Throughout 2026, the Cittadellarte Journal is hosting a series of interviews with collaborators of the Foundation, each invited to respond to the same set of questions. Cittadellarte in the Mirror - the title of the column - functions as an exercise in listening and self-reflection that moves across different roles, practices, and sensibilities, offering a plural portrait of the organism that is Cittadellarte. The questions address some of the most pressing issues of our time—from social transformation to responsibility, from education to indifference, from the risks inherent in artistic action to the possibility of reactivating empathy. In this sense, they function like a mirror: they do not seek definitive answers, but ask those responding to take a position, to expose themselves, and to question their role in the present.

In this ninth installment, the mirror turns toward Andrea Abate, who has been working at Cittadellarte for ten years, dealing with events, logistics, and exhibition setups. A graduate of the Brera Academy of Fine Arts, he cultivates many passions: painting, cooking - “I love preparing dishes for others and discovering new culinary cultures” - travelling, studying, and animals. As his interests suggest, Andrea is a simple yet thoughtful person: during his years at Cittadellarte he has developed a deep reflection on the value of empathy as a daily practice and as a tool for social transformation. In his answers, several tensions that define our present clearly emerge: the polarization of public discourse, the irresponsible use of digital tools, and the difficulty of maintaining sensitivity in the face of a constant flow of images of pain and conflict. Often referring to the symbol of the Third Paradise as a space of balance between opposites, Abate invites us to move beyond the logic of rigid alignments that dominate contemporary debate and to rediscover the capacity for mutual listening. Between education, responsibility, and hope, his perspective insists on a radical conviction: social transformation cannot take place without a renewed practice of empathy.

The year 2025 ended with the feeling that the word “transition” had lost its strength, replaced by a widespread sense of fatigue and a return to dynamics of power, war, and closure. In this context, does it still make sense to speak about responsible social transformation, or should we change the language and rethink the practices?
Yes, it still makes sense and we should speak much more about social transformation, because in recent years I have seen social divisions grow more and more. In 2026 we are still stuck in political discussions about left versus right, communists versus fascists… I find this truly destructive for the future of humanity. We no longer think of ourselves as human beings, but only as part of something bigger that we must blindly obey. I see these kinds of alignments everywhere. I can understand them in football or sports, but not on such delicate issues. Everything has become polarized. Everyone remains fixed in their own ideas, even when they are wrong, and defends them out of principle, perhaps simply because their political party suggests it. Sensitivity has also been lost. That is why I believe transformation is absolutely necessary.

This year as well, Cittadellarte has operated both locally and globally: from China to border regions in Europe, from the Mediterranean to East Asia. Bringing an installation or a demopractic work into places marked by history, conflict, or symbolism exposes art to unpredictable interpretations. How important is it for the Foundation to accept this risk?
For me it is fundamental actually, I would go even further. I understand that many people may not grasp certain messages, but if even one person is led to reflect, I think that is already a victory. That is why I do not see bringing this way of thinking into the world as a risk, but rather as an opportunity. Despite practical limits and only partial support from institutions, I would continue along this path, continuing to raise awareness through art.

In 2025, what does it mean to educate for responsibility in a world where algorithms, artificial intelligence, and automation seem to be taking more and more space away from conscious human action—and therefore from authorship?
Educating for responsibility is fundamental. I do not demonize artificial intelligence or automation, but only if they remain tools serving human beings and do not become the sole reference point, otherwise we risk becoming dehumanized. Many people use these tools incorrectly, as happens with social media where a great deal of hatred is generated. I believe in a more conscious use of them, and I think we need an education that the state currently does not provide. These tools are put on the market and handed to people without any real basic training. I sometimes use a strong comparison: if you have a weapon, someone teaches you how to use it. These tools can have a similar power, and without education they risk being used in very dangerous ways. Perhaps I am a bit extreme on this point, but I believe that - especially on social media - access should require identification systems such as SPID. I see people writing things that make your skin crawl, yet no one takes responsibility for what they say because they hide behind fake profiles. This also applies to the world of information: sometimes even news outlets publish stories that later turn out to be false, but rarely admit their mistakes. Everything moves quickly and passes under silence. That is why I believe we have reached the point where people must take responsibility for what they write. If we cannot achieve this through individual sensitivity, perhaps some form of regulation from above is necessary. Alongside that, however, education must start from below: from schools to universities, but also in popular universities and educational spaces for older generations. One of the major problems of our time is precisely the misuse of these tools. And I do not place all the blame on individuals: some people are simply misinformed, while others deliberately try to create panic or confusion. The result, however, is that almost no one takes responsibility for what they write.

