Originally appeared in the magazine ' 22 '
I watched fascinated upon Lord Safaei on 11 august at Antena 3, when in the studio were invited the representatives of the Romanian Cultural Institute in New York, in the wake of the scandal unleashed by the exhibition of Freedom for Lazy People. Confess with envy as, if I had the least little skilled rhetoric, as getting into his game rich in words and in ideas. Declame continued to display, like in a artistic exhibitions, a Pink Pony stamped with the swastika is unscrupulous and dubious legal. Outside the game, thanks to see, though, that serves the truth even when it's unspoken. I say, therefore, that there are two arguments that have scattered the infamous spectacle and that have managed to waste, given that none of them has not been formulated. The arguments have strength and if they are not clearly understood, because somehow, subsist in consciousness. They managed to make it not just because the defenders Cristian Neagoe intuitions, RCI and you discernamantului civilization. But because those two justifications are supposed, by default, in the laws relating to displaying fascist character symbols. They delimit the meaning and scope of action of the swastika and prohibirii in Romania, and in New York State.
Chapter 49/2006 New York State laws specifies only that a person guilty of harassment is made if sculpts, paint, draw or place a swastika, usually exhibited as the emblem of Nazi Germany, on a building or real estate property, public or private, in the possession of any person, firm or corporation or any agents or Office, without the express permission of the owner or Manager of the property in question.
And according to Government Ordinance No. 31/2002 issued by the Romanian Government, manufacturing, selling or spreading of fascist symbols does not constitute infringement if it is committed in the interest of art or science, research education times.
No wonder that all the relevant authorities, the Chairman of the Holocaust Museum in Washington, the Coordinator of the Office for Holocaust issues, referrer space for Romania and President of Anti Anti-Defamation League have been false alarm. Simply, the exhibition of zvastici's Pink Pony with croup not governed by law. Why?
The main two were investigated, particularly in the media, as a result of the workweek for kneading. One shows semnificatiilor the swastika symbol plurality. If alternative cultural interpretations of insemnului are harmless, then exponatul it's harmless. The second defense insist on artistic virtues. If they exist, then it's in the interest of Arts exposure and education and, under the law, it's harmless.
What happens, though, if the swastika on the pony is the Nazi swastika without just and maybe? And if, in addition, exponatul is a hellish kitsch? Fortunately nothing happens, because the springs of the two laws are tough enough to defend the exhibition and artistic failure in a world in which Irina Loghin si Fuego, P.a. become pillars of the universal culture. These issues or arguments imunizeaza riding stampilati with exposure pink swastika in collections of any kind, any doubts of legality and morality.
They related to the theory of meaning. An object consisting of several parts gets new semantics unit. Of course, we speak of Nazi swastika. But it occurs only in combination with a Pink Pony and the meaning and operability of a whole different, whatever it's principle of interpretation to take some. We can adopt a principle of "compozabilitatii": the new unit is a function of the semantics of the elements of the composition. Or we can take the whole as a sui generis semantics or determined otherwise. In any case, the new semantics: we harmless e-dealing with a pink plastic pony who looks surprised his own rump infierata with the swastika. Why do they lose offensive character of the swastika in the process? Because the symbol is no longer directed to the receiver, but is given a different function.
What happens, though, if an artist exposes the swastika symbol as such without having to combine it with something else? Fortunately, under the laws cited, nothing. Theory of meaning and gives us another tool with which all operate routinely, even without realizing it: the distinction between speech and meta. One is to send a message to other offensive to talk about sending an offensive message. In the first case, offensive speech going towards the receiver. In the second, placing me in a metanivel and close the message offensive "quotation". If someone I put in my arms a swastika will be offended, because the message of the symbol I is addressed directly. As if clinging to me. If, however, the swastika is exposed within a collection, the message is not that of the symbol, but it's a message about the message symbol. Speech of the swastika is framed in the context of the exhibition, which works as a meta-addressed to visitors: "Behold, look at and judge this symbol". Offensive nature is again undermined because, instead of being directed, it's liable to offend closed and a new speech. What turn the receiver's not offend, but speech about it. Here sits the resort law in regards to harassment in New York.
And Ordinance 31/2002 assumed the title meta-discourse. Precisely for this reason, the law can dezincrimina and a kitsch without artistic valences and a simple swastika exposed in a natural setting without the artistic character. As long as the exposure does not constitute action directed towards anyone, but only "subject to research".
I would be glad to give more examples of Roman law that encourages a civilization of discernamantului and liberty. Unfortunately, such examples are few. But the issue of last Monday, populated by Parviz and Valentin Stan, illustrates that bad laws don't do so much bad Romania as people choose to ignore the few good laws.
