Does the "diaspora" of a culture necessarily mean it will be impoverished, or will it acquire a greater role and influence? At emotive level this question brings to mind two great diasporas. Firstly, the Jewish diaspora scattering the children of Israel throughout the world, often to be persecuted and to live in ghettos, but also to generate great cultures and power. And, secondly the Italian diaspora driving tens of millions of emigrants worldwide. Some of their descendants also now enjoy high-ranking positions and power, with all the spin-offs in terms of international influence for our country. On the basis of these two examples, as a Jewish-Christian Italian, I am convinced that the diasporas have enhanced rather than impoverished their respective cultures.

I have often wondered if the same can be said for the "diaspora" of the culture which over the centuries made Venice great. Wherever you go in the world, you will come across something Venetian: paintings, glass, statues, or music. The immediate reaction is of melancholic regret that a huge heritage has been dispersed far from the original intimate historic cultural setting of the city generating such riches. That Venice now "elsewhere" is today arguably larger (and more admired) than the enormous heritage (at times not adequately enjoyed) still in the city. If Venice does not wish simply to submit to its fate as an inert museum, it can’t afford to look on this diaspora with nostalgia and regret. The fact that Venetian culture is found everywhere, grafted onto other cultures, is something to be proud of and may also be seen as a possible factor of influence. It is something to be proud of because, although often due to brutal looting over the past two centuries, the diaspora is also a sign that the city was the lively centre of a very refined culture and, more importantly, a great generator of cultural goods. Paintings were made to be sold and even mass produced. Musie was written for concerts and operas both in and outside Venice. Glass and fabrics were made for fast growing high-quality markets. Venice didn’t only produce for itself. Its great power and international image naturally led it to reach out to worldwide markets (and not only for commercial purposes). It was thus a kind of multinational ante litteram in the specific field of art. The potential diaspora of Venetian culture was thus probably built into its nature as a centre of production - an extrovert nature that was a far cry from the current introverted city. And this nature was deeply rooted in the real productive-commercial spirit of Venetian artists (more in line with the prolific Vivaldi than the noble restrained Benedetto Marcello). And I would slightly cynically add in some ways the subsequent looting was almost unwittingly attracted by the fact the looters knew the storerooms were well stocked. But no matter what the underlying historical causes, the diaspora led not only to world culture being enhanced but also that of Venice itself. There is no culture in the world (not even Greek or Roman culture) so widely enjoyed in international culture, and this could be exploited in development policies for Venice. For growth (and not only in terms of tourism), stake-holders must be involved, i.e. all those who feel they are culturally Venetian. And no other large international city can claim to have such a wide range of stake-holders as Venice. Our annual review, Venezialtrove, arises from an awareness of this situation and from the desire to create a tool to bring together the threads of a diaspora, experienced not as regret for everything that has not lived on in visceribus urbis, but as the serendipity of finding things Venetian at any latitude.