A blockchain businessman drew the ire of the art world and government by throwing a party in July where he burned the Fantasmones Siniestros painting. According to her, this is not a copy – the drawing was made by Frida Kahlo herself, a Mexican artist who depicts local culture and is especially known for her self-portraits. The $10 million painting is currently in unconfirmed authenticity as it has been in unknown hands for a long time.

what is known

In a promotional video documenting the event, hundreds of spectators applaud the accompaniment of a Mariachi band. Then Martin Mobarak, the presenter and alleged owner of Kahlo’s painting sets fire to a priceless work of art placed in a cocktail. Frida.NFT took this step to sell 10,000 NFTs from her collection. In a statement, Mobarak described the NFT collection as “like a phoenix rising from the ashes” and said “business will be transformed to live on forever in the digital world.” To his great regret, though only four coins sold.

Share doubted the veracity of his claims, not believing that he actually had the original.. An investigation into the origin of the Kahlo painting revealed that the painting was sold to an unidentified private collector in 2013.

• Dealer Mary-Ann Martin said in an interview with Vice in September that she didn’t know who Mobarak was until recently and refused to sell the painting.
• Meanwhile, Mobarak told Vice that he bought Kahlo again in 2015 from an unnamed private collector.

Mexican officials are worried about the action because Frida Kahlo is one of the most important figures in the country’s culture. Officials launched an investigation A criminal complaint has been filed for “a possible offense under the Federal Law for Archaeological, Artistic and Historical Monuments and Territories,” the Mexican National Institute of Fine Arts and Letters said in a statement.

At the same time, Mobarak finds himself in a state of loss in all variants of the development of events: “If it’s burned, it’s breaking a law. If it’s not, it’s a reproduction, it may be breaking copyright law. If it’s copying the original with the intent to deceive, it could be fraudulent.”– says Leila Aminedole, a lawyer on arts and cultural heritage.