Award-winning Documentary | The Fake Van Gogh Paintings? | Real Crime
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 มิ.ย. 2019
- Make sure you subscribe to get your regular crime fix: / @realcrime
Was the most expensive painting ever sold at auction a fake? This award-winning documentary explores the authenticity of the Sunflowers painting by Vincent van Gogh, bought in the late 1980s for a then record sum by a Japanese insurance company.
In 2002, the painting went on public exhibition alongside an undisputedly genuine version of Sunflowers, raising once again the questions so vividly posed in this film.
Content licensed from Espresso Media. Any queries, please contact us at: realstories@littledotstudios.com - บันเทิง
![[Full Episode] MasterChef Junior Thailand มาสเตอร์เชฟ จูเนียร์ ประเทศไทย Season 3 Episode 3](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/A1XXYbV048k/mqdefault.jpg)
Jo Bonger (Van Gogh’s sister-in-law) did Vincent and her husband a huge justice in cataloguing and marketing his work. What an amazing woman to turn his work from rags to riches and make his work internationally renowned.
Vincent was so fortunate to have a brother who encouraged and cared for him like he did and for me that sets a fabulous example of how we should treat others.
I'm amazed more wasn't said about it not being signed.
Maybe Van Gogh said to Gauguin, "This is another copy I did of the Sunflowers to cover this hole in the wall, I didn't sign it so it is never sold under my name as it's not as good as the others because I was half pissed when I painted it".
"I will made this painting again until I do it right".
Big art, like big oil and big anything is full of corruption....
And ‘big money’ is involved in all of it..
It''s about money. Christie's is protecting profits/reputation and the Japanese are protecting face/investment. It matters if it is real.
It's not so much a question of the authenticity of the works , but rather the experts . Which is the fake ?
Some "expert" says that Sunflowers are used to produce turpentine, which is just nonsense. Turpentine is distilled from pine resin. And when that same "expert" talks about colors, it is also very subjective. Why do these people make things up?
To justify their own existence?
because they have no skills, talent or intelligence. they have to create a facade of value.
Sunflowers do actually contain terpenes… wild sunflowers are an especially rich source of a number of terpenoid compounds as are numerous helianthus varieties - therefore a type of turpentine can be made from sunflowers.
@@robynmeyer7796I couldn’t find any source stating this?
If one can't distinguish between an "authentic" painting, and "fake", what difference does it make?
forgers know...
Because most of the value has to do with WHO painted the work not the beauty of the work.
I know! But that is just plain stupid!!@@roytofilovski9530
An artist has a body of work. If it is not his body, it cannot contain his soul.
Turpentine is not derived from sunflowers, as the American “expert” asserts. It comes from trees, mainly pines.
It also gets you really high.
So its more like "tree-pine-tine"
@@xwaram you cant get pure gum turpentine anymore. I had to buy the regular stuff. Called the company twice. Call ever hardware store. Pure gum is now very expensive. Its like 3$ an oz... i had an old can from 2011. The company klean strip had no idea what i was talking about.
Talk about clumsy....
She said sunflowers produce turpentine, which they do. If you break open a sunflower top you can smell it. You are obviously not an "expert" in neither botany nor listening. You can look up Turpentine Bloom, or Turpentine Bush, as it is a member of the "Sunflower" Family.
Richard Rodriguez is believable...
He spoke up in the public forum of a supposed art elite...risking both his name and his reputation...
🇿🇦
That man scraping the paintings with that metal stick, i would fire him immediately.
Those were all 3 copies, and made specifically for him to show them the differences. Those 3 paintings were worthless.
At 29:36 during Christie's high tech examination of the painting, with a flashlight, they read the painter's name out loud "Schuffenecker" and the guy pulls his head back in reaction to it. LOL. How is that clip not the smoking gun? Back at 23:20 they say Schuffenecker is their prime suspected forger of both paintings. Hello???
At 29:00 it’s just the narrator saying they would have been taken aback if they would have found Schuffenecker’s signature,?
@@angieg3624 Starting at 29:00...with a flashlight. Go to that part.
They were reading a label at the back of the painting that said Van Gogh was the artist and Schuffenecker the owner 🤦♀️
The owner should submit the painting to a modern forensic study.
No point if it is or the era.
There's too much at stake (money & face), for that to happen.
Why would he do that after paying top dollar for it? There's literally negative motivation to do that.
