Refusal of a living artist from his work
 

In connection with recent events at Sotheby's, namely, the scandal of Glazunov (http://artinvestment.ru/news/auctnew..._glazunov.html), I began to wonder: What is often still living artists which are already popular, so do? how it is dangerous for his own wallet? and what to do if you got in this situation? It seems to be working with perfect provenance, as the artist himself from it refuses. For example, I heard that Nemukhin so sometimes comes. As you noticed the main question: what to do in this situation and whether it is worth to buy such "controversial" things?

Why not buy if the history of "iron"? In addition, there is ground for the purchase with a great discount. For sale is bad, but if the purchase is not speculative, then why not? A Nemukhin of good works refuses?

dual sense: on the one hand the history of the "iron", on the other hand the author himself from it refuses. There are cases when contradicted by the work with 300%provenasom. But, buy the work, and then sell it much more difficult than the "series", because the reputation of the.

Nemukhin refused bad work, created either in the process of seeking, or simply failed. But when he renounced his work, and argued that the work of other artists belong to his wrist, not one, not two.

In the 70 years I had one friend, he lived in Moscow and a little fartseval. But matter not in this. By the arrival of Chagall, who was signed in the Tretyakov Gallery hranivshieya there work doemigratsionnogo period, this friend has found people who have been drawing Chagall, absolutely certain, but alas, not signed. They entrusted him with this picture for sale, and my practical friend decided that if Chagall sign it, then the price figure surely increase many times.
Two or three days, he slept at the entrance of the Metropole Hotel and, finally, saw Chagall, leaving the hotel with his wife. He rushed up to him, my dear Mark Z., etc., explained to him the whole story and, at the request of Chagall, showed him the picture.

Chagall takes a picture in hand, considers it, then said: "Ugh, how disgusting!" and breaks it in half.
History is silent on how much time my friend were forced to trade currency to pay his bereaved owners Edit this Chagall:)

Already then it became known that Chagall has systematically refused to authorship, when he brought his old work, because it was irritated that they are more expensive than the work of the past periods.

Similarly behaved Chirico - ie can not guarantee that he tore up the work, I do not, but denied the authenticity of his older works very often.

LCR, thanks! :) About Chagall's very funny. :) Is it really broken? It was understood that people have paid money for this picture. It is not right with his hand, all the same thing to someone else's identity. Although ridiculous. :)

So after all fund Chagall, now goes just as well.
If you give them work on the attribution, then option two:
Or recognize the true, or destroyed.

Well, to destroy just do not have the right - is an assault on private property. Is that such item is included in the terms of the contract, signed when you give them something for examination.

Nik

That is, in terms of the contract is a point where they (the committee Chagall) reserve the right to destroy "podddelku.

Glazunov himself raspiaril, bravo ... understandable pity that so low commended the work .... but let's see how many will go ..

I think if it goes to start, although it seems to me that it will remain unsold.