Spring Days and public heritage: a response to the vice president of FAI

Dear Vice President Magnifico,

I learn, from the Emergenza Cultura review, of your response to the article with which I tried to highlight the sad reality behind the celebratory narrative of the FAI Spring Days. I must say that I am gladdened by your response, because it denotes willingness to dialogue and openness, two indispensable qualities to nurture a healthy debate that aims to try to solve the problems that plague our cultural heritage. And I am also pleased to note the willingness to take into account, in future communication of the event, the fact that triumphalist tones sometimes get out of hand: the writer is convinced that, more than triumphalisms, discussions are needed. Even tough ones, if necessary, but always marked by mutual respect and focused on the real points of the issues.

However, I would like to point out that our positions still remain distant, for several reasons. It is true that the FAI Spring Days have now become a wonderful collective manifestation of interest and love for cultural heritage, although I find it almost impossible, and so do many others, to believe that heritage is a “central element of national identity.” I believe that the future, by breaking down borders and barriers and overcoming national differences but not those of individuals, can transform national identities into a cosmopolitan outlook, and in this slow process cultural heritage can represent a moment of participation in the life of one’s community, a lever to foster integration and dialogue, an opportunity for generations to meet, a means to grow our civic sense, in short an element to build a better tomorrow. And building a better tomorrow presupposes an active attitude, as opposed to the necessary passivity at which complacency about one’s national identity stops.

Photo Credit Matteo Vannacci

That said, I have never written or thought that FAI believes that the Spring Days represent “a model for solving the dramatic issue of the insufficient personnel and funding that the state dedicates to enhancement.” I merely pointed out how, in recent years, Minister Franceschini and Undersecretary Borletti Buitoni have looked with interest at the model of the Spring Days, which have been described by the minister himself as “the demonstration of how public and private together can do a really important job of enhancing and protecting cultural heritage” (and, in light of what you write, I am saddened to learn that “numerous municipal administrations” are asking you “to identify in their villages and monuments destinations to be included in the FAI Spring Days.” honestly, if a municipality decides to turn to You rather than to the ministry or a public body, moreover clinging to an event of only two days perhaps to promote a site or a place of culture, it evidently means that something is wrong). And if the FAI Days are to be considered a form of proactive denunciation, as you have pointed out, I fear that the scope of this denunciation is at least liable to misunderstanding, since the minister himself has expressed his willingness to “continue to support in all ways” your work: and how can the recipient of a protest express his intention to “continue to support” the protest itself? It would be a bit like an industrialist responding to a strike by his workers by stating that he would guarantee them the means to continue protesting. Therefore, I do not think it is far-fetched to consider that the message of FAI Days may appear equivocal: the result, perhaps, of a communication that focuses, as you observe, more on the moment of celebration than on the moment of denunciation.

No one, moreover, doubts that the activity of the “Apprentice Tour Guides” represents “a formidable educational experience” that puts young people “face to face with the responsibility of narrating some of their city’s monuments” (although I struggle to understand why you remark on the fact that such an activity succeeds in distracting them from tablets: modern electronic devices are wonderful tools for study and in-depth study, and I am against their demonization). However, I cannot help but point out that the little ciceroni, according to the FAI website, are entrusted with the task of illustrating an art or natural asset in their area “to an audience of adults or peers,” “including within FAI properties, where students will be called upon to welcome visitors and accompany them to discover the place, providing information about its history, larte, traditions and illustrating the landscape that frames it.” Those just listed (reception, escorting, guided tour) are all extremely delicate tasks, requiring specific skills and, in the case of escorting and guided tours, also special professional qualifications, which are obtained by taking exams that come at the end of detailed and precise courses of study. So can there not be other ways to employ willing school children, to whom all our appreciation for their passion and interest is due? Why should thousands of school children, then in the midst of their education, have to take on difficult tasks, requiring sectoral skills, which presuppose years of study and in-depth study? I tell you the truth: I would never dream of employing, in the magazine I edit, a high school boy to write articles that will be read by an adult audience. If anything, I might consider the idea of activating with him a path that would lead him to learn more in detail about the work of a journalist, that could make him aware of what it entails to do a certain job, and that could perhaps help him develop a passion of his own: it is certainly not excluded that the boy could produce content, but such content, of course, will never be a substitute for the work of a professional. You argue that a visit led by an “apprentice cicerone” is not a substitute: I, frankly, would not know how else to define an experience in which an adult audience is guided by a high school kid instead of a professional guide.

Finally, let me state that the ministry’s achievements in recent years are far from unchallengeable, as you assert in your letter: we have long been careful observers of all heritage data on these pages. It is worth mentioning how, over the past two years, the average number of visitors to small museums has dropped, while there have been conspicuous increases on larger museums: a sign that the ministry has wanted to focus more on big names than on small, diffuse heritage, and the staff shortages that continue to plague a great many museums are the most blatant demonstration of this. And these are problems that, moreover, are beginning to affect even larger museums: take the example, cited by a reader who commented on my first article born from the idea of the FAI Days, of the National Gallery of Palazzo Spinola in Genoa, a wonderful reality that I know very well, given the geographical proximity, a museum that is part of a pole led by one of the best directors we have in Italy, Serena Bertolucci, and where competent professionals work, prepared, animated by boundless passion. Yet, due to the lack of turnover, this museum, one of the most important in northern Italy, has been forced to keep its doors closed on Sundays for the past few weeks, and it is not known when they will reopen for visitors who intend to spend the holiday within the walls of this very important institution.

I renew my appreciation and admiration for the work that FAI carefully carries out, not least because it is true, as you rightly state, that your foundation permanently employs two hundred and fifty people and professional guides, and it is also true that, by allocating funds for the recovery of endangered property, it activates additional qualified work done by art historians, architects, and archaeologists. My first article was directed against the ministry’s inattention to the issue of work: and to the questions around this issue, the ministry has never given satisfactory answers in recent times. The FAI Spring Days, and their employment of volunteers, have been a sounding board: however, I see that you agree with me that precariousness is a problem that “afflicts an impressive number of young and not-so-young people who intend to devote their professional activity to Cultural Heritage.” Let us therefore work so that the future holds brighter prospects for those who have decided to dedicate their lives to culture and heritage. Let us put pressure on politics to give precise answers to the many questions that young people are asking it. We seek to obtain from the ministry a precise line, a forward-looking vision, long-term programs. At stake are our heritage and our future.

With esteem,
Federico Giannini

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.