I don’t think they want to know. 🙃
There was a series called Fake or Fortune in Great Britain and that was exactly what they did with paintings that were questionable and they did some great things. So clearly there are better methods to prove authenticity then there were back then even though it was just a few years ago.
I cannot STAND to see others getting filthy rich off someone else's art work that never made the ACTUAL ARTIST RICH!!!!! Artists struggle most of their lives and careers making these amazing artworks, barely scraping by the whole time. It's always when they're long gone, is their art is worth something; making others millionaires. Smfh I'd rather set my paintings on fire before I go than to have someone else profit off them, especially greedy people who are already wealthy.
Exactly!!
In Van Gogh's case, most of his art was given to his brother and sister in law. They had financially supported him for years. His brother encouraged his painting and tried to help him sell them. He only got popular with the public after dying, but his family was supportive during his lifetime.
@@gabrielamora6265but he never really sold his art or were able to support himself financially. That’s his tragedy.
I'm glad his family was able to profit off selling them. His brother supported his career, so its only fitting that his widow reaped the benefits.
Unfortunately it is about money and clout. You should buy some paintings from living Artists, may be someday you will be one of those people.
at one point, in this film, there's a guy who says that the yellows are painted over the brown and Vincent didn't do this, well artists experiment, and it looks like VG was trying something different. Also, counting flower petals is pointless since artists do pretty much whatever they want.
I agree also he was very ill at times so his work would vary a lot.
@@sizey8105know his place? We’re commenting our thoughts on TH-cam videos.
I don't know if sunflower oil is perhaps used in painting (probably is) but I know turpentine comes from the bark of pine trees, not from sunflowers.
It's so ironic that back when he was alive nobody liked his paintings but move on to present day his works are beloved, idolised and wrapped up in mystery. He would have thought we were crazy 🤪
This woman is wrong. Turpentine comes from pine trees not from safflower. And it is nota medium it is a thinner or a solvent of oil painting.
i think you meant "sunflower," not "safflower," and totally agree the art expert was ignorant.
Well, I think you should check your facts as you can definitely make turpentine from sunflowers.
Brilliant video! Thank you.
Is it not possible that he sold the initial painting and as a result it wasn’t in his possession when he died for his sister in law to record it.
Only one painting by Van Gogh was ever known to have sold during his lifetime. It was exhibited by his brother in Belgium, and was purchased by Anna Bloch, a painter and the sister of one of Van Gogh's painter-friends.
I think it's unlikely Van Gogh himself sold the painting because he would have mentioned that milestone in his letters to his brother, so we'd know about it.
It's really gross that the Van Gogh Museum would agree to keep quiet and be obstructive about the Japanese painting in return for a building. I think most collections would do the opposite and speak out loudly.
Lol. You have a higher opinion of the general truthfulness of people who see a quick buck than I do my friend.
I believe you're mistaken about what most collections would do. Ethical galleries are the exception, not the rule. There is far too much money invested in art, far too many careers, reputations and livelihoods on the line.
The art itself is sublime; the art BUSINESS is a ruthless hidden world with very few laws and rules to govern it.
We are all entitled to opinion.
Their policy is to not comment on other works attributed to Van Gogh without the owners permission and to not divulge their methods of establishing authenticity.
I feel they are being discerning and are justified in not casting opinion…many people would feel humiliated to publicly learn a painting was questionable or fake by an establishment of such high standing. Potentially it could also cause political conflict.
The owner is happy with his purchase and deserves this respectful discretion…after all that’s the Japanese way - it’s about being honourable.
@@robynmeyer7796 😝 Yeah. Certainly at that price when you have no recourse. I've since learned that everybody keeps quiet. Especially the dealers and auction houses. Can you imagine eating 100 million dollars? Or 450 million for that matter...🙄
I think is NOT a bad policy not to comment about authenticity of art belonging to others, you must have to bite your tongue later. Lets put this straigt: the documentary is wrong about Theo cause of death (he was already very sick with syphilis) , about the reason Vincent cut his ear (all abundantly documented things) and probably about the suicide: Vincent said to not blame the boys when he came back injured. Who would kill himself with a gun in a way that it would take more than a day to die? I let you to research those claims. But if they couldn't put things about van Gogh biography correct how could they make such bold claims?
