Workshop internazionale di progettazione per il restauro
Gio Ponti at University Sapienza Campus: the 1935 school of Mathematics
Hanbury Evans Wright Vlattas & Co. lecturer in Historic Preservation at the University of Virginia School of Architecture - 07/11/2016
Paths to Architectural Conservation. The Italian approach to Modern Heritage
|
L’Istituto di Fisica di Giuseppe Pagano alla città universitaria di Roma.
Storia, memoria e attualità tra fisici e architetti
Seminario e mostra a cura di Simona Salvo
sito web Istituto di Fisica
The building for the Institute of Physics in Rome’s university campus, was designed by the architect Giuseppe Pagano and built between 1932 and 1936 and is from then on the seat of Sapienza’s Department of Physics.
|
Restaurare il Novecento. Storia, esperienze prospettive
Quodlibet, Macerata, aprile 2016
INTRODUCTION
Our civilization would truly be in danger if there were no men who have faith in our modern civilization and work in its service: we have nothing but our civilization to save our civilization.
Our tasks are immense, boundless: extraordinary commitment is required from our understanding and generosity.
We live in a wonderful era.
Gio Ponti, Stile, August-September 1943
The first awareness of the physical decline of many important architectures of the 20th century emerged during the 1980’s. A new and hitherto unexplored field of conservation began to be outlined, apparently implying a new theoretical and methodological organization, and the solution of seemingly unsurmountable technical issues. The matter thus set out from the innovative character of the physical and figurative qualities of 20th century buildings, and distanced itself from the wider reflection on conservation, which did not seem to offer appropriate answers, being considered a merely practical field focused on ancient artifacts. Working on 20th century buildings therefore verged towards questions of style and of renovation opposed to material conservation, and was further defined as “conservation of modern architecture”, “of new architecture”, “of contemporary architecture”. These terms well represented the tendency to extract this specific field from the wider scientific inquiry, ultimately directing it towards a methodological revision[1] (Fig. 1).
Thirty years after those early steps, the main orientation in this field has not witnessed much change from the initial tendency to re-make, rebuild and reinstate[2]. Despite being recognized as worthy of preservation due to the presence of some historical or artistic value, 20th century buildings are still widely subjected to reconstructions, reinstatements, renovations and re-inventions, or of opposite excesses of conservationism bordering with fetishism. In other cases they are abandoned, misused or destroyed: proper conservation practices, sometimes of excellent quality, are extremely rare. The entire field has thus crystallized in its early theoretical positions, burdened by a hypertrophic attention mirroring the tendency of historians, architects and intellectuals to consider this topic a cultural cliché. Today we can better understand the origin of the various positions, distinguish the range of motivations and outline future perspectives.
Although initially hailed as the event that would have produced a Copernican revolution in the theory and principles of “classical” conservation, the onset of contemporary architecture into the domain of preservation eventually marked an involution of the cultural processes of memory transmission, bringing scientific debate to a stall and casting a generalized shadow of discontent (Fig. 2). But was the obstacle truly unsurmountable?
Past experience shows us that, despite the topic’s complexity, there has been no revolution in conservation theory, to the detriment of the antinomy characterizing it. Due to its orientation opposite to conservation, the intervention on modern architecture has thus mainly aimed at a practice of reinstatement intended as a return to “original splendor”. In this easy-to-consume retrospective form, it has found an ally in today’s epidermic sensitivity. The conservation of modern architecture has revived the century-old idea that it is necessary to preserve the image rather than the physical consistency of objects[3], thus sustaining our society’s constant aspiration to interiorize reality through its representation, and privilege image over substance, appearance over existence.
Due to an alleged impossibility of preserving the authentic materiality, and responding to a certain “conservative imperative”, which would force to redo in order to preserve, the intervention on 20th century architecture has liberated a widespread desire to return to an ideal original condition, i.e. a situation of integrity and newness. On the other hand, these buildings seem to be predisposed to reinstatement: their young age can lead to presume the possibility of deleting any sign of the passage of time, and of reproducing today, without the least error, what has been built just a few years earlier. Faith in technological progress creates an illusion of being able to re-make as or better than before, “overcoming” the past. The principles of seriality, impermanence and fragility that have programmatically oriented the production of modern artifacts, albeit only occasionally applied, somehow legitimate the realization of copies and reconstructions.
