REVIEW: Bill Viola / Michelangelo

Aaand for art lovers, we’re back with another review of an exhibition! (This review is also on Youtube, click here to see it!)

I spent yesterday morning at the Royal Academy of the Arts in Piccadilly, London, at the exhibition ‘Bill Viola / Michelangelo: Life, death, rebirth‘, which opened on January 26 and will be on until the end of March.

Michelangelo’s The Lamentation over the Dead Christ, c. 1540 © The Trustees of the British Museum

‘Bill Viola / Michelangelo’ is an exhibition where video works from the visual artist Bill Viola are put in conversation with drawings made by Michelangelo (which – note – are owned by the Queen!!). I must say I was quite sceptic, it’s not something common to see works by one of the most famous artists of the world exhibited together not only with contemporary artworks, but with videos! I wasn’t sure about this contrast, but at the same time it was made by such a famous institution that I had to see it, at least. I also started appreciating more and more video art – my love for everything digital is getting stronger – so I decided to give it a chance.

I am actually still struggling in deciding where to start, it is not one of those straightforward exhibition where personal interpretation doesn’t really matter. In this case, the themes explored touch us all, and I suppose that the whole experience depends on how we perceive those particular themes. What I felt during the exhibition and that didn’t fade during the rest of the day is… I don’t know how to put it into words. It’s a sort of peace, simple, natural, but not positive; there is melancholy, there is fear, and death to some extent.

Viola’s Tristan’s Ascension (The Sound of a Mountain Under a Waterfall), 2005 – Courtesy Bill Viola Studio. Photo: Kira Perov

(I probably didn’t get the part about rebirth, did I?)

Bill Viola was born in 1951 in New York, and he’s one of the first generation of artists that started working with the digital medium thanks to the introduction of portable and cheap cameras in the 60s. I feel that one of the most important elements of his practice is to understand his view of ‘time’, which he considers one of the central revolutions of image-making – he also compares it to the introduction of perspective in Renaissance art. And time actually has a central role in his videos, which are usually extremely slow-motion scenes representing people in different contexts, often underwater. And it is that same, soft sound of being underwater, that sense of slowness, that follows the visitor through and out of the exhibition, as if time had been stretched. At the same time, his videos are continuously looped, giving a sense of suffocating eternity.

Michelangelo’s The Risen Christ, c.1532-3 © Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

Viola’s art explores different themes, often having philosophical and spiritual significance. He engaged with Renaissance art (he went to Florence to study during his education), with religious mysticism, and he combines contemporary technology with ancient tradition. He seeks to explore life, death, religion. Viola suggested that films could “function both as aesthetic objects of contemporary art and as practical objects of traditional contemplation and devotion”.

However, while he explores these themes, it is not entirely clear what he wants to say, what his artworks are suggesting the viewer. No doubt that they easily attract the eyes of the audience because of the subjects and the aesthetic; they invite the viewer to stand still and forget the world for a few moments, but then? What is there after this? Does he want to recreate a sort of mystical experience? Does he want to tell a story? Is he sharing his view of the world? Or he actually didn’t want to do any of these things, and just underline the connection between life and death?

Bill Viola’s Nantes Triptych, 1992, right, opposite Michelangelo’s Taddei Tondo – Photograph: David Parry © Royal Academy of Arts
The Virgin and Child With the Infant St John the Baptist (the Taddei Tondo), c1504-5 by Michelangelo © Royal Academy of Arts, London

Moreover, the conversation between his works and Michelangelo’s is, sometimes, forced, and the dialogue created is not achieved completely. The Nantes Triptych, formed by three different videos representing a woman giving birth, a body floating in water and Viola’s dying mother, is installed in front of Taddei Tondo (1505) by Michelangelo, where the Virgin Mary is comforting baby Jesus, scared at the sight of a goldfinch – symbol of the crucifixion. If from one point of view the two artworks seem to be in a close connection because of the coexistence-of-death/life-theme, on the other there is something unconvincing about it – isn’t it too straightforward? And what is the connection between Viola’s view of daily life – a man floating underwater – and Michelangelo’s?

And the same happens in the other rooms where the artists’ works are installed together, the dialogue is not convincing and appears just thanks to the clues in RA’s information boards on the walls. To me, it seems that, despite the shared themes of spirituality, materiality and life/death, Michelangelo’s works were diminished. It is as if they were reduced to the most appropriate interpretation for this particular exhibition, and for Viola’s video.

