Italian institutions bet on safe artists at the expense of experimentation

In your experience, which contemporary Italian artists (living) have achieved the greatest visibility abroad and thanks to which factors (e.g., galleries, biennials, exhibitions, curators, etc.)?
Most evidently, Maurizio Cattelan and Francesco Vezzoli. Both because of their ability to move abroad from the start. The former, belonging to a generation preceding the latter, benefited greatly from the system of the early 2000s, which still had a strong Italian matrix, with curators like Bonami and Celant still directing important foreign institutions. The latter for his ability to intercept and involve figures outside the narrow circle of art in his projects. Both also lived abroad for a long time, forging direct relationships with the international system (especially the US). Their international impact is also due to their ability to interact with transversal realities, producing layered works that appeal to a broad audience. Moreover, both Cattelan and Vezzoli have strong media skills, able to explain their work clearly and simply, and are well versed in mass communication tools and techniques. Overall, the combination of these factors has ensured their visibility on the international stage.

Less visibly, at least in media or more transversal terms, one of the Italian artists with significant international recognition is Yuri Ancarani, considering both group and solo exhibitions abroad, along with the prestige of venues and numerous film festivals he has participated in. In his case, the ability to move in different contexts—contemporary art and cinema—played a key role, often filling the need of various systems to work with projects that are not entirely definable. This also allows him to reach diverse audiences. Of course, exhibitions and festivals depend on the choices of prestigious curators. However, in the market, moving images still have greater difficulties in sales by galleries and collectability for end users, marking a substantial difference from artists like Cattelan or Vezzoli. Similar in notoriety and visibility abroad is Nico Vascellari. His case is interesting because such recognition exists despite him not having a commercial gallery representation for several years. His completely independent modus operandi, great media knowledge and management skills, layered works, and ability to engage in various expressive contexts and use different languages (visual arts, moving images, performance, music, fashion) stand out. Finally, I would consider the work of Piero Golia, recognized mainly abroad rather than in Italy, probably because he is represented by an international gallery (Gagosian) and has lived in the United States for years. In all mentioned cases, participation in the Venice Biennale at the Central Pavilion, plus other biennials, and at least one solo exhibition in prestigious foreign institutions with media impact beyond art channels are present. Rising securely for his ability to renew painting, commercial effectiveness, and residence in London is Patrizio Di Massimo.

Thinking of previous generations, I would consider Gianni Pettena, Francesco Clemente, Michelangelo Pistoletto. In all cases, the driving factor, besides their propensity to frequent and live—Clemente still does—abroad, is having taken part in defined and crucial artistic currents for the evolution of the art world and market.

In your opinion, which contemporary Italian artists have not yet reached adequate visibility despite their artistic value and what are the causes of this lack of recognition?
There are several, as varied as their professional and personal paths. Among these, I would mention Anna Franceschini, Alterazioni Video, and Andrea Sala. Anna Franceschini is, I believe, close or should be close to participating in the Venice Biennale at the Central Pavilion due to her increasing ability to measure herself with different contemporary languages (video, installations, photography, theoretical research, performance) and expressive effectiveness, as well as the clear commercial potential of various works. In her case, a late interest—now arrived—from galleries able to intercept foreign markets is likely, given she developed until a few years ago mostly internal art-world themes, less usable in other contexts. Alterazioni Video, despite a Venice Art Biennale with Robert Storr, an Architecture Biennale, solo and group shows in prestigious institutions worldwide, other biennials, and good media responses, likely suffer from not being represented by a gallery, often developing projects little translatable commercially, having a multidisciplinary character and a somewhat unsettling proposal content-wise, being a collective distributed across countries and therefore hard to manage or pinpoint, and not cultivating—or even ridiculing—relationships within the system. Andrea Sala, among the most theoretically prepared and aware Italian artists, despite several years in Canada (perhaps still in an undefined phase of his work), surely deserves greater visibility. Now well supported by a gallery, he still has large margins, especially abroad. Possibly, he pays for distance from political or more broadly usable themes in favor of a very personal, refined research and production, rich in references to architecture and design—topics probably well marketable abroad if well argued.

In your experience, what are the steps and elements that favor the international career of a contemporary Italian artist? Where is the Italian system lacking to support Italian contemporary art on the international art scene?
Without a doubt, a fundamental step is foreign residencies, whether through specific calls or simply choosing to live abroad for certain periods. These are essential for making one’s work known, learning other systems, and generating relationships which, if maintained over time, can be extremely important for recognition and marketability abroad. Another element obviously is participation in biennials or international exhibitions, the transversal nature of the work, and the possibility of being represented by foreign galleries. Support from the Italian Council is undoubtedly very useful, albeit limited in scope and time, perhaps more significant politically than practically, but certainly helpful if well used.

The shortcomings of the Italian system, if we want to talk about a real system, are many: most institutions, probably still dazzled by the idea of making money through ticket sales, propose crowd-pleasing exhibitions and “safe” artists, limiting experimentation and hardly promoting the research and authors who are more “contemporary,” often giving up on an educational role towards the public. Most festivals, strong in thematic statements but often slaves to premieres to secure funding, are completely lacking curatorial-wise. Many galleries invest very little in projects that are not immediately commercially viable, missing great opportunities to give visibility to their artists’ work beyond a gallery and purely functional scale. Collecting—also due to the lack of effective laws providing tax relief to art investors—is often speculative and lazy, incapable or uninterested in genuinely supporting and promoting Italian artists’ works even domestically, except for a few cases. For most, it is a temporary fad that rarely finds continuity as practice. Trade magazines are too often self-referential, and the few distributed abroad promote Italian artists to a minimal extent compared to foreign peers. Criticism—as a practice of analysis but also as negative argumentation on presented works—is almost vanished or poorly accepted by the system itself, which could help it evolve. Curatorial practice is now for most Italian operators a managerial practice functional to micro-systems rather than research, translation, or amplification of artists’ work. Academies or training structures for artists or curators are increasingly based on Anglo-Saxon teaching criteria, ultra-vertical and professionalizing compared to a system that outside theory is not solid and therefore unprepared to welcome new demands or absorb new workforce. Moreover, excessive verticalization and specificity risk not providing the tools necessary to read and interpret the complexity of an increasingly articulated reality, often training unaware authors and operators incapable of offering new perspectives beyond the status quo. Finally, the Italian system still relies on very fragile economies, where work is poorly recognized economically, often unpaid and “done as a favor,” thus in the long run inaccessible to those who cannot afford it from the start.