In addition, the complex hermeneutic context of 20th century architecture is not detached from its involvement in contemporary life, feeding interests and ambitions related to pragmatic values and peculiar symbolic relevance, rather than eliciting a spontaneous recognition of cultural significance. This tendency obstructs a process of appropriate reception, appraisal and transmission: yet this argument is valid for any form of cultural heritage, be it ancient or more recent.
The formulation of a balanced historical and critical judgement is not even sustained by the sheer quantity and complexity of 20th century heritage, despite the fact that these factors should, on the contrary, bring to a prudent and typically specific approach. Jurisdiction over preservation is in fact claimed by a wide range of actors, such as “activist” architects, specialists in building construction, architectural historians, politicians, economists and everyday users.
Intervention on modern heritage occupies a crucial node in the complex contemporary mosaic of the international conservation scenario. This is due to its transnational character and the diffusion of policies for “global conservation”, which are nevertheless based on Western models. These approaches tend to blur proper conservation practice – based on an European matrix sustained by a solid cultural background, and founded on the appraisal of heritage, historic and artistic values – and a sort of political-cultural strategy aspiring to resolve cultural conflicts on a global scale. The convergence of different understandings of memory, with motivations that are not strictly cultural, sees 20th century architectural heritage as a fertile ground to affirm, deny, modify, revamp, transform and distort values and meanings of the past, with little concern of minority positions that must step aside in the face of politically and economically stronger ones.
The general framework appears thus as disarticulated and often poorly structured: problems are rarely addressed with appropriate intellectual consistency, and things are not called by their true names. Dialect subterfuges and euphemisms are frequently adopted to fabricate a vision of reality that is not sustained by evidence, despite the fact that some encouraging and rigorous intellectual contributions witness the vitality of the theory and culture of conservation. Renato Bonelli’s thirty-year old assessment of the state of conservation practices still remains sadly true: “Too many fake preservations, and almost no real preservation: a situation that admits few exceptions [despite the fact that] the wide diffusion of conservation as a critical foundation, with results of appropriate level, is actually possible”[4].
Faith in the traditional conservation method has made clear that the tendency towards reinstatement arises from the mistakes connected to value appraisal as a propaedeutic act for conservation. When dealing with recent buildings, the historic-critical assessment somehow “slides away”, becoming a hasty exercise biased by commonplace assumptions and labile historical references, weakened by the limited evidence of implicit artistic value, and far too often conducted outside of the work itself. The centrality of this issue is given by the fact that the understanding of a contemporary artifact requires a surplus of attention, as well as critical and technical agility, and a refined sensibility towards questions of historical nature. All of this is necessary to address new and complex problems in a balanced way, looking beyond consolidated scientific categories, and overcoming considerations that are often only sustained by pragmatism and opportunism.
In this light, it may also become important to consider the very practice of “classic conservation” (which for some is “the Italian way”) as a modern testimony that needs to be protected. The foundational character it represents in Western culture finds less and less space of expression: a cultural heritage, as Paul Philippot argues, not just a theory, as is witnessed by Bonelli’s reflections, that foreshadowed some of our present-day problems, despite the fact that they had not yet become recognizable at the time he was writing.
The situation is different, and in some respects more advanced, in some neighboring fields. The conservation of contemporary art and cinema, for example, display a greater critical awareness and capacity of facing situations even more complex than those found in architecture. The world of contemporary art can boast a more consistently grounded practice, and several successful initiatives have overcome complex hurdles through sophisticated theoretical approaches. The same can be said for cinema, where surprising critical and methodological capacities are slowly surfacing, sustained by Brandi’s theory of art conservation. These results appear as promising due to the substantial methodological unity between figurative arts that lies at the base conservation: they pave a culturally informed way to strengthen the rather fragile foundations where the architectural world seems to be mired.
The conservation of 20th century architecture thus remains an open question demanding further exploration. Such inquiry, however, must take place in a new and different way, working “from the inside out”, reparsing with methodological precision the path laid down by critical conservation and questioning, step after step, the undeniable technical and practical issues that new architecture due to its very own nature creates[5].
[1] C. Varagnoli, Un restauro a parte?, “Palladio”, 22/XI, 1998, pp. 111-115.
[2] G. Carbonara, Teoria e metodi del restauro. Il restauro del Moderno, in G. Carbonara (ed.), Trattato di restauro architettonico, Utet, Torino 1996, vol. I, section. A4, pp. 77-84.
[3] C. Varagnoli, Gli eccessi del restauro, “Parametro”, 239, 2002, p. 69.
