Summary of The Moon and Sixpence by Maugham Somerset (51-58 Chapters)

Tahitian, hostess hotel, where the author lived, told him how she found Strickland's wife - Ata, who was her distant relative. Once Strickland and Ata got married, they went into the forest, where Ata had a small plot of land. The next three years Strickland was the happiest person. Ata did what he told her, and she also brought up their child. Strickland developed leprosy. When he learned of his illness, he wanted to go into the woods, but his wife did not let him go. They lived together, not talking to people.When the artist became blind, he still continued to work, drawing on the walls of the house. Only a doctor who came to see the patient, saw that painting, but he did not find Strickland alive. He was shocked. That wall painting seemed to be something great, sensual and passionate. Having created this masterpiece, Strickland got what he wanted: he banished the demon who owned his soul for many years. On his deathbed, the painter ordered Ata burn the house after his death, and she did not dare to disturb his last wish. When the author returned to London, he again met with Mrs. Strickland. After the death of her sister she came into fortune and lived very happily. In her living room Strickland’s reproductions hang, and she acted as if she and her husband had a great relationship. While the author was talking to Mrs. Strickland he somehow remembered Strickland and Ata’s his son.

Review №2

Review №2:  How to Steal a Million (1966)

Cast:

 Audrey Hepburn             ...                            Nicole 

 Peter O'Toole                 ...                            Simon Dermott 

 Eli Wallach                     ...                            Davis Leland 

 Hugh Griffith                   ...                            Bonnet 

 Charles Boyer                ...                            DeSolnay 

 Fernand Gravey             ...                            Grammont 

 Marcel Dalio                  ...                            Senor Paravideo 

 Jacques Marin                ...                            Chief Guard 

 Moustache                     ...                            Guard 

 Roger Tréville                 ...                           Auctioneer (as Roger Treville) 

 Edward Malin                 ...                           Insurance Clerk (as Eddie Malin) 

 Bert Bertram                  ...                            Marcel

Directed by William Wyler
Written by George Bradshaw (story), Harry Kurnitz (screenplay)
Genre: Comedy | Crime | Romance

Storyline:

The action takes place in Paris, where a young woman, the daughter of a millionaire who secretly hunted fake works of art, and a criminal must steal  one of the "masterpieces" of the girl's father from the exhibition at the Museum of Fine Arts in order to save him from being exposed.

Review:

I believe that in 1966, this film, and even in color, certainly caused a lot of excitement. The plot is criminal, the film is a comedy,on the screen there is a love story and an ingenious trick. Besides, there is very beautiful Audrey Hepburn from who I expected much more, and there is Peter O'Toole who is also very handsome. Here is a lovely duet.

However, the film left me cold. Most of the scenes in the museum are naive. By logic, after disarming the alarm the chief had to send at least one person on duty to sculpture. But it did not happen, they just turned off and calm down. Of course, I realize that it is a comedy but not to such an extent !!!

This is the first movie with Audrey Hepburn, which I watched and I do not like her in this movie. Neither looks nor acting. Peter O'Toole's character strongly resembled James Bond: elegant, smart, intelligent, even aristocratic and comprehensive ironic. But the character still came out interesting.

In general, the film too prolonged. It took too much time for audience to get into the swing and too long to show the events at the museum. I think I don't want to revisit this film. 

Rendering №8

The headline of the article is Who was Bertolt Brecht? The article was created on January 09, 2013 and last updated on January 10, 2013. The author of the article is Amrita Nandagopal. The purpose of the article is to give the readers some information about a famous German poet, playwright and theatre director Bertolt Brecht’s life.

The writer reports that Bertolt Brecht born in Ausburg, Bavaria in 1898. He is most famously remembered for mentoring the epic theatre concept, which was markedly different from the conventional Aristotelian drama. ‘The Threepenny Opera’, ‘Mother Courage’ and ‘The Caucasian Chalk Circle’ are some of his renowned productions.

Further writer clarifies that the house where he was born is still preserved as a museum to this day. While his father was a Catholic, his mother was a devout Protestant whose beliefs exerted considerable influence on his writings.

