Shaping Sense Italian Post-War Functionalistic Design

Kjetil Fallan

SHAPING SENSE ITALIAN POST-WAR FUNCTIONALISTIC DESIGN

Thesis in fulfilment of the degree of cand. philol. (MA) Department of History / Centre for Technology and Society Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) Trondheim 2001

To my parents

“We have never discussed it, but I think the main reason why we are reluctant to get married is all those dreadful presents you get and can not dispose of just like that. Every christmas, we get a little foretaste of that hell. Cathrine’s parents have gotten wind of our “interest in design”, so that is why the garish wrapping paper normally contains something even more garish; rubbish from Alessi.”

-Torgrim Eggen in Pynt

Preface

This project has been fatiguing in addition to being extremely interesting. I would never have finished it without the help and support from many persons:

I wish to thank my supervisor Per Østby for taking on such a unorthodox project. His enthusiasm has been very important to me, and his experience crucial to my work. Øst- by and my co-supervisor Stig Kvaal have guided a sometimes frustrated candidate through the non-determined, multidirectional flux of writing history.

Centre for Technology and Society has been my haunt the last two years. I am very thankful for the good working environment the centre has provided me with. I have shared office, problems and laughter with Jon N. Eikrem and Finn Arne Jørgensen. Jørgensen also deserves many thanks for his proofreading and formatting.

I also wish to thank the staff at the Biblioteca Nazionale Braidense and the Settore Bib- lioteca, Documentazione, Archivio of the Triennale di Milano for being so helpful and service-minded. The same must be said also about Paolo Rosselli.

Many thanks also to Kristin Ellefsen and Jostein Syvertsen, who helped me with image- processing.

On February 28th 2001, I had the pleasure of attending the conference “Innovation the Italian way - Design as a driving force in the Italian economy” in Oslo. The contributions made by Augusto Morello, president of International Council of Societies of Industrial Design (ICSID) and Triennale di Milano, and Geir Grung, Norway’s ambassador to Italy, were of great inspiration to my attempt to place Italian post-war design in a wider historical and social perspective.

THANK YOU ALL!

Trondheim, May 2001 Kjetil Fallan

Table of contents

1 Shapes of things ...... 11 1.1 Industrial design - origins and early development ...... 12 1.2 The antecentents of functionalism ...... 16 1.3 Early Italian functionalism ...... 17 1.4 Aims and delimitations ...... 20 1.5 Method and theory...... 22 1.6 Structure of the thesis ...... 25 1.7 Sources...... 26 1.8 Terminology...... 27

2 Creating the message ...... 29 2.1 The Bird Phoenix - The re-emergence of the Triennali ...... 30 2.2 VIII Triennale 1947 - Socialistic functionalist visions...... 32 2.3 Quartiere Triennale Ottava - Modern housing for the masses...... 34 2.4 The exhibition - Cheap and rational products for the masses...... 36 2.5 New times - and a setback for functionalist design ...... 37 2.6 IX Triennale 1951 - The return of borghese values ...... 40 2.7 The exhibition - Heterogenous expressions of theory and practice...... 42 2.8 Conclusion...... 45

3 Missionaries...... 47 3.1 The Italian political system and industry ...... 48 3.2 Industry and design...... 49 3.3 Consumption growth...... 50 3.4 Alberto Rosselli - The modernist entrepreneur...... 52 3.5 Stile Industria - The voice of modern style ...... 54 3.6 Compasso d’Oro - A prize for good industrial design...... 56 3.7 Award regulations - An expression of functionalist ideals ...... 60 3.8 I Compasso d’Oro 1954 - Everyday products for the everyday people. . . . 61 3.9 Conclusion ...... 62

