In these months, like many if not all, I have reflected on the consequences of what man has put in place to defend itself from (or to live together with) the virus which, in its invisibility is as harmful to man’s social life as it is to man himself.

If something so big is happening, and it involves the whole of humanity, the first thing to do is to analyze what seems inadequate or wrong today: an object in the house in which we are forced to live 24 hours a day; the organization of an office where sooner or later we will return to work or that we will leave instead; the reception areas of public services such as hospitals and stations, or of meeting places such as bars, restaurants, hotels, stadiums, etc.; cultural facilities, from museums to theatres and concert halls.

The other thing to do is to start a new project season that overcomes disciplinary barriers and involves all available acting parties (anthropologists, scientists, philosophers), with the awareness that this project’s design has to be born from the criticism – even radical and better if merciless – of the reality that we want to change, as well as from listening to society, to its needs and its difficulties. In this way, innovation and culture can meet again.

In fact, if the impact that the virus has produced on our personal life has been enormous, what it caused on our collective life has been even greater. In particular, the world of culture, exhibitions, concerts, theatres – which mainly lives on collective enjoyment, and on the relationship with the public – comes out devastated by the closure, before, and the “social distancing” now imposed by the response against the virus.

The first concerts and theatre performances, even if happened outdoors, have witnessed fruition in “solitary distancing”, absolutely unacceptable (as, instead, the beauty of a cultural performance is to be found in participation). This increases the distance between actors and spectators and causes not only a decreased participation but also a growing disaffection of the audience.

The cultural productions, exhibitions, shows, concerts, festivals, of which Italy is very rich thanks to its history, have been upset by the rules that the fight against Covid-19 have imposed in terms of constraint both for those on the stage and for the audience. It is a question of money, of economies, but also of completely different ways of producing and participating in culture.

A great debate has begun, therefore, on what will happen in such an important part of the life of all communities, cities, and territories. What will happen to the great contemporary creativity? What will happen in the places of preservation of historical and artistic heritage? Is a general shift of cultural fruition (and production) to digital means credible? If we have a constant decrease of audience at the shows, and of visitors at museums and exhibitions, how will we make these activities sustainable? Which training system will or will have to support the cultural institutions with the new professional skills that are required? This debate raises so many questions and so many uncertainties, and we are getting short of time. Will we have enough time to give the right answers?

In Italy, the world of culture has mobilized. In order to “buy” time, the creation of a Culture Fund has been requested: a large national long-term loan guaranteed by the Italian State, useful to give more time to the cultural and creative institutions and companies, so that they could plan the new future, the “new normality”, the new cultural project and the investments that will be necessary.

We do not know if the resources allocated by the Government will be sufficient, but they will certainly allow to attest to the needs and to understand the requirements of the Italian cultural system.