The author explains that Bertolt Brecht met his life-long friend Casper Neher who went on to design many of the sets for Brecht’s plays and was instrumental in creating the distinctive visual appeal of their epic theatre.

Further the writer tells us that Early in his life, Brecht used to publish newspaper articles as a budding theatre critic. He wrote his first full play ‘Baal’ in 1918, about a drunken, womanizing poet. His next major work ‘Drums in the night’ was written the next year and was about a soldier returning from war. In his work ‘Messingkauf Dialogues’, he credited Karl Valentin with having a considerable influence on him.

The author points out that Brecht wanted to bring the theatre to the common people and many of his ideas were often considered radical at that time. He employed many tactics such as harsh lighting or allowing the audience to see the set being arranged by the actors or other stage hands to prevent the audience from being totally immersed into the play.

Moreover, the famous German poet also collaborated with Kurt Weill on many plays which were very successful. Many of Bercht’s works were as a response to other works, either by him or by others. The famous ‘Threepenny Opera’ was actually the German version of John Gay’s ‘The Beggar’s Opera’, with new songs and adaptations.

The writer clarifies that Throughout his life, Brecht was linked with many women romantically, from Paula Banholzer with whom he had a son in 1919 to Marianne Zoff whom he married in 1922. They had a daughter Hanne Hiob, who went on to become a successful German actress.

However, Brecht later married the actress Helene Weigel in 1930, with whom he operated the theatre company ‘Berliner Ensemble’. Their daughter, Barbara Brecht is also an actress. He also had a son with her, Stefan Brecht who became a poet and a theatre critic.

In conclusion the writer say that Brecht’s leanings towards Marxism forced him to flee Germany in 1933 when Hitler came to power.  He lived in Denmark, Sweden and the Soviet Union after that before he finally settled in United States in 1941. He worked in Hollywood on a few screenplays during this time, though he was not very successful. Brecht passed away in Berlin in 1956 of a heart attack.

  

To my mind, this article is really worth reading. Having read about Bertolt Brecht’s biography I was really amazed. I have learned about his stages of life, especially I was struck by the fact that he worked in Hollywood on a few screenplays during the Second World War and it’s a pity that he died in 1956 of a heart attack.

Rendering №7

The headline of the article is A short history of the Globe Theatre. The article was created on March 26, 2013 and last updated on March 27, 2013. The author of the article is Chase Smith. The purpose of the article is to give the readers some information about the history of the Globe Theatre.

The writer reports that in 1642, when the Globe theatre in Southwark London closed its theatre doors for the last time, England’s Puritan’s; a protestant group passed an act through parliament by Law demanded that all playhouses to be closed to the general public. Then two years later in 1644 the theatre was torn down so Tenement rooms could be built instead.

Further the author tells us that forty six years previously, in 1598, James Burbage - a joiner by profession and amateur actor who was part of the Lord Chamberlain men - along with the rest of the acting company had been evicted out of Blackfriars theatre. The outlook for the actors was looking bleak, especially if they wanted to compete with there rivals the Admirals men who owned the Rose theatre. 

The writer clarifies that in answer to the obstacles facing James his only option was to build another theatre in Shoreditch, London. James invested his own money but it didn’t cover the building costs needed to construct it. He came up with a plan, the theatre should be funded through shareholders. James would own twenty five percent, Lords Chamberlain men owned fifty percent, three other members (one of them Will Kemp, an actor who pulled out of the share deal) would co own twelve and half percent along with up and coming playwright who started writing plays for them William Shakespeare. 

Further the author reports that James died after the theatre was built in February 1597, leaving it to his son Richard Burbage, a professional actor who had left the Admirals men to join the Lord Chamberlains men. Richard soon discovered, after he inherited the theatre from his father, the land leased to the theatre was built on expired in 1597.

Then the writer explains that Giles Allen, the landlord of the theatre, should have by law been the rightful owner. Not wanting to lose the theatre to the Landlord, the Chamberlain’s men managed to perform plays at a nearby Curtain playhouse while a lengthy two year dispute with the landlord continued. Richard, along with his brother Cuthbert, decided to remove twelve large oak beams and moved them by boat to Southwark; on a plot of land that he had bought the lease which was just opposite the Rose theatre. It formed the polygon foundations of the new theatre and the Globe theatre was born.

