Back to the past-Lessons from the Malaparte House

Back to the past: Lessons from the Malaparte House R. Guridi Garcia

DPA. Architectural Design Department ETSAM /UPM, Madrid, Spain

C. Tartรกs Ruiz Former DIGA -Design Department ETSAM /UPM, Madrid, Spain

Back to the past: Lessons from Malaparte House Rafael Guridi Garcia DPA. Architectural Design Department ETSAM /UPM, Madrid.

Cristina Tartás Ruiz. ETSAM /UPM, Madrid

Keywords:

Malaparte, Mediterranean, classical, vernacular

Abstract The Malaparte House appears as a rather enigmatic object in its closeness, its formal simplicity, its cave-like relationship with the rocky landscape from which it rises, it suggest the image of a podium of a long forgotten temple for an ancient god rather than a (modern) house. Set as an antithesis of the modern canon of transparency, lightness and tectonics, at the precise moment when this canon was widely established. The Malaparte house, in its stereotomy, topography & relationship with the place’s genius loci, its formal language and references, its disposition of apertures in the wall’s blindness, its use of a complex selected system of cross views and conceals, its material and texture codes, its ceremonial-like character of the outside stairs, proposes a critic departure from the traditional keys of modern architecture, introducing a new reading of some of the classic & vernacular features of Mediterranean architecture and culture.

“Today, more than ever, I feel like a bird who has swallowed its own cage. I carry the prison cell within me, like a pregnant woman carries her child in her belly. (…) Today, I live in an island, in a sad, hard and severe house over the sea. A house that is the ghost, the secret image of prison, the image of my nostalgia” Curzio Malaparte, The Skin, 1949.

Traditionally it was assigned entirely to Aldaberto Libera (1903-1963), which certainly play a significant role in its conception. Most books and monographs on the architect collect the house undoubtedly as one of his works.1 However, in 1990, Maria Ida Talamona published Casa Malaparte, an important research work on the house, where she established, with all sort of documents, that the Malaparte house was the work of Malaparte himself, with the help of a local builder, Adolfo Amitrano.2 Libera would just have produced a preliminary sketch, which helped to get the building permission. This publication promted a large discussion: in 1991, Franco Purini publishes an article in Casabella “Architecture without architects?”,3 where he tried to deny –not successfully indeed—Talamona’s work and set back Libera as the only and genuine architect.

Avoiding any historical controversy -which exceeds the limits of this work-, nowadays it is well established that Libera produced a first sketch

INTRODUCTION The house Malaparte, set in an exceptional location in the Capri island, constitutes one of the selected model-houses that every recollection on modern architecture must quote. But, is it really a modern house? Its story is rather confusing, and only recently we have come to know some relevant data about it.

2

defines a pure & clear plane in the top terrace, the lower’s is difficult to grab. There is nothing like a house basement plane, and we can only guess the position of the first floor from the lower windows' height. Modern canon laid emphasis precisely on the independence between the “floating-like” quality of the building and the natural topography which flows freely underneath it. This is one of Le Corbusier's five points, and it is also the strategy developed by Mies van der Rohe in his Resor House, a project designed in 1938, the very same year of the Malaparte house. The Resor House, a perfect orthogonal box separated from the site through a series of slim pillars is based on a previous sketch for a glass house in a hillside of 1934 –a clear predecessor of both Resor & Farnsworth Houses- with a total disconnection between the hilly topography and the building's horizontal indifference (fig 2).

Opposed to this canon, vernacular architecture has been using a more stereotomical approach to the site, appearing quite often as an crystallization or mineral blooming from the ground where it is set, and in which respective limits are blurred. This is very frequent among Mediterranean climates and rocky landscapes, due to reasons of structural stability (no foundations needed), economy of means (saving resources) and energy efficiency (taking advantage from stone or ground's thermal inertia). But while those vernacular architectures tend to scatter the volume in multiple partitions and additions- due to a continuous process of adaptation to new changes and necessities- the Malaparte house appears with an unmistakable will of assertiveness and self affirmation, with the need to stand as an autonomous landmark of strong character.