4 The awakening...... 65 4.1 The birth of a new Triennale ...... 66 4.2 X Triennale 1954...... 67 4.3 The exhibition ...... 69 4.4 The industrial design exhibition...... 71 4.5 Congresso dell’Industrial Design...... 75 4.6 Conclusion...... 81 5 A glimpse of paradise ...... 83 5.1 II Compasso d’Oro 1955 ...... 84 5.2 III Compasso d’Oro 1956 ...... 86 5.3 A design museum? ...... 88 5.4 Associazione per il Disegno Industriale ...... 90 5.5 XI Triennale 1957 ...... 93 5.5.1 The exhibition...... 94 5.5.2 The rebel yell ...... 97 5.5.3 Question marks...... 99 5.6 IV Compasso d’Oro 1957 ...... 101 5.7 Conclusion...... 103

6 Heretics ...... 105 6.1 Growing wealth and loss of common direction...... 106 6.2 Two examples: Olivetti Diaspron 82 and Piaggio Vespa GS/GL...... 107 6.2.1 Olivetti Diaspron 82 - New shapes...... 107 6.2.2 Piaggio Vespa GS/GL - Linea italiano yields to formalismo...... 109 6.3 Compasso d’Oro 1958 - Re-organization ...... 111 6.4 Compasso d’Oro 1959 - Functionalism’s last victory...... 112 6.5 Gran Premi Compasso d’Oro 1959 - The design controversy...... 114 6.5.1 The debate at ADI...... 116 6.5.2 The debate in Stile Industria...... 119 6.6 General criticism of new tendencies in Italian design ...... 124 6.7 Conclusion...... 129

7 Shaping things, shaping society, shaping sense...... 131 7.1 Phase I - The breakthrough...... 132 7.2 Phase II - The golden years...... 133 7.3 Phase III - Disintegration...... 135 7.4 The forming and transforming of design ...... 136 7.5 Epilogue...... 138

Bibliography ...... 143 1 Shapes of things

Table lamp 0836 Des: P. Chiesa, Prod: Fontana Arte (1933)

Today, Italian design is looked upon with great respect from all over the world. Well known designers like Aldo Rossi, Enzo Mari, Ettore Sottsass, Alessandro Mendini, Richard Sapper, Antonio Citterio and Makio Hasuike have become stars on the international design scene. Companies like Artemide, B&B Italia, Alfa Romeo, Olivari and Tecno owe their success to extraordinary design.

The situation of today is no natural outcome of a peculiar Italian talent, but can be seen as the result of various initiatives and events that took place in the years between 1945 and 1965. During these years, a group of ambitious designers took advantage of the international development of the Modern Movement and its material equivalent, functionalistic design. Through negotiations with the political, economic, industrial and cultural settings, they created a peculiar Italian functionalistic design. These problems and development seems to have laid the foundation for the status Italian design enjoys today.

A central element of the Italian design scene is the Triennale di Milano, established in 1923.1 Over the years it has become one of the world’s most important exhibitions of industrial design and architecture. Every edition, thousands of industrialists, designers, architects and common people visit the exhibitions to get an impression of the latest developments. The Triennale soon became the main arena for professionals and public to follow the movements in design and architecture. Therefore, the develop-

1. The first editions were held in Monza every second year, and hence called Biennali. The shift to three-year intervals, Triennali, came in 1930, and the exhibition moved to Milan in 1933 for the V edition.

11 ment and changes of the events and messages at the Triennale illustrate the dramatic shifts both in Italian design and society in the period 1945 to 1965

While the theme of the VIII Triennale in 1947 was “The reconstruction as a social problem”, the theme of the XIII Triennale in 1964 was “Spare time”. Seventeen years and five editions separated the two mentioned above. This remarkable difference in message and meaning between these two Triennali indicates that important changes must have taken place in the intervening years. Not only had Italian society, economy, industry, politics, markets and culture changed dramatically, Italian design had also gone through an immense development which would have important consequences for Italian society in the years to come.

