Abstract

The article analyses the Code showing the very large number of definitions of cultural interest included therein; this a sign of a feeble time-spatial consciousness of what is a work of art - sometimes viewed as a simple commodity. In addition, while during the last fifty years art studies have evolved recognizing a new, complex and rich geography of cultural goods (and their context - social, natural, historic), the spirit of the Code is that of simplifying that richness mutilating - by saleability - the very nature of cultural goods. Furthermore, the regulator assumes a character and a competence that may not be always present in the real world. In the end, the effort is there: but it puts together safeguard and liberism, aggravating the task if control without increasing its effectiveness.