Figure 1: Original Project for the house Malaparte, by Adalberto Libera, 1938.

which served to obtain the licence (Fig. 1), and later Malaparte changed it with little or no contribution from the architect. It is most likely that Libera never visited the building site during its construction. The house keeps some of the traces of the original sketch, but the changes are so deep that we can talk about a quite different project.

As a result, the house appears as a rare combination of modern, classical and vernacular solutions, but without loosing its unity. Opposed to most strategies and typical formal solutions of the canon of Modern Movement (precisely in a time when this canon was being established), the Malaparte house is a compendium of anti-modern gestures.

We have traced up to six clear elements in which the concept design shifts from the modern attitude to incorporate strategies taken either from classical (in a broad sense, which would include ancient Mediterranean cultures) or vernacular. Those are named as : 1. Topography, 2. Plans, 3. Openings, 4. Tour, 5. Agora and 6. Stair.

Figure 2: Mies Van der Rohe: House on a hill, sketch, 1934

2. PLANS One of the house's main differences between Libera's previous scheme and the house finally built lay in its volumetric inversion.

It is quite interesting to study all the planimetry in both schemes: Adalberto Libera's previous project presented a two story house, with a lower floor with bedrooms and an upper floor with a living room and a large open terrace. Both plans were designed avoiding any symmetry rule, quite clear

1. TOPOGRAPHY The house is embedded in the rocky cliff, as emerging from it. While the house's upper limit 3

In the Malaparte house, the upper floor is divided in three clear sections: a small, trapezoid-shape piece of access, located under the outside main stair; a large central space known as “the Agora” (see later) and, behind a partition wall, two identical bedrooms and a study. Even though both bedrooms look symmetric, they are not indeed, as the study can just be reached through one of them, actually, the writer's own bedroom. This scheme prompts a series of progressive filters, from the more public to the most private: only the writer himself can, from his own bedroom, reach the Sancta Sanctorum of his working sphere. We can find many examples of this layout in many vernacular architectures, and in many historical precedents.

Figure 3: The house as built: plans (from top): Cellar, Entry & Bedrooms, upper Living room.

in lower floor, with a comb-like organization of a side corridor giving access to a row of bedrooms, while in the upper floor, a more subtle arrangement of almost one single room breaks the symmetry through a series of small, imperceptible details, as the position of the staircase or the windows dispposition. Both plans shared a similar scheme of side circulation: a corredor serving to row of spaces open to the opposed facade.

Figure 4: The house as built: SW Facade

3.OPENINGS Libera's proposal presented facades according to the most characteristic features of the Italian rationalism of the late 30's, with nods to classic culture: the lower floor walls as a coarse stonework plinth, the upper floor one as a plastered white-washed brickwork, probably conceived in pure white color, even when there is no hint or proof about it. In the basement, a series of small identical square openings were aligned in an rhythmical sequence, while in upper floor all openings were joined in three large windows –one per facade-- the side windows split in three partitions while the front one emphasized with a projecting box-like enclosure.

The present house presents a kind of “questioned symmetry”, clearly departing from a previous symmetric order that later, either program or small marks put in question. In both levels, circulation scheme is based on a symmetric conception, with a central spine giving access to rooms in both sides; nevertheless, the presence of inner dark corridors is minimal, practically reduced to a small stretch on the --more utilitarian-- lower floor. The upper floor is quite more interesting, as the total lack of corridors compels to a passing-through spaces system. As Robin Evans pointed out,4 the invention of corridors is relatively new: prior the circulations were organized through a sophisticated system of filters and codes which could vary according to the familiarity or relationship, the visitors social rank or the day time.

The final disposition of openings increases significantly its number and layout: from the 15 window openings plus one door of the original project, the built house reaches no less than 32 window openings plus two doors. Even when some of the windows preserve some of the original proportion and position, the increase of its number introduces a large diversification, amplified by the many differences of size and location of the new

This solution, compared to that of Libera, presents a more abstract and definite volume, as can be easily seen in both main sections .

