ITALY SEEN FROM THE US
THE CASE OF OPPOSITIONS (1973-1984)
GROUP 20
History and Theory of Contemporary Architecture
Prof. :
Scrivano, Paolo
Caramellino, Gaia
Comoglio, Giovanni
Benetti, Alessandro
Group 20 member:
Fernández Pereda, Ane
Marcuz, Tanja
Sanz García, Cecilia
Zhang, Siman
Zhang, Xinyuan
10773153/ 958073
10811350/ 974496
10785475/ 958107
10757699/ 963384
10770414/ 961798
CHAPTER 01
Research’s aim and scope
This essay aims to highlight the overall transactions of architectural discourses between the US and Italy during the 1970s thanks to the analysis of the periodical Oppositions (1973-1984). From its point of view from New York, the journal will be demonstrated throughout the research to be an ideal paradigm of introducing Italian ideas and projects. The translation of those into a different language, but also its adaptation to a different cultural setting, entails a phenomenon of selection which will enrich the research. In closing, the fact that this subject has not been explored before in these terms, made it even more interesting to carry out.
CHAPTER 02
Basic Information
Oppositions: A Journal for Ideas and Criticism in Architecture was an architectural journal produced by the Institute of Architecture and Urban Studies (IAUS) from 1973 to 1984 in New York. During its eleven years of existence, twenty-six issues were published, including two special numbers and two double numbers.1
Oppositions would become legitimized in April 1976 with their contract with MIT Press, ensuring professional production, advertisements, worldwide distribution, and quarterly publication. However, there was still hardly any budget, so translations and proofreading were mainly accomplished by students, interns, and graduates of the IAUS. In the end, it was a truly postmodern and little publication with usually 1000-2000 copies’ circulation and 150-250 subscribers.2
1 “Paris under the Academy: City and Ideology”, Oppositions: A Journal for Ideas and Criticism in Architecture, no. 8, ed. Anthony Vidler (Spring 1977). “Monument/Memory”, Oppositions: A Journal for Ideas and Criticism in Architecture, no. 25, ed. Kurt W. Forster (Fall 1982).
“Le Corbusier 1905-1933”, Oppositions: A Journal for Ideas and Criticism in Architecture, no. 15/16, ed. Kenneth Frampton (Winter 1979).
“Le Corbusier 1933-1960”, Oppositions: A Journal for Ideas and Criticism in Architecture, no. 19/20, ed. Kenneth Frampton (Winter 1980).
2 Kim Förster, “Institutionalizing Postmodernism: Reconceiving the Journal and the Exhibition at the Institute for Architecture and Urban Studies in 1976”, in Mediated Messages: Periodicals, Exhibitions, and the Shaping Postmodern Architecture, eds. Véronique Patteeuw and Léa-Catherine Szacka (London: Bloomsbury, 2018): 213229.
“If there were any common thread in the journal it was a shared enthusiasm for European theory, largely of the post-Marxist Frankfurt School. Indeed, it was Oppositions that introduced European writers such as Manfredo Tafuri, Francesco Dal Co, Georges Teyssot, and Giorgio Ciucci to American audiences.”3
Oppositions set out an agenda in the 70s to be an agent of radical transformations and a point of reference for New Yorker publishing scene, capable of generating an alternative and strong debate on architecture which made it geared toward an intellectual audience. Initiated by the American architect Peter Eisenman, and with an independent course, the periodical was part of a bigger programme aiming to “record that moment in the 1970s, in America, and the relationship between America and Europe […] trying to set up a theoretical framework for thinking in the United States.”, since “until Bob Venturi published Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture [1966] there was no theoretical or didactic book or journal in the United States.”4
Within their published issues, Oppositions released statements clarifying their stance regarding their editorial line. During its eleven years, two of them were released which are found in issue number one and nine, both assuring the dialogue this research will try to investigate: “By translating critical articles of the best European thinkers in architecture [...] the journal has already contributed much to this interchange. In future issues the editors will endeavour to strengthen and sharpen the focus of this European-American debate.”5
3 Kevin Lippert, “Publisher’s Preface”, in Oppositions Reader: Selected Readings from A Journal of Ideas and Criticism in Architecture, 1973-1984, ed. K. Michael Hays (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1998): 7.
