A. Poret?

[Mondoro]

Tell me what kind of work.
Bought in Austria in 2005.

[fabosch]

In my opinion, at Alice Filonovsky period, this work does not pull.
Some kind of excuse, a mixture of Filonov with Hundertwasser (by the way of Austria).

After Filonov she has already worked quite differently

[Игорь Гурьев]

In my opinion, a very bold attribution of contemporary paintings.

[Mondoro]

Сообщение от "Guriev, Igor

In my opinion, a very bold attribution of modern painting.

Showed this painting in the museum, said that the canvas is not modern, fifties.
Size 55x65 cm

[Игорь Гурьев]

Сообщение от "Mondoro

showed this painting in the museum, said that the canvas is not modern, fifties.

Well, oil on canvas 50-ies can be found.

And in the 50 years since Alice I. just did not write.

[Mondoro]

Сообщение от "Guriev, Igor

Well, oil on canvas 50-ies can be found.

And in the 50 years since Alice I. just did not write.

Why fake is not very "hyped" the artist?
How then does not fit.

[Кирилл Сызранский]

Сообщение от Mondoro; 1307181]Why fake is not very" hyped "the artist?[/QUOTE]

"Forge"?
Why fake picture?
Simply write your name on the back.

Look:

[QUOTE="Mondoro; 1306861

Bought in Austria in 2005.

And would buy this thing without a signature on the back and for how much?

[Mondoro]

Cyril Syzransky,

Cyril, everything can be, I will not argue.


How to determine when a signature is made and when a painting?
This may make the examination?

[Кирилл Сызранский]

Сообщение от Mondoro

how to determine when a signature is made and when a painting?
This may make the examination?

Yes, if you need to determine the authorship, in my opinion, to do the examination.

[OlegTsi]

Сообщение от Mondoro

Please, suggest what kind of work

Learn the authorship of this painting is indeed a difficult question. That the work does not belong to Alice Poret, I think, is clear. As a rule, the sign behind the paintings, done in order to confuse, that is, to deceive. (If such is not done by the author).

I brought you some history in the style of creativity Poret. Filonovsky school has not taken hold for so long, she had no followers already in the 40's, not the 50's. This technique was simply out of fashion.

Look at the work Poret. They were light, transparent objects or characters were skomponirovany of Filonovsky elements, yes. But the background has always been easy, not gruzyaschim human eye.

On your picture - solid vanity - the picture is not loaded to recognition of the plot. Even hard to imagine what it displays and which side it should look. Eyes get tired of this rhythm, which once again proves that it's not the hand and plan Poret. She simply could not write well, and not what she was doing, especially in the 50's as you were told about the canvas. If the paint fresh, then look at another picture of them, written in those years when the canvas was stretched on a frame.