If art history is to set the stage for international summits

If there are occasions when the dichotomy betweenbeing andappearing that characterizes the actions of the politicians who govern us (clumsily, many would think) is best manifested, such occasions can be recognized in international summits. A bit like the one between Matteo Renzi and Angela Merkel that is holding court in these hours in Florence. Occasions on which our country, in an admittedly somewhat awkward and puerile way, sweeps the dust under the rug and pulls up its ornaments in order to ensure the best possible welcome for the foreign guest. Net, of course, of the amenities and jokes to which we have become accustomed by some of the last presidents of the council who have taken turns in the halls of Palazzo Chigi. I believe that to speak of “knick-knacks,” if we refer to the history of art that is the backdrop to such meetings, is not blasphemous: for as such, the history of art is treated. Not to mention the fact that the use of making art an instrument to show in the eyes of the world the prestige of a nation, was probably suitable and in step with the times at the time of the Medici seigniory (since we are talking about Florence), but, a few centuries later, it would perhaps be the case that the political conduct of those who govern us should mark some even timid evolution.

The writer has always had a profound conviction: art is a good that belongs to everyone, and everyone must be enabled to enjoy art in the most consonant and comfortable way, without barriers or distinctions of any kind. And it is precisely at institutional summits, which treat art as a stage set, that one senses how distant much of Italian politics (and perhaps even those who identify with such politics) are from the above convience. What is the point of showing foreign guests the art of one’s own past, toward which, moreover, there is no merit, because very little is done to protect it, if then the daily reality is one of continuous cuts to culture, of economic straits, of questionable reforms that penalize culture, environment and territory? Here, then, is the way the dichotomy between being and appearing is consummated: art is remembered only when it has to be flaunted as a tool to impress guests, and perhaps to conceal internal maggots.

Renzi and Merkel at the foot of Michelangelo’s David. Photogram taken from Fanpage.it

Added to this is the sleazy expedient of making art a mere scenography, as mentioned at the beginning, of meetings between political leaders. A scenographic use that, moreover, as was reminded today on social networks, is to the detriment of tourists who booked tickets for their visit, perhaps months in advance, and found Palazzo Vecchio and Galleria dell’Accademia closed: perhaps it was their last chance to be able to visit them. And scenic use that, besides being disrespectful to citizens and tourists, distances the works from the values of which they should be bearers. Works of art from the past are in fact not relics to be venerated, as the director of the Uffizi, Antonio Natali, has repeatedly and on several occasions reminded us.

The rhetoric of beauty, which is unleashed whenever there is a work of art as a backdrop to any occasion, has now become cloying and tedious. The works of art of the greats of the past are great not only because they bear witness to beauty, but also because they bear and witness to those universal values (equality, fairness, justice, honesty, integrity) that many politicians disregard more and more every day. Art thus appears debased, emptied of its meaning. Indeed: doubly emptied. Because the eagerness to show the world how beautiful we have been and how good we have been in the past, according to a tired, worn-out and old rhetoric, on the one hand makes us lose sight of the true meaning of works of art, and on the other makes us forget the sorrows of the present. We have a landscape eaten up more and more by speculative interests, we have many museums that as far as services and reception are concerned are marking time (and most of the time certainly not because of the staff working there), we have businesses, operating in the field of culture as well as in every other field, forced to give way in the face of insonstenable taxation and bureaucracy, we have a school system in which the teaching of art history has been cut to the bone, we have a ministry that fails to renew itself substantially, nor to ensure adequate turnover, we have now reached unreachable levels of distrust by young people who would like to find employment in the field of art and culture, but fail to do so.

There it is: behind that Michelangelo ’s David exhibited in the guise of a soubrette behind the backs of Renzi and Merkel lies this reality, which much of politics punctually forgets about. The exploitation of works of art for purposes that transcend the functions to which the works themselves should serve in a modern, civilized society cannot be forgotten or brushed aside: to claim that art is merely aesthetic complacency, and to claim that art and politics should travel on two separate tracks, is to be unfamiliar with art. And it is good to keep this in mind, whenever it is said that art should have nothing to do with politics. Wrongly: because every decision that concerns our cultural heritage, the way its enjoyment is guaranteed to citizens, the protection of the works of art that make it up, is the result of political actions and choices, where the term “politics” means the highest and closest meaning to the etymon.

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.