4 Beatriz Colomina and Urtzi Grau, “Interview with Peter Eisenman. New York. October 18, 2006”, in Clip, Stamp, Fold: The Radical Architecture of Little Magazines 196X to 197X (Actar Publishers, 2010), 261, 264.
5 Peter Eisenman, Kenneth Frampton, Mario Gandelsonas, Anthony Vidler, “Editorial”, Oppositions: A Journal for Ideas and Criticism in Architecture, no. 9 (Summer 1977).
“BC: Was Casabella a reference for you? PE: I always wanted to be on the cover of Casabella. BC: But what was the dream of Oppositions ? What did Oppositions want to be? PE: For me, Casabella was the model. BC: But Casabella is not a little magazine. PE: It was a model in the 1930s. The magazines I collected were Casabella while Giuseppe Pagano was editor. They were great issues. And they were very didactic and to me the model… […] BC: What about more contemporary magazines? PE: There was Zodiac ; I had all the old Zodiacs, the old Lotus…”6
Oppositions was born during a thriving period of changes; the dogma of Modernism was being abandoned and pioneering architects from Europe were reflecting and exploring on the future of architecture and urbanism, expanding the discipline with new research lines in the process. However, Peter Eisenman lamented the US had never produced actual Modern architecture, this is one of the reasons why he promoted so many initiatives in New York (CASE 1964, IAUS 1967, New York Five 1969…). The Italian connection can be firstly located in the parallelism between neo-rationalists’ movements Tendenza and New York Five. Both of which worked together during the XV Milan Triennale of 1973 for the ‘architettura razionale’ exhibition, directed by Aldo Rossi, which gathered projects from Eisenman, Gwathmey, Graves, Hejduk and Meier and had a great impact in the American architects.7 This relationship was reassured during the Venice Biennale of 1976, in which Eisenman and another 10 architects represented the US for the exhibition ‘Europa-America centro storicosuburbio’.8
Previously, the exchange began with an issue of Casabella presenting IAUS to Italy, edited by Stuart Wrede and with the contributions of Julia Bloomfield and Kenneth Frampton.9 In 1972, the MoMA, (strongly affiliated with IAUS), sponsored “Italy: The New Domestic Landscape”. One last example can be the conference celebrated in 1977 between American and Italian ‘little magazines’ of the decade, taking place in the Institute, including Lotus and various architects from the Venice School.10
6 Beatriz Colomina and Urtzi Grau, “Interview with Peter Eisenman. New York. October 18, 2006”, in Clip, Stamp, Fold: The Radical Architecture of Little Magazines 196X to 197X (Actar Publishers, 2010), 263.
7 Luca Lazzarini, “Catalogo XV Triennale di Milano”, accessed June 6, 2021, https://issuu.com/lucalazzarini91/docs/catalogo.
8 Léa-Catherine Szacka, “Vittorio Gregotti, Franco Raggi, Peter Eisenman, Robert A.M. Stern”, accessed June 5, 2021, https://radical-pedagogies.com/search-cases/ v02-biennale-venezia/.
9 Casabella, n. 359/360, (December 1971).
10‘Little magazines’ was attributable mainly to the format and to a limited circuit of influence, which were often the outcome of independent, niche, or non-commercial publishing. With the passing of time to 60s and 70s, they became particularly interesting for architectural research as an impulse to experiment, the leaning of the editorial board in directing the thinking, and in the desire to plough new research roads, give voice to new, less common, and avant-garde disciplinary languages. This tendency has deeply influenced the Italian and American radicals who published Zodiac, Perspecta, Controspazio, Lotus, Oppositions… Guido Zuliani, “Oppositions 1973-1984”, accessed June 5, 2021, https://www.famagazine.it/index.php/famagazine/article/view/137/689.