At the same time, I liked the show: Viola’s videos need to be experienced on a big screen, with the right light and the right atmosphere, in order for the audience to enter in contact with the artwork itself. I must admit that it does require some time, but it reveals itself to be a poetic experience. Especially when you accept the stillness of the video, and you start realising that you, first of all, have to experience the exhibition itself with slowness and calm in order to fully appreciate it.

But it is also important to notice that, in those rooms where both Michelangelo’s and Viola’s work were installed, the drawings totally eclipsed the videos because of their undeniable beauty.

I mean, it’s Michelangelo.


Oscars 2018: too politically correct?

I know, I am a few days late, taking some time to reflect on the outcome of this Oscar night was very much needed!

I woke up last Monday morning to find out that Green Book had won as Best Motion Picture. With a perfect timing, I had actually watched that move the night before with a few friends, and one of the first things that I thought while watching it was ‘No, it’s too funny, it is not going to win’, so my bet had fallen on Cuaròn’s Roma. But, God, I was so wrong!

Green Book

My immediate reaction was really, really, really negative. I don’t think that Green Book is not a movie worthy to win as Best Picture. It is witty, it makes the audience laugh, it easily moves with its banal-but-reassuring happy-ending, and undoubtedly it is a lovely movie to watch. But no, Best Picture is waaaaay too much. And I wasn’t expecting the Oscars to be SO politically correct.

For those of you who haven’t watched Green Book, it is set in the racist United States of the 60s around the real story of Tony Vallelonga (Viggo Mortensen), an Italo-American living in the Bronx, who becomes the chauffeur, and then friend, of Dr. Shirley (Mahershala Ali), a sophisticated Afro-American piano player.

 When I think about last years’ winners, there was something that differentiated the winners from the mass: I didn’t like The Shape of Water, way too sappy and surreal, but at least the direction was something. I could feel that it was going to win, certainly because of the love-wins-over-difference theme but also for other formal and aesthetic arrangements. Same for Moonlight in 2017, it was again the typical, socially engaged story for the Oscars, but at least there was something more.

This time, on the other hand, I didn’t feel Green Book had nothing extraordinary. I liked it, I laughed, it also moved me. It highlights an issue which must never be forgotten, but c’mon, Best Picture?? I would have approved more if The Favourite had won, but sorry, lesbians in the 18th century are not as important as racism in the 60s.

Still image from The Favourite

And, from one perspective, the Oscars are an American price, so it is understandable that they give voice to their ‘local’ (if it can be called local, since it is exported in almost the whole world) culture and try to send messages that touch mainly – but not exclusively – Americans. And nowadays, with Trump and the 2020 elections, it is more than necessary to continuously highlight and bring to memory the past in order not to make the same mistakes.

(And it is amazing how, for the past six Oscars editions – excluding in 2016 – the award for best director was always won by a Mexican director: Alfonso Cuaròn in 2013 and 2018, Alejandro G. Iñarritu in 2014 and 2015, Guillermo del Toro in 2017.)

Kathryn Bigelow accepting the Oscar for The Hurt Locker

But, on the other hand, isn’t the Academy Award an institution celebrating filmmaking and honoring remarkable artists of the film industry? Is it appropriate to be this politically correct in an institution that, formally, promotes first-class cinema? And then, if the Academy gives so much attention to social and nondiscriminatory themes, why is it that only one woman in history, Kathryn Bigelow in 2008, won an Oscar as Best Director?

I want this to be the starting point for a quiet debate in your minds, as it is happening in mine. I still don’t have an answer, and if half of me is more and more disappointed each year that the Academy rewards movies for the themes and not for the movie itself, on the other hand I don’t feel like I should totally demonize what happens.

As always, I would love to hear what you think!

Opinion: video games as art? pt. 2

… As introduced, let’s continue where we left off last Sunday. (If you missed pt. 1, you can go back to it here)

So, we were talking about the video game Journey, and how it connects to the topic we are going to explore today: video games as a form of art. So, yes, I’m not just telling you that video games should be seen under a more positive lights by parents, but that they should also be considered as art.

The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, 2011

If this ↑ was a digital painting by Pinco Pallino, the most famous digital artist in 2019, wouldn’t it be art?

Fe, 2018

What about this? Would you consider it beautiful enough to have it printed and hanged on the wall of your bedroom?

I actually would, is it just me?

Actually, the team of video game companies also include artists – the only difference is that they are ‘game artists’. They take care of the visual development of the game, and that means that they determine the graphics, colours, ambience, of the environment where the character is going to be.

