Will the Bonisoli reform's mergers permanently sink small museums?

With a mid-August blitz, which follows in the well-established tradition of approving crucial decrees at times of the year when one would expect everyone to be distracted by vacations and festivities (and, this time, with the aggravating factor of the government crisis just around the corner), the minister of cultural heritage, Alberto Bonisoli, has completely overturned the structure of Italy’s state museums. Upsets that, moreover, surprised everyone, since they came suddenly, and apparently without being preceded by in-depth discussions, nor by thoughtful analyses capable, if not of holding up, at least of motivating the new subdivision of state museums. The amalgamations were supposedly conceived, as we have been hearing for days, with a view to making management more modern and rational: however, we do not know more, that is, we still do not know the reasons why certain museums were amalgamated with others, the reasons why some museums had their autonomy removed, the reasons why such vast museum clusters were created, with regions joined in pairs.

What new shape the state museum network has taken as a result of the mergers is now common knowledge, but it is worth dwelling at least on the most striking cases to try to predict what might happen. One of the most “noisy” pairings, so to speak, is the one involving the Cenacolo Vinciano, which, without any apparent warning, was spun off from the Regional Museum Pole of Lombardy to be merged with the Pinacoteca di Brera. This choice must be analyzed from at least two points of view: first, that of the museums of the now former regional pole; and second, that of the new maxi-institute that will be created when the first implementing decree of the Bonisoli reform comes into force on August 22.

Regarding the first aspect of the issue, it is conceivable that the decision to detach the Cenacolo Vinciano from the regional pole will seriously harm the other museums in the pole. In order to understand why this assumption is made, it is necessary to reread the ministerial decree of October 19, 2015, the one that established the so-called "support fund" or “solidarity fund”: every year, all state museums have to return 20 percent of their ticketing revenue, which will then be reallocated by the General Directorate of Museums as needed. The fund was established to meet the urgent needs of museums that would not be able to sustain themselves through their own efforts, and therefore manage to survive through this mechanism as well. Not only that, but Article 3 of the 2015 decree stipulates that all museums, with the exception of autonomous museums (which thus retain 80 percent of their ticketing revenue), must pay all of their income into the state coffers. Eighty percent of the sums derived from ticketing (i.e., the total, minus the 20 percent destined for the solidarity fund) and 100 percent of those that come from concession fees will be credited back, not to individual museums, but “to the same Poles, to which the institutes and places that actually produced them belong, with the exception of institutes directed by delegated officials, for which the crediting is arranged directly to the relevant accounts.” It is therefore easy to consider that, in a regional pole with a museum that exerts a strong attraction on the public, the proceeds of the latter will be redistributed to allow that even in the less popular museums (but still important, because they contribute to compose the cultural fabric of the territory) protection interventions, enhancement activities and whatever else will be carried out.

The Cenacolo Vinciano

The Cenacolo Vinciano was obviously the most visited museum in the Lombardy cluster, capable of producing two-thirds of its revenue (in 2017, it was 4 million euros, compared to 2 million generated by all the other museums in the cluster combined). Sums that, in the period that the pole has existed (i.e., since 2015) have largely been used to allow the imbalances of the smaller museums to be smoothed out: to give a few examples, the National Archaeological Museum in Mantua (then passed, in mid-2018, under the Ducal Palace) was expanded and refurbished, the visitor routes to the Scaliger Castle in Sirmione were secured (and a new guide was published), also at the Castle, it was possible to proceed with the restoration of the plasterwork of the Darsena, numerous restorations were conducted at the Catullus Caves, the educational apparatus and guidebook of Palazzo Besta in Teglio were created, and it was possible to organize exhibitions and events and allow extended or extraordinary openings. Now that the Last Supper will no longer have this driving effect, it is not fanciful to assume that the pole museums, which are far from economically self-sufficient, will be drowned out. From the point of view of the enlarged Pinacoteca di Brera, we can, on the contrary, assume that everything is to its advantage, since its livelihood will now be further enhanced by the presence of a 4-million-euro-a-year jewel such as the Last Supper. And if one thinks of the measure, also contained in the implementing decree of the Bonisoli reform, which provides for the possibility of favoring the “establishment of museum foundations with the participation of public and private entities,” it is almost natural to think that a very attractive entity has been created with a view to the possible future establishment of a foundation.

The same reasoning can be made for the Gallerie dell’Accademia in Venice, which is now seeing the amalgamation of the second most visited and richest museum of the former Regional Museum Pole of Veneto, the “Giorgio Franchetti” Gallery at Cà d’Oro, a museum that was able to bring into the Veneto Pole’s disposable income about a third of its total income: again, there has been a push to strongly benefit the large central museum at the expense of the others, which moreover are now being merged with those of Lombardy. In essence, at least in the case of Lombardy and Veneto, the decision has been made to create a “territorial network” that includes almost exclusively the museums that are a financial burden: it will be a matter of trying to understand how these museums will survive, if they succeed.

Then the cases of the Galleria dell’Accademia in Florence and the National Etruscan Museums deserve a mention: in the first case, one struggles to see the rationale for a new, huge autonomous pole that will incorporate, in addition to the home of Michelangelo’s David, also the Museum of San Marco (similarly merged with the Uffizi), if not that of creating a mega-museum that will be able to boast in the media a futile position in the top ten of the most visited museums in the world. Again, the museum pole of Tuscany will lose its most important pawn, since the Museum of San Marco was the pole’s most profitable institution: here, too, the same reasoning applies as for Pinacoteca di Brera and Gallerie dell’Accademia in Venice. Finally, the decision to establish the National Etruscan Museums, which will include a number of institutes in Tuscany and Latium, also seems lacking in logic, as if the area on which the Etruscans had anciently settled was limited only to these two regions (not only: at this point it is not clear why the archaeological area of Veio was kept out): but beyond that, perhaps the logistical, practical and bureaucratic difficulties introduced by an autonomous institute extended over such a vast and articulated territory were not realized. And of course, even in this case, the Latium museum pole will have to give up, all of a sudden, half a million euros in receipts: here, however, the situation is somewhat less serious due to the fact that the tow is still guaranteed by the Museum of Castel Sant’Angelo, and consequently it is hoped that the autonomy can guarantee the development of the Etruscan museums that will be part of the new institute.

All this is happening without, at the moment, any plan for small museums being circulated. The Franceschini reform had caused a negative effect, that of widening the gap between “big” and “small” museums: one would have expected an intervention capable of balancing the divergences. Unfortunately, not only have appropriate and effective correctives not been put in place but, on the contrary, measures have been promoted that, it is easy to imagine, will cause the gap to widen further. We cannot say whether the decree that created the new institutions will be withdrawn: probably not. Therefore, with such a set-up, a plan for non-self-supporting and less visited museums becomes an absolute priority: to neglect them is to condemn them to disinterest, and perhaps closure.

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.