The authenticity of Yasuda's Sunflowes is not in question anymore, the controversy shifted to the fact that they were stolen from Jews under Nazi regime and people are seeking for its return to the rightful owners.
Maybe, for the Japanese People, not answering the Questions authenticity, is not about the Money they spent but to protect this soothing Thought who still Heals the Firebombing of Tokyo. To see the Sunflowers of Van Gogh back, brings back the Sun. I am just a viewer, but frankly, from 'here' this painting looks strong and imposing; a force radiates which comes from It's presence .
That’s a nice thought.
The question of the authenticity was settled years ago, now the controversy shifted to the fact that the painting was stolen by the Nazis from a Jewish family.
They can soothe with a real painting instead of a fake. It’s sad they want to be lied to.
Turpentine is not made from sunflowers 🌻
Wild sunflowers are a rich source of terpenes and a number of terpenoid compounds, therefore turpentine can be made from sunflowers and a number of other helianthus varieties.
A painter can paint the same picture many times, I bet something in it would be different
Painter here. I do often paint the same thing multiple times over and none of them are the same. Often I correct things that didn't look great in an earlier version. Either way it's impossible to repeat the same brush strokes
I have paintings I gave done that I could never truthfully replicate but neither could anybody else.
Art prices gone wild. Foolishness.
Pretentious professor of art history, Dr. Bogomila Welsh-Ovcharov (supposed expert on Van Gogh) proves her ignorance of paint, painting and sunflowers by declaring sunflowers the source of turpentine. What a complete doo-doo head.
Who cares who painted it?
If its a good painting, it’s a good painting.
Stop helping the corrupt launder their money.
I think the people who paid tens of millions care
Someone call "Fake or Fortune!"
There's a lad down in Dorset who does excellent copies of old Vinny G. He doesn't pretend they are the OGs though but his landscapes and still lifes are FR lit
You should buy some of his art. Are they copies or in the style of Vincent? I mean a good artist that Paints in his style may become a thing but copies not so much but still worth a bit.
Fascinating video. I feel sorry for Van Gogh. He was very fond of a young lady that served at the cafe he went to and she was friendly to him. One of the highlights of his life and very much looked forward to. One day she left with her child and his life had lost a great part of its colour. He was a poor man so there was nothing he could give her that would attract her even though his family were middle class. His relationship with Gogan was strained and that film with the two American actors (Terrible) was not a good reflection of the truth. The painting of the cafe was full of hope and love for him, somewhere to get rid of his loneliness for a time. It is so sad that his paintings fetch millions but his only painting he sold went to his sisters friend and his mother wanted them all destroyed.
It´s *Gauguin for heaven´s sake. But otherwise, totally agreed and thanks for the interesting info!
Great Artists have bad days what if this canvas is the prototype that Vinny said sucks let's try again, auctions operate on the concept let the buyer beware and how many fakes were contracted by the sister-law.........
Those two landscapes at 36:50 in the fake Van Gogh section are great, I don't care who painted them.
So they are so masterful and clever that they think they know the minds and trials of a rejected art genera, and then become experts on what painters were thinking/feeling and their stylizing attempts - comedic. Vincent is not rolling but laughing in his grave!
Well his family are. He died on hand-outs from never selling any paintings of note whilst alive. Basic knowledge that.
I think Vincent never laugh in his entire adult life.
Yep. As a poet, I try not to write the same poem, but quite obviously you're going to run into difficulties with themes such as love; I wonder if an "expert" would dare claim that a less successfully wrought verse could not have been e created by someone who created a piece of poetic perfection?
15:48 Basic fail in logic - should have investigated all of V's other paintings to prove he never made any other such 'mistakes'. Who knows what 'inconsistencies' V's troubled mind may have executed in paint here and there.
46:39 The programme previously confirmed that they cannot know if the Japanese Sunflowers was or was not mentioned in the letters. Can't have it both ways! Deeply flawed doco which contributes virtually nothing to the debate.
ETA watching this again I notice that VG is shown by Gauguin _painting sunflowers_ - is this him painting the _third_ version, since the other two were painted 'in preparation for the arrival of Gauguin to decorate the house for his visit.
Who authenticates the paintings? It can’t be the auction house…or if it is, that is utterly insane since the auction house stands to gain millions in commission.
Its easy. Unless there’s a paper trail going back to the artist or his family, you avoid it like the plague
I would think so, especially at these prices.
