Fine Art

wafc

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19866004

but luckily

"Fortunately, in the case of Rothko, there's a massive body of research into his techiuques - and a great convservation department at Tate."

whatever convservation is.. do they mean conversation, in that they are going to talk the damage off the picture?

The monochrome hockneys are so much better that the coloured ones. This has real space and light in it, very beautiful. reminds me of what I have been trying to do recently:

(these are very small watercolour drawings)

wafc

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19866004

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19871487#TWEET255172

sounds like a very boring man, from what I could understand.

...just give it the time and you will think different.

That is all.

my friend signed the bottom of a damaged picasso because the market dint value it much because i had a scratch on it.

but he owns it so i guess its slightly different.

and now most people think its a fake, and they cant appreciate it for the drawing it is they just value the name behind it.

^exactly.

my friend signed the bottom of a damaged picasso because the market dint value it much because i had a scratch on it.

That was very silly.

Yes it was, but he has done it now and i think it proves a point. and its nice that he cant sell it on easily because he has had to sell on some on the other pieces given to him because he has no money. so atleast he has some thing real that most people dont believe in.

The monochrome hockneys are so much better that the coloured ones. This has real space and light in it, very beautiful. reminds me of what I have been trying to do recently:

(these are very small watercolour drawings)

produced on an i-pad, one hopes?! ;)

I am not going to rise to that.

Yes it was, but he has done it now and i think it proves a point. and its nice that he cant sell it on easily because he has had to sell on some on the other pieces given to him because he has no money. so atleast he has some thing real that most people dont believe in.

Is it a drawing or a painting? what period?

blue period, ill try take a photo of it next time i see him

The monochrome hockneys are so much better that the coloured ones. This has real space and light in it, very beautiful. reminds me of what I have been trying to do recently:

(these are very small watercolour drawings)

i think these are really beautiful, i wish i could sit down and paint again

thanks. can't you paint standing up?

i wasnt very good because i used to rush them

that's cool. He feels solid, his shoulder comes towards us and somehow you can sense his bonyness. Also has movement, like he is walking past us.

He was a figment of my imagination, i need to get in the habit of drawing thing people, life. it seems like i dont have the time. thats why i like printing because i can do a lot with an idea and a drawing i've have the tiem to sit a draw.

^exactly.

That was very silly.

Silly?
You're talking about fine art. Don't forget.
Silly is that the painting is an actual Picasso, and like Yasi said, no one gives a fuck.
Just cause the signature looks different.
Now, that's silly.

William was agreeing with that too, :)

I just feel like arguing. Please mind your own business.

:)

Yes, attribution has become a hysterical obsession which stops people really looking at paintings. My Dad is a picture restorer and often clients only want to hear good news about their paintings, they're not interested in the truth.

Oh Hai!!

Someone should send your dad to Spain.