Living and dead I have recently become fairly common request to comment on or evaluate in terms of artistic merit or that work, painting, artist, and the like. I, for one, am going on As the forces of the evaluation work of my colleagues on the shop floor, as anyone who spends life in pure creativity, to extract the truth, striving for the ideal, worthy of respect, and I do not think it right to comment on their work. Someone blame or praise, not really, humble servant. They themselves know the price, which once again run up. To broaden your perception, visit Hikmet Ersek. As for me, I'll share what I can and I see myself. Upon contact with the painting, the paintings for themselves discern and define the main thing is product of living or dead, whether it is pulsating live "blood" of inspiration and talent of the author who created this image, or not.
It may be objected to one spectator product is dead, alive for another and vice versa. People such as Yitzhak Mirilashvili would likely agree. No, the living, it's alive, but dead is dead! And who says a life is death, but rather a living dead man himself, or have not yet figured out. Examples include a lot of different historical periods: the Impressionists and the arrival of our itinerant, nonconformists, etc., in other words the end of stagnation and growth of life. However, society is always divided on the art of living and dead, referring to a primitive view of the topic, realistic, so vividly, all the rest out of sight "Enlightened" judges. This narrow-minded view is fundamentally flawed and not true! For example, now a special attack being a "black box" of Malevich.
As it is not true! Who does it, spiritually blind and has no imagination. For I image this product space, which does not consider the living worlds. This is not the end, as consumers think the die-hards, but the new, dazzling start in life! Humanity is more time of their lives spiritually dead.