Swastika Tattoo, Nitikin Leaves Bayreuth

jack wrote:

(ANSA) - ROME, 21 JULY - The Russian baritone Evgeny Nikitin - expected at the Bayreuth Festival as the protagonist of the new production of 'The Flying Dutchman' - has canceled his participation after the revelation by German TV station ZDF that he has a Nazi tattoo on his body. Yesterday, the cultural program 'Aspekte' showed the tattoo: on the singer's chest, a swastika to which another motif had been added. ''I got it tattooed as a boy. And it was a big mistake'', said Nikitin.

Ok, but can't it be removed with a laser today? ... if someone really wanted to...

I am reporting

http://www.amazon.it/Hitler-non-ha-inventato-svastica/dp/8860631041/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&qid=1342908213&sr=8-12

if things unfolded this way (and that is not certain, considering that theater press offices only communicate a part of what truly happens) then they have done a great stupidity at Bayreuth. Tattoos are covered with makeup and the fact that this tattoo was a swastika rather than a sailor's anchor changes absolutely nothing. It is outright discrimination that has nothing to do with knowing or not knowing how to sing

IlChitarrista55 wrote:

If the tattoo was motivated by his deep Jain or Navaja faith, then why:

1. cover it up (okay, you never know, one can lose faith);

2. declare that it was the greatest mistake of his life?

Small iconographic note, then.

http://tinyurl.com/d8yladv

As can be seen from the image, the swastika on his chest is the one that "turns" clockwise and, above all, is rotated by 45°, and corresponds unequivocally to the version adopted by the Nazis (and only by them as far as I know).

So what does "Hitler did not invent the swastika" have to do with it? It's the meaning that has been attributed to a particular type of symbol... coincidentally only by him and his followers.

If the tattoo was motivated by his deep Jain or Navaja faith, then why:

1. cover it up (okay, you never know, one can lose faith);

2. declare that it was the greatest mistake of his life?

Small iconographic note, then.

http://tinyurl.com/d8yladv

As can be seen from the image, the swastika on his chest is the one that "turns" clockwise and, above all, is rotated by 45°, and corresponds unequivocally to the version adopted by the Nazis (and only by them as far as I know).

So what does "Hitler did not invent the swastika" have to do with it? It's the meaning that has been attributed to a particular type of symbol... coincidentally only by him and his followers.

but we don't have to become friends with this guy. All the comments I've read in the newspapers so far continue to say that they did well to fire him. To me, it continues to seem like a huge stupidity... a professional should be judged only in relation to the work they do

When I was young, I wanted to join the Carabinieri; to enter the force, you weren't allowed to have tattoos (regardless of the design), and yet:

thallo wrote:

... a professional should be judged only in relation to the work they do

I wasn't being judged in relation to my abilities, but probably according to an "ethical" code ... that perhaps a public figure should follow". A bit like if you get a blasphemous tattoo on your forehead... you won't be going on TV.

I say that if he were repentant, he would have it removed with a laser. Since he probably isn't, every choice has a cost... I think even he imagines it... no?!

If I get a swastika tattooed on my back and go to the pool in a swimsuit, do you expect me not to imagine how someone will look at me?!

If we then want to discuss German guilt... that is another chapter. I remember that, for example, in our legislative codes (in Italy, mind you!, not in Germany), there is an explicit prohibition against referring to Nazi material ... so...

Ettore wrote:

When I was young, I wanted to join the Carabinieri; to enter the force, you weren't allowed to have tattoos (regardless of the design), and yet:

There is a substantial difference between being part of a military corps and singing an opera in a theater after having sung hundreds of others (since we aren't talking about someone on their first experience...).

I wasn't being judged in relation to my abilities, but probably according to an "ethical" code ... that perhaps a public figure should follow". A bit like if you get a blasphemous phrase tattooed on your forehead... you won't be going on TV.

See, these are the things I don't understand. There are precise and specific facts, but we tend to turn everything into coffee-shop talk. And it is incorrect.