“Sandy Wilson had given me Alberto Sartori’s book which featured the Casa del Fascio. I had an epiphany when I saw this building. I was berserk. I needed to get the magazines of that period. I went to every bookstore in every town and tried to find Casabella. The last day we were in Italy, in September 1961, we went to a small bookshop in the gallery in Torino and we ask this guy with a fascist beard “do you have any Casabella?” and he said “Si!” “Could I see what you have?” “Look, they are in a basement, which numbers do you want?” “Just bring up some.” He brought up a whole year, 1932, tied up in a cord. “Do you have any others? Bring them up.” He brought up something like 150 issues completely untouched, and he also had all the Futurist manifestos.”11
This is the story of Peter Eisenman’s first encounter and fascination with Italian architecture and publications. Eisenman was so impressed by Giuseppe Terragni’s work that he published one book analysing, with architectural diagrams, Casa del Fascio (Como, 1933-1936) and Casa Giuliani-Frigerio (Como, 1939-1940) projects, including a text by Manfredo Tafuri.12
It is then comprehensible that Terragni was a great inspiration for the American architect’s work, while Tafuri was for his theoretical one: “If Collin Rowe had influenced the young Eisenman, then Tafuri is considered as having the next decisive impact.”13In fact, as already mentioned before, entire Venice School at that time played an important role being both authors and content in the journal.
All the editorial board of Oppositions had as well significative connections with Italy. For instance, English architect, critic, and historian Kenneth Frampton, when he was technical editor of Architectural Design (1962-1965), edited together with Italian architect Panos Koulermos a special issue on the complete work of Giuseppe Terragni and Pietro Lingeri.14 In the background of Argentinian architect and theorist Mario Gandelsonas specialized in urbanism and semiotics can be found an important exhibition in Rome dedicated to his work and his wife’s Diana Agrest. 15 Moreover, Frampton, Gandelsonas, and English historian and critic Anthony Vidler were important contributors to Italian journals during those years such us Lotus
11 Beatriz Colomina and Urtzi Grau, “Interview with Peter Eisenman. New York. October 18, 2006”, in Clip, Stamp, Fold: The Radical Architecture of Little Magazines 196X to 197X (Actar Publishers, 2010), 261.
12 Peter Eisenman, Giuseppe Terragni: Transformations, Decompositions, Critiques (1986).
13 Ralph Stern, “Oppositions Revisited: The Oppositions Reader”, kritische berichte, no. 3 (1999): 71.
14 “The Work of Lingeri & Terragni”, Architectural Design, no. 3 (March 1963).
15 Francesco Moschini and Paolo Iacucci, “Diana Agrest e Mario Gandelsonas. Progetti e realizzazioni 1975-1983” (Rome, 6th June 1983).
International. Indeed, Vidler was part of its editorial board during 1980s.
The importance of Italian designer Massimo Vignelli in the journal has to be highlighted as well. Having studied in Politecnico di Milano and in Venice, he established the red-orange style which would become a template for all the IAUS publications. He was the responsible for the characteristic minimalist style in black and white which led directly to the text inside Oppositions
In the end, the transatlantic dialogue was assured thanks to the international contributors. As the diagram shows, an outstanding percentage of the authors writing in Oppositions was from European countries (75%). Confirming the choice for this research line, Italian representation reaches an essential 18%, composed mainly of Francesco Dal Co (6 articles), Manfredo Tafuri (5 articles), Georges Teyssot (2 articles), or Aldo Rossi (2 articles).