During your time at Cittadellarte, what do you feel you have unlearned? Is there a belief you would now leave behind?
Returning to the first question, I used to see the world in a very rigid way. I had my ideas and tended to attack those who thought differently. What I have unlearned is precisely this attitude, thanks to dialogue and confrontation.
This is something that Michelangelo Pistoletto explains very well through the symbol of the Third Paradise: between two opposing circles a solution can be found. This applies to politics, religion, and everyday life. Think again about the clash between right and left: I believe that the center of the Third Paradise represents balance. Before, I did not understand this myself. Today I have realized that the solution often lies in the middle, not black or white, but grey. And truly, unity is strength: as Michelangelo teaches, one plus one does not make two, but three.

Let us imagine Cittadellarte as a living organism. Which part do you feel is most fragile today? And which is more mature than you expected?
Here I would refer to something I had already read in other interviews in the column, particularly the one with Anna Mastrovito. The most fragile part, in my opinion, is the relationship with the local territory—but I do not see this as our fault. Cittadellarte has always been very open, hosting events for the people of Biella and beyond. For example, the GDA – Giornata dell’Arte has always been very successful. Yet I have never really perceived strong local support. I find it surprising - and honestly incredible - when people from the area do not know us. Here we return again to the issue of education and awareness. How is it possible to know about the Gli Orsi shopping center but not about the Pistoletto Foundation? I do not see this as our fault, especially considering that outside the province - and internationally -Cittadellarte is very well known. The most mature aspect, on the other hand, is precisely the work of awareness and sensitization. We do a great deal in this direction. However, we cannot be the only ones doing it: we need allies. The first should be local institutions, not only in terms of communication but also in helping make Cittadellarte’s message more accessible and understandable to everyone.

We live in a time when we are exposed daily to images of extreme suffering, yet we often remain motionless. What kind of emotion is indifference? If indifference were a work of art, would you destroy it like the breaking of one of Pistoletto’s mirrors?
For me, indifference is truly the key word of our time. In my own small way, I once had an artistic path based on empathy: trying to make people feel - even for a second - what another person might be experiencing. Perhaps through words capable of creating a shiver of awareness or fear. Today there is too much indifference. Think about racism, about how we deal with illness, mental health issues, or wars. We speak about deaths of “series A” and “series B.” Empathy, which has always been essential for me, seems to have been lost. Yet I believe the solution is always to try to place ourselves in the other person’s position. This is something I learned especially at Cittadellarte: when I hear two people arguing, I try to understand the reasons of both sides and then create a synthesis. In the wider world, however, the opposite happens, everyone remains fixed in their own position without making the effort to understand the other. This has always existed, but perhaps with social media the loss of sensitivity has become even more evident. So if indifference were a work of art, yes, I would destroy it like one of Pistoletto’s mirrors. Because I would like to live in a world where indifference no longer exists.

In the dominant media narrative of conflicts, numbers often replace faces. What responsibility does art have in restoring humanity where political language erases it? Can art reactivate empathy without falling into the spectacle of suffering? Considering also that the Oxford Dictionary’s word of the year for 2025 was “Rage Bait,” referring to content designed to provoke anger and outrage, especially on social media.
This is a complex question. It is true that numbers often replace faces, but this happens precisely because empathy is missing. People look only at percentages, not at human stories.
Take the conflict in the Middle East: often there is not even the effort to understand how long it has existed or what generated it. Many believe the war between Israel and Palestine began on October 7, 2023, but its roots go much further back in time. Over the years, more and more radical forms of extremism have emerged. For me, extremism is a problem regardless of whether it comes from the right or the left. I cannot understand how humanity continues to accept it. As for rage bait, I return to what I said earlier: we need a more conscious use of social media. This must be taught and become an important part of education. I also return to the proposal I mentioned before: introducing systems like SPID to access social platforms. Today there are countless fake profiles. People do not show their face and do not take responsibility for what they write.
Very often content is published precisely to provoke anger and generate interactions. But this is not real dialogue, it is simply anger generating more anger, like a dog chasing its own tail. It is almost a physical mechanism: you publish anger and you receive anger in return. If fake profiles were eliminated and everyone were responsible for their own words, I am convinced the phenomenon of rage bait would decrease drastically.

When you switch off the lights in your office, which emotion remains lit?
Hope. The hope that there will be more empathy and less indifference. We can do our small part, but governments and heads of state should be the first to create it. Instead, I often observe the opposite: whenever a glimmer of hope appears, it is immediately extinguished. Sometimes I have the impression that it is convenient to keep people divided. I am not speaking only about Italy, I see it happening all over the world. Think about the United States and the most recent elections: the principle of divide et impera is still very present. A divided people is easier to control. For this reason, we as citizens should be the first to become more sensitive and to understand that this division leads nowhere. Continuing to speak as if it were stadium cheering offers no solutions. Those in power are certainly more comfortable if we remain divided.
That is why, until we develop greater empathy and the ability to truly understand another person’s point of view, I will hold on to hope.