The participants in this roundtable discussion observed that in order to debate the issue of culture and its link with society (hence, with the places where culture exists or is showcased) and with businesses (those in a position to fund cultural initiatives and make them possible and accessible), an understanding of what “culture” means is vital. Indeed, it was observed that the concept of culture is polysemous. The gamut of meanings, actions and events that it refers to range from the pure and concrete practice of the arts to their most abstract product, namely, the evocation of the transcendental and the unknown. There is also the concept of culture as custodian of the sense of things and life, as well as of the identity of a community. Finally, there is the purely anthropological sense of the acquisition of culture, which thus becomes a tool for personal development and intellectual and spiritual growth.
The enjoyment of art stimulates the formulation of criteria for discernment of value and compels the exercise of critical thinking, which best characterizes every person’s autonomy and independence of judgment the more well-honed it is. An individual cannot, however, be said to be fully-formed unless he/she is integrated within a system or wider network – first and foremost of other individuals, but also of businesses and trade. Society and the dynamism of the economy contribute to building a network of exchanges that increase the cultural opportunities of every citizen, and, as a consequence, of the community as a whole.
Cultural institutions, it was noted, provide the forum and time for people to gain cultural experience, knowledge and training, and engage in exchange and interaction. They provide environments within which people can identify themselves and “recall the tribulations of society”. Cultural sites and events must therefore be managed and administered by those who are aware of the need to inject soul into cultural assets, conveyed to those who visit them as a form of identification. Cultural sites or events can also be virtual, but no less well-defined by the soul their administrators have invested them with, as it is vital for them to offer members of the public an opportunity for identification – in other words, a common space on which to build a community. Events which have succeeded in this endeavor include the Salone del Mobile and the Triennale in Milan, the MITO SettembreMusica Festival, the Biennale in Venice and the Festival dei Due Mondi in Spoleto.
In this regard, cities are places where citizens should be able to culturally enrich themselves, and hence, to grow and foster growth in others. Art, it was felt, is there to serve a city and act as a unifying force, creating a loyal community willing to improve itself and the environment in which it lives. Organizing cultural initiatives in a city can help to rehabilitate degraded areas and transform community spaces into new heritage sites. People’s habitats thus become places of identity, imbuing these efforts with added significance.
In this respect, the public function of the business sector is very important as, by keeping their productive role within society separate, they can nevertheless provide a clear impetus for cultural activities. Alongside the general public, businesses can concretely contribute to the cultural growth of society. For instance, by introducing cultural activities in the workplace, they create opportunities to bring people together and therefore build a shared identity among workers. In addition, they have the advantage of being able to convey certain values to consumers. Corporate social responsibility also entails making their expertise (for instance, in the area of marketing) available to the cultural sphere, and investing in a sector that despite intense creative and proactive efforts is increasingly facing funding shortages. Questions were therefore raised regarding how culture is financed today, and by whom and how cultural institutions are managed. The participants highlighted the need for attention to be focused on the use of merit-based criteria in assessing proposals for cultural initiatives and the organizations that support them, and on the timeframes for disbursement of funding contributions – which are often too slow or are made available too late to keep up with the pace at which cultural events are typically planned. There is also a need for greater coordination between the public and private sectors, ensuring that cultural heritage can be exploited in such a way as to produce good culture as well as flow-on financial benefits.
Finally, it was noted that Italy’s vast cultural heritage is scattered throughout the country and that it is therefore strategic and fundamental that fragmentation in the sector be reduced, including in the area of management, with unnecessary cultural institutions being eliminated. Investment in logistical infrastructure is needed in order to streamline a system that is currently overly bureaucratic and slow and, hence, counterproductive. In order to tell one’s story, it is necessary to know oneself. Those involved in the cultural sphere and those who fund its activities should therefore consider cultural training and education in schools and universities as pivotal to fostering critical thinking, providing interpretative tools and defining an Italian cultural identity. The participants concluded that it is not enough to simply rehabilitate the country’s historical heritage; the story of Italy today must also be told, with cultural institutions and cities transformed into international ambassadors of contemporary Italy.