[4] 4 R. Bonelli, Restauro anni ’80: tra restauro critico e conservazione integrale, in S. Benedetti, G. Miarelli Mariani, Saggi in onore di Guglielmo De Angelis d’Ossat, “Quaderni dell’Istituto di Storia dell’Architettura”, 1-10, 1987, pp. 511-516.
[5] P. Petraroia, Architettura e arti “moderne”: per una verifica metodologica intorno al restauro, “Parametro”, 266, 2006, p. 29.
Our civilization would truly be in danger if there were no men who have faith in our modern civilization and work in its service: we have nothing but our civilization to save our civilization.
Our tasks are immense, boundless: extraordinary commitment is required from our understanding and generosity.
We live in a wonderful era.
Gio Ponti, Stile, August-September 1943
The first awareness of the physical decline of many important architectures of the 20th century emerged during the 1980’s. A new and hitherto unexplored field of conservation began to be outlined, apparently implying a new theoretical and methodological organization, and the solution of seemingly unsurmountable technical issues. The matter thus set out from the innovative character of the physical and figurative qualities of 20th century buildings, and distanced itself from the wider reflection on conservation, which did not seem to offer appropriate answers, being considered a merely practical field focused on ancient artifacts. Working on 20th century buildings therefore verged towards questions of style and of renovation opposed to material conservation, and was further defined as “conservation of modern architecture”, “of new architecture”, “of contemporary architecture”. These terms well represented the tendency to extract this specific field from the wider scientific inquiry, ultimately directing it towards a methodological revision[1] (Fig. 1).
Thirty years after those early steps, the main orientation in this field has not witnessed much change from the initial tendency to re-make, rebuild and reinstate[2]. Despite being recognized as worthy of preservation due to the presence of some historical or artistic value, 20th century buildings are still widely subjected to reconstructions, reinstatements, renovations and re-inventions, or of opposite excesses of conservationism bordering with fetishism. In other cases they are abandoned, misused or destroyed: proper conservation practices, sometimes of excellent quality, are extremely rare. The entire field has thus crystallized in its early theoretical positions, burdened by a hypertrophic attention mirroring the tendency of historians, architects and intellectuals to consider this topic a cultural cliché. Today we can better understand the origin of the various positions, distinguish the range of motivations and outline future perspectives.
Although initially hailed as the event that would have produced a Copernican revolution in the theory and principles of “classical” conservation, the onset of contemporary architecture into the domain of preservation eventually marked an involution of the cultural processes of memory transmission, bringing scientific debate to a stall and casting a generalized shadow of discontent (Fig. 2). But was the obstacle truly unsurmountable?
Past experience shows us that, despite the topic’s complexity, there has been no revolution in conservation theory, to the detriment of the antinomy characterizing it. Due to its orientation opposite to conservation, the intervention on modern architecture has thus mainly aimed at a practice of reinstatement intended as a return to “original splendor”. In this easy-to-consume retrospective form, it has found an ally in today’s epidermic sensitivity. The conservation of modern architecture has revived the century-old idea that it is necessary to preserve the image rather than the physical consistency of objects[3], thus sustaining our society’s constant aspiration to interiorize reality through its representation, and privilege image over substance, appearance over existence.
Due to an alleged impossibility of preserving the authentic materiality, and responding to a certain “conservative imperative”, which would force to redo in order to preserve, the intervention on 20th century architecture has liberated a widespread desire to return to an ideal original condition, i.e. a situation of integrity and newness. On the other hand, these buildings seem to be predisposed to reinstatement: their young age can lead to presume the possibility of deleting any sign of the passage of time, and of reproducing today, without the least error, what has been built just a few years earlier. Faith in technological progress creates an illusion of being able to re-make as or better than before, “overcoming” the past. The principles of seriality, impermanence and fragility that have programmatically oriented the production of modern artifacts, albeit only occasionally applied, somehow legitimate the realization of copies and reconstructions.
In addition, the complex hermeneutic context of 20th century architecture is not detached from its involvement in contemporary life, feeding interests and ambitions related to pragmatic values and peculiar symbolic relevance, rather than eliciting a spontaneous recognition of cultural significance. This tendency obstructs a process of appropriate reception, appraisal and transmission: yet this argument is valid for any form of cultural heritage, be it ancient or more recent.
The formulation of a balanced historical and critical judgement is not even sustained by the sheer quantity and complexity of 20th century heritage, despite the fact that these factors should, on the contrary, bring to a prudent and typically specific approach. Jurisdiction over preservation is in fact claimed by a wide range of actors, such as “activist” architects, specialists in building construction, architectural historians, politicians, economists and everyday users.
