Institutions Too Tied to Politics

Which contemporary Italian artists born after 1960 have achieved greater visibility abroad and thanks to which factors?
The artists born after that date who have gained the most visibility are very few; I would say Cattelan, Vezzoli, Beecroft, Rosa Barba. The factors vary, also because their work is different; one common trait, however, is that they all have professional life experiences not exclusively Italian. Another quality is their ability to get noticed, not because they are Italian, but because they are great artists, using different languages and strategies. Finally, I believe their work goes beyond the innate Italian knack for craftsmanship, placing at the center the strength of ideas and their conceptual qualities. Fortunately, outside Italy, other very talented artists are also emerging, such as Guglielmo Castelli, Yuri Ancarani, Giorgio Andreotta Calò, Riccardo Benassi, Diego Marcon, Chiara Camoni, Marinella Senatore, Giulia Cenci, and a new generation is emerging with names like Perucchini, Diaw, Moccia, Giardina Papa, and others.

Which artists, on the contrary, have not yet achieved adequate visibility and for what reasons?
There are many names for me here, but I do not feel like making a list. I think it is very complex and also imperfect to continue reasoning about Italian artists as an identity concept. One must be an artist first; where one is born or grows up can influence who we are, but it does not create the conditions to be a good artist.

Which emerging Italian artists (born since 1990) currently have the potential for adequate visibility abroad and thanks to which factors?
I mentioned some names above.

Where, in your opinion, is the Italian system lacking in supporting Italian contemporary art on the international artistic scene?
The Italian system is clearly lacking in supporting the Italian artistic scene in the international context, both because the parameters for so-called support have changed — which cannot be uniquely public, with its rules, strengths, and weaknesses — and because of the programmatic and relational deficit of our institutions. First and foremost, it is important to highlight the problem of public museums, both municipal and national, which for decades have been controlled by politics and its affiliates, with consequences that we can all observe: their structural weakness in planning and the impossibility for the skilled professionals working there to carry out their work in the best way. Programming everywhere, in Europe and beyond, is done at least two to three years in advance; here, the same time frame often corresponds to the electoral cycle, to which appointments are frequently tied. Valuable directorships thus risk becoming fleeting experiences, with repercussions also on museum staff, preventing the consolidation of shared, established, and profound internal practices and experiences. This huge problem of selection and timing is directly connected to the governance of the museums themselves and to foundations participated by public and private stakeholders but with a public function, such as banking foundations. I would also add incomplete reforms, like the Franceschini reform, which, among various distortions, limits the duration of appointments to two terms maximum and permits people without art historical training to direct very important museums. This is a misleading approach compared to best practices to refer to, think of professionals like Max Hollein, Thelma Goldberg, Gabriele Finaldi, Adam Weinberg, Nicholas Serota, Manuel Borja-Villel… or looking at the past, Philippe Montebello, Michel Laclotte, Antonio Paolucci, Palma Bucarelli, and other very important figures: all names who, beyond the duration of their appointment, which was not limited in time, had or have very solid historical, critical, and artistic training. It is also necessary to detach cultural institutions from the logic produced by cultural heritage management: without research aimed at the production of ideas and programs, managers certainly do not have the necessary skills to sustain the system. I would leave each their own tasks.

What interventions are necessary to encourage better support?
I would choose three very important ones: trying to solve the governance issue starting with a necessary reorganization of statutes and addressing a crucial issue such as heritage, particularly collections. To have more autonomous and dynamic museums with strong attractive powers, it is fundamental to change the principle of managing them while keeping their heritage fully public. Detaching them from ministers, regional governors, mayors, and councilors, maximizing the participation of those who have passion and strategically want to be part of a cultural process such as strengthening our museums and the work of artists. Cultural institutions must be attractive to private entities, and if there is no principle of distance from politics and related interests, they will never be. 

Also, no one mentions the fact that our heritage was substantially created by private individuals; the state in Italy, from this point of view, has always been light, having such a young unified history. I do not understand why it must be so heavy today. Clearly, serious politics, without dogmas and ideologies, should work for possible tax relief measures to create those necessary aids, in any form, to promote better governance and production. For example, we have the art bonus? Fine, since we “inherited” it from the French, why haven’t we also inherited the possibility for individuals to benefit from it? And why is it not possible to allocate it to private nonprofit cultural institutions operating in the third sector with public purposes?

Finally, the notification law, written masterfully in 1939 and later revised in various phases, clearly needs a full overhaul today. Personally, I am in favor of the enhancement and preservation of public heritage, so monitoring works is necessary; however, it is clear that the parameters must be revised. Few want or can organize exhibitions of Italian artists outside Italy, the threat of notification is always looming, and this, for example, is becoming a very serious problem. Artists are the protagonists of this world and have always had an open dialogue with their collectors, with those who follow and are ready to promote them. It is up to those managing the rules to facilitate these processes, so perhaps we can all benefit; otherwise, let us not complain about our absence from the international debate or about the fact that Italian museum collections, except for a few exceptions, are so weak, at times really insignificant compared to what private collectors have done and do. Let us not forget that we are a country with a first-rate culture of collecting — this, indeed, at an international level.