German, young, competent, knowledgeable. On the appointment of Gabriel Zuchtriegel to Pompeii.

I cannot recall a more controversial appointment of director of a cultural site than the one that invested Gabriel Zuchtriegel with the role of director of the Archaeological Park of Pompeii. I remember, of course, equally heated debates when the Ministry of Culture announced the names of the first directors of the then-new autonomous museum institutes in 2015, but such heated controversy over a single name I think is unprecedented. After reading articles, stances, and hundreds of comments on social media, I think all the criticism can be traced back to four reasons: Zuchtriegel’s nationality, his age, his resume, and the rationale behind his appointment by Minister Dario Franceschini.

On nationality, I think it is appropriate to gloss over: it is an old controversy, which we thought we had left behind in 2015, and to revive it would be anachronistic. However, I think it is necessary to emphasize one point: if a young German has been able to train and make a career in Italy, arriving to direct two of its most recognized cultural sites in the world (Paestum and Pompeii), I think that for Italy and for the South this can be considered a reason for pride and not for recriminations, just as when one is proud if esteemed Italian professionals arrive to hold top positions in foreign museums.

On age and experience I think it is possible to proceed with a reductio ad unum, since the arguments of those who claim that Zuchtriegel is too young or too inexperienced to direct Pompeii are not so far apart. To examine these criticisms, I would like to echo the words of Stefano De Caro, a resigning member of the scientific committee, who told the LaPresse news agency that the newly appointed director of Pompeii “is very exalted for his activity in the Paestum park, but it seems to us that in Pompeii he has not had all this experience: His resume shows 8 months at the park secretariat, but in 8 months you can’t get an idea about the millennia of Pompeii’s history,” and to Corriere della Sera that Zuchtriegel would hardly have “enough experience to decide, manage and direct conservation and especially restorations, where it is very easy to make mistakes but they commit millions and millions.”

Gabriel Zuchtriegel

Meanwhile, it should not be forgotten that Gabriel Zuchtriegel comes from five years of experience directing Paestum, where he performed very well: it is not only the top or former top management of MiBACT who are saying this (and in this regard I would mention the words of Antonio Lampis, former director general of museums, who spoke of a “fair choice that rewards objective operational skills combined with scientific ones and gives a signal to that generation too often excluded from major challenges and top positions.” and who recalled how Zuchtriegel stood out in the performance evaluations of the directors), but also a great many residents of the Paestum area, who, if anything, complain that they will no longer be able to count on the direction of a capable and prepared young man. And then there is the reminder, to those who point out that Zuchtriegel has little knowledge of Pompeii, that the MiBACT competition was not looking for a scientific director. Of course: theoptimum would be to have a director equipped not only with solid management skills but also with extensive knowledge of the museum for which he has been appointed. There is no shortage of such cases: I am thinking, just by way of example, of Stefano L’Occaso, a profound connoisseur of the Ducal Palace in Mantua and a very talented director. Zuchtriegel has shown very good qualities as a director: if he lacks knowledge about Pompeii (but let us also remember that he is not someone who comes from a different disciplinary field, or even a related field: he is an archaeologist, moreover, with an excellent curriculum in relation to his age), then he will be assisted by the Park’s scientific and administrative bodies.

It is quite unthinkable that the director of such a complex machine as Pompeii, which includes nine different sites, can do everything by himself: it would therefore have been really nice if the resigning members of the scientific committee, instead of resigning, had instead used their decades of experience to support the new director, on the strength of their knowledge in the field, acquired since before Zuchtriegel was born. A collaboration between generations based on mutual respect is fundamental for the advancement of society: young people (assuming, of course, that a 39-year-old can be considered “young”: one can do so perhaps in Italy, a country where careers begin very late, and on this point there would be further reflection to be opened) bring freshness and a desire to get involved, new ideas and new skills, energy and vitality, and more experienced colleagues respond with familiarity and discernment, with experience, with knowledge gained through years and years of work. It will appear trite to remark that multigenerational teams at work are a strength and not a limitation, just as it is unnecessary to emphasize that it is necessary to look with optimism at a work team where there are also young people in top positions. That is why, personally, I respect the choice and the criticism of two authoritative figures such as Irene Bragantini and Stefano De Caro, but I do not feel like sharing it. Moreover, it would be interesting to know, given the issue raised, whether Professor De Caro, who became (I read from his resume) director of the Pompeii excavation office at the age of thirty-seven with only one year’s experience as a ministerial official behind him, also had the same grievances at the time.

Finally, on the logics that led to the appointment, it is interesting to quote a passage from an article published in the Manifesto, which gives an account of the fact that Zuchtriegel was taken for granted winner of the competition and that "the reasons for the rumors lay in the strategy implemented by Osanna during his seven-year tenure at Pompeii and amplified by the position of power achieved within the Roman College, which favored the (sometimes fulminating) careers of his closest collaborators.“ Similar reservations were expressed by De Caro himself, according to whom ”the requirements on the basis of which the evaluations that led to today’s appointment were made are unclear." As is well known, the competition leading to the appointment of directors of autonomous museums stipulates that the final word on the appointment rests with the minister in office, but before arriving at the final trio, the candidates’ credentials are screened by a committee that evaluates the qualifications, admits ten candidates to an interview, and following the latter proposes the trio to the minister, who is responsible for making the choice. There has already been much discussion about this mode: it is certainly not the most perfect and will have to be improved, but at the time of Zuchtriegel’s appointment these were the rules known to all the candidates and to those who criticize the minister’s choice, who will have opted for the figure he considered most suitable for Pompeii. Of course, it is entirely legitimate to express reservations about the rules and to disagree with them: for this reason it will be the case to continue to press for them to change. And if the new director does not prove up to the task, the minister will answer for his appointment. Our newspaper will continue to do its work and follow closely, as it has done in the recent past, the vidende of Pompeii. In the meantime, we can only record what has happened wishing Gabriel Zuchtriegel well in his work.

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.