Intervention on modern heritage occupies a crucial node in the complex contemporary mosaic of the international conservation scenario. This is due to its transnational character and the diffusion of policies for “global conservation”, which are nevertheless based on Western models. These approaches tend to blur proper conservation practice – based on an European matrix sustained by a solid cultural background, and founded on the appraisal of heritage, historic and artistic values – and a sort of political-cultural strategy aspiring to resolve cultural conflicts on a global scale. The convergence of different understandings of memory, with motivations that are not strictly cultural, sees 20th century architectural heritage as a fertile ground to affirm, deny, modify, revamp, transform and distort values and meanings of the past, with little concern of minority positions that must step aside in the face of politically and economically stronger ones.
The general framework appears thus as disarticulated and often poorly structured: problems are rarely addressed with appropriate intellectual consistency, and things are not called by their true names. Dialect subterfuges and euphemisms are frequently adopted to fabricate a vision of reality that is not sustained by evidence, despite the fact that some encouraging and rigorous intellectual contributions witness the vitality of the theory and culture of conservation. Renato Bonelli’s thirty-year old assessment of the state of conservation practices still remains sadly true: “Too many fake preservations, and almost no real preservation: a situation that admits few exceptions [despite the fact that] the wide diffusion of conservation as a critical foundation, with results of appropriate level, is actually possible”[4].
Faith in the traditional conservation method has made clear that the tendency towards reinstatement arises from the mistakes connected to value appraisal as a propaedeutic act for conservation. When dealing with recent buildings, the historic-critical assessment somehow “slides away”, becoming a hasty exercise biased by commonplace assumptions and labile historical references, weakened by the limited evidence of implicit artistic value, and far too often conducted outside of the work itself. The centrality of this issue is given by the fact that the understanding of a contemporary artifact requires a surplus of attention, as well as critical and technical agility, and a refined sensibility towards questions of historical nature. All of this is necessary to address new and complex problems in a balanced way, looking beyond consolidated scientific categories, and overcoming considerations that are often only sustained by pragmatism and opportunism.
In this light, it may also become important to consider the very practice of “classic conservation” (which for some is “the Italian way”) as a modern testimony that needs to be protected. The foundational character it represents in Western culture finds less and less space of expression: a cultural heritage, as Paul Philippot argues, not just a theory, as is witnessed by Bonelli’s reflections, that foreshadowed some of our present-day problems, despite the fact that they had not yet become recognizable at the time he was writing.
The situation is different, and in some respects more advanced, in some neighboring fields. The conservation of contemporary art and cinema, for example, display a greater critical awareness and capacity of facing situations even more complex than those found in architecture. The world of contemporary art can boast a more consistently grounded practice, and several successful initiatives have overcome complex hurdles through sophisticated theoretical approaches. The same can be said for cinema, where surprising critical and methodological capacities are slowly surfacing, sustained by Brandi’s theory of art conservation. These results appear as promising due to the substantial methodological unity between figurative arts that lies at the base conservation: they pave a culturally informed way to strengthen the rather fragile foundations where the architectural world seems to be mired.
The conservation of 20th century architecture thus remains an open question demanding further exploration. Such inquiry, however, must take place in a new and different way, working “from the inside out”, reparsing with methodological precision the path laid down by critical conservation and questioning, step after step, the undeniable technical and practical issues that new architecture due to its very own nature creates[5].
[1] C. Varagnoli, Un restauro a parte?, “Palladio”, 22/XI, 1998, pp. 111-115.
[2] G. Carbonara, Teoria e metodi del restauro. Il restauro del Moderno, in G. Carbonara (ed.), Trattato di restauro architettonico, Utet, Torino 1996, vol. I, section. A4, pp. 77-84.
[3] C. Varagnoli, Gli eccessi del restauro, “Parametro”, 239, 2002, p. 69.
[4] 4 R. Bonelli, Restauro anni ’80: tra restauro critico e conservazione integrale, in S. Benedetti, G. Miarelli Mariani, Saggi in onore di Guglielmo De Angelis d’Ossat, “Quaderni dell’Istituto di Storia dell’Architettura”, 1-10, 1987, pp. 511-516.
[5] P. Petraroia, Architettura e arti “moderne”: per una verifica metodologica intorno al restauro, “Parametro”, 266, 2006, p. 29.
Il grattacielo Pirelli - Wikiradio del 04/04/2016 (RaiRadio3)
Il 4 aprile 1960 viene inaugurato a Milano il grattacielo Pirelli con Simona Salvo
|