Italia, pizza, mafia. No one likes stereotypes but they often contain a hint of true. And Italian cultural system is not immune from the commonplaces generally associated with this country. Another common stereotype states however that recognising the problem is the first step to solve it. That is apparently what it is happening at the moment within the Italian contemporary art world.

In October 2009 a plea was put to the President of the Republic Giorgio Napolitano (as well as to University and Research Minister Mariastella Gelmini and Cultural Heritage and Activities Minister Sandro Bondi). The open letter was signed by hundreds of professionals (art historians, critics, curators, artists, journalists, researchers, art foundations, not for profit spaces...) claiming for the need of a renewed public debate on the subject of cultural policies and aiming at reaffirming the role of culture as an instrument of democracy.
In particular, the method of appointing museums and Fine Arts Academies directors, or the Venice Biennial and other relevant exhibitions directors and curators, is radically put into question. The subscribers criticise in fact the actual practice of appointing as obsolete, often subject to cooptation and based on personal interests. Access to certain positions is limited and the analysis of career paths, curriculum vitae, professional and scientific background is always taken into account in the second place. The fact that the highest positions are assigned directly by politicians, is recognised as a significant Italian anomaly that differentiate and somehow isolate the country from the rest of Europe, where these decisions are taken by experts' committees. If art is meant to be an instrument of analysis and reflection upon changes and transformations in our society, transparency is essential throughout its whole system.
The first concrete proposal which is suggested at the bottom of the open letter is the creation of small, autonomous bodies in charge of evaluating applications on the basis of proved skills and specific scientific projects. The most relevant issue though is the official recognition of a state of deep cultural crisis; a crisis that is not disconnected from the political and economical one, but is easier to be neglected in such difficult times.

FALSO ORESTE

This awareness, and the proposal for a consequent action, originated in June 2009, during a meeting in Bologna under the name of ‘Falso Oreste'. Oreste was born as a group of people, an artist residency programme, and as a public art experience in 1997, ending up to present a special project at the XLVIII Venice Biennial (1999). Besides the presence of some of the same people, the 2009 meeting wanted to recall Oreste's experience as a model of shared and discursive artistic practice. The adjective ‘Falso' was meant to highlight, by contrast, the urgency to investigate the truth in a more and more alarming social, political, educational and cultural context.
Napolitano's answer arrived in November. The President proved to be sensitive to the concerns arisen and inclined to support the cause of transparency and professionalism in cultural policies. A short, sympathetic but predictably opaque feedback. After all, the very format of the plea in itself is questionable on its efficacy and power to generate an immediate action on the part of the receiver. Nevertheless, the best result of the open letter was something perhaps more important than the words of the President of the Republic. After his answer, in fact, several meetings took place in different Italian cities (by now Turin, Bologna, Venice, Rome and Genoa, and more are to come), engendering an extended mobilization. Discussion groups were formed in different parts of the country, with the intention to carry out a national meeting by the end of 2010. On a local basis, naturally, the debate gave rise to the analysis of themes and problems more specifically related to each particular context.

ENCOUNTERS

"How many people wrote ‘artist' as profession on his own ID?" The Turin encounter, held in early December 2009, come to an end with this provocative question. Taking the political interference in cultural activities as a starting point, the speakers immediately focused on the need for creating and nurturing independent spaces. A reflection on contemporary art as an (unfortunately) niche phenomenon, and on aims and outcomes related to the association of contemporary art and marketing or urban regeneration processes was undertaken as well. But it is the category of ‘young artists' that finally became the symbol of provincialism and consensus-based policies. Artists claiming themselves young whatever the cost, just to take advantage of opportunities, programmes, funding, residencies. And institutions funding young artists just because it sounds popular and politically correct.
The Bologna meeting focused instead on the relationship between cultural projects and public administration. The interventions highlighted a vicious discrepancy. On one side, public administrations generally present cultural events matching the idea of entertainment and marketing rather than suggesting a real potential in terms of triggering new mechanisms of action or thinking. On the other side there is the inadequacy of curators and professionals to make their proposals understandable and useful for the public point of view. This is both a problem of communication and a matter of mismatch in terms of aims and objectives. And this is also the chronic isolation of contemporary art, always more comfortable in elitist or private contexts, rather than trapped within the complex and sometimes inaccessible bureaucracy of the public domain. With the unpleasant consequence of a missed dialogue with the supposedly first interlocutor of cultural projects, the citizen, the audience.

