The "beauty" has indeed gone there, in quarantine: indeed, in many cities in Italy it is still inaccessible

“We need to focus on the brand ofItaly in the world, to promote the incomparable artistic and natural heritage we possess. Because in all these months, we have to say it strongly, the beauty ofItaly has never gone into quarantine”: these are some of the words on culture that Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte spoke yesterday during the press conference to explain the measures of the next phase of the health emergency. We will not dwell too much on the tone of the communication, and we just hope that the president will soon consider changing his wordsmith: evidently, the gaffe about artists who “make us entertained and passionate” was not enough, and it was necessary to reload with an ugly and stale expression like “brand Italy” and with the usual useless, empty, outdated, meaningless rhetoric about beauty. In any case, what surprises us most is the content of the statement. Unfortunately, we have to soundly contradict the premier: not only has the “beauty” of Italy gone into quarantine, but in many cities of Italy it is still in quarantine.

Giuseppe Conte during yesterday’s press conference

And we are not just referring to the fact that that “beauty” that so many talk about but so few attend has remained inaccessible to most, since we were all segregated at home: the fact is that our places of culture have all been closed by government measure, despite a September 20, 2015, decree-law number 146 (converted into law on November 12 of the same year) establishing that the opening to the public of museums and places of culture, as identified by the Cultural Heritage Code, is part of essential public services. Law 146 of June 12, 1990 identifies the latter as those services “aimed at guaranteeing the enjoyment of the person’s constitutionally protected rights to life, health, freedom and security, freedom of movement, social assistance and social security, education and freedom of communication.”

Interestingly, all essential public services defined by the 1990 law never closed during the long weeks of confinement: the services for the protection of life, health, liberty and security of the person continued to work, of course; the services for the care of the environment, health, public hygiene, civil defense, waste disposal, customs, the energy and natural resources supply chain, that of basic necessities and the factories that produce them never stopped working, the administration of justice (albeit slowly and with various limitations), the services of environmental protection and those of cultural heritage supervision, public transportation, social security, public education (which has worked in networks with enormous difficulties, but has tried to guarantee service to the extent possible), the post office, telecommunications, and public information. One could object by saying that many services have been provided only online, but it is equally agile to point out that, for museums, the law explicitly speaks of “opening to the public”: is it possible to consider the valuable and commendable online activities of so many museums a form of opening to the public? What then to say about those museums that do not even have a social media presence, or have done activities every now and then, or do not even have a website? Was it really not possible to keep them open by providing measures to contain the contagion? Why was it possible to safely go to the supermarket or the post office, and was it decided to close museums even though their opening to the public is considered an essential public service? Is it the case that the inclusion of museums among essential public services (a decision taken in the aftermath of a union meeting of Colosseum workers who had not received overtime for months) was taken not to guarantee an essential service to citizens, but to restrict workers’ right to strike?

These are all issues that have been discussed little, despite the fact that on our masthead and on other channels the issue has been raised (museums should not be closed, Professor Massimo Cerulo wrote a few days ago on these pages, because they are “the places that help not to lose historical memory,” “to understand how to come out of difficulties,” and “not to be overwhelmed by fake news”): evidently, access to museums is not among the basic necessities. We could perhaps come to terms with this, albeit with extreme reluctance: however, it is not acceptable that today, more than two weeks after the official reopening of museums, many cultural venues are still closed and much of that “beauty” of which Giuseppe Conte spoke is actually still in quarantine, isolated from its communities, unapproachable by citizens and tourists.

State museums are reopening in fits and starts, and most of them have not yet returned to welcome visitors. To date, first-rate and absolutely important sites remain closed to the public: the Cenacolo Vinciano, the Pinacoteca Nazionale in Siena, the Museo Archeologico Nazionale in Siena, the Museo Nazionale di San Marco in Florence, the Museo Nazionale di San Matteo in Pisa, the Palazzo Reale in Pisa, the Musei Nazionali in Lucca, and the Villa Lante in Viterbo. For the latter, the reopening date is still unknown. The ministry has not issued a calendar with dates, nor does it have a list of the museums that have already reopened, but doing the sums at the moment fewer than 200 sites out of nearly 500 are open. And incredibly, some autonomous museums also remain closed: for some, the day of their return to activity has already been set (this is the case, for example, of the National Etruscan Museum of Villa Giulia and the National Roman Museum, which will reopen on June 10), while for others it is known that preparations are underway but there is still no time horizon (as for the Royal Palace in Genoa).

Of course, we expect that within a few weeks all museums will be back to full operation, but it seems quite clear that, as is often the case, there has been a lack of proper planning: there seems to have been no single direction (sure, the autonomous museums and museum poles decide for themselves on reopenings, but what image is given to citizens and tourists with this continuous trickle of news, with museums reopening and others for which we don’t even know if and when they will reopen, with a ministry that doesn’t even deign to offer us a calendar?), we do not know why some museums are reopening and others are not, not enough answers are coming from the MiBACT higher-ups. And so, the only thing we have to say forcefully, as President Conte would like, is that a great deal of beauty is still locked up in quarantine, and we would appreciate it being set free. And this is not a kind concession: it is the duty of the public administration to ensure that our cultural places are open. Especially since it is an essential public service.

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.