Greater Public Support for the Production and Promotion of Artistic Work

In your experience, which contemporary Italian artists (still living) have achieved the greatest visibility abroad, and thanks to which factors (e.g. galleries, biennials, exhibitions, curators, etc.)?
I believe that among living Italian artists — excluding the protagonists of Arte Povera such as Michelangelo Pistoletto and Giuseppe Penone, the last major Italian movement of international significance — those who have reached the greatest international visibility are Maurizio Cattelan (1960), Vanessa Beecroft (1969), Paola Pivi (1971), and Francesco Vezzoli (1971), followed by Luca Vitone (1964), Monica Bonvicini (1965), and, more recently, Marinella Senatore (1977) and Gian Maria Tosatti (1980).
The international success of an artist depends on multiple factors. It is not solely about the quality of the artistic research or participation in biennials, exhibitions, and international fairs. Economies that support the artists' work and, significantly, their ability to cultivate interpersonal relationships also play a role. Working consistently in key hubs of contemporary art production and promotion increases the chances of entering the global art system; the artists mentioned are clear evidence of this, and the same applies to curators. Of course, the support of prominent commercial galleries, presence at major fairs, institutional exhibitions, and critical attention also play a crucial role in an artist’s international recognition.

In your opinion, which contemporary Italian artists have not yet received adequate visibility in relation to their artistic value, and what are the causes of this lack of recognition?
If by "adequate visibility" we mean, on the one hand, major solo shows, anthological or retrospective exhibitions at influential museums, and on the other, participation in international projects and the receipt of significant awards, then I believe several Italian artists have not yet received the recognition they truly deserve. I am thinking, for example, of Lara Favaretto (1973), Nico Vascellari (1976), Rossella Biscotti (1978), Andrea Mastrovito (1978), Flavio Favelli (1967), Marzia Migliora (1972), as well as figures from earlier generations such as Alberto Garutti (1948) and Cesare Pietroiusti (1955). These are artists well known in Italy, with important exhibitions, international residencies, and collaborations, but they have yet to be fully recognized in the global context. This lack of recognition can be partly attributed to a chronic difficulty within the Italian art system in effectively promoting its resources abroad. The international promotion of an artist requires structured and ongoing work that must begin locally and be coordinated across production, promotion, and mediation efforts. In this regard, the MiC’s Italian Council grant, launched only in 2017, represents — despite its limitations — an important first step in the right direction, offering tangible support for the internationalization of Italian artists. The most meaningful effects of this initiative will likely become visible over the medium to long term.

Another systemic fragility adds to this: in Italy, we often struggle to promote even the most promising voices in criticism and research. This task cannot rest solely with the Ministry of Culture, but should also involve museums, ministries, and institutions responsible for education and economic development. Given the very high number of graduates in art history-related fields, specialized professionals, and PhDs, it is surprising how few academic studies are dedicated to contemporary Italian art. This is because contemporary art is rarely treated as a primary subject in university degree programs in the humanities and is instead addressed, in a transversal way, by fields such as sociology, economics, communication, or new technologies. The result is that artistic research is the first to suffer: in the absence of a strong critical and theoretical framework, it becomes harder to build an organic cultural discourse around practices and artists.

On this topic, I recall a remark by Roberto Pinto from several years ago, when I was attending the Curatorial Master’s program at the Brera Academy, funded by the Lombardy Region through the European Social Fund. Pinto commented on a striking detail: in the monographic issue of October, the prestigious MIT journal, titled Postwar Italian Art (no. 124, Spring 2008), out of nine essays — besides the introduction — not a single contribution was written by an Italian researcher.
A significant absence, which tells us a lot about how little our critical thinking manages to impact international cultural and curatorial dynamics.
In recent years, some progress has been made: to strengthen Italian research-based art, we will need to assess, for example, the impact of the new PhD programs recently activated at Fine Arts Academies, as well as that of university doctorates which may begin treating the contemporary art scene as a legitimate subject of study.

In your experience, what are the steps and elements that favor the international career of a contemporary Italian artist? Where does the Italian system fall short in supporting Italian contemporary art on the global scene?
A fundamental element for developing an international career, in addition to the quality of the artistic research — which must be current, rigorous, and innovative — is the network of contacts and support the artist manages to build and expand over time. Added to this are personal factors such as determination, ambition, the ability to navigate diverse contexts, as well as the socio-economic background, which greatly affects the possibility of dedicating oneself to artistic practice continuously and exclusively.

I believe that excellent training and the ability to formalize a vision or process alone are not enough. In our system, which still suffers from serious structural shortcomings, if an artist struggles to establish themselves in their own country, it becomes even more difficult to do so abroad. Participating in residency programs, for instance, often excludes the possibility of having a stable and supportive job — such as teaching — thus creating practical problems of career sustainability.

The Italian contemporary art system still lacks the ability to build strong networks between public and private sectors and to offer its artists and critics ongoing, organic support. In recent years, it must be said, the Ministry of Culture has paid greater attention to contemporary art, and the country can count on a vital network of foundations, independent spaces, associations, and other private entities. However, there is still a lack of a true ecosystem capable of ensuring continuity and structural support for "art workers", particularly those in economically vulnerable positions — who often also represent the most experimental and innovative voices.

Internationally, we do see Italian artists participating in group exhibitions, residencies, and noteworthy projects. But too often, these remain isolated episodes, insufficient to build a solid and recognizable position on the global stage.
We therefore need greater investment in the production and promotion of artists’ and curators’ work — on both the public level (through MiC, Italian Cultural Institutes abroad, museums, and institutions) and the private level, through a renewed spirit of patronage from collectors and foundations, framed as co-design rather than mere sponsorship.

Alongside economic and promotional aspects, it is essential to revitalize the role of art criticism, which today struggles to make a meaningful impact even within national discourse, let alone internationally! We need well-trained critics with solid art-historical backgrounds, capable of competently narrating the specificities of contemporary Italian art, accompanying artists on their paths, and situating their work within major global discourses. Unfortunately, political turnover — both national and local — often negatively impacts the continuity of cultural projects, which instead require long-term stability to grow and consolidate. This is especially evident in public museums, which are responsible for selecting and promoting art and should be independent from public administrations to avoid politicization. Deprived of the necessary basic management funds, today’s museums risk becoming mere extensions of commercial galleries, thereby forfeiting their public mission. Moreover, the lack of continuity in cultural policies makes it difficult to attract external investments, which would greatly benefit museum programming and the broader art system.

To this we must add that today several public calls for museum director positions do not require highly specialized profiles for such a significant and publicly accountable role (a master’s degree in art history is often sufficient), a concern recently raised also by ICOM Italia.
In a context where "announcement politics" and social display often prevail over the often invisible work of building local and thematic networks and studying cultural heritage, I believe it is crucial to turn to Claire Bishop's concept of “radical museology”: an approach that places the museum’s social and critical function at the center and repositions it, as Pier Luigi Sacco also highlights, as a territorial connector.

Reclaiming a position of prestige on the global stage won’t be easy, but it is a goal we must continue to pursue, with a clear strategy, shared responsibility, and a collective, connective long-term vision.