In 1945, Italy was “down and out”. Fascist Italy had lost the war, and left the country severely damaged both mentally and materially. A new, democratic state had to be created, and the industry had to be re-built and re-directed from military production to civil purposes. In other words: A new nation had to be built. Twenty years later, the results were visible. The average Italian drove a FIAT 500 and watched TV in his own living room while relaxing in modern furniture. Italian companies manufactured products which were exported and copied. Designers and importers from all over the world came to see and learn about the Linea Italiana.

This dramatic development of Italian functionalism in the period 1945 to 1965, consti- tutes the topic for my study. Therefore I will start with a brief look at the origins and early developments of industrial design and functionalism. The term industrial design is of a rather recent origin, but the phenomenon has a longer history.

1.1 Industrial design - origins and early development

The industrial revolution is normally dated to the latter part of the eighteenth century. The British society in this period was characterized by great changes in economic and social relations and production methods.2 But half a century would pass before industrial production spread to other countries and was used to manufacture a greater

2. Pat Hudson, The Industrial Revolution (London: Arnold, 1992) p 11

12 Early industrial design adopted formal expressions of historic arts and crafts styles.

range of consumer goods.3 One of the most important features of the transition from handicraft to industry was the division of labour. While the artisan controlled the object from idea to reality, the new production methods separated the planning and forming of the object from the production. This transition constituted the basis for industrial design.

Throughout the nineteenth century, industrial production became a symbol of the new times. The United States took over as the leading industrial nation. At the turn of the century the very symbol of mass production, the assembly line, was introduced in the factories.4 Industrial mass production was a relatively new phenomenon, and its main features were standardization of products and specialization of machinery and labour.5 Whereas the production system found a certain form, no tradition or standards as to how the objects should be shaped existed. The solution chosen in the early period was to adopt the formal expressions of historic arts and crafts styles. Today, the results of such a practice may seem rather bizarre - steam engines with greek columns, telephones with wooden carvings and toilets which looked like lions.6

3. Angus Maddison, Phases of Capitalist Development (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982) p 39 4. Rondo Cameron, A Concise Economic History of the World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989) p 231 5. Thomas P Hughes, American Genesis - A Century of Invention and Technological Enthusiasm, (New York: Penguin, 1989), p 184 - 203 6. Thomas Hauffe, Design (Oslo: Cappelen, 1996) p 33

13 Different versions of Jugendstil: Otto Wagner’s post office in Vienna (left) and Antoni Gaudí’s church La Sagrada Famiglia in Barcelona (right)

Towards the end of the nineteenth century, the historical styles were considered more and more irrational. Those who attempted to reform the formal expressions can be divided in two main categories; Those who appreciated industrial production and wanted to create new shapes which were consistent with the modern production, and those who focused on the negative effects the industrial revolution had produced and strived to revive the handicraft.7 The most famous representative of the latter direction was William Morris’ Arts and Crafts-Movement. By creating simple, elegant handicraft, they wanted to undo the social wrongs they meant industrial production had caused.8

Still, the dominating style in design and architecture at the turn of the century was Art Nouveau, also known as Jugendstil, Stile Liberty and Sezessionsstil. What made it so important, and often defined as “the first of the new styles”, was that it firmly dis- avowed the historical styles which had dominated until then. Art Nouveau was posi- tioned between art and industry, and aimed to create beauty in all aspects of life. It was characterized by shapes inspired by nature, predominantly flowery and curved. Art Nouveau was a very diversified style. The difference between the Spanish Antoni Gaudí’s extremely organic ornaments and the Austrian Otto Wagner’s strict, simple shapes was vast.9

7. An early and peculiar example of design completely determined by industrial production methods was the Austrian furniture manufacturer Thonet, which produced simple, light and cheap furniture in bent wood already from 1849. 8. Isabelle Anscombe, Arts&Crafts Style (Oxford, Phaidon, 1991) p 36 9. Siegfried Wichmann, Jugendstil Art Nouveau (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1984)

14 At the beginning of the twentieth century, while Art Nouveau still dominated, some indications on what was to come became visible. At the Glasgow School of Arts, a group of architects and artists led by Charles Rennie Mackintosh experimented with simple, geometric forms and horizontal and vertical constructions.10 The architect Adolf Loos returned to his native Austria after several years in the United States and attacked Art Nouveau’s decorativism through his book “Ornament and Crime” in 1908.11 Two American architects who would inspire the pioneers of European modernism were Louis Henry Sullivan and Frank Lloyd Wright. They are considered the fathers of modern architecture, concentrating on simplicity and geometric forms.12 Sul- livan is also the author of the famous slogan “form follows function”.

