Recent events, such as the election of the provocateur Mr. Trump as President of United States, the increasing migrations phenomena or the rise of new forms of terrorism, ask for a concrete answer from Europe in one of most important characteristics of our political history: the role and the implementation of the so-called Welfare State. When we talk about Welfare State we describe a set of policies, services and other actions that the public bodies of a Country set up in order to improve the life conditions of its own citizenship. Among the benefits that European Countries most frequently provide to citizens, Culture represents a peculiar object, not only for its structural characteristics (intangible assets and so on) but also for the different ways that governments are interpreting this important resource for human and social development. The implementation of the welfare state often includes also culture and cultural policies, but in most of cases, there is no a common interpretation of how (and which) culture should be provided: this is, to our point of view, one of the central key tasks for the European Agenda. Briefly, from one hand we have the most important traditions about cultural heritage but, on the other hand, Europe forgets that culture is, first of all, a contemporary matter of concern. Since ’50s Europe left to the U.S. the role cultural leader and from then, U.S. showed to the world the ideology of the western, developed countries. We divided the world in rich and poor countries, and our culture was the medium through which we stated that yes, we were in the right place of the world.
In the overview of the museum offer, are the “small museums” a separate category? What are the characteristics of a “small museum” and what are the specific necessities? What are the weaknesses and the strengths? The example of Piemonte shows the extreme prosperity of the “small museums” heritage and also their tight relationship with the territory, but it highlights some points still unresolved. The paper enlightens some scenarios on which it is necessary to intervene with specific actions, underlining the profiles on which it is important to reflect.
The art and health nexus has always existed, from art as a representation of healthy and sick body to art as a therapeutic tool, to accommodate an ecological conception of human-environment dynamics and becoming “context” in hospitals and healthcare facilities. In recent decades it has received more attention and art began to be the action of changes which follows the state of health, as it has been defined by the WHO (World Health Organization): not merely the absence of disease and infirmity, but a state of physical, mental and social wellbeing. The growing awareness of the social dimension of experiencing art and participation in culture, generated artistic proposals in illegitimacy areas and they became vehicles for the interpretation and transformation of the human and social reality. Interactions thus generated have opened different paths and contexts of meaning capable of building a new paradigm of reality’s knowledge. Artistic and scientific exploration have contributed to emergence of a culture of health that attempts to overcome the diversification and geographic, demographic and social stratifications of wealth. The Culture conceived in this way is a guide of public and private decision-making process, in which everyone has the opportunity to make choices towards healthier lifestyles. This metaphorical reorientation of the categories of thought and ideologies has placed art and culture as a point of interest, in an international context, of different systems: economic, political, educational, technological. In the Italian, cultural system seems to have fully transposed this paradigm shift, becoming an active subject. In a world in which the arts are increasingly forced to justify their shrinking funding, against public accusations of elitism, it is comforting to take note of insights and planning actions that museums and various cultural institutions are producing as a coherent response of “civilization” to an attentive reading of needs.