“Oppositions will regularly feature a number of articles which critically examine either a building, a book, or a theoretical position with a view to interpreting and evaluating the general complex of ideas involved. It is hoped that a series of dialogues will result which will occasion an exchange of views not only among the editors, but also between the reader and other outside contributors.”16
When exploring further and reading Oppositions, it is evident that, as the editors stated above, it was a journal of assembled articles but with no core theme. It concentrated more on the high-level articles, on the reassessment of the past as a necessary link between built forms and social values, on the promotion of scholarship and thought.
Hence, except for the special and double issues, the articles were divided into different sections according to their content. The sequence varied from time to time but it was mainly conformed by: ‘editorial’ (which appeared in eleven issues, when they needed to explain their reasons for changing the order of topics or for publishing an special number), ‘oppositions’ (renamed as ‘criticism’ after the twenty-first issue), ‘history’, ‘theory’, ‘documents’ (source material difficult to find or previously untranslated), ‘reviews, letters & forum’ (enabling interaction and helping to locate the texts in a larger context), and some other ancillary parts such as a few advertisements in the end.
Focusing on the pivotal and relatively stable role of ‘oppositions’, ‘history’, theory’ and ‘documents’, it has been observed again the dominating presence of articles addressing European architecture. Furthermore, inside the European content, Italian dominance is noteworthy: “One thing that I think is very discernible in the magazine is the shift toward Italy and toward Manfredo Tafuri and to Aldo Rossi, in particular, which emerges with Oppositions 3.”17
CHAPTER 03
Research on the journal
Succeeding in the assessment of the Italian dominance in Oppositions and with the objective of understanding it better, the next phase implied the scanning and reading of the mentioned articles. Following that methodology for the research, it must be taken into account special and double issues have been excluded since they differ from the usual section division and do not encompass Italy.
For better comprehension, thirteen relevant articles have been separated into four different categories: “Republished source material, translated into English for the first time”, “Architect monograph”, “Projects from an external architectural standpoint”, and “Latest projects from an internal architectural standpoint.” The selected articles belong to the pivot sections in Oppositions , these being ‘oppositions’ or ‘criticism’, ‘history’, ‘theory’ and ‘documents.’ They have been chosen regardless of who wrote them and when. Each of them will be questioned in terms of the author (nationality, time, relationship with the content, tone), the translation (textual, possible introductions, misunderstandings), and the possible reason why it was introduced to the American reader.
Republished source material, translated into English for the first time:
Luigi Moretti, “The Values of Profiles” and “Structures and Sequences of Spaces”, Oppositions: A Journal for Ideas and Criticism in Architecture, no. 4 (October 1974): 112-139.
Il Gruppo 7, “Architecture (1926) and Architecture (II): The Foreigners (1927)”, Oppositions: A Journal for Ideas and Criticism in Architecture, no. 6 (Fall 1976): 86-102.
Il Gruppo 7. “Architecture (III): Unpreparedness – Incomprehension – Prejudices (1927) and Architecture (IV): A New Archaic Era (1927)”, Oppositions: A Journal for Ideas and Criticism in Architecture, no. 12 (Spring 1978): 88-105.
Giuseppe Terragni, “Relazione Sul Danteum”, Oppositions: A Journal for Ideas and Criticism in Architecture, no. 9 (Summer 1977): 94-105.
Andrea Branzi, Maurice Culot, Leon Krier, and Tomás Maldonado, “Casabella and the Reading of History: An Exchange of Correspondence between Maurice Culot and Leon Krier with Tomás Maldonado, and Andrea Branzi with Tomás Maldonado Casabella, 445, March 1979”, Oppositions: A Journal for Ideas and Criticism in Architecture, no. 24 (Spring 1981): 92-101.
Giovanni Battista Piranesi, “Thoughts on Architecture”, Oppositions: A Journal for Ideas and Criticism in Architecture, no. 26 (Spring 1984): 4-25.
Manfredo Tafuri, “Giuseppe Terragni: Subject and ‘Mask’”, Oppositions: A Journal for Ideas and Criticism in Architecture, no. 11 (Winter 1977): 1-25.