Further the author gives us information about The Lord Chamberlain’s men decision to fly a flag of Hercules with a Globe over his shoulder, which they named the Globe theatre. The main entrance to the new playhouse had the motto above "Totus mundus agit histrionem" (the whole world is a playhouse). Two doors on either side of the stage allowed actors to enter and leave, the central balcony was flanked by two other balconies for wealthy audiences. The courtyard, which was on the ground floor of the playhouse, was five feet below the stage. The Lord’s Chamberlain men changed there name to the King’s men in honour of King James 1.

Further the author reports that while William Shakespeare became famous from having his plays performed at the Globe theatre, Richard Burbage became one of the most famous actors of his era. On 29 June, 1613 during a performance of Henry V111 a misfired cannon from the stage ignited the thatch roof of the Globe. No one was hurt when fire broke out at the Globe, but the playhouse burned to the ground. A year later it was rebuilt and for further twenty eight years the playhouse continued to perform plays to the general public. That was up until the Puritan Law which was passed in 1642.

In conclusion the writer say that in 1996 plans to rebuild a Shakespeare Globe theatre was commissioned, close to the original location of the Globe. Archived designs which formed the original plans used in 1599 to 1613 were used in the building of Shakespeare’s Globe.

To my mind, this article is really worth reading. Having read about the history of the Globe Theatre I was really amazed. I learned a lot about this theater. For instance, James Burbage who was part of the Lord Chamberlain men was to build another theatre in Shoreditch, London. James invested his own money but it didn’t cover the building costs needed to construct it.

Summary of The Moon and Sixpence by Maugham Somerset (41-50 Chapters)

The author still led Strickland to his home, despite the fact that the latter nauseated him. However, Strickland did not worry about other people's opinions about him. He didn't care about the death of Blanche, who loved him. Moreover,  Strickland wasn't anxious about the fact that he  messed up Dirk Stroeve’s life. The painter did not want  Blanche  to go away from Dirk  to him. Everything what he was interested in was just his sexual desire to her, and Strickland  wanted to draw Blanche naked. He believed that women were created only in order to satisfy his needs. Then the painter decided to show the author his paintings. Seeing them, the narrator was very impressed. The pictures seemed to him outrageous, but at the same time there was something exciting in them. The author found that they had a mysterious meaning.  After a time, Strickland went to Marseilles and the author never saw him again. When fate threw the author to Tahiti, where Strickland  spent the last years of his life and became finally known, he asked everyone about the artist. There the author met Captain Nichols, who helped Charles Strickland  to get to Tahiti. Captain Nichols told the author that he and the painter lived in the port of Marseilles without a penny to their name, about how Strickland ran for Tough Bill, who had vowed to kill him and the artist escaped from that place, fleeing by boat to Australia. The inhabitants of Tahiti considered Strickland to be a common tramp. Now, however, they regretted that they had not understand the value of his paintings, which were now worth a fortune.

Rendering №6

The headline of the article is The impact of Edward Craig on stage design. The article was created on February 11, 2013. The author of the article is Annette. The purpose of the article is to give the readers some information about an English modernist theatre practitioner Edward Gordon Craig’s life and his significant influence on stage design.

The writer reports that Edward Gordon Craig was born in England in 1872 to the actress Ellen Terry and her architect partner Edward Godwin. Edward acted for the first time on a US tour with his mother, at the young age of 12. Five years later he became an actor in Henry Irving's company at the Lyceum Theatre.

The author explains that when in 1893 Craig met with the Beggarstaff Brothers, he learned wood engraving. This had a significant influence on his design ideas which started to take shape when he designed and directed "Dido and Aeneas" in 1900. His production of "Hamlet" at the Moscow Art Theatre is seen as a landmark production with regards to the development of design.

