Modernism in Italy and Scandinavia - Dissertation Example

Variations on the Modern: Contextualizing the Modernism(s) in Italy and Scandinavia Although post-modernism attacked modernism claiming that it is an elitist, universalist and monolithic discourse that failed to respect differences; it can be said that post-modernisms discourse on modernism itself is totalizing and monolithic. Indeed, post-modernism portrays “modernism” as if it is a monolithic entity, disregards its variations and ignores various modernism(s). A closer study on the different interpretations of Modernism in Scandinavia and Italy between 1920-1970, could reveal that Modernism have been adapted to local conditions and incorporated into two different cultural and political contexts; thus, it is not as monolithic as post-moderns assumed. The aim of this study is to discuss different versions of modern architecture movements in Italy and Scandinavia in order to show how modern architecture responded to the political and cultural subtexts. Modern architecture was flourished later in both Italy and Scandinavia than Germany, Holland, France and Russia. William J. Curtis notes that Modernisms influence was slight in Scandinavia in the 1920s1 and it formed relatively late in Italy2. Furthermore, both Scandinavia and Italy brought their own interpretation to the “international style”. However, their similarities end here; since their political, cultural and also ecological conditions were extremely different. While modern architecture emerged in Fascist Italy ruled by a dictator, democratic welfare states prevailed in Scandinavia at that time; hence, there was a stark difference between the political climates of Italy and Scandinavia. Their cultures also differed; whereas nationalistic tendencies and nostalgia for the Roman heritage were predominant in Italy, communal values were strong in Scandinavia. In line with their differences, they both developed a different variation of Modernism. While Italian Modernism highlighted nationalism and magnanimous Roman heritage; Scandinavia adopted a modernism with a human face stressing organic and natural life. As a matter of fact, in Italy, modernism grew in two directions: Noveconto and Italian Rationalism. The Classical Novecento movement, represented by Giovanni Muzio, paved the way for the development of Italian Rationalism represented by “gruppo 7”3. Sebastian Larco, Guido, Frette, Carlo Enrico Raba, Adalberto, Luigi Figini, Gino Pollini and Guiseppe Terragni formed Gruppo 7 in 19264. Throughout the 1930s, both Novecento and Italian Rationalism coexisted as alternative variations of modernism. Although Novecento, originated in Milan, used modern technology of concrete construction, it was highly committed to the traditional Italian house. Gio Ponti, the famous architect and editor of the magazine of the Italian house Domus, described Italian house as setting for Italian life as follows: “the place that we have chosen for enjoying our life”5. Pontis description highlights the stark difference between Novecento and Le Corbusiers “international style”, since Le Corbusier defined the house as “a machine for living in”. While Pontis approach stressed the organic and humanist aspect of the house, Le Corbusiers definition was more mechanistic. Furthermore the Novecento houses were more decorative and furnished in Italian taste, while “the international style” was against any ornaments. Indeed, modern Milan houses incorporated common features of traditional Italian chimneys and sundials6. Although Italian Rationalism could be regarded as more radical than Novecento and closer to the spirit of machine civilization, it was still “fully contextual as well, relating to historical Italian culture”7. Besides Italian culture, Italian Rationalism was also intertwined with Fascist nationalism. It was not just Italian Rationalists were ardent fascists, but their work also reflected the Fascist ideology; although The Italian Fascist Partys relation to Italian Rationalism was ambivalent. Giuseppe Terragnis Casa del Fascio could be regarded as the epitome of Italian Rationalism at the intersection of modernism and Fascist ideology. Figure 1, Giuseppe Terragni, Casa del Fascio, Como, 1932-36. As Richard A. Etlin stated, Casa del Fascio “was both a physical realization of a modern architecture and a symbolic statement about the nature of fascism”8.Indeed, Terragni applied Mussolinis notion that “Fascism is a house of glass into which all can look”9. The building is characterized by the maximum use of glass in order