Architect monograph:
Oriol Bohigas, “Sartoris: The First Classicist of the Avant-Garde”, Oppositions: A Journal for Ideas and Criticism in Architecture, no. 17 (Summer 1979): 77-97.
Rafael Moneo, “Aldo Rossi: The Idea of Architecture and the Modena Cemetery”, Oppositions: A Journal for Ideas and Criticism in Architecture, no. 5 (Summer 1976): 1-30.
Projects from an external architectural standpoint:
Latest projects from an internal architectural standpoint:
Kurt W. Forster, “Stagecraft and statecraft: The Architectural Integration of Public Life and Theatrical Spectacle in Scamozzi's Theater at Sabbioneta”, Oppositions: A Journal for Ideas and Criticism in Architecture, no. 9 (Summer 1977): 63-87.
Daniel Libeskind, “Deus ex Machina / Machina ex Deo: Aldo Rossi’s Theater of the World”, Oppositions: A Journal for Ideas and Criticism in Architecture, no. 21 (Summer 1980): 3-23.
Aldo Rossi, “The Blue of the Sky”, Oppositions: A Journal for Ideas and Criticism in Architecture, no. 5 (Summer 1976): 31-34.
Aldo Rossi, “Recent Works”, Oppositions: A Journal for Ideas and Criticism in Architecture, no. 26 (Spring 1984): 66-95.
First category that has been conceived in order to understand how Italian tendencies appear in the different articles of the journal corresponds to republished source material, always located in the ‘documents’ section.
First article contains actually two different ones, written by Roman architect Luigi Moretti, both previously published in his journal Spazio in the 50’s.18 Thomas Stevens translated the articles, but he did not explain anything of the theoretical framework in which these publications were immersed and the role of Moretti as the writer of many essays trying to associate different arts. The translated text was supported by scans of the original publication, so the reader could also appreciate the visual discourse.19
After Second World War, Moretti was not much appreciated by the historians of the time who were rigorously Marxist and who dominated the culture of Italian architecture. His work and writings have nevertheless attracted the attention of some leading researchers such us Manfredo Tafuri.20
“The Values of Profiles” cryptically referred to Le Corbusier in an attempt to reconnect the threads of research on manifestly abstract elements in the history of architecture traced in the text on Baroque sculpture. In “Structures and Sequence of spaces”, Moretti proposed a spatial reading of several architectural works (from Villa Adriana to Guarino Guarini’s Church of S. Filippo Neri), conducted with the help of a series of plaster cast models representing the interior, negative, space of the analyzed buildings. He focused on the question of ‘form’, and all the related aspects, aiming especially to demonstrate how extraordinary architectures materialize sequences of spaces in relationship to the paths, to the change of perspective, and to the timing of the journey of an observer.21
18 Luigi Moretti, “Valori della Modanatura”, Spazio, Rassegna delle Arti e dell’Architettura no. 6 (December 1951-April 1952): 5-12.
Luigi Moretti, “Strutture e Sequenze di Spazi”, Spazio, Rassegna delle Arti e dell’Architettura no.7 (December 1952-April 1953):9-20.
19 Luigi Moretti, “The Values of Profiles” and “Structures and Sequences of Spaces”, Oppositions: A Journal for Ideas and Criticism in Architecture, no. 4 (October 1974): 112-139.
20 Luigi Moretti, Federico Bucci, and Marco Mulazzani. Luigi Moretti: Works and Writings. (Princeton Architectural Press, 2002). Google Books, accessed May 30, 2021, https://books.google.it/books?id=mCv5duNe2-kC.
21 Fosco Lucarelli, “Luigi Moretti’s Structures and Sequences of Spaces (1952)”, Socks Studio, accessed May 30, 2021, http://socks-studio.com/2018/12/09/luigimorettis-structures-and-sequences-of-spaces/.
