Chagall Painting

I wondered about the whole property thing. After all he did pay for it. Can't help thinking that anyone who will spend £100,000 on a painting with no provenance has just got way too much money though.

Bearing in mind what people will pay for a painting by Hans van Meegeren, burning it seems a bit short-sighted.

I wonder who did paint it then?

It should get a "signature" in one corner saying "An unauthorised version of Chagall" then no-one who looks closely at it would be fooled.

It's his property not the Chagall's Society's so why do they have a say in what happens to it once they've declared it a fake?

I too dislike the painting but if he wants to keep it couldn't the Chagall name be removed and the back of the painting marked to say it had been examined by the Chagall Society and found to be a fake/copy.

Am assumimg that he may have been told [before he sent it to them] that The Chagall Society may want to have it destroyed if they considered it a fake? Maybe not though.The tests done before that with the paint seemed to prove it a fake anyway, but as you all say, it's his property; But if you buy a car which is stolen [fake] you have to give that up with no compensation, and the Chagall Society are saying [in effect] that the name of the artist has been stolen in this case.The painting is dreadful, how can he want it [not only of no value but of no artistic value either!]Hard to feel sorry for him , he has pots of money and took a chance on buying it just as a speculative enterprise.

I saw the programme on Sunday as well. I do think the owner is due some sort of compensation from the Chagall Society. The painting may be a fake but it was still his property and does anyone have the right to destroy someone else's property?

I think they should just mark it as an unregistered fake and leave it on their wall. Whether they will be allowed to do that remains t be seen. It seems most unfair to me - £100K - phew!

The policy of destroying paintings if they're discovered to be fakes will discourage any owner wishing to prove authenticity, surely? So there will be more fakes floating around out there, not less. Self-defeating.

I seem to recall when asked what he would do with it if found to be a fake, the owner said take it down the tip. His wife and son got upset at that. He obviously did not expect it to be a fake.
That could buy him three houses in Hull.

When one method of learning art is to copy the works of great masters, it seems ridiculous that a good copy which is giving someone pleasure should be destroyed. It could surely be permanently marked, maybe with something which shows up clearly under ultraviolet light, so that it is never again sold as an original.

Seems very like a closed shop policy.

I saw this on TV on Sunday. I agree with all you say and feel he should be allowed to keep it. Presumably they want to destroy it so it can't be sold as genuine again in the future.
You'd think there would be some way of marking it as a fake.