On the usefulness and effectiveness of the Italian Council.

The question to ask in order to evaluate the usefulness and effectiveness of the goals and initiatives implemented by the Italian Council is one: have they really contributed to increasing the presence of Italian artists in international museums and exhibitions or have they only allowed artists, curators and museums to receive funding for their activities?

In the second case, the utility is domestic and charitable, but often the projects are forced and targeted only to those who already have resources to receive resources. The obstructiveness in some areas of the 20 percent co-funding nullifies the good intentions of the call: do we reward the quality of the project or those who have resources to perfect it? If the co-financing limit were eliminated and only the content was reasoned about, it would be a win-win.

In the former case, the verification of what usefulness the CI has had for Italian art abroad can be measured simply by looking at the presence of artists, curators or exhibitions of Italian art outside the fences of the call, at most by considering occasions that the call would have favored or provoked after itself.

To hear the complaints of many practitioners and to see the unremarkable presence of Italian artists in biennials (including homegrown ones) and international exhibitions, the consequences of CI promotion do not seem to have had any particular effect.

Resources given in a haphazard way do not serve to please many for not pleasing everyone, and once again the co-financing cut-off rewards those who already have capital (whether it comes from galleries, private individuals or others matters little: today the art of finding money outweighs the ability to know how to make it or devise good projects), not to mention that some criteria should be revised. For example, it makes no sense to fund works that then end up in Italian collections if one is to promote Italian art “after a period of promotion abroad” as stated in the call, as if presenting the work in a foreign (often marginal) museum and then placing it in Italy has any utility. On the contrary, one should finalize the project only to the acquisition or installation (with consequent and natural promotion) at a foreign museum (for promotion and support in Italy in part there is already the PAC that fulfills this function).

Below are some things that, specifically, one could try to avoid, but which have been punctually done over the years (the cases below, while meritorious, are entirely illustrative and not ad personam of course):

awarding two years in a row the same artist albeit in different fields (Diego Marcon 2023 and 2024); awarding multiple prizes to the same museum in the same field during the same year (Madre and Museion in 2024 or Mambo in 2022) and awarding three grants in the same field and in the same year to the same publisher (NERO in 2021); awarding projects concerning artists who are already very well known and established nationally and internationally, practically historicized, supported by the biggest largest galleries in the world and present in museums on every continent, who would therefore not need CI promotion (Pier Paolo Calzolari, Giuseppe Penone, Alberto Garutti, Salvo, Paolo Icaro, Emilio Isgrò, Francesco Vezzoli, and so on); replacing the foreign museum exhibition stage with the location of an Italian Cultural Institute abroad or awarding prizes of any kind to museums that have “unlimited” resources (Madre, Rivoli, MAXXI, Mart) over museums whose annual budgets do not equal the prize itself. Research then on topics such as “decolonization in northern Sweden” or the practices of New Zealand’s indigenous artists“ (2024) or ”the new alternative drag and club kids scene in Central and South America" (2023), while innovative and undoubtedly original, seem far too exotic and specialized for a call for talent promotion that is not strictly university-based. Not to mention that in some cases the cultural partner of the project officially communicated by the directorate general is not to be found in the colophon of the final publication (see Palazzo Collicola in Spoleto absent from the colophon of the catalog of the call won by Anna Scalfi Eghenter in 2022 with the Tiroler Landesmuseen in Innsbruck). Moreover, the occasionality and timing of the project (from year to year) lead one to believe that most of the projects were already in place and that participation in the IC call was only a resource (additional or essential little matter) of funding, but not of provoking the project.

If the intent is to give to many so as not to displease many and to offer the (illusory?) hope that the state will support art and contemporary art research in Italy (following the logic of give-and-take) perhaps the goal is achieved: but what and who needs it? On the other hand, if one wants to promote research and appreciation of Italian art outside Italy, this does not seem the best way.

Preferable if these resources were channeled to promote, in important foreign museums or institutions, an exhibition such as Italy: the new domestic landscape of 1972 curated by Emilio Ambasz at MoMA or The Italian Metamorphosis 1943-1968 of 1994 curated by Celant at the Guggenheim in New York, perhaps it would make more sense. But it would require a commitment in terms of preparation, cultural policy, research and study much more extensive than a year. And the same goes for production of works, publications or research. But everything is improvable...

This contribution was originally published in No. 25 of our print magazine Finestre Sull’Arte on Paper, erroneously in shortened form. Click here to subscribe.

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.