The second and third articles of this section are from the Gruppo Sette manifesto, firstly published in four articles in Rassegna Italiana from December 1926 to May 1927. American readers had direct access to it and were able to appreciate their role in a turbulent Italian context thanks to the translation of Ellen Shapiro, a graduate student in art history at Yale University.22
After Shapiro's introduction in a relatively critical tone, the reader was able to discover the background of Gruppo7's inception from Politecnico di Milano. She explained the influence of Fascist regime supporting Marcello Piacentini’s Neoclassical architecture and declining rationalism. Besides, Peter Eisenman wanted to add a few words in the beginning justifying the appearance of these manifestos in the journal by conveying the rebirth of ‘architettura razionale’ as a subject of interest after the 1973 Milan Triennale. The articles counted on an important number of plans, photographs, and drawings; chosen by the translator and editors.
As to the writings of Gruppo 7, under the direction of its leader Giuseppe Terragni, they attempted to transcend the Beaux Arts which Politecnico propagated and search for inspiration in the International Style, most notably from Le Corbusier, but also from Ludwig Mies van der Rohe and Walter Gropius. However, they were always making clear this Modern language had to be revaluated in their own national character and Italian terms.
Nevertheless, some misunderstandings have been encountered related to this article in the ‘letters’ sections of the journal: “My objection is more than a mere grammatical quibble. It seems to me that a very careful reading of these and other writings from the period suggests that the situation in Italy for the Rationalists and other architects is more complex than the traditional historical explanation, ably outlined by Ms. Shapiro in her introduction, would have us believe.”23
22 Il Gruppo 7, “Architecture (1926) and Architecture (II): The Foreigners (1927)”, Oppositions: A Journal for Ideas and Criticism in Architecture, no. 6 (Fall 1976): 86-102.
Il Gruppo 7. “Architecture (III): Unpreparedness – Incomprehension – Prejudices (1927) and Architecture (IV): A New Archaic Era (1927)”, Oppositions: A Journal for Ideas and Criticism in Architecture, no. 12 (Spring 1978): 88-105.
23 Diane Ghirardo (Rome, Italy), “Letters to the editors”, Oppositions: A Journal for Ideas and Criticism in Architecture, no. 9 (Summer 1977): 117.
The fourth article, “Relazione Sul Danteum”, was written by Giuseppe Terragni in 1938 describing the design intentions for his Danteum project. The extant manuscript was translated by Thomas Schumacher, an American academic architect, popular for his role in the development of Contextualism along with Colin Rowe. At the very beginning of the article, he wrote one brief paragraph clarifying the notes, figures, and postscripts he needed to add in order to complete the unfortunately missing parts.24
The article focused on the Dante Memorial designed by Giuseppe Terragni and Pietro Lingueri at the behest of the Fascist government of Mussolini. This unfinished monument, dedicated to the famous XIV century Italian writer Dante Alighieri, was built around the formal part of Dante's greatest work, the Divine Comedy . Rather than attempting to illustrate the narrative, however, Terragni focused on the text form and rhyme structure, translating them into the language of carefully proportioned spaces and unadorned surfaces typical of Italian rationalism.25
24 Giuseppe Terragni, “Relazione Sul Danteum”, Oppositions: A Journal for Ideas and Criticism in Architecture, no. 9 (Summer 1977): 94-105.
25 Ellen R, Shapiro, “Surface and Symbol: Giuseppe Terragni and The Architecture of Italian Rationalism”, Journal of Architectural Education, no.45:4 (1992): 243245. https://doi.org/10.1080/10464883.1992.10734523.
