This month’s statements by the director of the National Art Museum of Catalonia (MNAC), Pepe Serra, disgusted the government of Aragon, which described his remarks as “intolerable depreciation”, when he declared that “what cannot be is to decide that a Rosalía concert could affect the painting, but saw it in 74 parts if you can do it easily” (in reference to the presentation of his Lux disc at the MNAC), and that “this means I need to go to a doctor.” Jorge Español, Villanueva de Sijena’s lawyer in the dispute over the Roman murals exhibited in Barcelona and who tried to prevent Rosalía’s act, warned that there would be a trial against Serra.
Over the past semester, Serra has avoided spending time on communications media. This silence was broken last year, in an act of presentation of the expansion of the museum and during several interviews, he returned to the impossibility of moving the paintings from the 12th century, despite the sentence that obliges him to do so, calling into question the arguments put forward by the Government of Aragon and the City Council of Sijena. The general director of Aragonés Culture, Pedro Olloqui, called a press conference this month to respond to the head of MNAC, who had reported a “disturbing spirit”.
Olloqui also informed that the Huesca court that ruled on the execution of the award was handed over to the parties -even without closure- to clarify the differences between the schedules presented until the time of the restitution of the paintings, although Villanueva de Sijena has still not delivered his proposal. The Aragonese government considers that seven months of work is sufficient, although the MNAC provides a minimum schedule of 18 months and has warned that it will enter the competition in the event of technical inability to undertake the work.
The gesture of the judge who orders the execution of the sentence implies a “call for attention” to the Catalan institutions so that the technical work is respected, but he counted on reaching an agreement because it is only “weeks of difference” in terms of dismantling and transfer of the mural assembly, which should not be “an obstacle” for him. respect for the judicial decision.
Olloqui assured that, after the Supreme Court’s ruling, three elements are “judged”: the Aragonese ownership of the mural ensemble, the need for the paintings to “return home” and the very feasibility of their restitution. Regarding this last question, Olloqui insisted that “the result of the sentence” remains a subject of debate in the legal proceedings, in which “a significant number of experts” intervened to represent all parties and “all admitted that the murals could be transferred and reintegrated into the scene without any problem.” The Catalan technicians were involved in the fencing that shook things up, but they controlled the damage that could be caused in the event of a transfer.
“How is it possible that in these moments the Catalan institutions and the director of the MNAC reopen this debate by questioning the viability of what is at the center of the procedural opposition?” Olloqui asked, affirming that this question is “exclusively political” because technically and legally it is “a judged question” that is only waiting to be fulfilled and executed, and it is “what the director of the MNAC should focus on”. In addition, he pointed out that Serra himself participated in the judicial review.
“Procedural filibusterism”
The head of Aragonés de Cultura referred to a statement by the director of MNAC in an interview with EL PAÍS in which he assured that he will launch a competition so that there are companies that carry out the transfer: “How do you arrive at this moment? The moment has already arrived following a judicial sentence of the Supreme Court; there is only one that complies with it”. We must therefore “resolutely” undertake work to route the tables “without further delay in procedural obstruction”.
The Aragonese head of Culture rejected the idea that Aragonese technicians cut the paintings “with sawdust” to tear them into 72 parts: “This ridiculousness makes no sense,” he stressed, because the murals “were left in much more than 72 fragments,” which are instead the same things that were used at the MNAC for its installation behind the scenes. Furthermore, in the unions between these 72 fragments “there is no remains of original painting” and there are areas that are restitutions made throughout the 20th century, so “the dismantling does not affect in any way” the original whole.
Olloqui also defended that the photographs provided by his technical team, which reflected “strong contamination” in the environment of the paintings, with the presence of bumps included, are in format rawwho is “unmanipulatable” and has received “no treatment from any class.” Finally, he rejected the MNAC’s arguments regarding the task and the safety of the works: “If they were safe in the Twin Towers, how could they secure the Sijena murals?” he asked, also wondering if this was a presupposed problem.
Spain, for its part, announced its intention to file a complaint for insults and attacks on honor against Serra. In statements to EFE, the academic explained that at no point in the process did he refer to the possibility of “cutting” or “pressing” the tables together, and he understood that the director of the MNAC was “defrauding” or “discrediting” his person by suggesting that he turn to a doctor, “in clear allusion to a psychiatrist”, he added. He announced that he would file a criminal complaint against Serra for insulting his honor, which would demand, he stressed, “strong compensation”.
About The Author