Further the writer clarifies what influenced on Edward Craig. His mother was the leading actress at Henry Irving's theatre so Craig was exposed to theatre from a very young age. Hubert van Herkomer, who staged many experimental productions at his independent art school in London, inspired Craig. He admired van Herkomer's use of lighting and creative design. Herkomer believed design should reflect the mood of the text rather than being a realistic reproduction. The art of woodblock that he learned from the Bergstaff Brothers, James Pryde and William Nicholson, influenced his perception of stage lighting. He envisioned the dark wood block as the stage and the carved white space as the light.

Moreover, the dancer, Isadora Duncan, whom he lived with for two years, introduced him to the power of movement. His father, Edward Godwin worked on providing him with archaeological evidence for Shakespeare plays and Martin Shaw, the actor, provided him the opportunity for his first productions. Craig further admired the simplicity of the medieval theatre style and specifically the pageant wagon which was the antithesis of naturalism.

Then the author tells us about Craig’s concept for design in theatre. Craig’s non-realist theatre design must be seen in the context of the late 19th-century tradition. Henry Irving’s sumptuous productions provided vehicles for the stars of the day and very little thought was given to the way the design might reflect the mood of the play. Craig, on the other hand, wanted to see a play as a sequence of moments where each moment makes a symbolic visual statement.

Further the author gives us information about key developments in Craig’s journey. Firstly, in 1900 he produced "Dido and Aeneas" which set out the principles of his career. He used symbolist images with striking colour contrasts, a false proscenium and a concealed lighting gantry behind this false arch with no footlights. He used gauze and cloth to create depth when lit.

Secondly, in 1901 it was "The Masque of Love" which he played against a light grey background with carefully designed lighting.

Thirdly, in the 1902 production of "Acis and Galatea" he used lengths of cloth and projected shadows and in the production of "The Vikings at Helgeland" he used a vertical perspective which dwarfed the actors and cast shadows on their faces. Some critics had a problem with the shadows while others noted the symbolism of the half-seen shapes.

Lastly, the "Übermarionette" in 1908 was Craig’s reply to the control of the director over an actor.  He replaced the actor with a marionette.  The production showed strong elements of the masked ritual.

In conclusion the writer say that after Edward’s success with Hamlet in Moscow he designed very few productions, but "Hamlet" remains a landmark production which established Craig’s influence on stage design and lighting.

To my mind, this article is really worth reading. Having read about Edward Gordon Craig I was really amazed by his biography. I believe that this man deserves a lot of respect because he made ​​an enormous contribution to the design in theatre. Moreover, I was pleasantly surprised by the fact that production of "Hamlet" at the Moscow Art Theatre is seen as a landmark production with regards to the development of design.

Summary of The Moon and Sixpence by Maugham Somerset (34-40 Chapters)

One morning the bell rang and the concierge opened the door. Stroeve’s voice was asking whether Crabbe at home. Dirk's eyes were filled with horror. He told the author that Blanche tried to commit suicide. As it turned out, she drunk oxalic acid, but survived. When Stroeve came to Blanche she did not want to talk to him. When the coach arrived, she was put on a stretcher and taken to hospital. So Dirk came to ask the author to go with him to the hospital. If Blanche would not wish to let Dirk again, then maybe she would let Crabbe. At the hospital, they were talking to a doctor who told them that the danger had passed. Stroeve was upset all day and the author’s attempts to somehow distract him from thinking about Blanche failed. The next day, they went to the hospital. The nurse said that the patient does not want anybody to see. Then Crabbe sent Dirk downstairs and the latter dutifully went out. The author was ready to kill Strickland. The next week was awful. Stroeve went to the hospital to his wife who still did not want to see him. After a while Dirk came to Crabbe late at night, and the latter realized that Blanche had died. Dirk was too tired to cry. Then he truly went to sleep the first time for a week. After Blanche’s funeral the author and Dirk went back in the carriage. Crabbe offered Dirk to go to Italy but the latter refused. Then Dirk said to take him to the studio. The author was glad to it. A week later, Dirk came to Crabbe and said him that he was going to Holland to his mother. Dirk told the author that he was good at drawing in his childhood but his father wanted him to become a carpenter. Then Dirk said Crabbe that he met with Strickland. Dirk seemed that Blanche had not died. Back to the studio, Stroeve saw that everything was in its place, as when Blanche was alive. Walking around the house, Dirk felt deeply like his wife had tried to kill herself. Then he found Strickland’s picture which was portrayed Blanche. Despair, jealousy and rage choked Stroeve and he wanted to tear the painting up. However, looking more closely, Dirk acknowledged that it was a true work of art. Then Stroeve said Crabbe that he called Strickland in Holland but he refused. The next day the author saw Dirk off to Amsterdam. Crabbe gradually began to forget about this sad story. But one day, Strickland had come with the author. However Crabbe showed him that he did not want to communicate with him. Nevertheless, Strickland knew that the author liked people who were though bad but gobby. The author did not object Strickland and tried to save his dignity with stony silence and a shrug.

