The recent finding by the Court of Auditors against the former director of the State Archives of Naples, Candida Carrino, which calls on her to compensate for a loss to the public treasury of 613,000 euros, which represents lost revenue resulting from the granting of archive spaces free of charge or at rates deemed too low between 2021 and 2024, is an incident that should give pause not only to those involved in culture but also to policymakers themselves.
During those years, the former director was the architect of a genuine renaissance of the State Archives: a statement that is in no way intended to diminish her predecessors, but rather to highlight her managerial merits and her modern vision of the archives as a cultural space, in line with many international examples. The former director transformed a place accessible only to a very small number of insiders into a vibrant space open to the city. She opened its spaces to ordinary citizens, who rediscovered a gem in Naples, and she also launched various initiatives that positively impacted the archive’s image: from the restoration of the historic gardens and vegetable patches in the courtyards to the restoration of the cisterns for water collection. Numerous initiatives were carried out in collaboration with city agencies, demonstrating that cultural institutions must engage with various local stakeholders. However, the former director was also at the center of a controversy over a wedding held in the archive’s historic halls—a private event that helped the Archive generate revenue but which, in this one instance, proved incompatible with the preservation of the site. This was perhaps the only ‘banana peel’ she slipped on (thrown by someone?) in nearly six years of work, during which—through scientific and cultural projects, publications, and events—she brought the State Archives of Naples back to the general public.
However, this discussion is not intended to focus on the person or the work of the Court of Auditors, but rather on the principles that should guide a cultural manager. Let us be clear: the Court of Auditors does not accuse the former director of the State Archives of Naples of having enriched herself through the archives’ events. What she is accused of is having granted the use of the archive spaces she directed—for events and television filming—either free of charge or at prices that were too low. Let us clarify once more: the intention here is not to judge the work of the Court of Auditors, but rather its methodology. In fact, in 2026, it is surprising to those involved in culture that an exhibition or other cultural activity should yield only economic returns. It is as if other types of returns—social, cultural, or reputational—did not even exist.
Economic performance is a fundamental tool in cultural management and in evaluating a director’s work, but it cannot be the sole indicator. In recent years, cultural institutions have still been judged too heavily on quantitative factors—such as the number of tickets sold or the revenue generated—often excluding their social and cultural impact on the local community, qualitative metrics that are measured far too rarely through social impact reports. This logic leads to measuring and weighing everything from a purely economic perspective—whether it’s a loan, an exhibition, or an event.
The incident involving the former director of the State Archives of Naples stems from this logic, which evidently still struggles to view a director as a manager but rather as a figure closer to an accountant. The cultural manager thus becomes a sort of deli owner, expected to evaluate the cost of initiatives, projects, events, and works of art by the kilogram. In recent years, this perspective has increasingly led to public cultural institutions—such as museums—being viewed as profit-generating tools, useful to the state for raising revenue. It is right and important for these institutions to aim for their own economic sustainability, but the purpose of culture cannot be to generate revenue for the state. The purpose of culture should be to foster development—first and foremost cultural and social—to enhance civic spirit and our awareness, and to prompt us to reflect on the human condition. It is certainly welcome if, directly or indirectly, culture also manages to have a positive economic impact on the local area. Public cultural institutions cannot, therefore, be viewed merely as tools for generating revenue, but rather as investments in the development of citizens.
In light of these considerations, I believe this episode is a very troubling sign for those involved in culture, but it could also be an opportunity to reverse this course. An opportunity to finally accept that a cultural product is something unique, and that its complexity and function cannot make it comparable to other products.
The author of this article: Francesco Carignani di Novoli
Esperto in management e politiche culturali, è Capo Delegazione FAI a Napoli - Fondo per l'Ambiente Italiano oltre che Governatore alla Gestione e Valorizzazione del Patrimonio Culturale del Pio Monte della Misericordia. È inoltre Fellow of the RSA - Royal Society of Arts, membro del coordinamento regionale di ICOM - International Council of Museums e Presidente di Fucina Umanistica Digitale.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.
IT
FR
DE
ES
CN