to allow maximum light and air. In Terragnis work the international styles principle of light and air and one of its favourite materials, glass, came together to highlight the Fascist metaphor of the house of glass representing transparency and honesty. Terragni describes his building as follows: “Here is the Mussolinian concept that Fascism is a glass house into which everyone can peer giving rise to the architectural interpretation that is the complement of that metaphor: no encumbrance, no barrier, no obstacle between the political hierarchy and the people”10 Terragni, represents this metaphor with a building that % 20 made of glass. Besides glass, Terragni also used more traditional materials like marble and granite. The black marble of the ceiling and red granite gave a spiritual and religious undertone to the building. Terragni said that it was to “prepare the visitor for a religious attention to the Sacrario”11. Red granite also made an allusion to the ancient religious and royal constructions of Mycana or Egypt12. It must also be noted that marble was not only used for the entrances ceiling, Terragni employed marble to an extent that it also could have been called “house of marble”. Indeed, “all the visible surfaces” of the exterior of the Casa del Fascio, and also the stairs, the floor of central atrium, the floor and ceiling of the entrance foyer and important offices covered in prestigious marble13. According to Terragni, marble was used to convey the cultural importance and monumental character of the building14. Furthermore, although marble was a traditional material, it was utilized in a way that to invoke the sense of “cleanliness” that modernist aesthetic aspired15. Casa Del Fascio, also mimicked the features of a Roman town and its front facade, the gridded frame revealed its contextual nature. Etlin, describes the contextual sensibility of the building as follows “Even today, the sense of the rectangular Roman grid is immediately apparent to the most casual visitor of Como, who finds Casa del Fascio just beyond the old city. The analogy between the regular grid plan of the town itself is experienced as both immediate and direct. This gridded facade then, tells the viewer, this is the Casa del Fascio not for any town, but specifically for Como, whose characteristic urban identity it wears on its front like a blazon”16. It is clear from Etlins analysis that Terragni interwoven the building with the town, and also the Roman imperial past with the fascism. Lastly, it also reconciled the opposing strands of the Italian architectural heritage: Renaissance palazzo and vernacular17. While it is in palazza tradition, it also reminds “farm-houses with front loggias”18 Casa del Fascia, was not only a turning point for modern Italian architecture, but it also offered an Italian blend of international style bringing traditional and modern materials and styles together while embodying Italian Rationalism. Nevertheless, at the end of the 1930s the traditionalist became dominant, and in 1942 (Exposition near Rome of 1942), most of the rationalists left their Modernist position in favour of a monumental classicism19. Palazzo della Civilta Italiana, the icon of fascist architecture, won the competition for the most important building of Esposizione Universale and became the most debated work of the period. Figure 2, Ernesto B. La Padula, Giovanni Guerrini and Mario Roman, Palazzo della Civilta Italiana, Rome, Esposizione Universale of 1942. According to Frampton, it represented a degeneration into “the most banal assembly of neo-classical forms”20 Leonarda Benevolo also noted that while Pagano tried to link back to Roman times, arrived at Neo-classical conformism. In general, the building and its travertine arches represented a reactionary setback for the Rationalist architects, who fought for the cause of modernism. After the World War II, the most prominent Italian architect was Bruno Zevi, who “called for a more humane architecture that would follow the examples of Frank Lloyd Wright and Alvar Aalto” 21 At this point, it would be helpful to examine Scandinavian modernism, and its most famous representative: Alvar Aalto. While fascist Italian modernism sought to establish links with the glorious Roman imperial past and classicism, Scandinavian architects tried to cover the abstract and cold façade of the modernism with a human face. Alvar Aaltos modernism developed in response to Finnish climate and traditions while also using local materials like timber22. As Curtis noted Aaltos influences were