It is also very important to evaluate the art of other masters. I think it is necessary to record Strickland's views on previous artists. I am also worried that I can't write too much, because Strickland's eloquence is not very good and he cannot express his thoughts in precise language, so listeners usually don't remember what he said. He still lacks a sense of humor. If I record what he says more or less to prove that he has a certain sense of humor, then this humor is also expressed in the form of sarcasm. He will refute others' words without hesitation, because it is often funny. But the reason why you can be amused by these words is because he rarely says these words. If he often says such words, people will not be amused.

I must say that Strickland's IQ is not much different from that of ordinary people, and his view of painting is also very mediocre and has no uniqueness. He has never talked to me about painters with similar painting styles as him, such as Van Gogh and Cézanne. I think he probably hasn't seen their works at all. He probably doesn't seem to have much interest in Impressionist painters, but I guess he must remember their painting skills. In his opinion, these painters' attitude towards art is nothing strange. Once, Stelloff was relishing in Monet's painting art, but Strickland interrupted him and said, "I prefer Wentlehalter than Monet."

I think he said this just to get angry with Stellov. In short, Stellov was angry with him.

To be honest, I thought he would make many ridiculous views of great artists, but he made my expectations silly. I must say that he also like ordinary people, admires these painters very much. I think this is very inconsistent with his strange character. If he could make some more personal opinions, his figure would have been more perfect. I think he knew nothing about El Greco. Although he was very dissatisfied with Velazquez, he still admired him most of the time. He was very pleased.

Appreciating Chardin was once deeply attracted by Rembrandt. When he told me about his feelings about Rembrandt's works, he used very vulgar language. The painter he admired the most was Bruegel, which may be unimaginable for anyone. I didn't know much about Bruegel at that time, and Strickland's expression ability was very bad, so I didn't have a deep impression of Bruegel. I can still remember Strickland's evaluation of him because Strickland said something ridiculous.

"His painting is good," said Strickland to me, "I think it must be a burden for him."

Later I went to Vienna and saw Peter Bruegel's works there, and finally I understood why Strickland paid special attention to him. Like Strickland, the world in which I wrote was filled with a lot of illusions. I have also made many notes and planned to write a book for Bruegel in the future. Unfortunately, I don't know when these notes were lost, so all I have left is memories. In Bruegel's writing, people's images are very weird, and he is full of anger at such people; life is

It was messy, full of absurd, ridiculous, vulgar and dirty things, which only made people laugh, but he was sad. In my opinion, Bruegel wanted to try his best to express his feelings in his heart, but the means he used might not be appropriate, or to be bluntly, he used the wrong means. Strickland was full of sympathy for him, perhaps because he had vaguely thought of this. The two of them should try to express their thoughts with literature, which might be more intuitive than painting.

At this time, Strickland was almost forty-seven years old.
Chapter completed!