Italian artworks for rent

Among the novelties proposed in the “Simplification” Bill approved yesterday by the current Council of Ministers, we find a content that has already provoked the first discussions at least on social networks and that (and this is little but certain) will still cause much discussion: the possibility forItaly to take state-owned cultural goods out of its national borders and grant them to foreign countries in exchange for a fee, for a period of ten years renewable for one time only (thus for a maximum of twenty years). We read all this in the press release that the Council of Ministers put out on the official website of the Italian government(www.governo.it, while the communiqué can be found by clicking on this link). In particular we read this, “The temporary release from Italy of cultural goods that are not on display but are required by cultural agreements with foreign museum institutions allows for the receipt of consideration for the economic exploitation of such goods for a period that cannot exceed ten years.”

It seems superfluous to say how many and what are the points on which we here at Finestre Sull’Arte disagree. But since it seemed to us that, upon the release of the news, there were voices in favor of this measure, I will immediately explain why we disagree. Meanwhile, let us say right away that the fact that these are cultural goods that are not on display is not a mitigating factor: just because a work of art is not visible to the public, this does not mean that it is a sufficient condition for disposing of it by effectively renting it abroad. Even an unexhibited work of art has much to tell, to teach, to show, and it is a task of the state, enshrined in the Constitution, to protect its artistic heritage: what form of protection is renting it abroad?

Then, the press release adopts a word that I just cannot see put next to the term cultural heritage: the word “exploitation.” It is really sad to think that a state sees works of art as mere material for economic benefit, rather than as a source of beauty, emotion, education, civilization, and upliftment. Not to mention that the word “exploitation” has now taken on negative connotations more often than positive, so even in economics it is used sparingly: there is child exploitation, there is exploitation of prostitution, there is exploitation of workers. The government now also sanctions the exploitation of cultural property.

Then there is another disturbing aspect. Let’s even take for granted (I know, I don’t think so and we don’t think so, but let’s make the effort... !) the assumption that a work of art is seen just as an object to be exploited for economic benefit. In the event that a foreign museum institution were to rent an Italian work of art, in times when art becomes increasingly synonymous with marketing, it is difficult to think that the renting of the work is dictated by reasons of charity towardsItaly. Perhaps that given work is indispensable for a research exhibition, but let us leave that eventuality aside for a moment to focus on the"commercial" aspect, not least because, I repeat, several have hailed as positive the measure of the ddl seeing it as a source of economic gain for the state. A foreign museum institution would therefore want, at the very least, a return on investment. This means that we Italians not only do not care about the valorization of our property (renting it out in exchange for money to anyone is not valorization), but even consider ourselves more incapable than others in reaping economic benefits from works of art.

Not to mention the duration of the concession: twenty years is a period of time in which a citizen is born, grows up, is formed by going all the way through school, is educated, and begins to work. An Italian citizen to whom we will tell that many works of art that are also his are abroad, because for the Italian state they are only objects to be economically exploited.

It is not possible to allow such a measure to go through the entirelegislative process: it would be a double defeat for the state, both from an economic and from a formative-educational point of view. We therefore appeal to Minister Massimo Bray, who can see to it that the measure is cancelled in the coming venues. The discussion, in the coming days, is likely to be heated: however, it is sad to note that no newspaper has devoted an entire article to this measure. The only one was Il Ghirlandaio, with an article titled Letta government: green light to rent Italian artworks abroad, maximum for 20 years(link here): kudos to the editorial staff, but the numbers give an idea of how the media in Italy view art. All proud and strutting when we boast about the “50, 60, 70 percent of the world’s heritage that belongs to Italy”(a colossal nonsense, one of the many myths of Italian journalism), all silent when we have to talk about serious issues.

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.