{"title":"‘Andare verso il popolo (Moving Towards the People)’: Classicism and Rural Architecture at the 1936 VI Italian Triennale","authors":"Daria Ricchi","doi":"10.5334/ah.451","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"At the sixth Milan Triennale in 1936, entitled ‘Continuity-Modernity’, Giuseppe Pagano and Edoardo Persico displayed two divergent but complementary ideological and aesthetic positions: leaning toward classicism and showcasing rural examples, respectively. This article focuses on how these two approaches share similarities with the idea of populism, a concept often associated with dictatorial regimes. Populism implies a defined and strict notion of people and of national identity. This article explores the relevance of the expression ‘andare verso il popolo’, here translated as ‘moving towards the people’, a term used by Pagano in an article in Casabella of 1935 to define what a national architecture could be. It also explores how architecture can be popular without being populist. The central argument is that the phrase ‘moving towards the people’ became a politicised expression embodying two contrasting conceptions of a populism in which architectural ideas playing a defining role. The context is the architectural discourse during the controversial period of the Fascist regime and the rationalist debate in Italy between 1928 and 1936. The two main venues of the architectural debate were Casabella, which the same Pagano and Persico had been editing since 1931, and Quadrante, founded by the intellectual and literary figures Pietro Maria Bardi and Massimo Bontempelli in 1933. The two different aesthetic positions of Persico and Pagano within the 1936 Triennale would later be associated with two contrasting lines of populism: one more conservative and associated with the Fascist regime, and the other more reactionary that influenced the resistenza of the left.","PeriodicalId":41517,"journal":{"name":"Architectural Histories","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Architectural Histories","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/ah.451","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ARCHITECTURE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
At the sixth Milan Triennale in 1936, entitled ‘Continuity-Modernity’, Giuseppe Pagano and Edoardo Persico displayed two divergent but complementary ideological and aesthetic positions: leaning toward classicism and showcasing rural examples, respectively. This article focuses on how these two approaches share similarities with the idea of populism, a concept often associated with dictatorial regimes. Populism implies a defined and strict notion of people and of national identity. This article explores the relevance of the expression ‘andare verso il popolo’, here translated as ‘moving towards the people’, a term used by Pagano in an article in Casabella of 1935 to define what a national architecture could be. It also explores how architecture can be popular without being populist. The central argument is that the phrase ‘moving towards the people’ became a politicised expression embodying two contrasting conceptions of a populism in which architectural ideas playing a defining role. The context is the architectural discourse during the controversial period of the Fascist regime and the rationalist debate in Italy between 1928 and 1936. The two main venues of the architectural debate were Casabella, which the same Pagano and Persico had been editing since 1931, and Quadrante, founded by the intellectual and literary figures Pietro Maria Bardi and Massimo Bontempelli in 1933. The two different aesthetic positions of Persico and Pagano within the 1936 Triennale would later be associated with two contrasting lines of populism: one more conservative and associated with the Fascist regime, and the other more reactionary that influenced the resistenza of the left.
在1936年的第六届米兰三年展上,朱塞佩·帕加诺和爱德华多·佩西科分别展示了两种不同但互补的意识形态和美学立场:倾向古典主义和展示乡村范例。这篇文章的重点是这两种方法如何与民粹主义的概念有相似之处,民粹主义是一个经常与独裁政权联系在一起的概念。民粹主义意味着对人民和民族认同的一种明确而严格的概念。这篇文章探讨了“andare verso il popolo”这个词的相关性,这里翻译为“走向人民”,帕加诺在1935年卡萨贝拉的一篇文章中用这个词来定义什么是国家建筑。它还探讨了建筑如何在不民粹主义的情况下受欢迎。核心论点是,“走向人民”一词成为了一种政治化的表达,体现了民粹主义的两个截然不同的概念,建筑理念在民粹主义中发挥着决定性作用。背景是法西斯政权争议时期的建筑话语,以及1928年至1936年间意大利的理性主义辩论。建筑辩论的两个主要场所是Casabella和Quadrante,前者是帕加诺和佩西科自1931年以来一直在编辑的,后者是知识分子和文学人物Pietro Maria Bardi和Massimo Bontempelli于1933年创建的。佩西科和帕加诺在1936年三年展上的两种不同的美学立场后来与民粹主义的两条截然不同的路线联系在一起:一条更保守,与法西斯政权联系在一起,另一条更反动,影响了左翼的抵抗。