Rendering №5

The headline of the article is Who is Augusto Boal? The article was created on February 18, 2013 and last updated on February 19, 2013. The author of the article is Maycon Dimas Oliveira Dos Santos. The purpose of the article is to give the readers some information about a Brazilian theatre director Augusto Boal’s life and work.

The writer states that in the middle of the 1960s Augusto Boal was touring with his theatre company when a peasant woman from the audience stood up and stopped a presentation. She was not pleased with the resolution of a certain conflict in the play. Instead of pleading with her to calm down, Boal asked the woman what her approach to the matter would be. This was revealing: not only was the idea she gave a plausible one, but also the awareness that her action raised amongst the public proved to be much more active than the play itself would have achieved.

The writer clarifies that this episode, as Boal would describe later on, had a crucial importance on the development of his very own kind of theatre, the Theatre of the Oppressed. “In this usage,” Boal described his theory in the 1992 book 'Games for Actors and Non-Actors', "all human beings are Actors and Spectators. They are Spect-Actors." The goal in his new method of working was to give voice to the audience, once only the recipients of the one-way form of communication that the theatre used to be, enabling them to take a part in the action and, as a consequence, learn from this involvement.

Further the author gives Augusto Boal’s quotes: "Everything that actors do, we do throughout our lives, always and everywhere." “Actors talk, move, dress to suit the setting, express ideas, reveal passions - just as we do in our everyday lives. The only difference is that actors are conscious that they are using the language of theatre, and are thus better able to turn it to their advantage, whereas the woman and man in the street do not know that they are speaking theatre." Then the author claims that Boal believed that the only way to achieve social development was by giving a chance to each person to express his or her feelings, especially those who were historically subdued - hence the use of the term oppressed.

The writer states that considering the importance of Augusto Boal to the making of theatre worldwide, his career began a bit late. It wasn’t until he moved to New York to pursue a master’s degree in his original field of study, Chemical Engineering, in 1952, that he started attending drama classes. Among Boal’s professors there was John Gassner, the same one who had previously taught the likes of Arthur Miller and Tennessee Williams. With this kind of tutoring Boal staged his first plays in 1955, and from then on he dedicated himself exclusively to the field of arts. In the following year, soon after his graduation, Boal was invited to join a declining theatre company in the southeast of Brazil, called Arena, which he helped to save and prosper with avant-garde ideas like the "newspaper theatre" and, ultimately, the revolutionary Theatre of the Oppressed.

Further the author points out that Boal stayed with the Arena company until 1971. In this year, one of the most hard of the military dictatorship in Brazil, he was kidnapped, tortured and left in prison for over three months accused of subversion. The social awareness that his participative plays were provoking captured the attention of the government, who considered it to be a menace to the regime. After jail, Boal was sent to Argentina in exile, and there he wrote a book called "The Theatre of the Oppressed", which settled all the theories he had gathered in the years prior and propelled his name to international acclaim.

In the author’s opinion, to the present the name of Augusto Boal remains as one of the most influential of all times in the theatre matter. His book "The Theatre of the Oppressed", along with "Games for Actors and Non-Actors" and "Legislative Theatre", are still widely used in many schools of acting and directing around the world. His legacy can be perceived in countries as different as France and Angola, such was the scope of his work.