Important initiatives were taken also in Germany. In 1907, Peter Behrens was hired by the AEG as artistic consultant. In the years preceding world war one he revolutionized the company’s profile, resulting in the first known example of corporate identity. He created a unity of forms by designing everything related to AEG: products, factories, catalogues, commercials, packaging and even homes for the workers. Behrens had already retreated from the Jugendstil and was developing a formal expression described as rational and functional.13

Another central figure was the Swiss-born architect Le Corbusier. He had worked as a draftsman in Behrens’ atelier in Berlin. He settled in Paris in 1916, and would greatly influence what in the United States became known as the International Style. His work as designer and architect was inspired by mass production and industrial organization. Le Corbusier’s deep fascination for technology and the contemporary spirit led him to the conclusion that it was l’esprit nouveau which brought the new, modern architecture.14

10. Penny Sparke, An Introduction to Design & Culture in the Twentieth Century (London: Allan & Unwin, 1986) p 42 - 43 11. Adolf Loos, Ornament and Crime - Selected Essays (Riverside: Ariadne, 1998) 12. Wendy Kaplan, “Building Utopia: Pioneer Modernism on the American West Coast” in Paul Gree- halgh (ed.), Modernism in Design (London: Reaktion, 1990) p 101 - 121 13. Thomas P Hughes, American Genesis - A Century of Invention and Technological Enthusiasm, (New York: Penguin, 1989), p 310 - 311 14. Ibid., p 320 - 321

15 Chair Wassily Des: Marcel Breuer (1925)

The new directions in fine arts - cubism, futurism and constructivism - were also important sources of inspiration for the early functionalistic design. Especially the Rus- sian constructivists developed close relations to the Dutch group De Stijl and Bauhaus through artists like El Lissitskij and Vasilij Kandinskij. Their most radical idea was to abandon art’s function as a representation of nature. The new art was to be abstract and was strongly inspired by industry and machines. Again, simple, geometric forms and a color-scale reduced to primary colors plus white, black and grey was their contribution to the functionalistic theory developed at Bauhaus.15

1.2 The antecentents of functionalism

The dominating direction in modern inter-war design and architecture was what has later been defined as functionalism. Functionalism originated from Bauhaus in the nineteen twenties. At this early stage, it applied more to architecture than design. But nevertheless, the ideology formed at Bauhaus would strongly influence both architecture and design for several decades to come.

Bauhaus was founded in Weimar in 1919 by Walter Gropius. The intension with creating this school of architecture, design and handicraft was to defeat historicism with an articulated formal expression and a new unity for art, handicraft and industry. But it was not until László Moholy-Nagy began teaching in 1923 that Bauhaus’ industrial design theory became truly functionalistic. He encouraged the use of materials like steel, plywood and industrial glass instead of the traditional ones. This was done to

15. Jonathan M. Woodham, Twentieth-Century Design (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), p 35 - 37

16 satisfy the demands for industrial production, and to supply the broad masses with cheap, functional products.16

These ideas were closely tied to socialism. Not only did Bauhaus promote non-extrav- agant products, but the main objective was to transform society as a whole into a better community for everyone.

The names connected to Bauhaus would later become famous: In addition to Kandin- skij, Gropius and Moholy-Nagy, men like Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, Marcel Breuer, Hannes Mayer, Mart Stam, Theo van Doesburg, Johannes Itten and Paul Klee all taught at the school.

