According to Montanari, the MiBACT reform would not be renzian. Are we really sure about this?

I make no secret of the fact that here at Finestre Sull’Arte we greatly appreciate the figure of Tomaso Montanari: for his intelligence, for his stubbornness, for his meritorious work in defense of the country’s cultural heritage, for the fact that he is one of the very few in the environment willing to speak, with courage, to a wide audience. However, when I read his article on the MiBACT reform, I could not believe the fact that he himself had called the reform presented by Minister Dario Franceschini“un-Renzian.” This time I disagree almost completely with Montanari: I believe that no one could have thought of a more distinctly renzian reform than this one. A renzian reform in substance and intent. And now that the text of the draft is beginning to circulate (it can be found, for example, on the website of the National Cultural Heritage Coordination of the CONFSAL-UNSA union) we have gotten a little more complete idea. And the impressions remain the same as before, except that the doubts have turned into disturbing half-certainties.

For starters, Montanari says that “the text circulating and Franceschini’s statements do not speak at all about the descent of supermanagers on museums.” And this is true. But one only has to read the text of the reform to see that directorships will be able to be given to outsiders “of particular and proven professional qualification in the protection and enhancement of cultural heritage and in possession of documented high-level experience in the management of institutes and places of culture.” The point is that no one specifies what “proven professional qualification” means: it will depend on the individual notices to be issued for museum director positions. But put this way, no one forbids thinking that, to direct a major Italian museum, we might find someone like Sandro Bondi. The Fivizzano-based vate fully reflects the requirements: he has a relevant degree because he has a degree in philosophy (remember that at that time degrees in “cultural heritage sciences” did not exist), and he has documented high-level experience in managing cultural institutions, since he was minister of cultural heritage. In fact, I will mention another name: that of Gabriella Carlucci. Yes, the very soubrette who used to host Festivalbar. She has a degree in art history. Experience in cultural places as well, since she was head of the Culture Department of Forza Italia. Doesn’t that count? Yes it does count, it is a place of culture, although we could discuss at length what kind of culture the Culture Department of Forza Italia can express. But “place of culture” means everything and nothing: if institutional culture is inherent in the term “institutions,” everything else could be categorized under the term “places.” In short, we could find ourselves Sandro Bondi at the Uffizi and Gabriella Carlucci at the Galleria Borghese. Science fiction? Certainly not a tantalizing prospect.

But back to us. If we can agree that, as Montanari says, the most revolutionary point of the reform is "the creation of a General Directorate for Education and Research,“ since one of the main missions of the ministry should be to ”broaden access to heritage through a literacy of citizens," we instead return to have reservations when Montanari welcomes the abolition of the Regional Directorates. Which, in itself, would not even be bad news: they used to act somewhat as intermediaries between the directorates-general and the superintendencies. The reform turns them, in essence, into secretariats with administrative duties, so the intention would be to abolish a filter deemed unnecessary. But in fact nothing is being abolished; on the contrary, perhaps things are being complicated, because the technical tasks that until now were carried out by the regional directorates will be entrusted to new structures, the regional cultural heritage commissions, which will be composed of the regional secretary, the superintendents of the region, and the director of the regional museum pole. And now comes the bad news: the reform requires that these commissions be validly constituted “with the presence of at least half of the members” and deliberate “by a majority of those present.” Thus, in a region with a six-member commission, the will of two of them will be enough to determine very important choices in terms of cultural heritage and landscape protection. According to the reform, in fact, these commissions also play the role of “Commission of Guarantee for the protection of cultural heritage”: that is, the institutions provided for in the Culture Decree, which have the power to review acts issued by peripheral bodies (such as the superintendencies), upon the recommendation of other administrations involved in the proceedings (such as municipalities or regions). Potentially, it could therefore happen, giving a (science fiction?) interpretation of what we read from the text of the reform, that a cementing mayor lobbies two commission officials to have an act subjecting a certain area to landscape constraint reviewed. It would be a case of discussing the dangerousness of such Renzian measures.

Moving on. Montanari also talks about the fate of museums: several major museums will in fact be made autonomous. It is true that they could become, as Montanari asserts, true research centers. But if the measure goes into effect, the smaller museums that until now were closely linked to the larger and more famous ones (let’s take two as examples: the National Museum of San Marco and the Uffizi in Florence) will be deprived all of a sudden of this strong link, with all that will follow at the level of management, valorization, education, and organization. And, of course, they will be deprived of important economic resources: in Florence it is the Uffizi and the Galleria dell’Accademia that take the so-called “lion’s share” and produce the most economic resources, which all the other museums in the current Polo Museale Fiorentino are now also drawing on, rightly so. Separating the Uffizi and Accademia from the rest (as the reform envisions) could cause a very hard blow on the economic level for the lesser-known but no less important realities. And the renzianism of this measure is glaring: wasn’t it Renzi who staked everything on fetishes, who used the important names of art history for marketing purposes (think, for example, of Leonardo da Vinci and the unsuccessful search for the Battle of Anghiari), who said that the Uffizi is “a money machine”? Not coincidentally, the Uffizi and Accademia are home to two iconic masterpieces, Botticelli’s Venus and Michelangelo’s David, respectively. Reform therefore could at the same time give autonomy to fetish museums, but penalize very important museums that are only guilty of not preserving works of art palatable to the marketing of waffling tourism. Think, again, of the National Museum of San Marco in Florence, where the highest testimonies of Beato Angelico’s art are preserved, many of them produced for that very place. In this regard, the open letter written by the museum’s director, Magnolia Scudieri, to Minister Dario Franceschini and published in Il Giornale dell’Arte is illuminating: it clearly presents all the dangers of these measures on museums.

It is surprising, therefore, that Montanari does not fear many of the dangers inherent in the reform. He who has always fought fervently against Renzi and Renzianism (and we have always supported him, and still do). Because undoubtedly this MiBACT reform is a high expression of renzianism. We may find incompetents at the bridge of command of the most important state museums, we may witness the breakup of the superintendencies, we may see the landscape damaged beyond repair, we may witness the glorification of fetishes and the disappearance of the most important but less famous places of culture. Propositions toward which Renzi’s action always seems to have acted. And against which Tomaso Montanari (for whom, we repeat, we continue to have undiminished esteem) has always fought. We can only say: we are truly amazed.... !

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.