Ultra-wealthy ‘art people’ are incredibly irritating to me..
the question is not the tableau price but the tableau valor ..thes ear etwo different things
2:58 “Since learning about the fakes, I’ve been wanting to have a Gogh at it”
I see what you did there
Ever see Starry Night as a yarn painting? 🙂🧶🎨👍🏻
th-cam.com/play/PLr6pyQ-su1fRZObhwssxla0T1vDjTcqCB.html
An investigation has turned up that Vincent has cut off most of his ear leaving the lobe. According to a sketch made by the doctor that treated him.
I recently had the opportunity to see the painting Jardin at Auvers that was up for auction at 2 minutes into the film. It is in a private collection but was recently on show at the Musee D'Orsay in the Last Months of Van Gogh exhibition. Immediately I was hit with an overwhelming suspicion that it was a fake. The pointillist style dots that make up the gravel foreground, about a quarter of the painting, are totally unlike anything in Van Gogh's oeuvre and they show an utterly indisciplined and haphazard execution that Vincent could never be accused of. They seem embarrassingly amateur. The other three-quarters of the painting look like a bad attempt at copying Vincent's style with equally indisciplined application of paint and no conscious plan of what the intention was, except to do what the artist thought Vincent was doing, without the first idea of what he was actually doing, or what his intentions might have been, or indeed the whole point of the exercise was. VVG always had an objective that was his struggle to achieve; the two-dimensional replication of some emotional response drawn from the subject in nature before him. In this painting the point seems simply nothing more than to 'do a picture of a garden'. Seeing this picture, placed next to other, clearly authentic Vincents, I felt much like the little boy who'd spotted that the emperor was wearing no clothes. Could other's not see it? It was bloody obvious.
Love how they keep calling the (counterfeiting) artist 'clumsy'. How clumsy could that painter possibly be, for idiots to willingly pay millions of dollars for the work. Bunch of snobs, they all deserve each other.
Exactly. This is not about the art, it's about money, so much waffling and conjecture.
The lady at the very end said it for me
THE KEY TO THIS, IS TO ANALYZE THE BRUSH STROKES IN GREAT DETAIL. THE TWO
KNOWN ORIG, WILL SHOW VINCENTS HAND MOTION, THE OTHER WILL BE ""DIFFERENT ""
...document & truth detectives must've missed reality of the ear incident that's pretty clearly spelled out in letters?? Perhaps even more intriguing investigation than these maybe fakes.
Hour packed with many "experts" yet there's as many conflicting evaluations & conclusions as there are people. Vermeer's works were nearly ALL attributed to other artists at different points of time. For their own careers & reputations: each expert has a personal agenda & motive (or 5) to propel their own opinion as "fact". It's all about as clear as mud!
At 41.22 mins Dominique Janssens explains that Vincent was "blessed", should of course say wounded but mixes French and English badly. No crime, just confusion
All of WWII was a tragedy.
As all wars are 😔
The Japanese company paid £22.5 million for advertising and it has repaid them A good investment real or fake.
There’s an excellent documentary about a family in China who has painting van Goghs for twenty years and selling to an “art” dealer in Amsterdam. I’m a huge fan of Robert Crumb. 😂😂😎
It's still a 'real' painting and as for being 'good', surely that is subjective.
As an amateur oil painting hobbyist there a fine line between a fake and an “unsuccessful” painting. My rubbish bin is full of my un-successs. Sometimes we try, and try, and try again, and it just doesn’t click.
It's ridiculous isn't it. 22.5 million for a painting that I wouldn't even call a good expressionism style.
I went to art college. I had 2 teachers in the same class. They told us to draw a rock. I drew it exactly in shaded pencil. One teacher liked it. The other didn't and told me to draw something else. So I took out a sheet of black card, picked a few angles from the rock and drew some lines in coloured chalk. The first teacher didn't like it. The second teacher liked it.
While the attempted point of your allegory wasn't lost on me, I can say at least you got your money's worth - two teachers for the price of one
Impressionism is different than expressionism.
For all the evident differences you have shown to the public, between the sunflowers from The National Gallery. and The Van Gogh’s Museum, that one sold in Japan differs so much. It looks ss a fake one. Color in the background is a lot clear, almost beige instead of yellow.