Bauhaus closed in 1933, after Hitler had come to power. There was no room for an organization so heavily based on socialistic ideology in Nazi Germany. Many of the persons mentioned above fled to the United States, where they continued their work, albeit in completely different surroundings.

1.3 Early Italian functionalism

Turning to Italy, it is important to consider some characteristics of the country’s past in order to understand Italian design history.

Italy has a unique history of art, arts and crafts, culture and production. The modern Italian nation is young, unified only in 1866, but ever since the days of the Roman empire, Italians have developed a remarkable sensibility with regard to fine art, architecture, culture and Man’s material surroundings. The shifting of state constellations in the peninsula over the past two thousand years has contributed to a system of local and regional consciousness and autonomy. The result is that even today, Italy is an immensely diversified entity, which makes for favorable circumstances when it comes to a producing a vast spectrum of objects. Another historical aspect, although of a more recent character, which have strongly influenced the nature of Italian production structure is the isolation during the fascist regime. Mussolini’s attack on Ethiopia in

16. Ibid., p 38 - 53

17 Giuseppe Terragni’s Casa del fascio in Como from 1936 (left) and detail from Ulisse Stacchini’s Stazione Centrale in Milan from 1931 (right)

1935 led to severe trade sanctions on Italy by the League of Nations. The result was that Italy had to produce nearly everything they needed themselves. Such a situation only served to improve the complexity of the nation’s production system.

When Bauhaus was shut down in 1933, Italy had already been under Mussolini’s fascistic rule for eleven years. And even though Italian fascism was less intolerant than German nazism, the fascistic monumentalism strongly influenced Italian architecture in the twenties and thirties.17 A good example of this is the massive Stazione Centrale di Milano, finished in 1931, with its excessive ornaments.18 But a new formal language was developing also in Italy. The heritage from the futurists, who had been a major force in Italian culture early in the century, mixed with contemporary foreign inspiration led to new thoughts on architecture and the shaping of industrially produced objects.

The Italian futurists published their manifest in 1909. They expressed themselves mainly through graphic art, and were inspired by industry, machines and speed.19 It was this fascination for modern production which they shared with the early modernist designers and architects.

17. Penny Sparke, An Introduction to Design & Culture in the Twentieth Century (London: Allan & Unwin, 1986) p 110 - 112 18. The initial proposal was ready in 1912, but the project was postponed due to the First World War. The architect, Ulisse Stacchini, had altered the project profoundly when the construction started in 1925. 19. Claudia Salaris, Storia del futurismo (Roma: Editori Riuniti, 1992)

18 Glass table Des: P. Chiesa, Prod: Fontana Arte (1932)

Inter-war functionalistic architecture did not become so widespread in Italy as it did in e.g. Germany and the Nordic countries, but it was not absent. The most famous example is probably the Casa del Fascio in Como from 1936,20 an international land- mark in functionalistic architecture. It has all the characteristics: Simple, but yet elegant structure, basic geometric forms, bright colors, and constructed in reinforced concrete.

Italian industrial production, and hence design, was rather modest in the inter-war years. Still, some Italian architects, artists and theoreticians were concerned with the formal results of serial production. The focus was mainly on forms, and the social aspect was less visible. The Biennali/Triennali in Monza were important laboratories for what was called the cultura materiale and the interaction between the arts. How- ever, the exhibitions mostly functioned as showcases for the borghese in this early period.21

The pioneers of this new, avant garde formal language were persons like Gió Ponti, Luigi Figini, Gino Pollini, Guiseppe Pagano, and Pietro Chiesa. Their designs were produced by companies like Fontana, Olivetti and Columbus. In this early period, their main concern was to create a style or expression which reflected the characteristics of industrial production and differed from artisan tradition more than serving the broad

20. Architect: Giuseppe Terragni. It is an office building with 33.20 m sides, 16.60 m high, and has a rigid, but yet delicate and literally open structure. 21. See chapter two