various: “a stripped Classical style stemming from certain late eighteenth century sources and coming to a refined twentieth century resoultion in the works of Gunnar Asplund; and a National Romantic tendency which drew on the Gothic revival and on the nineteenth century American architect, H.H. Richardson, while seeking national myths and local vernaculars. Aalto would eventually succeed, with the help of modern architectural abstraction, in forging a synthesis between these inherited tendencies”23 Even the very first work of Aalto, Turku Sanomat newspaper building, suggested his sensitivity to human needs, besides his good command of modernism. Its textured wooden roof also signalled the naturalism of Alvar Aalto. Humanist aspirations of the welfare state were embodied in the works of Aalto. Aaltos Paimio Sanatorium is regarded as one of the masterpieces of modernism. Figure 3, Alvar Aalto, Paimio Sanatorium, Finland, 1929-32. Since the best cure for tuberculosis, that Sanatorium was to specialize, was exposure to sun, fresh air and greenery; “the patients rooms were placed in a long-storey slab facing south, served by corridors running along the north side, and with an open roof terrace, part covered by a canopy, on the top floor; the beds could be wheeled on particularly warm days”24 As it can be understood from the description, Aalto designed the sanatorium according to the needs of the patients. Alvar Aalto, material choice also reflected the humanitarian aspect of his architecture. He had a tendency to use local and natural materials like brick, wood, plants instead of white concrete forms. He also wrote that architectures function is to bring nature closer to us and it also cannot be separated from human factors25. In 1938, he designed Villa Mairea, which represented a culmination point of his architecture. Aalto blended his vernacular, rural and naturalist and modernist tendencies and created a fusion. Figure 4 and Figure 5, Alvar Aalto, Villa Mairea, Noormarkku, Finland, 1938-39. Aaltos fascination with semi-courtyards may have been stemmed from Finnish farm layouts. The contrast between rigid-formal façade and the horizontal features together with the soft-kidney shaped pool reveals the antagonistic tension of Aaltos influences as he tried to merge his ideas. Curtis compares Aaltos work to a primal poetry going far beyond “merely Modern concerns” as Aalto transcended modernism by blending internationalist and nationalist concerns26. In Sweden, Gunnar Asplund set forward the international style. However, in Scandinavia, the main rationale was rather economic not stylistic due to the shortage of dwellings since the World War I. Before the World War II, Scandinavian architects “continued their efforts to devise better housing on a modest scale” 27 In Sweden Hakon Ahlberg designed the “lamella” block for workers and in Finland Alvar Aalto developed housing for the workers at the Sunila factory. After World War II, the search for a humane approach was accelerated. In Denmark, Jorn Utzon tried to bring his buildings to a closer relation with the environment and Kingohusene housing estate project (1957-1960) reflected that attempt28. In contrast to Fascist Italy, in Scandinavia, modernism and social reform went hand in hand. In Sweden, modern movement intertwined with social reform movement29. In 1932, Social Democrats came to power and the housing programme was at the core of their reforms30. The housing programme was successful and there was not any public opposition to the new architecture. 31After the World War II, Sven Backstörm and Lief Reinus launched “The New Empiricism” in 1947, which mixed modernism with populism. Backström and Reinus housing estates at Danvikskippan, Gröndal and Rosta broke with the rectilinearity of rationalism with their “honeycomb” layout32. Figure 6, Sven Bakstör and Lief Reinius, Rosta Housing Estate, Orebro, 1946. During the 1960s and 1970s housing production increased dramatically in Sweden due to systems design. “Systems” approached maximized the use of standardized parts and mass housing33. Systems design had also been influential in Finland, and took Aaltos Sunila Housing as a model. Nevertheless, this type, known as “Forest Housing” had the effect of aggravating environmental costs “that were the exact opposite of the idyllic symbiosis of technology and nature envisaged by the Modern Movement— especially by the rural and regionalist version of it promoted by Alvar Aalto”34 Manfreod Tafuri and Franceso Dal Co noted that not just the Neo-Empiricism in Scandinavia but