SA: First of all I’d like to ask you something about your latest work, the book “Sculptors of Hope. Art in a globalized context” about to be published by Einaudi. It’s a tough and sensitive subject, if the title is any indication. You chose to approach it from the left field, looking for an attitude in contemporary art which can be found not only in your critical research but also in the projects you’ve been promoting during these years. I’m talking about your concern for territorial issues and practices (and poetics) of social harmony, always focussing on possible futures to build.

AD: The main subject of the book is not Public Art, my main concern was to highlight the idea of the responsibility of the artist in the sense that Luciano Fabro and many conceptual artists gave to the term, that is to trace the genealogies of many immaterial forms of art which can be entirely transversal but which never lose sight of what in the US is called “institutional critique”. I have attempted to focus on and make connections between particular moments and seminal experiences which to my mind have been neglected, starting with Conceptual Art and its legacy especially with reference to what happened in Italy where conceptual art has not been recognised as such and where very little is known of the work of some of the most intellectual and clear minded of artists such as Vincenzo Agnetti. I also think that it is high time for a reinterpretation of the work of Giulio Paolini who has always been contextualised as part of Arte Povera and almost never considered as a conceptual artist working in an Italian context, anticipating the times, along with another brilliant Italian artist, Piero Manzoni. Both these artists were making work which could be considered conceptual from 1960 onwards, ten years earlier than North American mainstream artists. Particularly important for me is also the transition from analytical forms of art typical of the late sixties and early seventies to more participatory practices, the breakdown of a universal idea of art in the face of a plural society and the proliferation of art practices based on ideas, interdisciplinary research and interactive attitudes. There is also a very Italian sensibility for space, the creation of a sense of place which forms a definite continuity and legacy of a long tradition of art and architects working in context which in the case of Italian artists was their way into relational aesthetics. My concern has also been to rescue relational art from the deadly embrace of curators like Bourriaud and to attempt to reinstate a confrontation with reality. Artwork that succumbs to solipsistic and self-referential practices makes fools of us all and becomes quickly irrelevant. The problem for a larger audience in understanding contemporary art is not lack of information but the cultivation of a sensibility, of self questioning, of looking with curiosity, an attitude which accompanies and interacts with the “attitudes” for artists.

SA: Let’s talk about your most acknowledged project, the research agency “Connecting Cultures”. It is safe to say that it’s now a landmark for artists and scholars not just Italian but from all over the world. Between exhibitions, panels, publications and public art projects, how has your work evolved in these past 10 years?

AD: Instinctively my first reaction would be to answer, by following my nose. Practically speaking, by concentrating on what we have been able to achieve thanks to small but significant public funds including two main mid term projects the Valdarno Project in the Tuscan Region in 2004-2006 and Milano e Oltre in Lombardy from 2010 still in progress. The basic premise is a vision of culture as a basic resource for both the development of society and the economy. There can be no long term development of society without cultural awareness. Cultural policies and cultural programming which encourage more interactive and participatory attitudes are the most important aspect of cultural planning. Inclusive public policies are also the basis of all new work in the social sphere which is slowly reducing its assistential role which has in the past encouraged a recriminatory approach towards the institutions, in favour of policies designed to build confidence and capabilities designed to render individuals more self reliant and able to find collaborative solutions to problems within the community but also on a larger scale. Social cohesion is best encouraged by participatory projects. Moreover there has been in recent years a complete misunderstanding between the cultural and the economic sectors encouraged by a shortsighted idea of maximising profits on the side of the business sector and an extremely conservative conception of the prerogatives of the nineteenth century bourgeois State and its paternalistic mission towards culture and heritage on the other. Here again there is very little insight towards policies that can address paradoxical situations such as Italian “cultural cities” overrun by forms of tourism no longer sustainable which are however in terms of percentages much lower than other European countries. The passivity of the tourist industry and those business sectors which benefit most from tourism in supporting heritage and cultural production is scandalous. This however is partly the fault of the cultural sector, its custodians and gatekeepers who have not properly understood the role economics should play in supporting the Arts. In general I would say that Connecting Cultures as an organisation has learnt to better understand the complexity of public art projects, whether we are referring to community based work or educational projects. We have become more articulate in separating skills, tasks, competence, sensibilities required in putting together a team and making a project work. There is a very high percentage of projects in this sphere that fail or are simply irrelevant. The main difficulty is to understand and measure the impact of public art projects on society. If you use public money you have to find a credible way of accounting for what has been spent.

