Letters from Abroad

BOLOGNA, Italy – Other than my discovery of the absence of Mexican food in Italy, I have had few major disappointments in my trip thus far. The thought never actually crossed my mind that a country might not have spicy, chicken-stuffed burritos slathered in sour cream and salsa. Though realizing this was traumatic, it was not nearly as devastating as my recent trip to the Palazzo Ducalein Urbino.\nAs I stated in my column two weeks ago, I am an enormous art history nerd. When I learned that my class would be travelling to the city of Urbino and visiting the home of Federico III da Montefeltro, I could barely contain myself. I couldn’t have been more excited if my professor had announced a trip to Qdoba.\nFederico was known as one of the true “men of the Renaissance.” He did not force his subjects to pay taxes, and he beautified his city, built an enormous palace and became renowned as an immense supporter of the arts. Even more appealing to the art history nerds of the world, the Duke commissioned Piero della Francesca to paint a famous painting of himself and his wife. \nThe art collection he left to posterity continued to grow throughout several generations of the ducal family, which married into the equally important Della Rovere family. Titian painted the “Venus of Urbino” for the family, a painting that inspired the great Impressionist painter Manet, as well as many other artists.\nI knew before I left on the trip that many of the important pieces from the family’s collection were not actually housed in the palace. I still expected to be wowed, however, by what I thought would be a breathtaking assemblage. Upon arriving in Urbino, I was immediately impressed with the city’s architecture and general layout. It was situated in a small valley, and the street plan would have been difficult to organize, especially without modern technology. The palace itself dominated the city and was an enormous symbol of the Duke’s importance and personal power. \nWe entered through the simplistic Renaissance-style façade that was still as imposing as it had been centuries before. Then, I was overcome with immense disappointment. The palace was literally a shell. \nIt felt as if this gorgeous, historic place had been robbed of all its art and artifacts. It housed only a meager collection of Renaissance-era pictures, and most of its rooms were completely bare. The few pictures and tapestries that remained were so heavily guarded that it was impossible to enjoy them. I was not allowed to stand closer than five feet away from the paintings, which were in glass cases, without lights and sirens going off that brought guards running. I was not even allowed to take photos of the pieces. It is a standard rule that photography of historic objects is permissible if the camera flash can be turned off, so as not to ruin the delicate layers of paint or fabric with bright light. Even so, I was told that I was not allowed to take any photos at all while in the palazzo. \nIt was difficult not to be angry with the guards, who proceeded to follow me throughout the palace, as though afraid that I might take off with a 12- by 36-foot tapestry in my purse. However, as I thought about the situation, I surmised that they were probably right to be so protective of their remaining collection. For centuries, they most likely watched helplessly as pieces disappeared from the walls, to be distributed among museums around the world. \nI made the argument a few weeks ago in favor of displaying art “in situ,” but after this weekend’s trip, I am even more of a proponent of the argument. The palace, and even the city of Urbino, was built to house these works. To see the beautiful city without its pieces was heartbreaking. I believe that historic art should remain where it was created. \nMexican food, however, should be everywhere.