The making of two characters in League of Legends, 2017 © Riot Games

This is usually done just like it was an animated movie: maybe starting with drafts made by hands, then transferring them on a computer and translating them into 3D models. But so many different techniques can be used: some games are 2D, with a retro-feeling, some others are iper-realistic, others again are more particular and made by independent developers. So, if video games actually have artists producing them, why are they not considered art?

Metro Exodus, 2019 – she’s a bit creepy, isn’t she?

Of course, there are also games that don’t look that good (especially when representing people, apparently they’re so difficult to render in video games). Once again, I find games to be quite similar to cinema, but with a ‘smaller’ audience: some of them have a horrible director, in others the screenplay doesn’t make sense, others again seem paintings, like Wes Anderson’s.

It is the same with video games: some of them have a good story, others are boring, others again touch the player because of the themes or the digital rendering. And you choose which game to play according to the genre you usually like, just like deciding which movie to watch. So why is cinema an art and video games are not? Is it because, with video games, your experience is influenced by your behaviour in the game? Is it because of interaction, one of the main components of video games which is not, on the other hand, present in other artistic mediums like fine art or cinema?

Still from Black Mirror: Bandersnatch, 2018

This last statement can actually be pretty easily contested. Recently, the new episode of the famous TV series Black Mirror called Bandersnatch introduced in the world of media the concept of ‘interactive film’: the viewer engages in the story by taking decisions for the main character. Just like those video games that are, let’s say, less interactive than usual, where you cannot use your arrows to move the character but you can determine his/her decisions.

Rain Room at Yuz Museum, Shanghai © Virginia Bianchi

And fine art as well is becoming more and more interactive and is trying to let the public be not just an audience but also an important part of the artwork itself. I have to examples for this: first of all, the exhibition called Rain Room by Random International, which I have seen in Shanghai but that I know has been around the world for quite some time.

As you can see from the picture, it is a whole exhibition focused on this platform where rains. Thing is that thanks to special sensors, the rain stops on the head of the visitors, who can wander around, with rain pouring at 20cm from where they are standing. Here, the movement of the visitor has a central impact on how he lives the whole experience, the artwork itself wouldn’t have the same meaning if just observed from the outside.

teamLab Borderless © teamLab Inc
teamLab Borderless © Virginia Bianchi

Second example, another permanent exhibition that I know has had quite a lot of success as very ‘instagrammable’, realized by teamLab in what is now called the *inhales* Mori Building Digital Art Museum Epson teamLab Borderless *exhales* in Tokyo. ‘Borderless’ since the exhibits are not confined to their respective rooms, but they transition from one to another. There are many different rooms with different light effects, but most of them are interactive, they react to the audience and they are never repeated: it is not that they are on the loop, and the lights repeat themselves after a while, but their movement depends on audience participation through what is called ‘smart learning’. The technology used in this exhibition perhaps is not that connected to gaming in particular, but it is another instance of art defined by the collective and interactive experience of the audience.

This is just to say that the excuse that video games are not art because of interactive features is not an option. So why are video games so far from the general idea everyone has of art? I suppose that the answer is that it’s just because they have never been considered as such. Probably for the fact that they have been first developed as entertainment, and the focus on aesthetics came only later. But I want to think that it is possible to change how people perceive video games, and I want to try to make other see what I see when playing a game. A

Hope you enjoyed the second and last part of article, and feel free to leave your thoughts below!

Opinion: today’s world of video games, pt. 1

The theme of this week’s Sunday article is something that I have always had at heart, and I am very sensitive about. This means that I could very easily be one-sided and stifle all opponents (kidding! 😇). That topic, that is going to be the focus not only of today, but also of Wednesday’s post, are video games! I know it is definitely not a topic for everyone, some people love them, others hate them, but please, try and read the whole article before giving your opinion. That is the thing, I am happy to listen to other people’s thoughts only if it is a two-way process, if a conversation and an exchange can be created.

My first love, Pokémon Leaf Green for Game Boy

I would like first to try and debunk the myth that video games are only for those weird people that spend their whole day at home in front of a screen, shooting and doing horrible things to other virtual avatars and eating junk food because they don’t even know how to cook. I love playing video games, I can call myself a gamer even if that is not my life’s only purpose, and I can assure everyone that nowadays games have evolved so much.

A TV service aired in January 2019 (!!) on a really popular program of the Italian television called Striscia la Notizia, really gave me, and the whole Italian gaming community, the creeps. You can find the video here, and I will try to summarize it for the non-Italian speakers: taking Fornite (a multiplayer ‘battle-royale’ game where 100 players are on the same map and need to eliminate each other, the last standing wins) as a starting point, the guy speaking declares how ‘for experts (who?), it (Fortnite) is dangerous for our children since it can incite anti-social or illicit behaviour’.