Here we are talking about a singer who has a tattoo on his chest. A person who has committed NO CRIME OF ANY KIND. It is very likely (even if it seems to me that no one has spoken about it) that the tattoo came to light during directing rehearsals, because if he had always worn the costume, then no one would have ever noticed and no one would have cared (I've never seen Domingo shirtless; for me, he could have an entire bloody orgy of demons and children tattooed on him...). Likewise, if they fired him (and if they fired him for this reason), then it is likely that there was a contractual clause relating NOT to the ethical code (I repeat, this person has committed no crime, has made no statements of any kind, and there is no such thing as an ethical code in the profession of opera singing...) but regarding physical fitness. As if he had become fat, in short. Clauses of this type are fiercely contested in the theater because they are generally used as "excuses" when you don't like an artist or when you want to involve other people without going through the correct mechanisms. That is, I am hired, the director sees me, they don't like me or they have another artist they want to place, and after the first rehearsals, I am "protested". The unfairness in this attitude is at the source, meaning at the time of my hiring, which should have gone through an audition involving all decision-making levels (so, if desired, even the director); generally this doesn't happen, because in opera theater directors DO NOT choose the cast, it is the artistic directors who do so, but if the director is a prima donna (whatever that means), then they can always demonstrate their power once rehearsals have begun. By protesting whoever they want. There, these hierarchy games ruin lyric theater...

If this had happened in Italy, and the theater had declared in a press release that Nikitin has a tattoo with a swastika on his chest, Nikitin could have sued the theater for slander. Slander is not linked to the truth of the matter (Nikitin HAS a tattoo on his chest) but to the damage that such a statement can cause to the individual person mentioned (if Nikitin doesn't want people to know, that's his own damn problem). Even if the matter is directly forbidden by the contract, and therefore he is wrong regarding the issue itself (i.e., he was justly dismissed), the news can be considered defamatory because it can potentially damage Nikitin's entire image.

And indeed, repentant or not, you and many others consider Nikitin a Nazi. He has suffered damage even without having committed any crime.

I say that if he were repentant, he would have it removed with a laser. Since he probably isn't, every choice has a cost... I think even he imagines it... no?!

If I get a swastika tattooed on my back and go to the pool in a swimsuit, do you want me not to imagine how someone will look at me?!

Everything you said is discriminatory. Choices of this type have personal costs; they should not have professional ones. If you get a tattoo and go to the pool and people look at you badly, then that's your own damn problem, but if you get a tattoo, go to the pool and the attendant doesn't let you in, then the policeman on duty (who should have been you if they had hired you) must PROTECT everyone's right to access the pool. Since getting a tattoo with a swastika is NOT A CRIME.

Likewise, the discussion about being repentant or not only has journalistic value. I don't give a damn whether Nikitin is repentant or not, if he wants Hitler back, if he knows who Hitler was, if he has ever read books in his life, or if he cries while watching Schindler's List. Nikitin has the sacred right to be an idiot! Making mistakes in life and NOT REPELLING THEM is our right, as long as these mistakes do not turn into crimes. Also and especially because the concept of "error" is fluid, and what you think is an error might be an insignificant datum to others.

If we then want to discuss German guilt... this is a"}

another chapter I remember that, for example, in our legislative codes (in Italy, mind you!, not in Germany) there is an explicit prohibition against making reference to Nazi material ... therefore...

I don't think you have read the legislative codes... the so-called Scelba Law considers acts and statements aimed at a reformation of the Fascist party in Italy to be a crime. This crime is generally called "apologia of fascism," but that's not quite right. It is not an ideological crime but a material one; we are not talking about apologia—declaring oneself a fascist in Italy is not a crime, it is a crime to set in motion mechanisms specifically aimed at the reformation of the Fascist party, or of parties with similar methods and purposes (therefore also National Socialism).

Well, I don't know: it's a complicated issue. I tried to transfer this problem to ourselves and think about whether it would have come up that a singer had a Celtic cross tattooed on his chest. I wouldn't have fired him (but Nikitin wasn't fired: he left to avoid controversy, so he also knew he was contestable), but certainly once the thing comes out, the danger that someone might take offense at him during performances (shouting "fascist" at him, for example) would exist and wouldn't even be blameworthy...

At Bayreuth, they also have a bit of a raw nerve, given the cliché that Wagner was anti-Semitic and all those stories; in short, I believe it would have been a problem anyway. In cases like this, it is hard to invoke freedom of expression, in my opinion.

Heated discussion, I was doing the following meditation and I would like to share it.

Do we all agree that the symbol was invented millennia ago and with a completely different meaning?

Then don't you think that keeping the "swastika" today indissolubly linked to Nazism is a process of symbolic-ideological “stagnation”? More properly, it gives permanent and absolute power to the Nazi swastika … which is exactly what Hitler wanted.

Isn't this thing curious?