In planning exhibits based exclusively on the success obtained with the public, the educational and research role of the museums is impoverished. It is senseless to have an exhibit just for the sake of having it, something new must always be proposed
You have often referred to the “blockbuster syndrome” of cultural events. Can you explain this better?
It is obvious that large exhibits are staged to create above all the blockbuster phenomenon and for improving, with the number of visitors, the museum’s budget. This means that the program is chosen just for the sake of itself: it has no autonomy, no balance and is designed only to attract visitors to the museum, a logic that is similar to commercial TV. In planning exhibits based only on the success achieved with the public, the educational and research role of museums is impoverished. It is senseless to have an exhibit just for the sake of having it, something new must always be proposed. It is an entirely different story when large exhibits are included into a program aimed at favoring and are therefore also useful in attracting the public to other exhibits. Serious museums have balanced programs and quality exhibits.
If you were asked to direct a museum in Italy, what would you do and where would you begin?
I directed 3 museums in 3 different countries (Porto, Valencia, London). Every time I reply that no set formula exists: museums are not a franchising and the same recipe cannot be applied to all of them. The museum must always be anchored in the reality of the place, while also reach out to the rest of the world with its own voice and identity. I think of a museum that has never been created before and that allows you to see a point of view that is different from the culture of a specific country, participating in this way in a universal dialogue.
On which basis are you building the new direction of the Tate Modern?
The method I have chosen for presenting collections is not chronological and it makes no sense to continue exhibiting collections in a thematic way, as is usually the case. We wish to tell stories, each one with a strong sense of the place, with freedom and not “represent” the history of art. Our program prefers the research and balance of the classic, modern and contemporary art, and flees from the typical Anglo-Saxon vision that used to dominate in the past, namely, only American or British artists. We, for example, have presented four South American artists such as Francis Alys and Frida Khalo, just to mention two of them. In the future we intend to explore also other geographical areas. With regard to Turbine Hall, the Tate Modern’s most famous exhibition hall, we have decided to ask a different artist each year to create an artwork specifically for this space, in total freedom. The artist must be free to interpret reality, we cannot impose a theme, only space.
Which artists do you feel best represent the concept of contemporary art today and why?
I prefer not to mention any names. Our pogram explains what we believe in and our concept of contemporary art. The Terna Prize 02 intends to join the best corporate practices with cultural ones favoring a reflection on the need to look ahead to the planet’s future focusing on the responsibility toward the environment and energy.
Do you feel this objective is attainable and is art today still capable of promoting a greater critical awareness?
Yes, also because the artist goes beyond reality, the one that isn’t visible to us while also favoring the individual’s critical view. This also means that the visitor must not necessarily share his choices. I am interested in art that discovers new worlds, those we can only imagine. The type of art I am interested in is the one that discovers new worlds, of which we could sense the existence.
2009-10-05
