Klimt usually described as a modernist of the second series, much inferior in value to such luminaries of the new art, like Picasso and Malevich.

That this I agreed.