The patterns in the painting suggests the style of Art Nouveau and the organic forms of the Arts and Crafts movement. At the same time, the background evokes the conflict between two- and three-dimensionality intrinsic to the work of Degas and other modernists.

The Kiss, Klimt’s most famous painting, was released between 1907-08, the highpoint of Klimt “Golden Period,” when he painted a number of works in a similar gilded style.

The inspiration for his “Golden Phase” was presumably provided by a visit to Ravenna during his travels through Italy in 1903, which introduced him to the world of Byzantine mosaics. For Klimt the flatness of the mosaics and their lack of perspective and depth only enhanced their golden brilliance, and he started to make unprecedented use of gold and silver leaf in his own work.

The painting depicts a couple embracing in a field of flowers. The man is bent over the woman, and she, clinging tightly to him, awaits his kiss. In terms of ornamentation, the male figure is characterized by square and rectangular forms, while for the female, soft lines and floral patterns are dominant.

A golden halo surrounds the couple, who seem to have shaken off an earthly weight and have been transported into an infinite, almost sacred sphere.

Klimt depicts the couple locked in intimacy, while the rest of the painting dissolves into shimmering, extravagant flat patterning.

"The Kiss" is the final painting of Klimt's Gold Period, during which he incorporated gold leaf into his works. This practice reflects the strong influence of the gold-detailed religious art of the Middle Ages as well as the sacred works created by artists of the Byzantine Empire. As a result, some considered such paintings as "The Kiss" to be sacrilegious.

The Kiss was bought before it was finished. 

In 1908, the Austrian Gallery displayed The Kiss for the first time, even though Klimt hadn't yet put the finishing touches on the work. Its unfinished state didn't stop the Belvedere Museum (a.k.a. The Österreichische Galerie Belvedere) from adding it to their collection on the spot.

The post-Victorian society of the early 1900s perceived "The Kiss" as pornographic, even though both figures are fully robed.

I am not at all an expert in painting, I am a terry dilettante, and I think and feel primitively, so to speak at the everyday level, but I cannot but express myself. The picture is not just beautiful with its colors, it affects me by the image itself, it contains static and dynamic at the same time, I feel it physically.

Only the bridge on which the characters of the picture stand remains unbroken. It is opposed to the chaos in which the world is plunging. A bridge is a barrier that separates man from nature. Protected by civilization, people have forgotten how to feel, see and hear. Two indifferent figures in the distance, not reacting in any way to what is happening around them, only emphasize the tragedy of the plot.

Placed in the center of the composition, the figure of a desperately screaming person attracts the viewer's attention first of all. The face, depersonalized to the point of primitiveness, shows despair and horror bordering on madness. The author managed to convey the most powerful human emotions by means of stingy means. In the eyes of suffering, wide open mouth makes the cry itself shrill and really tangible. The raised hands covering the ears speak of a person's reflex desire to run away from himself, to stop this attack of fear and hopelessness. The loneliness of the main character, his fragility and vulnerability, fill the whole work with a special tragedy and energy.

The author uses a complex technique, using both oil paints and tempera in one work. At the same time, the color of the work is simple, even stingy. In fact, two colors-red and blue, as well as a mix of these two colors-create all the work. Intricate, unreal curves of lines in the image of the Central figure and nature fill the composition with energy and drama.

For the first time, " Cry "(then called " Despair») it was presented to the public at the Berlin exhibition in December 1893. He completed a small series of paintings called "Love" ("Die Liebe") - the predecessor of the larger, but developing the same theme "Frieze of life". In addition to "Scream", it included such paintings as "The Voice", "The Kiss" and "Jealousy", "documenting " the birth, flowering and death of love and the despair that follows. The exhibition was met with a lack of understanding and received mostly negative reviews from critics, but received admiring comments from artists such as Stanislaw Przybyszewski.
Arthur Lubow has described The Scream as "an icon of modern art, a Mona Lisa for our time." It has been widely interpreted as representing the universal anxiety of modern humanity. 

In my opinion at the time when this picture was created the technique that the author used and the colors that he used for the picture were definitely unusual and the composition and plot of the picture itself riveted the eyes and could even frighten which was also unusual. This picture is also attractive because everyone sees in it the meaning that is closer to them. 

     Scholarly opinion is divided on the work's attribution, with some believing it to be the work of a pupil of Leonardo such as Giovanni Antonio Boltraffio or Marco d'Oggiono; the Hermitage Museum, however, considers the painting to be an autograph work by Leonardo. The painting takes its name from the House of Litta, a Milanese noble family in whose collection it was for much of the nineteenth century.      

