Superstudio and the Anti-Design Movement: Challenging Conventional Architecture

Introduction : Superstudio's approach to Architecture as critique

Chapter 1.1 : Superstudio’s signature : Conception above construction

Chapter 1.2

Anti-context

Chapter 1.3

The counter-proposal

Chapter 2

A new perspective : Experimenting as a statement

Chapter 3

Critiquing Modernist Architecture without solutions

Conclusion

Beyond Building: Superstudio's Approach to Architecture as Critique

Introduction

Designing, drawing, building – Those are the steps to follow as an architect. An obvious routine questioned by Superstudio (Figure 1); an Italian architecture firm intrigued by the idea of involving architecture into displaying their design against the norms. Proud avant- gardists, and with the help of current trending art movements (such as Pop Art) they were highly involved into highlighting their disagreement against the political context of their country. They used their skills as architects to approach society issues by exploring at various scales these problems.

As Juhani Pallasmaa (2019, p. 72) states in The Eyes Of The Skin, “In memorable experiences of architecture, space, matter and time fuse into one singular dimension, into the basic substance of being, that penetrates our consciousness. We identify ourselves with this space, this place, this moment, and these dimensions become ingredients of our very existence.” Superstudio’s design took only into consideration time and context, rather than space and matter. So, what if we strip away the physical aspect of architecture ? To what extent can you call yourself an architect ? Is architecture only about building, or can it be also about using the initial concept to question its own essence ?

Although their ideas faded quickly as the political context of Italy started to change, Superstudio’s legacy left out a new perception of architecture as a critique tool. As an enhanced knowledge of the urban setting is required to understand how to design a “triangle” to fit in a square hole, this new approach along with Archigram and Archizoom broke the classical scheme of the architect’s duty to simply build for building, and extended the influence architecture can have on society under the avant-gardists’ principles. This essay will be exploring in-depth Superstudio’s projects, and how their process carefully conveyed and put the spotlight on what modernism was doing wrong, to open the path to new ways of seeing and practicing architecture, and how breaking the classical scheme of the profession can open new fields and new opportunities.

1.1 - The practice's manifesto

As designers, they used their skills and knowledge to practice what can be called “Anti-Architecture;” a radical approach to create the opposite of what people need. With this antithesis as a weapon and irony as ammunitions, their main idea was to forget about the idea of “building,” as “For us, architecture is always opposed to building” (Lang and Menking, 2003, p. 166), where the strength of their concepts lies within those never being raised out of their drawings. From designing sets of furniture that challenge the interiors of Italian modernists’ generic flats, to producing various collages of concepts at the opposite of “rescuing cities,” (Figure 2, 3, 4) these photomontages were catchy enough to raise the awareness of their analysis, with a clear message hidden behind those works.

As Juhani Pallasmaa (2019, p. 70) suggests in The Eyes Of The Skin, “Buildings and towns enable us to structure, understand and remember the shapeless flow of reality and, ultimately, to recognise and remember who we are.”, building is constrained to the “harsh” conditions of reality, such as gravity and matter, drawing and sketching enables the architect to forget about these constrains and eventually forget any existing conditions, or at least, “who we are”. Drifting away from time and space opens new gates to possibilities, and thus, interesting concepts can emerge and broaden various opportunities. If it will never be raised from the ground, why would a project be restricted to the rules of the real world ?

1.2 - Anti-context

This project, called “Macchina per le vacanze,” or holiday machine in Italian, was the proposed design of a tourism leisure centre in the Calabrian coast. (Figure 5, 6) The top of the boot of Italy, known for its mountains, sea, and Mediterranean climate, was undergoing major industrialization projects such as new ports, roads, railways with the set intention of improving the Calabrian infrastructure, funded by the state.

As Deamer P. (2014, p. 144) suggests in Manfredo Tafuri, Archizoom, Superstudio, and the critique of architectural ideology,” in Architecture and capitalism: 1845 to the present., “ Their work was not simply a critique of modern architecture but a more general critique of architecture’s (and the architect’s) political mandate in a capitalist society.” Superstudio “proposed” this leisure centre to take “advantage” of this opportunity to attract more people to this peaceful haven. In this drawing, we can see the building being placed right at the edge of a cliff, acting as a dam to regulate the flow of the stream and to potentially generate energy to supply the infrastructure. The structure itself shows the opposite of what you would expect to see by the Mediterranean sea : A complex scaffolding-like construction which inspires everything but leisure, peace, or anything related to the chosen landscape. By taking a close look at the drawing (Figure 7), the finesse, texture and variations of roughness of the graphite are completely lost upon glancing at the structure, showing a real contrast between the richness of the land, and the boldness of the man-made intervention. Ironically, as this building was placed where the stream “Arbona” eroded, the main idea of this strategic placement of the building was to prevent any further attenuation of the basin. But can we really talk about a rescue if the identity of the site is taken away?