The fifth article was introduced by the editor Kenneth Frampton, who had already a long relationship with Milanese architectural journal Casabella as an intellectual contributor. He proposed the inclusion of the recent debate around the Italian periodical as a purely textual article under the title “Casabella and the Reading of History.”26
Frampton wrote an introductory page, both to clarify the theoretical framework and to give the reasons for his choice. The protagonists of this correspondence were also introduced to the readers, so they could understand the significance of the following translated letters by Stephen Sartarelli. Frampton described a situation in which the editor role of Tomás Maldonado in Casabella (1977-1981) was questioned by the Belgian architect Maurice Culot, the Luxembourgish architectural theorist Leon Krier, and the Florenceborn architect Andrea Branzi, chairman at the Politecnico di Milano back then. The periodical was criticized for having avoided the ongoing debate against Modern Movement, for ignoring the critical stand of the Italian avant-garde of the seventies known as Tendenza and for having been orientated toward a restricted rationalism. Maldonado defended his position by assuring Casabella never had an uncritical or constraint attitude and by referring to his recent article “Il Movimento Moderno e la questione ‘post’”.27
The sixth and last article that has been selected under the category of ‘Italian source material’ is “Thoughts on architecture”, which appeared in the last issue of Oppositions thanks to the translation of Michaela Nonis and Mark Epstein (1953).28
In this occasion, Kevin C. Lippert, who became managing editor of the journal only for this number, was the one in charge of the decision and the introduction of the document. Lippert explained there the context in which “Parere su l’architettura”, first written by Giovanni Battista Piranesi in 1765, was born. It all began with Piranesi’s “Della Magnificenza dell’Architettura dei Romani”, in which he elaborated on the notion of the superiority of Roman over Greek architecture. However, many French theorists of that time such as Laugier or Le Roy held the opposite opinion. The essay itself was Piranesi’s latter reply to this, including nine plates and his thoughts on ornament and quotation thanks to a fictional dialogue between Protopiro, a rigorist follower of the Vitruvian principles, and Didascalo, the voice of Piranesi.
Thanks to this article, Opposition’s reader became aware of the concerns during XVIII century on the origin of architecture, the fascination with archaeology and the consequent use of the elements of antiquity. The journal offered a firsthand approach to the impressive drawings and the witty conversation only Piranesi was able to produce.
Defining this second category of contents, two articles can be found which introduce one Italian figure with thoroughness: one about Giuseppe Terragni (1904-1943) and the other about Alberto Sartoris (19011998).29
The first article appeared in 11th issue entitled “Giuseppe Terragni: Subject and ‘Mask’” and written by Manfredo Tafuri. 30 The original text was translated in Oppositions by Diane Ghirardo, architecture professor and the first person in translating main books of Aldo Rossi into English. Tafuri introduced here the full work of the architect from Como thanks to a great number of his collected drawings, photomontages, plans and photographs, which took up half the article. Inside it, the reader could find both a deep explanation of Terragni’s architectural language through a revision of his projects, and the Italian perception of those varying from strong criticism from director of Casabella Giuseppe Pagano (1896-1945) to fascination. It was offered indeed a detailed picture of interwar time in Italy introducing the existing architectural tendencies and names such as Massimo Botempelli; Adalberto Libera, Mario Ridolfi or Pietro Aschieri from ‘Roman School’; Luigi Figini or Gino Pollini from Gruppo Sette. The title of the article can be understood as Tafuri’s particular way of considering the architecture of Terragni a timeless interpenetration between reality and appearance.
The second and last article that has been encountered in Oppositions under our own parameters is “Sartoris: the First Classicist of the Avant-Garde”, written by Catalan architect Oriol Bohigas.31
Alberto Sartoris (1901-1988) was an architect with a fluctuating recognition but with an objectively valuable work, just as Bohigas states: “one manner of interpreting the cultural role of Sartori’s works is to present them as the bridge – almost the only bridge – between Sant’Elia and Gruppo Sette, that is to say, as the first effort to bring the Modern Movement emanating from central Europe to Italy.”32 This quote is exemplary of the whole article tone and its aim of addressing Mediterranean interwar context. Particularly in Italy, every architectural tendency previous to avant-garde such as Novecento, Futurism, or the ‘Group of Turin’ was discussed in the text right before introducing Sartoris’ projects with photographs and drawings.
