Goldin: it is not snobbery to say his exhibitions are not culture

On May 13, an article signed Alessandro Zangrando and titled Why we like Goldin’s art appeared in Corriere del Veneto. I am glad that the journalist had a good experience participating in the exhibitions in Vicenza and Bologna, organized by the indefatigable Marco Goldin. I am also glad because Zangrando says that Goldin’s exhibitions do not develop on paths imposed “by a Supreme Being”: and since Zangrando contrasts Goldin’s exhibitions with those that are a tad more “elaborate” (to use a politically correct term), I am very glad to have seen a lot of exhibitions in which the presence of divinity was manifest.

Joking aside, there are several points in Zangrando’s article that should be glossed over (and in fact I will gloss over all of them): the Aldo Cazzullo barroom arguments that Zangrando attempts to bring in support of his theories, his, to say the least, reductive concept of popularization, his remarks on the relationship between the state and private individuals (and what does this have to do with a discussion of criticism of Goldin?). Overlooking all this, Zangrando says that critics accuse Goldin of being unscientific. Well, excuse me for being unscientific, dear Zangrando. We could argue about how serious a subject like art history is, which is one of the most exposed to a constant risk of trivialization. But let us focus on Goldin. His exhibitions always seem to lack a project, whether scientific, didactic, popularizing or whatever: an exhibition whose only purpose is to show a sequence of masterpieces without a precise reason (because to say, for example, that the exhibition intends to tell “the greatest story that painting remembers, the one dedicated to the portrait and the figure,” means absolutely nothing) cannot be configured as acultural operation. It would be like passing off as cultural a cinepanettone. That is to say, it is a way to spend one’s free time, to spend a carefree Saturday afternoon (especially since by now, for many, art and escapism have become, unfortunately, complementary concepts, almost synonymous), and nothing more. A kind of chic pastime. Reason why the “cultural consumption” Zangrando speaks of cannot exist. Culture cannot and should not be consumed. If we want to talk about consumption tout-court, then we can try. But culture is an entirely opposite concept to the concept of consumption: trivializing and leaving out all the history of philosophy that has dealt with culture, we can think of culture as a set of knowledge, which is assimilated by a person and will never leave him or her again. And how can such a noble and lofty concept turn into ephemeral and fleeting consumption? Culture is meant to stay; consumption is something that vanishes. And Goldin’s exhibitions can be framed, precisely, as a product of consumption: because at the end of the journey, the visitor is left with little or nothing.

It is really antipathetic to brand those who try to provide the public with the tools to understand what is a cultural operation and what is not. Mind you, I have nothing against Goldin’s exhibitions, and if he is successful with this model of his, I am happy for him. But let us at least stop passing these exhibitions off as cultural operations: what is being criticized is not the exhibition itself (that would be pointless), what is being criticized is the attempt to give a “noble” patina to these initiatives, the attempt to give them the pretension of configuring themselves as culture. And in this there is no snobbery: there is only a desire to make it clear what is culture and what is not. It is not wanting to distinguish between “archaeologists and illiterates”: it is just a matter of putting the public in a position to be able to choose and distinguish, because the distinction between culture and consumption, if we are talking about art, is more difficult than in other fields. Do you want because the continuous reduction of the importance of art history in schools is also reducing the ability to understand the language of art. You want because many works, especially those of ancient art, are not always easy to understand: but not because the public is stupid or illiterate, simply because certain patterns and iconographies speak a language that has evolved over time, and for this reason repertoires that were once easily understood by everyone are no longer so because they are no longer practiced or widespread. You want because art is always perceived as “culture,” regardless of the context in which it is offered to the public (and this perception is also fueled by unfortunate expressions such as “cultural consumption”). And precisely because of this, precisely because art is not an easy subject, one should help the audience instead of confusing it.

And one of the most effective (and also most obnoxious) ways to confuse the audience is to oppose emotions to knowledge. This Manichean view, put forward by Goldin (famous is his terrible phrase: “I believe in emotions, not in knowledge for the knowledgeable few”) makes one lose sight of several important concepts. The concept that art always arises in a historical context that justifies it. The concept that art becomes a carrier of messages and values. The concept that artists always impart deep meaning to their works. Sacrificing knowledge in the name of supposed emotions makes one lose sight of the true importance of art, clears the way for operations of dubious taste and utility (such as the famous Mona Lisa bone hunt), nullifies the seriousness of the subject and makes it prey to easy sensationalism. To oppose emotions and knowledge is thus tantamount to betraying art, to emptying it of meaning: it is by no means true that knowledge does not in any case excite. And the seriousness of passing off as “culture” operations that have nothing to do with culture is also reflected in the protection of heritage. That is, people prefer to spend so much money on ephemeral and useless events rather than on preserving real art. An example? A wasteful (as much as useless and specious) exhibition comparing Michelangelo and Jackson Pollock (i.e., two artists who have the same affinities as Gene Simmons and Gigliola Cinquetti may have in music) is currently underway in Florence, all while the Boldrone Tabernacle, the one that once held Pontormo ’s frescoes now detached (and, moreover, displayed in the exhibition at Palazzo Strozzi) and replaced by copies, is reduced to a garbage pit where anyone passing by throws their garbage (can you believe it? Take a look here). But no one says that. Better to sing the praises of Goldin (and all the other organizers of questionable exhibitions) and complain about those who criticize him-it’s much easier.

Warning: the translation into English of the original Italian article was created using automatic tools. We undertake to review all articles, but we do not guarantee the total absence of inaccuracies in the translation due to the program. You can find the original by clicking on the ITA button. If you find any mistake,please contact us.