Trial. 1971
Print on paper (2015)

‘This was one of many trials I had because of my artistic activities and because of my publications. The accusations have been: disturbance of public order, degradation of state symbols, publication of pornographic films or texts etc. The result was always that the judge had to withdraw or extremely reduce the accusations because of my highly sophisticated arguments. As a trained philosopher of ordinary language and of logic, I could confuse the judges with linguistic maneuvers. For example, when he asked about pornography I would say, ‘yes, I understand, it exists like Pegasus exists — only as an invention of language and fantasy but not as a fact — and the law can only punish based on facts’. The law is a kind a map for facts and the judge tries to identify facts with the rules and sentences written in the books of law. I did the opposite: I deconstructed the sentences and showed the gap between the law and reality. So it became more and more a philosophical question. For example, when the law says, ‘you must accept the invitation to the court ‘eigenhändig’ (i.e. with your own hands) I say, ‘can my hands be with gloves? Is it enough to take it with one hand or both hands simultaneously?’ That is why I wrote the phrase ‘Judicial system is judicial error’. I became very critical of judiciary and the law. I realized very often how the law could be bent by the state.’

Tap and Touch