Can see why there was a dispute whether it was a Van Gogh. Bit different to what he would paint in 2 years.
1 posted on
02/25/2010 12:56:04 PM PST by
C19fan
To: C19fan
This is also a Vincent Van Gogh. It hangs in his museum.
To: C19fan; mikrofon; martin_fierro
It's not a Ross, though.
Also, if it's a Van Gogh, why did he sign it "Reuters"?
To: C19fan
“Experts” are likely to overstate their expertise, given that it’s what earns them a living.
4 posted on
02/25/2010 1:05:05 PM PST by
Tublecane
To: C19fan
5 posted on
02/25/2010 1:06:06 PM PST by
Daffynition
(What's all this about hellfire and Dalmatians?)
To: C19fan
Can there be higher praise than being “mocked by the art world?”
10 posted on
02/25/2010 1:27:38 PM PST by
subterfuge
(BUILD MORE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS NOW!!!)
To: C19fan; Charles Henrickson; mikrofon
To: C19fan
Sometimes, with ‘modern’ art (which can be more than a hundred years old), you have to see the originals. Albers’ “Homage to the Square” paintings don’t look like much in reproduction, but the originals just kind of hang there in midair and glow. There’s no comparison.
23 posted on
02/25/2010 2:23:08 PM PST by
Grut
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