Fortnite © Epic Games

According to him, this can lead to cyberbullying, which can lead to children being sluggish and lethargic. And, to top it off, Fortnite is apparently also full of pedophiles. I won’t go more into details and I won’t say that many things they say are inexact (but they actually are), this TV program is already famous for transmitting inaccurate news and for being biased towards what they want to transmit the audience. What hurt me the most was how video games are always the black sheep, and how people are not even willing to try to understand before forbidding them to their children. Children are not stupid and I think that every parent should try to understand what they like doing, and why they do like it. Moreover, parents are missing out an important medium they could use to create and share moments with their children.  

Now, games are not a single-player experience anymore. So many of them, like League of Legends, Fortnite itself, or the new Apex Legends having so much attention recently, allow you to play with other humans and to chat with them. Not to talk about the huge community that is forming around the online game streaming platform Twitch, where literally everyone can meet and chat with other players (or streamers) of their favourite game.

Still of the League of Legends Korean Championships being aired on Twitch

And yeah, of course you could meet someone who has had a bad day and is not saying very nice things (and that is why parents should always have an eye on their child playing), but isn’t it the same with social networks? Why do we allow children to have an Instagram account when they’re 10, but we forbid them to play online? With the difference that, while playing, you are actually sharing an experience with someone else, and you try to help each other out to reach the same goal. Why no one mentions the spirit of community, teamwork and solidarity that can be enhanced by playing video games?


I read a really interesting book, called Why Games Move Us: Emotion by Design, where the writer Katherine Isbister analyses how games can create strong, positive emotional experiences for players, especially when playing with other humans. One of the examples she uses is a game called Journey developed by Thatgamecompany for PS3/4 and PC (I still haven’t played it – need my PS4 which is home in Italy!): apart from the fact that the beauty of its landscapes and soundtrack is stunning, the game offers the opportunity to play online in its massive world. It can happen that you casually meet someone on your journey: you can communicate only by ‘singing’ or by agitating your scarves. When you ran one near the other, your cloths glow, and that’s it. I think it is an amazing example of how you don’t actually need to shoot and kill other players to ‘feel’ something while playing.  

Two players online in Journey

This game actually connects to the next theme that I wanted to address… but not now! We’ll talk about it in the second part of the article, out on Wednesday! Stick around if you’re interested in this topic, and in how games can actually be… art! *spoiler*

In the meantime, hope you enjoyed this article! Thank you for sticking around, and let me know what you think of this post in the comments below!

REVIEW: D. Gilroy’s ‘Velvet Buzzsaw’

*this review contains spoilers*

Velvet Buzzsaw has been released on February 1 on Netflix. When I first watched the trailer, advertised everywhere, I couldn’t believe that, finally, one of the most famous digital media platforms was that interested in the contemporary artistic world to make it the protagonist of one of its new releases.

And not just a random movie no one cares about, but with a tremendous cast: Jake Gyllenhaal (…do I really have to say who he is?), Toni Colette (Abigail Breslin’s mother in that wonderful movie that is Little Miss Sunshine), Rene Russo (Thor) and Natalia Dyer, also known as Nancy Wheeler from Stranger Things. Oh, and John Malkovich as well! What could possibly go wrong?

Rene Russo and Jake Gyllenhaal in ‘Velvet Buzzsaw’
© Claudette Barius, Netflix

Actually, a lot. Watching the trailer gave me the idea that the guy that wrote the screenplay – actually the director himself, Dan Gilroy (The Nightcrawler) – wasn’t entirely sure of what he was doing. The trailer itself is divided in two parts, one with club music in the background to introduce the posh and classy environment of art, the second quickly turned into a horror movie, with brief shots of someone being strangled, someone having a car accident and then being kidnapped by monkeys in a painting (yeah, I know what you are thinking), with Gyllenhaal voice in the background explaining/spoiling the whole plot.

A movie like this could only be either a cult or a disappointment, most likely the latter.

But let’s go into details. The first part has tons of promise: it is witty, provocative, it attracts the viewer into this creative nest of vipers showing appreciation for one another only until they find the right way to destroy each others. All the main characters are introduced with an initial scene shot at the Miami Art Basel fair: we see critic Morf Vanderwalt (what a name), played by Jake Gyllenhaal, as he peers at arworks behind his stylish glasses, ready to destroy the careers of every artists he is not convinced by, who falls under the charm of Josephina (Zawe Ashton), a really hideous character (believe me) working for Rhodora Haze (Rene Russo), owner and founder of one of the most prominent galleries in LA only looking to make more and more money – the same desire driving all the characters in the movie.