The second drawing (Figure 8) of the proposed leisure centre shows much more of the context, representing a clear definition of a contrast. The building stretches into the sea with pylons of reinforced concrete, where it eventually sinks as a base for a potential landing / parking site for helicopters / cars. Beyond the irony of having an aerial machine, resting on the land, which is sunk into the sea, this extension is a clear allegory of architecture as a machine , where technology would benefit for nature (with the dam function (Figure 9, 10) from the main steel building) and humans (by providing electricity for optimal comfort). With this idea, on top of stealing the landscape’s identity, it overwrites it by integrating technology at its heart, and designing a structure to host as many tourists as possible, il a land slowly becoming overwhelmed by mass-tourism.

From a human experience point of view, this environment is not much different from the urban setting a worker is used to seeing every day. And the peace, the nature retreats this person was looking forward to would be no different than the one they are experiencing every day. The power within those drawings lies in the contrast between the way the context is represented, and the features exclusive to the industrial revolution are captured to the point that it feels inserted with no consideration to the setting. And only a careful knowledge of the land allows such a brilliant statement to be made, as a worker exploited for work purposes is no different from a machine made for leisure and tourism, and this “proposal” shows how this transition is ironic.

1.3 - The counter-proposal

The next semi-built project, called “Hidden architecture,” (Figure 11) was the design of a new building by Superstudio. As stated by them in Design Quarterly, No. 78/79, Conceptual Architecture (1970),: “We propose a hidden architecture as conceptual architecture: architecture which is only an image of itself and of our instrumentalizable muteness.”, (Superstudio, 1970, p. 54) this goes along their philosophy to push the boundaries of the design to a statement of intention, by crafting a metal box which in itself can be considered as a work of art. As generic as it sounds, the plans of the proposal were hidden inside of this metallic case. Along showing this box, the Italian practice displayed the drawings of the box itself, and a sequence of photos of the process.

Upon looking at the paper (Figure 12), we cannot help but notice how careful this metallic box was crafted. Superstudio’s attention to detail draws the viewer into their world, changing the perception of this box. On top of showing an accurate axonometric view of the final design, the internal layers of the case are drawn at a detailed level. Formed of a sheet of foam, asbestos, and encased in an external chrome plated brass, this reminds the standard construction of a sheer wall of a building (at that time, 1970). As basic as the drawing looks like, the detailing of this sketch and the construction of the box raises the design to an architectural level, built for hiding architecture. This new perception unveils the studio’s statement of modernist’s principles of a building being a machine for living in, to a machine for hiding in.

While the drawing talks about the details of the box, the sequence of photos (Figure 13) put the spotlight on the process of the design; it relates how the architects folded, placed the drawings into a dark envelope, and put those into the box, which was eventually sealed. Superstudio burnt the original drawings, and only them knew about the initial design of the proposed building enriching their intention to not designing, but to make a statement of their intention to attract the focus on this project to the process, rather than the final content.

This contrast between the previous project, which was not intended to be built, and this one which came out of the paper, still manages to keep Superstudio’s statement of architecture as a critique. Their intention to incorporate art into architecture in a critical way plays its part into changing the perception to its integration in an architectural design. Using art as a tool, their approach to practicing is all about raising questions about the society, as seen with this box challenging the modernist principles, seen by the Italian architects as a machine encasing, trapping and devouring architecture.

With these two projects, a clear statement is made. Without art in their design, the critique is weak. Where the Holiday retreat’s strength lies in the contrast of the graphite black and white drawing, and the small, rough box presented instead of plans of a building, Superstudio’s stance on not fulfilling the client’s request is comfortable enough to put the spotlight on a society question in a subtle way, that could be conveyed by art and / or an architectural drawing only. The roughness of the materiality of the box, its small size is an allegory to the deception from the client expecting a building and seeing a little chrome case.

Chapter 2 -

A new perspective : Experimenting as a statement