       Personally I think it’s one of the best Leonardo da Vinci’s works, besides the awesome portrait of Madonna Litta and Child we can see splendid landscapes of Italy, Milan. I haven’t got words to describe this work, just watch and adore. Fortunately, I live nearby Saint-Petersburg I have the opportunity to hit Hermitage almost every month and admire it.

Aivazovsky's fate was the sea. The artist wrote his first sea studies while still at the Academy, and some of them were awarded prizes. But the biography of the Russian artist might have been quite different if in 1838 Ivan Konstantinovich Aivazovsky had not gone to the Crimea for two years. At this time, Aivazovsky meets the future sea heroes of Russia-Nakhimov, Lazarev, Kornilov. Acquaintance leaves an imprint on creativity: now it's not just sea sketches, but battle paintings.

In 1840, Aivazovsky went abroad, where he worked so productively, so vividly revealed his talent that he was awarded the gold medal of the French art Academy and became a knight of the Legion of Honor.

To create this large-scale canvas, the artist, who by that time was already eighty-one years old, spent only 10 days. Looking at the huge picture of stormy sea waters, it's hard to believe. The canvas was one of the most beloved by the master and was personally bequeathed to him as a gift to his native city — Feodosia.

An interesting story is connected with the creation of the canvas. Initially, in the center of the picture, among the raging waves, was a tiny boat with sailors who were able to escape from the sinking ship. But one of Ivan Konstantinovich's relatives, an experienced naval officer, said that such a tiny, fragile boat would not have withstood the onslaught of such powerful waves and would inevitably have sunk. The artist was not happy with this remark, but he always sought to maximize the realism and truthfulness of his works. As a result, the next day the boat disappeared from the canvas — the artist decided to depict only the raging stormy sea as a symbol of the invincible power of the elements.

As for me, I love the work of Aivazovsky and especially this picture. He was really a genius at depicting water. Looking at this picture, you might think that you are in the sea and this wave is about to cover you.

A wide range of soft and iridescent light colors, as well as rich, deep tones were used to create the canvas. The background of the picture is drowned in a thick blue gloom, and in the foreground-the water shimmers and boils with lush caps of mother-of-pearl air foam. Because of the incredibly masterfully selected shades of colors, the water seems transparent and very lively, mobile. This is one of the most accurate and realistic artistic images of the sea during a storm.

The Spanish Republic, which at that time was fighting a desperate Civil war against the country's future dictator Francisco Franco, asked Picasso and other prominent artists to paint a picture for the Spanish pavilion at the international exhibition in Paris. This is how the large-scale painting "Guernica" was born and later became legendary.

The painting was inspired by the bombing of the Basque town of the same name. On April 26, 1937, the Condor Legion raided Guernica. Several thousand bombs were dropped on the city in three hours; as a result, the six-thousandth city was destroyed, about two thousand residents were under the rubble. After the raid, Guernica was burning for another three days. These events were watched by the whole world, including Pablo Picasso. Spanish poet and prominent public figure Rafael Alberti later recalled: "Picasso had never been to Guernica, but the news of the destruction of the city struck him like a blow from a bull's horn."

The bombing of Guernica was the impetus for the creation of the famous canvas. The picture was painted in just a month. "Guernica" was drawn with oils and coloured  with black and white paints. The canvas has a size of 7.8×3.5 m.

 The painting shows scenes of death, violence, suffering and helplessness. The choice of a black-and-white palette, on the one hand, conveys a chronological proximity to the newspaper photo of that time, on the other — reflects the lifeless nature of the war. "Guernica" depicts people, animals and buildings in an environment of complete chaos.

It is interesting that initially Guernica by Pablo Picasso did not make a deep impression on his contemporaries. Many visitors who came to the exhibition were simply not ready for the perception of such a picture. Much criticism was caused by the plot of the picture — many viewers and critics of right-wing views began to accuse Picasso of leftist propaganda, which greatly exaggerates the scale of the tragedy in Guernica. However, over time, public perception of the picture has changed significantly. And to date, the majority of both critics and ordinary viewers considered the movie (???)  a masterpiece on a global scale. 

Personally, the picture gives me a sense of doom. However, I find Picasso's style of painting very appealing. Despite the idea and appearance of the canvas, I can't take my eyes off this painting. As for me, it is so mysterious and unusual that I undoubtedly call Guernica a masterpiece!