Unfortunately, it seems that Gilroy forgot that characters need to be developed. They are inconsistent and several scenes are illogical and meaningless. First of all, the artist impersonated by John Malkovich, who doesn’t seem to have a precise role in the plot and whose scenes seem to be in the movie for no apparent reason.

Morf sees for the first time Dease’s works

The plot progresses when Josephina casually finds the corpse of her neighbour, who happens to be an artist no one knew about who lived isolated in his apartment, constantly creating new paintings. She sees something in those artworks and takes them home. Vanderwalt judges the canvas as ‘visionary, mesmeric’ and Haze gallery promotes and sells them to the public. The only issue is that Ventril Dease (the dead artist’s name) had left clear instructions that each and every one of his works had to be destroyed and never commercialized.

But, c’mon, there’s so much money to be made! No one cares about his last note.

Gretchen’s arm gets eaten by the Sphere

The artist’s curse (?) starts falling upon all those who have a role in selling his works to the public. Bodies start piling up. First the technician installing his artworks (he’s the one killed by monkeys), then a rival art gallery owner (hanged by a mysterious hand coming out of the ceiling), and then my favourite, Gretchen (Toni Colette), an art advisor who sticks her arm in one of the holes of Sphere, a work of art, and… well, her arm gets severed in a splatter scene that reminded me of Scary Movie. She bloods out on the gallery floor, and the next morning everyone assumes her corpse to be an artwork (a really realistic one).

At this point I didn’t know whether to laugh or throw something at the computer screen. I laughed because the computer wasn’t mine.

The plot then becomes even more clueless, until everyone dies. In the last scene, John Malkovich draws random figures on the sand of an unknown beach, aware that they will disappear as soon as the waves cover them, and BOOM there you have the meaning of the whole movie: art for money is no good. Art for art’s sake is the answer.

John Malkovich drawing on the beach

Even if I still don’t get why an art satire like this had to be disguised as a thriller, I agree, paintings have always had an aura of mystery, let’s only think about Wilde’s Dorian Gray. The movie truly had a lot of potential and Gilroy – or maybe someone else – could have really done a wonderful job with it. Unfortunately it didn’t happen, especially because of those scenes meant to be scary.

An important mention, however, goes to Jake Gyllenhaal, who is the true star: his acting gives visibility to a character that would have otherwise been stagnant, like the others. But unfortunately he is  not enough to make Velvet Buzzsaw a good movie.

Sorry Jake, still waiting for your next good movie…

And you? What did you think of Velvet Buzzsaw? Let me know in the comments below!!

REVIEW(ish): T. Emin, ‘A Fortnight of Tears’

‘Ms. Emin’s nihilism is so intensely passionate that it amounts to her life force. It is carried (…) primarily by language (…). In this day of multiple media and blurred boundaries between disciplines, it still seems that she might be less an artist than a writer, whose autobiography and hard-won philosophy of life would work best in book form. But in whatever form Ms. Emin chooses to work, one thing seems clear: she’s all voice.’ Roberta Smith, NYT

Yes, I know, I haven’t chosen something easy to write about, especially being this my first article.

Today Tracey Emin is one of the most controversial contemporary artists, some say that her works are ‘too much’: too much depression, too much sadness, too much passion. She knows how to provoke the viewer, she knows how to make us feel. It is as if she was saying ‘You can choose whether to open yourselves to my artworks and accept whatever emotions they may cause you, or you can go on living emotionless your gray and dull life’. Because despite all the tragedies she went through, her life is a blaze of colours.

Tracey Emin with My Bed, Tate Britain, 2015 © Guy Bell

Tracey Emin was born in 1963 in London, and she is one of the most well-known British contemporary artists of today. Her arguably most famous work is My Bed, exhibited at the Tate Gallery in 1999 and which represented Great Britain at the Venice Biennale in 2007. The bed (yup, the artwork title is quite self-explanatory) exhibited was the actual bed where she spent hours and hours smoking, eating, or having sexual intercourses in a quite difficult period of her life. For this reason, her artwork attracted not little media attention: it wasn’t just a bed, it was a bed surrounded by empty alcohol bottles, sheets full of weird stains, used condoms and empty cigarettes packets. Some thought ‘I didn’t come to an art gallery to see used condoms!”, but thankfully a lot more people appreciated the underlying intensity of her sorrow and despair.

