Against the barbarians of tourism. How to defend heritage in 10 rules

There is a problem related to tourism, including the purely cultural kind, that is, insisting on cultural places. And it makes little difference whether these places are monumental sites, museums, nature parks: as cultural heritage they are part of that heritage whose protection and enjoyment is explicitly enshrined in our Constitution, in the “top ten” of its articles, in number nine.

It may be the “tag” on the wall of Herculaneum, the football-related damage to Bernini’s “Barcaccia” in the Spanish Steps, the fire caused in Portofino Park in Liguria. When one of these things happens, the tam-tam in newspapers, televisions, social networks is immediate, the bipartisan condemnation, the evocation of draconian punishments unfailing. Yet, with a simple medical metaphor, it would be enough to stop and think for a moment to understand that all these events are nothing more than symptoms, originating from a disease that we do not know, or rather, do not want to fight, but that we are content to keep there, dormant, to the sound of tachipirin. To get by. I don’t even have to specify how it ends, the metaphor: by the hundredth tachipirin, the disease - under the skin - has grown out of all proportion, and nothing can stop it: the symptoms, at that point, will no longer be relieved and hospitalization will be needed, if we are still in time to save ourselves.

Coming out of the metaphor, the damage that so scandalizes us is evidently a symptom of a disease such as managerial incapacity related to tourist flows, the unawareness and unpreparedness of our territories and administrations (from ministries down to municipalities) in building a usability that is sustainable without going so far as to consume the goods themselves. Draconian punishments, tickets to the Pantheon, Venice, or episodic levies (tickets that rise or fall in price like seasonal fruit, doubled train costs on high-interest routes, and so on) are, instead, tachipirin. “Did you see that performance in soccer tonight? Just think, yesterday I was in bed with a fever of 102!” could be the metaphorical rendering of, alas, far more concrete communiqués issued by our cultural sites, such as “Tickets to the Pantheon as a remedy to overtourism: in three months a million for restorations,” in which it seems - precisely - that the rampant tourist phenomena are “managed” thanks to a ticket or the damage done can be “remedied” with the proceeds of the same.

There is nothing more illusory. The damage that - I repeat - makes everyone jump on the chair, indignifies and angers everyone, and scandalizes across the board (even politicians, insensitive to almost any kind of tragedy) will not stop. On the contrary. The prediction, not mine but those who take care to forecast flows globally, says that within 10 years the tourist circulation on Italian soil will be three times greater than today. And if - of course - the satisfaction derived from the potential economic development cannot but push us to think in terms of business, we must at the same time see that if - already today - the situation is totally unmanageable, in 10 years we may have to resort to CLOSING the artistic heritage to PRESERVE it.

This is an extreme prediction, and those who know the work this writer has been doing in Genoa for about fifteen years know that closures and restrictions are the last thing one would want to invoke, especially from those who invoke artistic and cultural heritage as a tool of citizenship. But then, what can be done? The answer, I’m afraid, is that we need to realize the problem (that disease we pretend not to see), stop using useless measures to pretend to manage it (the notorious antipyretics), and devise-but most importantly IMPLEMENT-long-term management strategies (the really effective therapy).

The decalogue, which I try to explain in points, could be this:

1. The right to access cultural heritage cannot be regulated solely by price, because the idea has now been engendered that those who pay can claim “rights” to what they buy. The accessibility of assets, for which it is certainly not a crime to demand financial contributions, must be subordinated not to the “you pay ergo you see” concept, but to the educational concept of co-participation in a shared cultural space that - in order to sustain itself given also the varied nature of its properties - needs an economic contribution. In addition, it would be very appropriate for - especially State Museums and Civic Museums - to study suitable gratuity bands or buffers to ensure that Museums and cultural institutions in general are free not only of architectural barriers but also - especially these days - of economic barriers.

2. Heritage cannot be conveyed to citizens only through “promotion” activities. Promotion, which has its own role, if used as the sole vehicle of communication transforms culture into a “product” subject to the rules of the market (supply and demand) that bring about its profound transformation: from an inalienable and foundational right for the constitution of the citizen, to a consumer good. Instead, it is important to return to the idea of heritage education: to teach that this heritage is the property of all, but that along with the rights to enjoy and enjoy it, we are also faced with duties, from study to protection to simple respect.

3. Culture is not entertainment. It is not a pastime to fill summer or winter evenings, or a mere driver for tourist routes, designed solely with the function of attracting someone. Culture (of any kind) must disregard “entertainment” and “consensus,” trying with all the tools at its disposal to find the channels of communication of content with the widest possible audiences, but without failing in its nature of fairness, clarity and completeness. In short: what is needed is active training in Scientific Disclosure.

4. The number of visitors is only ONE of many possible indicators to keep in mind, when evaluating the cultural proposal of a museum or institute. A few minutes before the Herculaneum graffito was announced, the Pompeii Archaeological Park trumpeted over the airwaves yet another “record” number of visitors in one day: monstrous, inhuman stuff that hovered around 30,000 admissions. In one day, at a single archaeological site. But records, by their very nature, are meant to be broken: if you pursue this rhetoric you will always have to have more people, with the inevitable (I swear, I don’t want to be a Cassandra, but it really is INEVITABLE) consequence of ever-accelerating consumption and damage to heritage. Do admission numbers matter? Yes. Are hyper-crowded days with tens of thousands of people and unregulated admissions (see Free Sundays at the Museum)? NO.