In conclusion the writer say that in  2008 Boal was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, and in March 2009 he was entitled “World Theatre Ambassador” by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Less than a month later Augusto Boal died during his sleep due to a respiratory failure. He had been fighting leukemia for the past five years.

To my mind, this article is really worth reading. Having read about Augusto Boal I was really amazed by his biography. This man deserves a lot of respect because he was not only a theatre director but also a writer who wrote many books. Most importantly I was just struck by the fact that he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize! I was actually upset when I learned that he died of leukemia.

Summary of The Moon and Sixpence by Maugham Somerset (24-33 Chapters)

Mr. Crabbe saw the terrible drama of Dirk Stroeve. When Strickland got seriously ill, Dirk saved him from death, brought Strickland to his house and Dirk’s wife Blanche Stroeve took care for him. However, Strickland had intercourse with Blanche, whom Stroeve loved more than anything. Nevertheless, Blanche left Dirk for Strickland. Dirk Stroeve was really upset by this situation. However, such things are quite natural for Strickland, since he knew no normal human feelings.

Review № 1 The Company (2003)

  Cast:

            Neve Campbell           ...        Loretta 'Ry' Ryan

            Malcolm McDowell     ...        Alberto Antonelli

            James Franco               ...        Josh

            Barbara E. Robertson   ...         Harriet (as Barbara Robertson)

            William Dick                 ...       Edouard

            Susie Cusack                ...       Susie

            Marilyn Dodds Frank    ...         Mrs. Ryan

            John Lordan                  ...        Mr. Ryan

            Mariann Mayberry        ...         Stepmother

            Roderick Peeples          ...         Stepfather

            Yasen Peyankov           ...         Justin's Mentor

            Davis C. Robertson       ...         Alec - Joffrey Dancer (as Davis Robertson)

            Deborah Dawn             ...       Deborah - Joffrey Dancer

            John Gluckman             ...         John - Joffrey Dancer

            David Gombert             ...         Justin - Joffrey Dancer

Directed by Robert Altman

Written by Barbara Turner (screenplay)

  Genre:  Drama | Music | Romance

Storyline:

An inside look at the world of ballet. With the complete cooperation of the Joffrey Ballet of Chicago, Altman follows the stories of the dancers, whose professional and personal lives grow impossibly close, as they cope with the demands of a life in the ballet. Campbell plays a gifted but conflicted company member on the verge of becoming a principal dancer at a fictional Chicago troupe, with McDowell the company's co-founder and artistic director, considered one of America's most exciting choreographers. Franco plays Campbell's boyfriend and one of the few characters not involved in the world of dance.

Review:

This is a very beautiful film for those who love ballet. Very nice set representation. A participant of ballet troupe (Neve Campbell) met in a bar with the bartender Josh (James Franco), and they made relationships. Once he comes to her for a holiday, a time to sleep, without waiting for Christmas and one of the ideas bowing way through the dancers and gives her a bouquet of flowers. That's it! More than anything in the movie dancing happens.

In fact, with such a beautiful ballet particular action in the film is not required, but it could be more interesting story to come up with a script.

Due to the rather meager roles of actors in the film it’s not necessary to talk about their talent. They simply had no place to use it. But the dancers did their best. There are very beautiful costumes, decoration ideas, music. Their rehearsals are shown. Main character showed herself more as a dancer than as an actress. She beautifully performed a dance in the rain.

To my mind, the movie is for fans of ballet and dance in general than for the general viewers.

Rendering №4

The headline of the article is Artwork: Reading the Letter, by Pablo Picasso. The article was created on January 23, 2012 and last updated on January 24, 2012. The author of the article is Prin Dumas. The purpose of the article is to give the readers some information about the picture "Reading of Letter" painted by Pablo Picasso in 1921. It is quite beautiful and simple, an oil on canvas.  Its current location is as part of the Musee Picasso's collection in France.

The writer states that the painting depicts two young men, one hovering over the other as they read a letter together.  The mystery in this painting is what makes it special.  Who is the letter from?  Are they sad?  Do they look serious from mere reading concentration?  This is difficult to know.  In fact, this painting has multiple meanings for many who experience it.