also the Neo-Realism in Italy, the New Towns movement in England, and the Bay Area and Regionalism in California Regionalism followed the example of Aalto and his variation of modernism with a human face35 If we return to the Italian modern movement, it adhered to the Scandinavian version after the World War II. As early as 1945, Bruno Zevi harshly criticized the Fascist architecture together with the rationalism and neoclassicism. In line with Aalto and Frank Lloyd Wright, he promoted organic architecture for the human being36. According to Zevi and his Association for Orgnaic Architecture “organic architecture equals an architecture of democracy”37.After the Social Democrats came into power after the WWII, they also initiated a social reform program focusing on housing projects. In 1949, INA Casa (the Institute of Home Insurance) is founded. As it was the case in Scandinavia, the social reform programme and the “Neorealist” movement, which inspired by the organic and humane architecture replacing the mythic monumentalism of the Fascist era, went in hand and hand. The Neorealist movement was started by Mario Ridolfi and Ludovico Quaroni, who developed series of housing projects. Their projects were influenced by Swedish housing and shared the populist aims of Backström and Reinius38. Tiburtino Housing estates vernacularism reflected Ridolfi and Quaronis debt to the Swedish “New Empiricism”. Figure 7, Mario Rudolfi and Ludovico Quaroni, Tiburtino Housing Estate, Rome, 1944-45. According to Tafuri, the manifesto of the Neorealism and the ideology of INA-Casas are reflected in Tiburtino Complex39. For Tafuri, the popular and rural “purity” of the complex was an antidote for alienation40. It was also rich in allusions to the Italian tradition “from balconies of wrought iron to the traditional roof coverings, from the window designs to he sequences of external stairs and balconies”41.As the Neoralism strive for reality, it was immersed into the rural tranquillity. In contrast to the vernacular quality of the Neorealism, Ernesto Rogerss contextualism highlighted urban motifs. He promoted an architecture that sensitive to its urban context.42 The Office building, Piazza Meda epitomized his concept of modern technology referring to its urban context. In fact, as Colquhoun noted, Franco Albini has already designed a building in line with this concept before Rogers formulation. INA Casa Offices in Parma designed by Albini reflected “the complexities of daily life without disturbing the underlying rationality of the idealized grid”43. Urban dimension prevailed in the modern Italian architecture of the 1950s and 1960s. To sum up, Modernism has emerged in two divergent directions in Italy and Scandinavia at the end of 1920s. While Italian Rationalist-modernism had more historical and nationalistic orientations, Scandinavian variation was rather rural, naturalist and organicist. The discourse of fascism was embedded to the modernist architecture of Italy between the wars and Italian rationalism appealed to the Mussolinis idea of “house of glass”. However, Italian Rationalist architecture also incorporated traditional materials like marble and granite with a modern interpretation. The use of these materials also reflected the monumentalist and classicist aspirations of Italian Rationalism in an attempt to establish links with the Roman past. On the other hand, the modernism of Social Democrat Scandinavia, focused on the needs of human beings while trying to bring people and nature closer. Besides modern concrete technology, traditional materials like timber, wood, plants in line with the local characteristics and economy of the region, were also used by Scandinavian architects. After the Second World War, Social Democracy was restored its power and Italian architecture begun to follow the lead of Social Democrat Scandinavia. The examples of Italy and Scandinavia proved that the development of the architectural modernism was closely intertwined with the political and local conditions. Bibliography Curtis, William, Modern Architecture Since 1900, 2nd ed. (London: 1987). Colquhoun, Alan, Modern Architecture (Oxford: 2002). Donnely, Marion C, Architecture in Scandinavian Countries (London: 1992). Etlin, Richard. A., Modernism in Italian Architecture, 1890-1940 (London, 1991). Frampton, Kenneth, Modern Architecture A Critical History, 2nd ed. (London: 1985). Tafuri, Manfredo and Francesco Dal Co., Modern Architecture 2 (New York:1976). Manfredo Tafuri, History of Italian Architecture, 1944-1985 (London: 1989). Read More