5. Similarly, one cannot evaluate the goodness of a cultural proposal solely in relation to how much money it grosses. It is not a matter of selling something, and even when you want to do that, you need to make the rules very clear and make explicit what you can sell and what you cannot. Otherwise, we may soon get some billion-dollar offer useful to fix the budget to make some paperon’s exclusive property-for example, a charming seaside village or an ancient fortified hamlet. Money is useful eh! But let’s remember that those who want to spend to have these assets exclusively do so because they are unique in the world, they are an extraordinary living language of our country, and we have a duty to preserve their “sound” and sight for all, not for a few.

6. Quality cannot be sacrificed for quantity. This seems crystal clear to me, but let me try to explain. Quality is building communication and public involvement paths based on the findings of scientific research, the established ones and not the “trouvailles” often bandied about in the newspapers and uttered by the first waffler who thinks he has discovered Leonardo or Raphael. Quality is investing in the training of young people and their FAST job placement. Quality is thinking that using language that everyone can understand and addressing a wide audience does not imply lowering the level of knowledge and content. Quality is giving everyone the opportunity to enjoy the approach to cultural heritage with the right slowness. Quality is guaranteeing everyone access to assets (economic, physical, intellectual, linguistic) being aware that there are limits and that they must be respected. By everyone.

7. We must give due value to high professional figures who deal with cultural heritage, at the highest levels. How is it that art historians, architects and so on are invoked when there is an opinion to be given or a controversy to be settled and then-when Executives, Ministers, Directors are chosen-these high-profile technical figures are systematically snubbed? It should be IMPERATIVE that - alongside figures with a more administrative-managerial slant - to govern Italian cultural institutes, councillorships in civic administrations, to fill the role of executives in the Ministry and the figures of the Ministers themselves should be Professionals in this field. And, instead, this necessity is systematically denied, creating enormous damage to the entire field of culture and leading to the paradox of Ministries incapable of enhancing one of the most important capitals present in Italy: the human one, of skills.

8. We are a country at the bottom of the list, in the OECD area, for investment in research, training, education. This is a very serious problem. Because without these training-which I would call primary-the secondary ones (technological, cultural, tertiary, manufacturing) cannot develop. Least of all in the humanities area, where research is the strand that allows all assets to be refined, developed, enriched and brought to fruition, from training, to communication, to those with employment and economic spin-offs. Spending on training is always a long-term investment, an element that should lead one to reason about the zigzag strategy of this country, which is incapable of planning not only at 30 years, but not even at 3, judging by the reforms and “tapullos” proposed from minister to minister. Moreover-to cite at least one positive fact-Italian universities have finally officially assumed Scientific Dissemination as the “Third Mission” of the universities. A fundamental achievement for the humanities: it becomes the mandate of the institutions to find ways to carry out what we might call the “technology transfer” of the humanities: to give everyone the minimum tools to orient themselves in their own territory, in the language of art and landscape. Sore note: there are no - except in scattered and pioneering cases, often opposed - teachings or courses of study that, dealing with the humanities, work on the Disclosure of Knowledge. Just as the figure of the Scientific Divulgator, still confused by some troglodytes with the figure of the Tour Guide (who does TOTALLY different things and - finally - again normed), is not normed.

9. Culture (especially that linked to the immanent dimension of the historical, artistic and architectural heritage that, whether we like it or not, characterizes our country) must once again see its role as a foundational element for citizenship recognized. It must be, even following the famous Article 9 of the Constitution, an indispensable part of the life and conscience of every citizen of this country. A living language, as a visionary Roberto Longhi said in a poignant letter written under the bombs in 1944 to Giuliano Briganti. The attempt to reduce it to luxury, superfluous, entertainment (see above), surplus aims to depotentiate its constructive force capable of directing consciences, ethics and, above all, of bringing together - in a compact manner - the feeling of unity of the nation, which, though flaky, in front of the protection of artistic heritage has - often - a gasp of dignity.

10. Giving dignity to young people. And I would say that this one I could also avoid explaining, but better to specify: fair wages, jobs, evaluation of educational itineraries. In Italy it seems that having a doctorate is a crime, no matter how little it is evaluated: it can and must change.

In conclusion, the only sensible way I see--in the near future--to handle the issues related to “cultural” tourism is for the word culture to return to a meaning independent of its own application to the tourism phenomenon. It must be the cultural perspective (seasoned with the ingredients mentioned above) that dictates the rules: educating to respect, educating to know, educating to rules, but also restoring meaning to seeing, to getting involved, to traveling through territories. No more biting and fleeing, but looking more slowly and consciously, perhaps giving up records today, but being able to achieve - tomorrow - many and greater benefits. Also economic.

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.