4

1940, as a current picture can show; either it was just a provisional solution just made for some building stage, or something the owner didn't like, the fact is that the stir was finally closed, as it stands up today. Had been done this solution, it would have changed completely the circulation system of the house, giving the living room a more centralized position.

The disposition finally built, with the house's main access in lower bedrooms floor and living room in upper floor, turns out to be more complex, thus forcing the guests into a more devious tour through the house to reach the living area. This is less conventional and it fits better with the house character: the inside tour is just extending the impressive external path to reach the building. The living room is understood as a shrine to which an initiation rite is necessary to get in, enhancing the idea of old temple that has been a frequent reference. The house's Sancta Sanctorum is set on Malaparte's study itself, the Naos or Cella to which only the high priest—writer— could have access.

Figure 5: The house under construction (photo: july, 1940). Top: general view, bottom: detail. An entry to the living room trough the outer stair can be seen

ones. The ordered composition of the original facade is lost, giving its way to a new void-full relationship in which openings are read as a series of random perforations in a thick plane; the new composition is much more anarchical and free, as a result of inner space requirements as it happens in many vernacular Mediterranean architectures.

Figure 6: The “Agora” Living room.

5.AGORA Most published pictures of the house show an almost naked living room, a monastic austerity only denied by the presence of some scattered objects, actually all fixed, an unmovable-movable furniture that refers to a public space, rather than a domestic habitat. As a matter of fact, Malaparte himself used to refer to this space as “the Agora”.

The classical character is enhanced by the presence of two fix tables (low and high) supported in column tambours,--one with straight fluting, the other spiral.-- like pieces taken from an old forgotten temple.

4.TOUR Inside the house, the main space is the living room in the upper floor, accessible through a small staircase which leads to the lower floor, reaching the hall linked with the house's main gate; the upper floor is independent of this ground floor. The solution keeps the disposition of Libera's original projec: the living room was connected to a terrace at the same level to enjoy the landscape's best views. This terrace was moved to the rooftop, and this original disposition looses all its meaning, but allows the living space to take on a much larger autonomy from the rest of the house. In a certain stage of the construction process, we can ascertain the existence of a direct access from the exterior to the upper living room through a cutting in the outside staircase. This entrance would have changed deeply the house's character and perception. Although there are no plans or sketches, we know it was already built by June

On the other hand, in contrast with other spaces of the house, the living room diverges from the conventional orthogonal ceramic tiling to introduce a stone paving set under a irregular pattern. This solution enhances the will of identify this space as a public one, as another classical resonances.

5

either too narrow on the lower beginning, or too wide in the top landing (actually is clearly oversized in both ends). Its formal reason must be found elsewhere, in the geometrical accord between a narrow starting point and a wide terrace that should be reached. Here, a “modern” architect would have designed a object-like staircase of constant width, and independent object, almost like a machine, the Malaparte house introduces instead a scenographical element which alters with its presence all the configuration of the house and its relationship with the landscape. This radical gesture is emphasized with several decisions: Figure 7: The “Living-pictures” in the Living room.

There are no pictures hanging from the white washed walls; nothing to compete with the real “living pictures”: a assortment of openings in the outside walls that allow some selected views extracted from the impressive landscape of the rocky faraglioni falling abruptly into the Tyrrhenian sea.

i.

The absence of any halfway landing (in spite of its necessity, given the large number of steps and its potential risk)

ii

The absence of any railing or side protection (same considerations about potential risks)

iii. The material and chromatic continuity (with both, top terrace and side walls, respectively)

The fact that these openings are not hinged windows but fix ones, approach them very closely to the image of a hanging picture, the window fix frame becoming the picture frame itself; those living pictures acting as the real protagonist of this space. Here, modern canon would have acted otherwise: most probably, a modern architect would have responded to the impressive view by setting a large uninterrupted window to enjoy it.

Nevertheless, the Malaparte house brings us a lesson directly collected from classical culture: that of a view offered to us partially or through selected fragments can be much more interesting than the broad, uninterrupted, overall view. What is concealed and suggested is often quite more attractive to what is nakedly exposed, as all the seduction techniques ever prescribed.

