Opinions

Superpower or imaginary superpower? Italian art between symbolic income and global competition

Il Bauer Palazzo, storico hotel a cinque stelle, e il Ca' Giustinian sul Canal Grande nel sestiere di San Marco a Venezia. Oggi è la sede della Biennale di Venezia. (Adobe Stock)

4' min read

Translated by AI
Versione italiana

4' min read

Translated by AI
Versione italiana

A fundamental misunderstanding runs through the debate rekindled in these days around the Venice Biennale. A misunderstanding that does not concern curatorial choices, nor the quantity of Italian artists in the central exhibition, nor the eternal dispute between 'system' and 'talent'. It is about us.

The 61st. International Art Exhibition of the Venice Biennale is entitled In Minor Keys. It is the exhibition conceived by Koyo Kouoh, the first African curator in the history of the Art Biennale, and carried out by the team she appointed. Among the 111 artists selected, there is no Italian. At the 60th edition there were less than ten out of 331. At Documenta 15 in Kassel, in 2022, they were practically absent. At the big international fairs, Art Basel, Frieze, the presence of Italian galleries is structurally marginal. These are not moods. They are data.

Loading...

The misunderstanding that paralyses us

Perhaps the word 'superpower' belongs to a lexicon that no longer concerns us. We are not. And continuing to repeat it like a mantra does not strengthen the system: it anaesthetises it. The Colosseum is not a cultural policy. The Uffizi is not a business plan. The history of Italian art is an extraordinary capital, but a capital that is devalued if it is not reinvested, projected into the present. And instead of investing it, we exhibit it. We use it as a shield of identity. As an alibi.

The market we did not build

In 2023, according to the Art Basel & UBS Global Art Market report, Italia will be worth less than 2% of the global art market. Great Britain 17%, the United States 45%. Germany allocates over 14 billion a year to public culture. France has built a cultural export system that passes through diplomacy, publishing, cinema, visual arts. South Korea has multiplied its share in the global contemporary art market by seven in twenty years.

The Italian galleries that operate globally can be counted on the fingers of two hands - Massimo De Carlo, Lia Rumma, Galleria Continua - and they often do so despite the system, not because of it. Italy does not have a global player among fairs of the calibre of Art Basel or Frieze: it has a multitude of mid-level fairs scattered throughout the territory that wage war against each other, a bit like the municipalities in medieval Italia. Each defends its own bell tower, none reaches the critical mass to compete on the international stage. Although we finally have the same VAT that is paid in other countries on transactions of contemporary artworks, taxation on donations to public institutions is still punitive compared to the French or American models.

The problem is not talent. It is the structure.

Italian contemporary art is not weak. It is abandoned. Research remains marginal, tolerated rather than promoted, confined to independent spaces that stand on fragile economies. The result is a self-referential system: if you do not cross over to other contexts, if you do not measure your work in a constant international tension, you end up always dialoguing with the same interlocutors. It is a sweet, almost unconscious autarky.

The real problem is not how many Italians have been invited to Venice. It is that when an Italian artist wants to establish himself on the international circuit, he often has to move to Berlin, New York or London to find the conditions that his own country does not offer him. This is not an aesthetic judgement. It is a system failure.

Because there is something more serious than marginalisation: not realising it. I cannot say what is more worrying: that we no longer count as we used to, or that we fail to recognise it ourselves and need others to tell us so in order to believe it.

A concrete proposal

The tools, in part, already exist. The Italian Council, active since 2017, finances international residencies, productions and acquisitions of Italian contemporary art around the world. It is a sign of institutional awareness, but still largely insufficient in numbers.

Three things are needed, and they must be done together.

First: to bring the Italian Council to a structural endowment of at least 100-200 million euros per year, because art is a driver of development, including economic development, and it is worth investing in it seriously rather than continuing to distribute obolus without a strategy, transforming it into a true strategic lever on the model of the British Council or the Goethe-Institut.

Second: a tax reform to make private donations to contemporary art truly affordable, bringing Italian deductions in line with French and American standards.

Third: institutionally separate the management of the contemporary from that of the historical heritage, assigning the Italian Council a multi-year mandate with mixed public-private governance and measurable objectives.

It is not a question of claiming a lost primacy. It is about deciding whether we want to return to being a productive ecosystem or remain a system that cherishes memory.

History is an extraordinary capital. But it is not a business plan.

The question is not whether we are excluded from an international exhibition, nor whether we are competitive or delude ourselves that we are.

Competitiveness does not come from self-marketing but from building a credible ecosystem.

The real question, then, is whether we are ready to stop contemplating ourselves and start building this ecosystem.

Copyright reserved ©
Loading...

Brand connect

Loading...

Newsletter

Notizie e approfondimenti sugli avvenimenti politici, economici e finanziari.

Iscriviti