Oh, yeah, she is also famous because in 1997 she appeared drunk on TV in the discussion panel of the program ‘The Death of Painting’ (…or ‘Is Painting Dead?’, according to The Guardian). I actually looked for the video but couldn’t find it (please, share the link if you do!).

The entrance of the exhibition at White Cube Bermondsey, 2019 © Virginia Bianchi

Tracey Emin’s ‘A Fortnight of Tears’ is now on at White Cube Bermondsey until April 7. If you’re in London, GO AND SEE IT. I mean it. (If it wasn’t clear enough, it was quite a long time that I wasn’t that emotional about an exhibition).

The artworks exhibited are how Tracey translated her sufferings into material, artistic objects. Each and every one of them (and they’re quite a large number) is a punch in the stomach of the visitor. Starting from the first room, where fifty self-portraits taken during her sleepless nights of insomnia are hanged on the walls, the intimacy of her devastated glances made me feel naked and uneasy, almost as if the ghosts haunting her nights were in that same room, with me.

Insomnia Room Installation, 2018 © Virginia Bianchi

Those very same ghosts are the ones that appear in the next exhibited artworks: her passed away mother and her unborn child… or actually children – in the exhibition only one abortion is fully mentioned, but she had two: ‘After three [abortions] you start going mad. I’ve had two and I’m borderline.’

The ghosts of motherhood and femininity pervade the rest of the exhibition: the two naked bronze sculptures laying on the floor, leaving us to wonder whether they are unborn foetus or despairing figures; the paintings, representing female figures drawn with such an anger that sometimes they just seem splashes of blood on the canvas; or the silent video she made filming slowly, with a deathly calm, her mother’s box of ashes. The last piece of the exhibition is a 22 minutes-long video where she tells us of her first traumatising abortion in 1990, and of how that experience has had a profound impact on the rest of her life. Her strength, once again, consists in how she doesn’t hide, how she explains in full details how it went, how she calmly doesn’t spare us anything of that story.

In one document, contained in one of the two vitrines collecting intimate and improvised writings from her archive – some are also on sheets with the logo of hotels where she was staying -, she writes ‘Always so alone, so scared – so not wanted.’ And she has that incredible power that only very few artists have nowadays, of making the viewer feel discomfort as if her despair was theirs.

But, of course, only if you are open to embrace her works. That is why she is such a controversial artist: by thinking rationally, by examining her technique, one will never get to the bottom of her works. I feel it to be a bit like looking at a Pollock and saying ‘My child could have done that!’ One also need to consider the fortnights of tears the author spent creating that same artwork you are admiring today.

No Love, 2018 © Virginia Bianchi
(from left) I watched you disappear. Pink Ghost, 2018; I was too young to be carrying your Ashes, 2017-18; You were still There, 2018 © Virginia Bianchi

The story begins

Finally took the big step forward – can’t believe I am writing my first post!

Let me introduce myself: Virginia, nice to meet you, I am 23 and at present I am living between London and Bologna, in Italy. In London I am studying at KCL in the course Cultural and Creative Industries – if you are asking yourselves what it is, it can be considered as management of cultural institutions, sort of. We will probably be talking about it more in details in the months to come, when I will be towards the end of my degree (O.O), but in the meantime I am happy to give advices to anyone interested in the course!

I have always been attracted to the online world and one year ago I had the vague idea of opening a YouTube channel, but in the end I never did it because of the fear of exposing myself – I have always wondered, how can they go around filming themselves and talking to a camera?? Isn’t it super awkward? Well, I guess you get used to it, but eh. Moreover I have never had the right perseverance to keep a thing like that going. Not that perseverance is not required in writing a blog – but at least it is more discreet. And now I also feel that London made me more mature and self-organized, and determined. And, now, I feel I can keep up with a project like this.

Culturush, my little creation – I already consider it as a real human being – is the platform where I will share cultural articles, reviews, interviews (hopefully!) and muchmuchmuch more. The main focus will be on art and art galleries and I plan to write an article each week about this topic – uploaded on Sunday. The Wednesday post, on the other hand, will be about other cultural themes which could range from cinema to videogames (yes, videogaming is culture!) and books. But it is not a strict schedule, we will see how it goes!

I want to keep this first post short, so I will close it here – I am always open to feedbacks so feel free to comment, or follow me on whatever social platform, or message me, or send me an email… everything works!

Hope to see you around!