Who will want to visit a museum full of prohibitions and obligations?

In an op-ed we hosted in the December issue of our print magazine, art historian Elizabeth Ann Macgregor, director of the Museum of Contemporary Art in Sydney, Australia, and former director of CIMAM-the International Committee of Museums of Modern and Contemporary Art-wrote that “museums need to engage their communities in every way possible , inspiring and at the same time provoking,” and that in today’s world museums “play an increasingly important role in bringing people together, encouraging different points of view, creating spaces in which visitors can learn, giving audiences the opportunity to imagine a better future for all.” Probably no one, just a few months ago, would have imagined the arrival of a pandemic to make that union that Macgregor called for physically impossible: partly because museums have had to close for more than two months, partly because of the conditions under which they will reopen.

It is therefore interesting to evaluate the reopening rules suggested by the Technical Scientific Committee to get an idea of how, in Italy, we will be forced to visit museums in the coming months. Obviously, we are not talking about pre-written rules, but simple general indications that, according to the same Committee, will have to be applied according to the principles of gradualness and progressiveness so as to understand how sustainable they are (although, in introducing the list, the Committee speaks not of measures that are being recommended, but that “must be identified”: now, a report of a Scientific Technical Committee of course has no binding value, but given the peremptoriness of the statement it will be interesting to see how the provisions will be followed by museums). It is then equally obvious to expect that the rules will vary on the basis of the type of museum: we do not want to believe that the same requirements will be adopted for the Uffizi and for a little-used provincial museum, for a large open-air archaeological site and for a cramped diocesan museum housed in the premises of a rectory. In small museums, spacing between visitors is, practically, a year-round respected condition.

A visitor at the Schirn Kunsthalle in Frankfurt, Germany, which reopened last week. Ph. Alena Rahmer

In the meantime, it should be pointed out that the measures advocated by the Scientific Technical Committee are among the most restrictive in Europe: meanwhile, we are currently the only country where the combined “safety distance plus mandatory mask” is mandatory. In Germany, France, Switzerland and Spain, the use of the face protection device is mandated only where it is not possible to comply with physical distance metrics (on which, however, individual countries evidently disagree, since in Germany the safety distance is one and a half meters, in France and Italy one meter, in Spain and Switzerland two meters): one therefore has to wonder why in Italy it touches to wander masked inside museums (and, in general, in any other place) even if it is possible to respect the official antivirus distance, but since by now the mask is worn by most people even when it is completely useless (one can no longer count the number of people who wear it even alone outdoors, and the curve of social media sheriffs who do not fail to update us on the trend of the amount of “people out and about without masks” and call for consequent deployments of patrols is steadily rising), I’m afraid we’ll have to get used to it.

The creation of one-way routes is then in danger of becoming our specialty: so far, the only country that has thought of this has been Spain, since this precaution was initially suggested by health authorities but did not then enter into the official measures for museums drawn up by the Ministry of Health. The one-way route might have a remote utility in heavily frequented museums, but since we expect visitor collapses (notably in the institutions most touted by tourism), as well as quota visits, one has to wonder whether it really makes sense to prevent visitors from wandering the halls as they see fit, with the full power to turn back whenever they want, or following an itinerary freely based on their own interests. Not even supermarkets have gone this far, yet these are far more frequented places than museums, and in spite of this there are still no reports of epidemiological bombs going off inside an Esselunga. If, therefore, one-way path will be, we will only have to rely on the leniency of the security guards.

At the moment, the Scientific Technical Committee has not yet expressed its opinion on the issue of guided tours and educational activities: let’s hope that they do not decide to follow the Spanish model, which has provided for the total suspension of this type of experience. It would mean demolishing two pillars that are the foundation of any museum, suspending a public service of the highest value, and zeroing out one of its main functions, that of education, recognized as one of the three major purposes of the museum even by the current ICOM definition: evidently, those in Spain who thought of such a measure are not very familiar with museums, and if they are to be just walking places where everyone is required to keep two meters away from everyone else, they might as well keep them closed. Better in France, however, where guided tours and educational activities are allowed as long as the safe distance is respected.

However, even in Italy there are already those who have proved to be more realistic than the king: for example, in Pompeii, that is, in a huge site where any staggered entrances would minimize the risk of contact, a plan was unveiled at the end of April that calls for the use of apps, electronic bracelets and drones to prevent misbehavior. But if visiting an archaeological park involves being guarded like parolees, it is presumable that many will give up. Silvia Mazza wrote this yesterday in La Sicilia, recalling how “enjoyment” is also one of the main purposes of museum visitation as defined by ICOM: and then “the real challenge,” Silvia Mazza rightly noted, “will be to disguise security measures to ensure that the visitor is left with ’enjoyment.’” Those who will decide how to write and enforce the rules will have to retain some glimmer of lucidity, and will therefore have to ask themselves whether, after more than two months of enforced segregation, after a period during which one was looked upon with suspicion (if not apostrophized) even if one went for a walk or a jog in the open air, after media campaigns that exacerbated tempers instead of soothing them, Italians will really feel like standing in line, have a time limit imposed on them to visit a museum, be forced to go through the halls according to a one-way obligatory route, harness themselves with masks even at a safe distance and be subjected to continuous surveillance during an activity that should in theory be enjoyable, or whether they will not prefer to carefully avoid museums and instead indulge in a freer swim in the sea or a less annoying walk in the mountains. If nothing else, to exercise some more of that humanity which, in a context of freedom of visitation sacrificed almost entirely in the name of health securitarianism, would be almost entirely denied.

One could certainly object by saying that these measures will remain in place only for as long as necessary: but one could retort by saying that however short this phase may be, excesses of zeal would only be harmful, especially if the result of a blind scientism that does not consider the reasons of those who frequent and know museums well, at least to realize, for example, that it makes little sense to establish standards on the basis of absolute numbers of visitors and it would be, if anything, more reasonable to divide museums according to the ratio of visitors to surface area (a trivial case: the 445,000 visitors a year to the Last Supper in Vinciano is not equivalent to the 443,000 visitors a year to the Paestum Archaeological Park). The most obvious danger is, meanwhile, that of transforming the museum visit into a tour de force where one cannot interact because one has to stand at a distance and gag, where one is watched on sight, where one is not free to choose one’s own visit route, where it is impossible to avail oneself of a guided tour. The museum, in essence, could become a repulsive place: the exact opposite of what it should be, much to the detriment of the intentions of community involvement, inspiration, provocation, encouragement of diversity of viewpoints, learning, and opportunity mentioned in the opening. And then there is the risk of profoundly altering the role of the museum vis-à-vis the public, which from an institution in the service of society, from a place of study, education, growth and progress, from a space of sharing and confrontation with others, becomes a kind of sad merry-go-round where a public composed of consumers rather than visitors can slide away, according to predetermined timetables.

If this is what awaits us in the coming weeks (or even months), let us be allowed to raise some doubts. So many are already beginning to speak of the “new normal,” in reference to the upheavals that will alter our lives for some time. Let us at least have the decency to avoid talking about “normality,” because there is nothing normal about this.

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.