The author explains that in the 1920s, letters were announcements from family and dearest friends, updates on deaths, celebrations about marriages and births.  It is certainly an intimate portrayal, and a viewer can say that the two men could be brothers.  They share an interest in the letter, but one of them seems possibly upset while the other provides a hand on the shoulder for comfort.

The writer clarifies that to an American, the image may bring up notions of "Dear John" letters from World War II, but Picasso's painting precedes this culturally popular phenomenon.  So, it is not that.  However, it can still be an early 20th century letter from a love interest who no longer wishes contact with one of these young men.  Anything is possible.

Further the author reports that an art enthusiast may focus on both men's hats.  Both hats have been removed from their heads, implying a gesture of respect may have given, if not merely a sign that both men are indoors!  One man holds his hat in his hand while the other has placed it on the floor beside him.  This makes it possible to believe that the men are reading solemn information.  A death seems likely.  Removing one's hat, even today, is a sign of respect and extends honor and acknowledgement for the deceased.

The author comes to the conclusion that Picasso's "Reading of Letter" is important, because Picasso uses classical art styles in this artwork.  It is not hard to decipher or difficult to view, and by most standards, it is appealing and pretty art.  Although the piece deviates from Picasso's well-known style of abstract paintings, "Reading of Letter" is proof to any abstract-skeptics that Picasso indeed did know how to paint traditionally and quite well.

To my mind, this article is really worth reading. Having read about Picasso's "Reading of Letter", I was very intrigued. Therefore, I immediately looked up this painting by Pablo Picasso on the Internet and I can say that his work is really impressive and enigmatic.

Summary of The Moon and Sixpence by Maugham Somerset (14-23 Chapters)

Five years later Crabbe decided to go to Paris and to live there for a while; he took up his residence and went to meet his old friend Dirk Stroeve who was a painter. Stroeve knew Strickland and his paintings. He adored him and considered his pictures to be а great sensation.  

Rendering №3

The headline of the article is Artwork analysis: Self-portrait in red chalk, by Leonardo da Vinci. The article was created on December 21, 2012 and last updated on December 24, 2012. The author of the article is A. D. Scaramella. The article is devoted to the self-portrait of Leonardo da Vinci. The author of the article gives the readers a description of this painting and tries to find out who did the picture depicts.

The writer states that The Royal Library of Turin possesses a red chalk drawing that is listed as the self-portrait of Leonardo da Vinci. The likeness of an old, wise looking man with long beard and hair looks at the viewer, and reflects an image that one might have of a Renaissance man. It was acquired by King Carlo Alberto of Savoy in 1839.

Further the author reports that most art historians accept Leonardo da Vinci, as the painter, as no other artist would have been capable of such delicate depiction. The other reason to back up this theory is the similarity of Leonardo's portraiture on an earlier painting: Raphael's School of Athens, where Leonardo appears in the role of Plato.

The writer clarifies that those who have concerns about the self-portrait, mostly accept the creator but raise questions regarding the model. Viewers can see a matured male portrait from a three-quarter view. He has deep wrinkles, baggy eyes and long eyebrows. His beard and hair covers the shoulders. The figure is similar to the representation philosophers or prophets. At the time of finishing the portrait in 1510, Leonardo was around 60 years old.

Nevertheless, skeptics state that the drawing shows a man of 75-80 years and Leonardo would have looked much younger. In this case the model must have been his father Piero da Vinci or his uncle, Francesco. They both had a long life and lived until the age of 80, while Leonardo died a few years after creating this drawing, at the age of 67.

Coming to the conclusion, the author says that blotches, spots and stains appeared and started to fade away the work of Leonardo. The phenomenon is called "foxing”, and might be caused by oxidation of pigments, fungi or sunlight. The damaged self portrait is kept in a unique protective container that registers climate changes, humidity, vibration etc. and alarms the person on duty, if any change is detected. Scholars trying to save this valuable art piece are afraid of any intervention, so as not to cause further deterioration.

To my mind, this article is really worth reading. Having read it I have learned many new things for myself about the picture “The portrait of a man in red chalk”.