At 29:00 during Christie's high tech examination of the painting, with a flashlight, they read the painter's name out loud "Schuffenecker" and the guy pulls his head back in reaction to it. LOL. How is that clip not the smoking gun? At 23:20 they say Schuffenecker is their prime suspected forger of both paintings.
@@kgm2182they were just reading the label on the back and said the owners name for Mr Shauffenecker. They didn’t say by or painted by.
I wonder what kind of award this kind of documentary has won ?
As an artist , there are many ways to spot a fake especially an old one.canvas& linen were different as we're paint pigments & mediums.
Nonsense you know so little about the Great Forgers , they made sure all was correct !! 🧐
🥳🤡
But they were painting fakes at the same time Van Gogh was alive, same materials.
Great story, and if true quite funny, Vincent would've never cared for these amounts of money given for his canvasses.
Vincent would have been helping the poor…as was his dream.
BRITAIN'S No1 ART FORGER - MAX BRANDRETT, THE LIFE OF A CHEEKY FAKER biography is out now!
Like anything. People only pay what they think something is worth. If they paid the money for it and enjoy it like a real Van Gogh ... More fool them. I personally think the 'copy' of the Doctor picture looked like it had a better facial structure and shape to it than the genuine Van Gogh. But the pain application strokes and the colours were as if almost done as quick as possible. But that Red centre on the Japanese one ... Just looks wrong.
8:40 - how old is this documentary?
it says 2002 in the description
It was made long before Van Gogh was born.....😂
At the end of the day it’s all about the MONEY. If this one painting can be proven fake, all others will be suspected and interest and value will diminish. I love Vincent Van Goh for what he was and his tragedy of never knowing the world would elevate him to one of greatest artists of all time.. he never knew this and kept painting. It was not for the money… and if even the Museum which carries his name can not honor that, I’m glad he is not here to see this.
From the comments I understand that this is basically about sunflower oil not being made from turpentine.
A lot of speculations. Who knows? What about chemistry and scanners?
I am thinking this Documentary was made somewhere around 2005. The last 20 years has brought all new tech to play.
Vincent can't catch a break, even in death. It's shameful. RIP Vincent Can Gogh, the best artist of that time period.
Pictures really, it hurts my ears!! Have these people seen a single PAINTING in their lives 😂
Don't eat sunflower oil.
What does Dr. Barndoor or Philip Mould think?
Compelling......😂
we, artists, have the write to paint of similar original oned but on the condition that we write on the canvas that this is "COPY". we do not cheat but show our capability
A true artist will create something and not just copy what another artist invented!
Much can be learned from it.
Art collectors are so disgusting. Spending that kind of money on paintings when so many ppl in the world are underpaid and underfed etc. It’s morally wrong. These rich ppl should pay their employees fair salaries and then they wouldn’t have this money to blow on stupid things.
Well the thing is, those poor and underfed people should be helped at least temporarily by our tax money. Instead there are billions spent on war.
You can hear how outdated this documentary is when she said that Vincent "cut off part of the lobe of one ear". Like it was bascially a minor event. Barely a scratch.... How terribly wrong this statement turned out te be :0 It is now decades later a 100% proven fact that Vincent did indeed cut off his entire left ear like everyone was already knew even back then. Except this poor lady who had no clue. God rest her sweet soul.
@supaaaree I AM F*CKING CALM!!!!!!
The auctioneers just care about the money. They don't care if it's fake.
As an artist, I hope that one day, perhaps after I am gone, that my art is copied. One can only hope. At least people get pleasure viewing the art. The value is created and doesn't mean anything.
What kind of work do you do?
@@tootsownhorn5874 Abstracts and landscapes
@@Qwijebo nice! Do you have an Instagram i can check out?
I think $100 million means a lot! As an artist myself I hope that none of my works sell for these absurd amounts but that this money be used to fund art school and education to children around the world.
9:00 in i wonder if someone wanted to by his tie for 25 million , i wonder if he would say it was an original van Gogh.
Why would anyone buy anything from these are house? Makes them look greedy and stupid
Sadly the high number of ad breaks in this programme make it unwatchable.
I many ways it doesn't matter whether the Japanese sunflowers are real or not. It's one of three and the owners attach great value to it. What is there to be gained here? Suppose the film maker does prove that it's a fake. Then what? It's not in the interest of the larger public and the current owner rightly sounds a bit irritated at the mosquitos buzzing around their house.
Art is originality creativity and if very good a genius. Now to copy is just short of any of the above.
