Landscape with the fall of Icarus

This is a common thing: museums, as you understand, are not too eager to accept reattributions that lower the "value" of the work. And they are in no hurry to make corrections to the plates. Just remember the recent disputes turning into fights over Bosch`s paintings (the authorship of a number of works, including such famous works as "The Stone of Folly" from the Prado and Ghent`s "The Carrying of Krset", have been questioned). In Kiev Museum of Russian Art up to this day on the portrait of the Infanta Margarita hangs a plate with the name of Velazquez (even in the summer hung exactly), although it is - at best - his son-in-law Del Maso, and they know it (I asked the guide). As for The Fall of Icarus, the last serious study

A study is an exercise painting that helps the painter better understand the object he or she paints. It is simple and clear, like sample letters in a school student’s copybook. Rough and ready, not detailed, with every stroke being to the point, a study is a proven method of touching the world and making a catalogue of it. However, in art history, the status of the study is vague and open to interpretation. Despite its auxiliary role, a study is sometimes viewed as something far more significant than the finished piece. Then, within an impressive frame, it is placed on a museum wall.
So, when does a study remain a mere drill, and when can we call it an artwork in its own right, full of life and having artistic value? Read more

in 2011 was done by Dominique Allard and Christine Currie. Under the layer of paintings they found a drawing that only a copyist could have needed (in addition, this drawing is very weak and cannot, according to these researchers, belong not only to Bruegel the Elder, but also to Pierre Bruegel the Younger). Research details: ceroart.revues.org/2953