Figure 8: The “ceremonial” stair.

All three decisions converge in one point: the stairs seems carved out of the building-mass of the house, a solid mass, red as clay, drilled by a series of relatively small holes. The terrace would just be the last step of this ceremonial stair, a naked plane with another fix-furniture on top of it: a petrified white sail to protect from the wind or the alien views, closing his back to the island and opening his face to the sea.

6.STAIR Doubtless, the outside stair is the most iconic element of Malaparte house. It was not part of Libera's original project –despite the efforts of Franco Purini to prove a sort of “transition” between the architect's sketch and the final design,5 so it should be a later addition. It is without discussion, the strongest gesture of the house, a radical decision, surprisingly powerful and selfassertive to be taken by someone with no experience in the field of architectural design, as Malaparte, or by a conventional manual worker as Amitrano, the local builder. This is certainly one of the most intriguing aspects of the house

We can not trace any similar design for the stair in any other project of Libera. There are, many precedents of stairs adapted to steep or rugged topography (practically “carved out” of the site) in both vernacular or classical architecture. However, there is a clear precedent of this particular stair in the Church of La Annunziata, in Lipari (north of Sicily) (Fig. 11), where a straight, landing-less stair confronts the church's main entry under a trapezoidal form, narrower at the beginning, wider in the final landing. We know the precedent and we also know that Malaparte knew it too, as shows a

The stair design is absolutely anti-functional: The logic underneath its trapezoid form wold make it, 6

picture with the writer proudly standing in front of the church and its stairs in 1934. So, most probably Curzio Malaparte imported the design from the Sicily church into his house, cleaning it for any detail to make it more abstract, more dry and hard, to fit the house character and the writer's own character all the same, “Una casa come io” (a house like me), he said to refere his home.

Fig 10: Mediteranean Vernacular; Amorgos Monast, Greece

Ten group) that enriches our view and allow us a better understanding of vernacular solutions.

The house Malaparte is nowadays incorporated to modern canon. It shares its position in almost any recollection of modern houses of the XXth.C, probably it will be the only one in those treatises not being made under the full design and guidance of an architect.

In XXIst C., we have lost our innocence. We already know that the so called ”functional” buildings were everything but functional, that functions, as Mies van der Rohe himself pointed out, are unstable and difficult to grasp, that reality is much more complex, and includes non measurable components as memory, perception, cultural connotations or future promises. We have also come to learn the values and contributions of vernacular architecture, as well proved solutions to face all kind of contemporary problems, including environmental tasks.

Fig.9: Curzio Malaparte, in front of the Church of La Annunziata, Lipari, in 1938., with the church’s trape-zoid stair, a clear inspiration for his –future-- house

The house Malaparte is a rare example of multiple criteria (modern, classical, vernacular), according to each of the three recognized contributors: the architect, the writer, the builder, Three independent layers that, surprisingly, conform a rare and strong unity. Unlike many modern houses, its history is not linear, but a complex one, less pure, but far more rich, hybrid and mixed-blood.

B. CONCLUSIONS Through several items, we have seen how the Mapalarte house deals with some concepts and strategies, such as its relationship with topography and landscape, the arrangement of apertures in facades, disposition of plans and sequence of spaces or the incorporation of concepts from public vernacular space into the private domain of the house. Those are strategies alien –even clearly opposed—to the modern canon which was being established at the time of its construction. Its relationship with the earth, its teluric approach, its organic indifference of a “general order” or composition principle that rules every part, links the house Malarpate to most strategies of vernacular, Mediterranean architecture that we have just lately come to incorporate in our contemporary repertoire, after the revision of modern canon (started with the X CIAM Congress and the Team

Just like our present times.

N O T E S 1

See, f. i, Libera, A., Opera completa. Electa, 1989.;Libera, A. Zanachelli ed., 1989.

2 Talamona, M.I, Casa Malaparte. Milano,:Clup, 1990.

3 Purini, F., “Architettura senza Architetto?”, in Casabella 582.

4 Evans, R. Figures, Doors and Passages. London: AD, 1978 5 See N.3 7