In Venice the meeting took place at Fondazione Bevilacqua La Masa and the key words were meritocracy, responsibility, community. The accessibility of funding and the inadequacy of the tax system were hot topics as well. In particular, it is not the first time that a demand is put forward for the reduction of VAT on artwork transactions from 20% (as for luxury goods) to 4% (as for the publishing industry). The present situation, in fact, easily led to black market, absence of contracts, or the common practice of selling art abroad. The whole labour system, after all, seems deeply awry and in need of a new regulation. The tip of the iceberg being the common precariousness and the huge amount of offer and demand for unpaid (or inadequately paid) work; just in exchange for an exclusively social recognition.
Besides the shortage of funding and spaces devoted to contemporary art, the lack of information channels and effective communication about local activities is one of the main issues discussed in Genoa. The creation of an ‘observatory' is the first suggested intervention to fill the gap: a paper or web based tool monitoring all cultural initiatives that take place in the town, and acting as a sort of filter between artists, associations and public institutions. Moreover, the forthcoming election of the new director of Villa Croce - Museum of Contemporary Art of Genoa makes the appointing method question of particular urgency.

APPOINTMENTS

The designation waltz, however, had his apex at the end of January, with the double appointment of popular art critic Vittorio Sgarbi as both curator of the Italian Pavilion at the next Venice Biennial (2011) and supervisor of acquisitions for MAXXI (Museum of the Twentieth Century, in Rome). The first designation immediately appeared sensationally anomalous in its unprecedented advance. It is in fact quite unusual that a national pavilion curator is chosen before the director, as well as the guidelines and dates, of the oldest international Biennial are established. Even more questionable is the apparently masochistic resolution of putting one of the most contemporary oriented Italian museums into the hands of an art historian extraordinarily competent in ancient art, but admittedly hostile to newer and more experimental artistic practices. It is hard to interpret the episode without considering the usual logic of power and coalitions.
More or less in the same period, another embarrassing ‘pasticciaccio' befell Turin and his Castello di Rivoli. Without a director since December 2008, just before Christmas 2009 the museum announced the appointing of Andrea Bellini and Jens Hoffmann. The following day, the young director of the Wattis Institute immediately issued his resignation, claiming the news had been spread without him signing or even seeing the contract. The preference of the Rivoli board of trustees then went to Beatrice Merz, daughter of the famous protagonist of Arte Povera, Mario Merz, and director of the homonym foundation devoted to her father's oeuvre. The sudden denial of Hoffmann, together with the choice of the couple Bellini-Merz predictably raised lots of polemics and disdain. If Bellini demonstrated undisputed qualities directing Artissima (the Turin Contemporary Art Fair), his friendship with the regional culture councillor nurtured suspects linked to the meagre curatorial curriculum of both the appointed directors. Beatrice Merz, in particular, only curated a few exhibitions in the paternal foundation and lacks significant international experience. Thus, another open letter was sent, gathering hundreds of people denouncing not only an inconsistency, but a whole system forgetful of the very ideas of transparency and competitiveness.
The current labyrinth of protests and reassurances, claims and complaints offer us only one certainty. State funding of arts and culture has been gradually declining for many years. Besides the general climate of mistrust and frustration, the brain drain abroad is one of the inevitable consequences. In the meantime, the debate on the debate has already started. We are facing a significant global mobilization, able to create a new awareness on a national level about the relationship between culture and institutions, and to stand out of the claims of individual groups. The question is however if the plea is effectively an incisive tool to oppose political interference. Someone says that contemporary art is, in opposition to ancient art, still considered as a no-man's-land, the ideal place to accord favours and nepotisms and where everything and everyone works. The tendency to find shelter in private, autonomous resolutions, aware of the irrelevance of culture in political agendas often sounds like a resignation. In the end, the open letter seems to work better as a way to raise a question rather than as a way to solve the problem. The Parliament itself could, perhaps, be a more appropriate interlocutor as regards in particular to a re-articulation of the appointing method. Moreover, we often tend to forget that the direct funding is not the only way for nurturing artistic projects. Investing in infrastructures and technology, as well as re-organising the whole tax system with adequate exemptions, are indeed feasible and useful interventions. Possibly without being restrained by the renewed pessimism of the reason, and mindful of the nature of every artistic experience, unavoidably, in itself, political.

Gabriella ARRIGONI
is an Italian critic and writer