Not just Venice. Why it is bad to keep museums closed, why they should be opened, how we can do it

According to a widespread and ingrained prejudice, museums are primarily machines for tourists. And it is probably on the basis of this prejudice that management and governance models have been imagined in the past that have tied economic flows too closely to tourist flows: these models, in the pandemic period, are proving all their flaws, their distortions, their contradictions, and are proving to be a doom for the very museums that put them into practice. The case of the Venice Civic Museums is particularly significant: spun off from the Municipality in 2008, entrusted to the management of a Foundation with a publicly appointed board of directors but which is to all intents and purposes a subject of private law and therefore endowed with its own budget, they prospered thanks to the millions of tourists who over the years crowded the halls of the Doge’s Palace, but they found themselves with big losses in the aftermath of the closure due to Covid (and the consequent zeroing of tourism), to the point that now they are talking about a closure until April 2021, regardless of what the government will decide after January 15 and regardless of the refreshments that Venetian museums have received or will receive from the state.

And in this context, the words of the mayor of Venice, Luigi Brugnaro, who said that “we cannot throw energy and money to the wind” to reopen the civic museums during a period of absence of tourists, appear all the more serious: for the economic stability of the Foundation, it is better to leave the workers on layoff and wait for the tourists to return. And patience if those museums are, first and foremost, "civic museums," and that is, literally, museums of the cives, museums of the city, museums of the citizens: the Venetians, according to their mayor, can probably also do without the institutions that preserve their memory and that should, at least on paper, play the role of laboratories for their future. The important thing is that the tourists come. It is difficult and, frankly, even embarrassing to comment on such a humiliating choice for culture: it would be necessary to explain to the Venetians that their museums, in recent years, have been run like amusement park attractions, which work only if there are tourists who pay to enter. It would be necessary to explain to the Venetians that, if there is a lack of tourists, perhaps there is also a lack of interest in the museums of Venice, and therefore in a fundamental garrison for the community. And it would be necessary to admit that, from the point of view of those who in recent years have strived to emphasize the importance of culture, Brugnaro’s words sanction a heavy defeat.

Probably several other museums, those most linked to the choices of tourists, find themselves in a similar situation to that of the Venice Civic Museums. Since 1993, the year of the Ronchey law on so-called additional services for museums, many institutions have experienced more or less extensive forms of semi-privatization. This is one of the reasons that, it has been argued on these pages, could perhaps be at the root of the all-out closure of museums: the private concessionaires of large “tourist” institutions would have a lot to lose by reopening soon (the case of the museums of Venice demonstrates this), and in certain cases it might therefore be more convenient to keep employees on layoff (or to have the contracts of less protected workers terminated) than to open and pay salaries in the certainty of not having adequate revenue from ticketing. Is it possible, then, that at the moment everything is closed so as not to have to touch the sensitive issue of outsourcing?

Venice, Doge’s Palace

In the medium term, it will therefore be necessary to seriously rethink the governance models of our museums: no longer models based on position rents (such as may be, for example, those of the institutions that exploit mass tourism movements), but sustainable models capable of focusing on value creation, participation, stakeholder networks, and balanced collaboration between public and private. A good example, which has been discussed in recent weeks, comes from the Brescia Musei Foundation. It is obvious that a rethinking of management models must necessarily go through a change of mindset, which in turn must go through a serious analysis of the relevance of one’s museum: institutions must begin to ask themselves who and what they exist for, what their role is within society, how they intend to address their audiences.

In the short term, the question is more urgent: can we reopen museums? The answer here is probably easier: not only can we, but we must reopen them as soon as possible. As to why, perhaps it would not even be worthwhile to dwell on it further, but it is still worthwhile to return to highlight a few reasons. First, the museum performs an important public service. Cultural, social, even economic. A public service recognized as essential by Minister Franceschini himself, by decree. With commendable work, museums have continued to perform it, with all the limitations that the situation imposes, even during the months of closure, offering online initiatives, virtual tours, videos and whatnot: in short, trying to fulfill their mission even with their doors closed. But it is well understood how this service is irreparably impaired without the on-site presence of visitors. Second, museums are landmarks of their communities. Individual citizens attribute different values to cultural heritage: a means of individual growth and development of critical thinking, an indispensable device for deepening and improving one’s knowledge, an opportunity for enjoyment and recreation (there is nothing wrong with this: it is a function officially recognized by Icom), for some people visiting a museum can also have a consolatory function (several studies demonstrate the therapeutic power of art). Thirdly: so many workers are now at home, either on layoffs or with refreshments (instruments that contribute to the growth of the public debt and which, moreover, now, after so many months, also pose a not insignificant problem of dignity), or, in the case of public administration employees, on telework. Here: many of them would be more useful in the field. Fourth, no one has yet given valid reasons for closing all museums indiscriminately, since the arguments put forward so far appear sloppy, flimsy and not at all convincing.

Given this background, at this point it is necessary to ask what and how to open. Meanwhile, it will be good to remember that the scientific technical committee for lemergency Covid-19 as early as May prescribed differentiating museum openings on the basis of type (outdoor, indoor, hybrid), size and concentrations of visitor flows, with stricter rules for museums that have more than a hundred thousand visitors a year. From a practical point of view, museums, in the summer, have demonstrated that they are perfectly capable of managing visits in total safety, with quotas, spacing, personal protective equipment, sanitizing gels and whatnot. And, moreover, they have invested in complying with safety regulations. In short, they paid for it and then we closed them down: let’s at least try not to make the investments in vain. By now we have taken it for granted that just as you don’t get infected at the supermarket when you go shopping, you get even less infected when you go to the museum.

If the problem is an economic one, the government at least give the possibility to start differentiated openings by leaving those who want to reopen free (as in May: no museum was forced to reopen), grant tailor-made solutions by following the suggestions of the scientific technical committee, but recognize the importance of museums, for citizens even before tourists. There are museums that have been run like businesses for so many years and will probably find it more convenient for their cash flows to keep their doors closed for a while longer, in the absence of tourists or large masses of visitors: we will get over it, changing current management models will take time. But there are plenty of museums that could reopen tomorrow as well: think of the small public museums in the territory, which have low numbers and therefore few visits, which do not contract out services to private concessionaires, and for which there is therefore no difference between closing and opening at the level of economic sustainability (a public administration still has to pay salaries to its employees: isn’t it then perhaps better to pay them to keep the museum open than to keep it closed?). There are private museums that rely primarily on a local audience, for whom a prolonged closure poses significant sustainability problems, and who would probably wish to reopen their doors. The landscape, in short, is vast, and the problem cannot be tackled with a hatchet: now, after almost a year of pandemic, we should show that we are able to imagine targeted solutions.

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.