SA: A concept around which all over the world public art, social and relational art and community art tend to gravitate is that of “public space”. What is then this “space” in which art forms relationships through workshops and shared creation practices? Can it be a concept that changes through time? Is it necessary to re-negotiate it in the present with other disciplines such as human geography, sociology and landscape architecture?

AD: Defining things too closely is always difficult because the moment you pinpoint something it tends to turn into its opposite. Unfortunately we have to realise that we live in a transient world, but despite the rapidity of change non everyone is aware of the constantly changing context. All definitions of art in the public sphere must take into account these rapid changes. What was considered public space until a few years ago: the square, the street, certain physical spaces is not always so. More and more chunks of the city are privatised and vice versa, private spaces such as commercial centres become public scenarios. The ways in which we experience, or use public spaces has changed, more often than not we walk through and across spaces in solitude or distracted by a phone conversations or at a speed which does not allow any real observation. Parts of the city change identity according to the time of day. We need to take into account these changes in the mobility of individuals or we risk applying outdated ideas or realising projects that have very little real significance.

SA: What does having to deal with a changing city entail then? I’m referring here, for example, to Milan and the “Milano e oltre” (Milan and beyond) project.

AD: Milano e oltre was an ongoing, artist led interdisciplinary workshop in different peripheral areas of the city. It was designed to give participants the skills necessary to understand landscape, its memory, and its potential as a resource and above all to give a select number of young professionals the opportunity of working together involving other stakeholders in the area. One of the main goals of Milano e oltre is to make Milan visible to the milanese, many of whom still believe they live in a city delimited by the Spanish walls of the historic city centre. The city has in fact exploded silently: in the eighties the Bovisa and Bicocca ex industrial areas took on a new vocation as university campuses, a process which came about with very little governance on the part of the local authorities. Milan is now the infinite city a metropolitan region, a metaphysical entity which no longer gravitates around a central nucleus but which is crossed in many different directions which now marginalise the centre, engulfing many extra urban areas. Our aim was to pinpoint the local, critical areas of an invisible city, attempting to turn them into potential resources.

SA: Speaking of Milan, you mentioned the definition of “infinite city”. In his essay – and in its namesake exhibition – sociologist Aldo Bonomi analyses the process of ongoing transformation happening in this city and its landscape, extending beyond visible boundaries. He identifies storytelling as the ideal navigational tool for finding our way within the “social space” and to express its characteristics and contraddictions. The work of artists, architects, designers, filmmakers is seen as a way to reconnect past and present in a context of dramatic changes. Is there a narrative void in transformation, as far as you can tell? And does the changing nature of cities dictate the urgency to intervene with language and images to commit to memory and communicate what will inevitably be lost in the process?

