The 2014 reform brought some cultural institutions back to the center of the debate

For very many years my legal training has puzzled me (obviously in vain) about the predominantly journalistic habit of linking reforms by the name of a politician, however deserving, rather than to the scope of the reform itself. Indeed, the fathers of this reform are much older than those who signed in 2014, and among them should be remembered some regions, the parliamentary work of many years before, and the heartfelt appeals of ICOM and many scholars in the field, especially on the need to give greater autonomy to Italy’s major museums.

To speak of a 10-year anniversary is to shine a spotlight on the act of conception and that is the ministerial decree of 2014 that indicates the first light of this reform and that is the courage to start, but in parallel, precisely 10 years later, the biggest shadow and that is the willing ministerial decree in substitution for an organic commitment of Parliament. Indeed, for several years I remain convinced that the entire national cultural sphere needs an organic law that also covers the practices of the regions and other territorial entities in a real systematic ^effort1.

Among the undoubted merits of the reform, the ability to bring some cultural institutions back to the center of the Italian social and political debate should be mentioned first of all, making, for example, some museum directors extraordinary protagonists of cultural innovation and making them well-known points of reference for public opinion. This circumstance has had a dragging effect in the media limelight of the entire cultural sector by giving it greater political value and increasingly highlighting the great reflections on the economy of interventions on cultural governance aimed at a more effective relationship between cultural heritage, the surrounding citizenry and the many guests who arrive from our territory. The impact data on national wealth have been certified by major specialized agencies and the Bank of Italy. The attention to the contemporary and the suburbs was also undoubtedly commendable, but it should be remembered that especially these areas of intervention, though neglected for too long, are cross-cutting (as are also photography, architecture, security) and their issues do not pertain to one office, but to all.

The second great merit is that of having identified a criterion for the selection of directors marked by the wide publicizing of procedures and the undoubted prestige of the people called upon to select museum directors who could finally be chosen from outside experience as well. This merit is thus linked to an initial attention of the Italian cultural ministerial system to the plurality of experiences necessary for the leadership of cultural institutions that also underlies the idea of a single superintendency, an attempt that has seen its positive fruits in the start of the construction of a managerial class as far as possible with interdisciplinary training while waiting for specific selection and training practices for the ability to direct large cultural institutions that by their very nature are inevitably polysemic to be concreted in a stable manner. In the reform, a first step was initiated in the necessary process of overcoming the very bad habit of having to promote to executive those who have manifestly distinguished themselves by their excellent technical skills, for the sole purpose of being able to award them a decent salary, forgetting that directing a craft (for some a predisposition or talent) in its own right that requires specific tracks of selection. Therefore, future wishes undoubtedly include the need to create a professional and technical career that achieves salaries commensurate with that measure capable of not forcing toward management people who are not interested in or suitable for such responsibilities.

Italy, in the words of Caterina Bon of Valsassina and Madrisio, who promoted a book on the subject, needed to “enhance protection, ”² but simultaneously needed to protect enhancement. It was taking its first real steps in that decade in the corridors of the ministry embroiled in whiny ^rearguard battles3, while instead it had seen interesting and advanced experiences in some regions. Since then, every occasion should be opportune to remind that protection and enhancement are sides of the same coin, especially if one accesses a correct interpretation of Article 9 of the Constitution, whose first reference is the development of ^culture4.

It follows that attention should be paid to the third great merit of this reform, which was to crystallize the minimum levels of quality for museums and places of culture, with a participatory process that laid the foundation for the national system of ^museums5.

Among the most sore points in the balance sheet of this reform was the lack of a rapid and radical effort in simplifying administrative procedures, in giving autonomy to museums even in the management of human resources, in reformulating security regulations (too often mission impossible juxtaposed with criminal sanctions) really adapting them to the possibilities of intervention in ancient palaces and buildings. It was the right time to allocate the necessary resources past debts of superintendencies and suburban institutes, to improve relations with universities and with that private, those companies that proved to be really proactive. It was the time to find resources that could offer already in the pandemic years more stable and better paid employment to the younger generations that tirelessly nurture, at the cost of enormous sacrifices, the best in preservation and relations between museums and actual and potential visitors, between cultural offerings and society.

Toward such goals, hopefully through an organic law, I see the challenges of the near future for regions, municipalities and the Ministry of Culture, which is now embarking on a new reorganization. Future heads of departments conceived in the recent decree could work toward such goals.

This contribution was originally published in No. 21 of our print magazine Finestre Sull’Arte on paper. 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.