This is the world of high-end art. Leonardo da Vinci's Salvator Mundi is another one that is hotly debated as being not by Leonardo.
Even if his students worked on it it is most surely finished by the master or was.. now the woman who " restored" it did a few things I can clearly see where in the original and now are gone. Like a light beard that comes to two points on his chin. Also making the face a bit too feminine which is not quite how it was.
the japanese could find photos of the fake being painted with some irrefutable clues connecting it to the one in japan, and they would just ignore it....
they wanted a van gogh and they were given one.... they never cared, it's just an investment, and as long as everyone plays like its real, it is real, at least for investment purposes, and for making some good anonymous painter some money.
but it is irritating looking at it from the sidelines. it's like landing in a country where everyone insists the sky is green and they just ask you to play along, while you dont understand why they drag this on, after all, the embarrasment will at best just be postponed
i did pictures of flowers like that back in high school . what are these ponces paying milions for that for?
Evident that one Dr Gachet portrait it is no legitimate.. There is no melancholy at all. It must be painted by the doctor or perhaps his son Paul.
I think a painting done by Schuffeneker should have a good value but not as high as Vincents.
My fake Van Gogh is better than any of those fake Van Goghs.
They bought a fake,
funny no....
victim of their own wealth
Turps is also mineral , not only wood.
If fools have too much money, they believe anything that makes them happy.
❤️❤️❤️
TH-cam, how many useless fricking ads can you cram into one doc?
How can you base an opinion on comparison of three REPLICAS? I'm not an art expert but I would rather see prints than replicas in oil. Am I missing something?
An insurance company bought the painting, not some rich guy.
Print ha e no value, or very little.
Prints have little no value.
💸
EVERITHYN MUSEUM AROUND WORLD., HAVE COPY VAN GOGH.THE BEST AUCTION HOUSES SSLE COPY , EXAMPLE SOTHEBYS, CHRISTIE, BOHNAMS, PHILLIPS, WILLIAM DOYLE AND HERITAGE AUCTION AND OTHERS .?
Faith - Fraud? Hell, that IS the experience. As long as there are people and difference among people this is gonna go on forever.
How many of these detectives are artists? Artists constantly draw wildly different versions and mostly do not sign early versions not for public consumption.
Not Vincent, he did make several Sunflower paintings but all wildly different. He may have done a subject matter or place more than once but always distinguishable.
The oriental people appearing at around 44:40 are probably not Japanese, but Koreans, as they are speaking in Korean.
Don't you love when self appointed sorry excuse for professionals, degrade those who painted fakes, while failing 100% at their own knowledge? Mainly those amateurs running world famous museums and being severely overpaid paid for their very simple job?
Get fake or fortune on it. They'll dig out the truth
and its guarantee
This is a good documentary. I personally think that all 3 are in fact Van Gough's paintings but was not painted all at the same time. I personally believe that they were painted in sequential order. Almost like one week he made the first then the next week the 2nd followed by the 3rd. But that is my personal opinion.
We'll never know. I don't see why "he didn't paint it like that in the other painting" sounds like a good argument to people. He got bored? "He didn't mention those sunflowers in his letters"? So of the three yellow sunflower paintings you're sure he SPECIFICALLY didn't mention THAT one. Cool, tell me HOW though. Having said that the art market is riddled with fakes. It could be one. But they did a poor job if conveying how they arrived at the opinions.
these paintings don't even value a dollar!....there's nothing a toddler wouldn't accomplish!....but people tend to price them high so that billionaires will have something to brag about that others with the same value or higher don't have! We are like sheep...one seemingly important values it a a high price and the rest will follow suit. Not the first time the public was tested with a load of sh.....in an art gallery, and viewers thought it was something important!...but even faking a Da Vinci is highly difficult....but that's another story!
So this documentary must be from 1997 or 98 🤔🖼️
After 2002.
it is incredible that the whole world has been convinced that these are great paintings. They are not - they are ugly and represent a disturbed mind. Great art requires detachment, reason, harmony, balance. These have none of that. I would not put one in my toilet. P.S I spent 5 years as the student of Chris Yetton a famous art critic.
There are always those who think they know more than anyone else. Sometimes they think they know more than the whole world .
Actually you are super wrong.
" requires detachment"??? Well that is where you are the most wrong.
“Among the tragedies of American bombing of Japan “. Ok Jan