tinuare a costruire un’interessante opportunità di ricerca, didattica e sperimentazione. Da quest’esperienza è emerso, ad esempio, quanto il dialogo che l’architettura contemporanea tesse con l’antico non può giustificarsi col solo valore autoreferenziale del risultato finale, ma deve comunque tener conto delle alte specificità della preesistenza. Ciò implica che un qualsiasi intervento contemporaneo su o tra le architetture del passato non può derogare da alcuni assunti fondamentali che appartengono, ormai da decenni, alla disciplina del restauro, quali: la tensione a massimizzare la permanenza evitando inutili sottrazioni di materia storica, l’attenzione per l’intero arco evolutivo dell’edificio, per i segni del deterioramento e delle patine, il rispetto del rivestimento e degli intonaci antichi, seguendo quei concetti di ‘minimo intervento’, di compatibilità e reversibilità che connotano i migliori casi di incontro tra ‘antico e nuovo’. 1
R. De Fusco, Architettura Italo-europea. Cultura del recupero e cultura dell’innovazione, Franco Angeli, 2005 2 B. Secchi, Le condizioni sono cambiate, in «Casabella» 498-499, 1984. 3 C. Varagnoli, Edifici da edifici: la ricezione del passato nell’architettura italiana. 1990-2000, in «L’indistria delle costruzioni» n. 368, 2002 4 Cfr. S. Di Resta, Il linguaggio dell’architettura contemporanea per il restauro, tesi di Dottorato di ricerca in Conservazione dei beni architettonici, Università di Napoli Federico II, XXII ciclo. 5 C. Varagnoli, op. cit. 6 R. Picone, Restauri a Napoli tra le due guerre. L’opera di Gino Chierici (1924 – 1935), in S. Casiello, La cultura del Restauro. Teorie e fondatori, Marsilio, Venezia 1996-2000. 7 B. Molajoli – P. Gardner, Monumenti d’arte campani danneggiati dalla guerra, Napoli 1944
____________________________________ Examining the approaches and possible methods, as well as the limitations, of contemporary architecture within a stratified and extraordinary historical and artistic heritage, such as that of the historic centre of Naples – providing simultaneously for its restoration and preservation – is one of the founding objectives of this Master’s course. This is the second Master’s course on Progettazione di eccellenza per la città storica (High quality design in the historic centre). During the course in the academic year 2009-10, but also during the previous one, I dealt with some of the difficult issues linked to these themes from the point of view of the architect-restorer, through lessons, seminars, and especially workshops and debates about practical examples in the classroom. This experience led to significant reflections on the contemporary debate of architectural practice in stratified contexts, such as the
ones that can be found in Europe. The debate has many interesting implications for the dialogue between experts who, from various perspectives (economic-management, structural, town planning, art-historical, archaeological etc.), deal with intervention ‘between’ and ‘on’ works of architecture of the past. The sensitivity displayed by the young architects in trying to grasp the complexity of the educational messages contained in the themes dealt with in the course contributed to creating an atmosphere of real collaboration. The atmosphere was not marked by the disciplinary barriers or preconceived narrow-minded attitudes which, for many decades, have turned the relationship between designers and restorers into a sterile ‘dialogue of the deaf’. The course revealed the extent to which the attention devoted by architects and historians of architecture to the design of new features for existing buildings has progressed in the last few decades. The desire to preserve the architectural heritage by maximising its permanence and, simultaneously, by reasserting the authentically creative, autonomous and testimonial value of the ‘design of the new’, merges with the destiny of the evidence of the past. De Fusco1 has already underlined the fact that: “for some time now, historic centres have not just attracted the interest of historians, restorers and enthusiasts of ancient environments, but also the leading figures of contemporary architecture”. Bernardo Secchi noted that: “the space that we shall inhabit over the next few decades is already largely constructed on, so the need to build in built-up areas has led to a new architectural trend, or arguably even a ‘super-trend’, given that the influences concern, albeit in different ways and shades, all the currents of contemporary architecture”2. The ‘reception of the past’, in other words its reading, interpretation and transmission to the future of the architectural heritage of each country3, leads the designer to address themes and complex problems that sometimes coexist in a dialectical relationship4. The fact that the architect who is asked to draw up projects on existing heritage, especially in non-Italian contexts, often has no training in conservation and, more generally, restoration, does not imply that the themes and results of such intervention are irrelevant to the discipline of restoration; vice versa, this raises issues that have, historically, been the subject of study and reflection by leading figures in the field of restoration work. Within this field, beginning from the
phase of post-war reconstruction, the theme of the possibility of making a contemporary addition which is therefore distinguishable and not merely a copy of the work of the past immediately seemed to be a crucial and widely-shared one, especially from the perspective of disciplinary positions which regard restoration as an intrinsic part of creative responsibility. For the latter, the distinction between technical conservation and creative work is so ephemeral that it is practically inexistent5: for example, it would be impossible, from this perspective, to argue that the structural consolidation of a historic building or the cleaning of a façade are creatively neutral operations. This reasoning, which had already been put forward by Roberto Pane fifty years ago, make the Naples School of Architecture, with its prestigious intellectual legacy, a historically privileged place for discussing these themes. Since the foundation of the Naples School of Architecture (later to become a faculty) in 1928, the close relationship between ‘monument restoration’ and the sphere of construction and design has been very clear and well-defined. Even before 1950, the year when Roberto Pane was appointed to teach restoration, the discipline had been entrusted to various heads of the Commissions for mediaeval and modern art and architecture in Naples. The fortunate presence of Gino Chierici6 in Naples (from 1924 to 1935) in this role influenced the discipline right from the outset: a skilled and knowledgeable practitioner rather than a theoretician, Chierici contributed to keeping restoration firmly rooted to its practical side, allowing it to become a full part of the disciplines of design. After him, Bruno Molajoli, the head of the arts commission who taught the discipline at the university in Naples between 1944 and 1950, would also display a more open-minded approach to the design of new architecture in historicised contexts, as can be seen in his approval of the reconstruction, using modern forms, of Benevento cathedral which had been damaged during the second world war7. From 1950 onwards, Roberto Pane, the key figure in the Naples School of Restoration, was one of the most active supporters of the possible coexistence of historic buildings and contemporary architecture, following in the footsteps of the fruitful debate that characterised conferences such as the one held in Venice in 1965 Gli architetti moderni e l’incontro tra Antico e Nuovo (Modern architects and the encounter between Old and the New) which outlined the main points of architectural issues that are still highly topical today. In line with the disciplinary tradition of our faculty, I enthusiastically accepted the challenge of teaching the Master’s course, participating in the decisions from its outset. 71