AD: I believe that the narrative element in many projects today is an important part of a more pluralistic and democratic representation of society, able to contrast the often empty rhetoric of many contemporary scenarios which are only a part of the story. However the most important thing is to bridge the void between specialistic knowledge often identified tout court as “knowledge” or worse “culture” and the understanding or sensibility for “place”, and for the landscape in general, for the many potential solutions and alternatives to heavy infrastructure which can often be less costly and less devastating for residents and inhabitants of a certain area. Every country has its NIMBY problems not always possible to solve through pacific negotiation. However, much damaging conflict can be avoided by an open discussion not with local politicians, but with local populations if (and only if) administrators are willing to learn from inhabitants, involve people in working towards solutions, listen to alternative, less invasive propositions, to evaluate and welcome possible alternatives. Evaluating territory from afar and from above, taking into account the local or what the local has to offer at a national or international level is a necessary step in the direction of a more interactive realistic conception of the common good. There is an often suppressed demand for a better quality of life which is not necessarily definable in terms of spending power but which is closer to those aspects of life which philosopher Martha Nussbaum and the Nobel prize winning economist Amartya Sen were able to give tangible and indexical value to in their study for the United Nations’ Human Development Index which revolutionised the term “quality of life” introducing a new crucial factor based on “capabilities”. In this definition, for example, poverty is defined as a “capability deprivation”.

SA: Let’s talk about “landscape”. Publications about this specific subject are quite a relevant portion in the archives of Connecting Culture’s documentation centre. The landscape we’ve come across in the projects of your research agency – from Progetto Valdarno to Paesaggi della biodiversità; from Imagining Parco Sud to, currently, Milano e oltre – is, in itself a multifaceted reality. What’s the meaning of “landscape” in your work?

AD: To begin with, we try to distinguish between “land” and “landscape”, the physical reality of territory and its representation. The physical reality of location means first of all positioning the observer within the landscape, coming to terms with cohabitation, economic development the needs and emergencies of change in a particular geopolitical entity. Landscape cannot be contemplated today without a thought for the ecosystems regulating its survival, without engaging with a holistic approach relating to context and sustainability.

SA: The conclusion of “Milano e oltre” coincides with the 10 years anniversary of Connecting Cultures. Assuming we could trace back the start of this specific research in Arte pubblica in Italia. Lo spazio delle relazioni (Public art in Italy. The space of relationships.), the exhibition you curated for Fondazione Pistoletto in 2003, what do you feel has changed today? How can we narrate, today, the public dimension of art? And what sort of project do you have in mind to inaugurate the next 10 years of research?

AD: The importance of space in relational terms is ever more evident and constitutes an implicit criticism of architecture and its values as cultivated in recent years. Spectacular architecture of the eighties in the style of the Guggenheim museum of Bilbao appears ever more sterile and unsustainable. The spectacular kills the relational, dwarfing and isolating the individual. Art in the public sphere has a number of different functions, as a service to the community, a platform for encounters, a catalyst for change. As for the next ten years my main hope would be to leave Connecting Cultures in a stronger position with an inbuilt autonomy and ability to sustain itself based on valid projects for the community and a good mix of fundraising skills. My main aim is to encourage competence and self reliance in all those who work in and with Connecting Cultures. My firm belief is that young professionals with whom I come in contact do not need jobs, any job that’s going. They mostly need something which their university training does not give them, mainly skills and capabilities in facing complex situations and problems in constantly changing contexts. Finding solutions in the real world beyond theory does not derive automatically from whatever highsounding academic school you come from, but on your acquired ability to understand, articulate and manage the situation to hand.

SA: The “Arte, Patrimonio e Diritti Umani” Prize, promoted by Connecting Cultures with the Fondazione Ismu; the “Milano e oltre” project. How does the agency value this specific aspect of its action, focussing on youth? What’s your goal when it comes to the new generation of young artists?

AD: The Award entitled Art, Heritage and Human Rights grew out of an international conference Lost in translation held in 2010 on the uses of Art in intercultural dialogue. The award, open to young artists under the age of 35 is however much more than this. It has in fact a twofold goal: that of encouraging a public vocation for artists working with cultural institutions, and that of soliciting a greater activism on the part of the institutions directed at reaching a wider audience. We organise seminars for cultural institutions, museums, libraries etc. working to attract migrant or immigrant populations, and at the same time provide young artists embarking on a public commission with assistance and an informal training “on the field” enabling her to face the complex steps and burocratic tasks involved in a public programme.