Reading the statements of the city’s Performances and Major Events Councilor Massimo Finocchiaro in the “Gazzetta del Sud,” we are left wondering whether Messina is still in Italy. Because otherwise we cannot explain how it is possible for it to evade the laws of the Italian state. The facts: it happens today that the church of Santa Maria Alemanna, the highest expression of Gothic art in the Mediterranean area, one of the few monumental emergencies partly spared from the fury of the 1908 earthquake, and as such a precious identifying monument of the city’s community, is transformed into the location of a Halloween event with ambiguous and smoky contents, to read the poster of the organizers, the “Kissene Frega” society.
Yeah, who gives a damn about our cultural heritage? Raising the issue is Mexican architect and historian Nino Principato on Facebook. According to Councillor Finocchiaro, everything is fine. He also told the Gazette that “it’s enough to respect the church regulations” and any “citizen can make reservations.” All quiet, the offices have requested clarification and “it is an evening in which the best disguise will be awarded.” Although scrolling on social media through the precedents of “Kissene Frega,” which specializes in DJ sets et similia, including Playboy-style bunnies and sexy gunslingers, it seems quite a leap to have a “prize-giving of boys in masks,” as indeed is put in black and white by a determination of the municipality that owns the monument.
Meanwhile, controversy mounts in the local press. All that is left is to run for cover. On the society’s Facebook page until a few days ago, in fact, there was no trace of this “masquerade,” but stuff like a “limited confessional table” or “extremely limited backstage table.” The evening was presented thus: “THE SANCTUARY,” sic, in capitals, evidently wanting to highlight the contrast between the “paganism” of the event and the sacredness of what was once a place of worship. To continue, “get lost in the Gothic arches, in the sound, in the rhythm, in the pulse of the night. What happens stays inside.” Yeah, what happens inside? The organizers laugh about it, they “trolled” the whole city: they write “the strategy was a conscious provocation, designed to get people talking and to show that culture in Messina really exists and is made up of organized and concrete realities.” “Saying and not saying” is their precise strategy to publicize their events. One can see that Chiara Ferragni’s Pandore Gate did not do too much jurisprudence in these latitudes. If consumers bought their tickets because they thought they were going to spend a night at a disco and then found themselves at an awards show for guys in masks (or vice versa), it is Codacons material.
All set then? Not at all. We are talking about a monument owned, yes, by the municipality, but bound under Article 10 by the Superintendence, with a decree recognizing this legal condition. The law of this state speaks clearly. Unless one thinks that a municipal regulation is superordinate to a state law. The one authorized by the municipality is a concession for the use of cultural property. The reference norm is Article 106 of the Cultural Heritage Code, recognized by the Constitutional Court of great economic-social reform binding even the Regions with special autonomy. The norm provides for the possibility of granting individual applicants, for consideration (against fees) the use of cultural property, but only for purposes compatible with its cultural purpose. Specifically, in the case of an asset such as this owned by a public body, the “concession for use is subject to the authorization of the Ministry (by virtue of autonomy read Assessorato dei Beni Culturali e dell’Identità Siciliana, ndc.), issued on the condition that the grant guarantees the conservation and public enjoyment of the property and the compatibility of the intended use with the historical-artistic character of the property itself is ensured.” What does that mean? It means that the municipality should have mandatorily sought permission from the Superintendence. With what timeline? Rule always in hand, for property owned by public entities, it is necessary to apply to the owning entity (municipality) in time for it to request permission from the Superintendence, which has 30 days to conclude the proceedings under its jurisdiction
Too bad that Superintendent Orazio Micali tells us that “this request for authorization is not in the records of this Office.” Made aware by us this very morning he sent a pec to the municipality in which he asks “if it has this authorization,” informing that “if not, it must refrain from granting the property.”
Donatella Aprile, former superintendent of Catania, who retired a few years ago, also agrees on how the body in charge of protection should behave. She premises, “If it is a public body that does not require authorization, it is even worse than the private holder of a restricted property, because in the latter case it could be justified to some extent by not being aware of the existence of a constraint decree. But a municipality is not. It cannot be unaware and not involve the Superintendence on the authorization plan.” So how should it act immediately having learned of the matter through press organs? “By immediately writing to the municipality that it is warned of the use of the property in the absence of authorization.”
As we have written in Finestre Sull’Arte many times, Messina is in good company. Leading the way in Sicily was the 2013 buffet at the temple of Segesta and in 2016 the Spritz at the same temple; then the acropolis of Selinunte turned into a mega disco. But the Bel Paese from north to south is not immune. Not infrequently with real damage, not “only” of image. As at the pietra serena pavement of the Cortile dell’Ammannati in Florence’s Palazzo Pitti for a gala dinner a few years ago or at a wedding where an unwary decorator stepped on one of the monumental lions of the Reggia di Caserta.
Beyond the albeit serious lack of authorization, it is certain that “the prize-giving of the disguise” that will be staged in Santa Maria Alemanna is what is furthest from the concept of cultural enhancement, as envisaged by the Code and art. 9 of the Constitution, that is, understood as “public enjoyment for cultural purposes,” but also a far-sighted 1977 regional law (no. 80) that expressly speaks of “social use of cultural and environmental assets in the territory of the Sicilian Region,” and something more akin to what Gino Famiglietti, former head of the Legislative Office, bluntly called “a boorish valorization in terms of mere economic utilitarianism.”
Warning: the translation into English of the original Italian article was created using automatic tools. We undertake to review all articles, but we do not guarantee the total absence of inaccuracies in the translation due to the program. You can find the original by clicking on the ITA button. If you find any mistake,please contact us.
