Kick-starting discussions at this Talk-debate event was the observation that art and democracy are closely-intertwined expressions of humanity. Art has accompanied man since prehistoric times. The successions of cultures over the centuries have produced an artistic heritage that was an embodiment of their community and their founding values. It was suggested that the period in which the secular modernity of humanity made its greatest strides was undoubtedly the Renaissance, not only in the arts and aesthetics, but also in the technical and political realms. Indeed, it was with Machiavelli that politics first became a subject of study and analysis.
The first question addressed in the debate was where the figure of the artist should sit vis-à-vis the political sphere. It was stressed that the artist cannot stand aloof from it, whether in a totalitarian regime – where art can be ignored, or repressed, or even molded to become art of the regime – or in a democracy. Today, times are difficult, and the intellectual professions seem to have no natural abode. A view expressed was that with the pervasiveness of tensions and rifts, it is precisely those pursuing these professions that have the responsibility of asking questions and striving to find ways to heal the fractures within society. In keeping with this interpretation was the account given by Michelangelo Pistoletto, who pointed in this regard to Hominitheism and Demopraxy, his manifesto for the responsible transformation of society through art.
A further question posed was whether art and culture can, accordingly, provide a response to the shortcomings of democracy, and whether they can fill the political, cultural, and informational void so deeply felt by society and especially by younger generations, who can no longer find meaning in the concept of representation. The participants acknowledged that there is an art form that gives voice to the hardships of young people especially, namely, street art, which draws attention to a section of society that feels cut off from the mainstream. It was thus felt that the idioms of contemporary art can be likened to alarm bells, which prompt us to observe and take note of phenomena occurring within the community.
In this regard, the representation of a particular disruptive phenomenon, that is, migration, was held up as a key consideration in the relationship between contemporary art, democracy, and politics. Indeed, although celebrity culture and individualism are the forms more generally associated with the contemporary art world, a Political Art 2.0 movement appears to be emerging that expresses the social criticism of artists who – albeit with different emphases and following trajectories that do not always sit well together – feel the need to bear witness to this dramatic phenomenon.
Yet while contemporary art conveys a narrative and acknowledgement of the city and community in which it exists, the issue is how to enable it to reach people. This – it was noted – was the question that the Fondazione Nicola Trussardi posed itself when it decided to fulfil its mission (in a completely democratic manner) of disseminating contemporary culture. From this sprang innovative projects, in which art was installed in key everyday spaces in Milan, thereby ensuring that people “stumble upon” works of art, to then be provided with an explanation of what they have in front of them. This relationship between contemporary art and the city was seen as also embodied in projects geared to showcasing the city’s ancient artistic and cultural heritage, using abandoned historical spaces as venues for contemporary art exhibitions, thus enabling their renewed use by the community.
It was highlighted that facilitating access to the fruits of art and culture beyond the confines of the city is a key aspect in the relationship between art and democracy. In this regard, today’s digital technologies were viewed as helpful, allowing cultural information to be made available to all, wherever in the world they may be. There was recognition, however, that collaboration with cultural institutions is essential in order to pursue this goal, to help them tune in to the digital speak essential to engage with an audience that increasingly uses it. True democratization of cultural access – it was submitted – requires recognition of the geographical diversity of culture, prioritization of mobile platforms as a means for conveying information, devising solutions that are low-tech and low-cost, involving younger generations, and coming up with ideas to make cultural offerings more appealing and enjoyable.
Lastly, it was underlined that art is above all an opportunity, and can be a means for Italy to exert soft power, both at the level of communications and of informal diplomacy. It represents a strong economic sector which has a sizable impact on wealth and can, not least, make a significant contribution to rethinking democracy itself. Ultimately, it was concluded that as long as there is art, there is democracy.