19 public with a supply of economic and rational products.22 The aim was to embark upon a new “fantastic road” which responded to “the attempt to unify the different artistic operations in a single fundamental experience, able to transform the face of the environment in which we live, to create a new style.”23

Thus, it was not the social commitment which dominated the Italian scene in the thirties, but rather the desire to develop formal expressions appropriate for the industrial production. However, new thoughts on this matter would arise. Seeing what World War II did to the production system and the life of ordinary people, Gió Ponti turned his interest towards the social responsibility of industrial design. In 1943, he wrote that:

“Only in rare cases, the production of domestic equipment has reached forms suitable for our life, but these sporadic examples, which are reserved for a limited category of persons due to their exclusiveness, can not by far satisfy the needs of common people.”24

Ponti’s social awakening was symptomatic for the development from the inter-war avant garde functionalism to the early post-war “proletarian” functionalism. The latter, and the further development during the fifties will be thoroughly examined in the following chapters.

1.4 Aims and delimitations

Italian industrial design achieved its position as world leading during the nineteen fifties through the “mission” of functionalism. Although functionalistic theory originated from the twenties, it would have a tremendous impact on Italian society after world war two. The import, transformation, adaptation, integration and fragmentation of functionalism seem to have gone through three major phases in the period from 1945 to 1965:

The years from 1945 to 1954 represent the import, build-up and expansion of functionalistic ideas and design. In this early period the ideas were partly promoted as a socialist achievement with strong ambitions to build a better society, and partly as an

22. Anty Pansera, Storia del disegno industriale italiano (Bari: Laterza, 1993), p 27 23. Filiberto Menna, “Il Futurismo e le arti applicate. La Casa d’arte italiana”, in Studi di storia dell’arte in onore di Vittorio Viale (Torino: Fratelli Pozzo, 1967) 24. Gió Ponti in Domus 192 (1943)

20 achievement to find an aesthetic language for cheap, mass-produced products for the people. In the first years after world war two, a group of ambitious and enthusiastic “missionaries” - designers, architects and artists - preached the message of the Mod- ern Movement. At the same time they were trying to improve the possibilities for themselves and their profession. These initiatives and activities seem to have been crucial to the process where functionalism were interpreted and transformed to fit the contemporary political, social, economic and cultural framework.

The period between 1954 and approximately 1959 can be labeled the golden years of Italian functionalistic design. In those years the functionalistic ideas of central actors and design missionaries like Alberto Rosselli and Gió Ponti found a fixed form and a coherent message which fit the modern Italy. The success of functionalistic design seemed to merge with the economic, political and industrial situation of the time, but also with the scenery of the modern society and the modern man. The Triennale, a showcase for design and architecture, was transformed in accordance with the new message of Italian design. Furthermore, the magazine Stile Industria and the award Compasso d’Oro secured the new regime. Gradually, both industry and the broader public embraced the message, and industrial design won greater acceptance in all sectors of society.

In spite of this success, there were indications of inherent tensions and fragmentation of functionalistic design when the fifties came to an end. It may seem as the success of functionalism bore the seeds of its own disintegration. At a time when the message was widespread and accepted, both progressive designers and other involved parties seem to have started utilizing the message for their own ends. In this way the missionaries of post-war functionalism seem to have lost control over their own “child”. Exper- imental design and external influences such as Nordic organic forms and North American styling snuck up to the missionaries from behind. In 1965, the pure functionalism and socialistic design lost its dominance. Italian industrial design, however, did not by any means lose its position.

According to this description, the growth and disintegration of Italian functionalistic design is the main theme for this study. By analyzing the main features of the develop-

21 ment of Italian functionalistic design I will try to answer the following question: What contributed to this dramatic development and change in the years from 1945 to 1965? Furthermore I will try to examine the development of two parallel processes: First, how did the central entrepreneurs and missionaries of functionalistic design adapt the modern message to the Italian frameworks? Second, how was the message itself formed and transformed during this process in the three phases indicated above?

1.5 Method and theory

Design history does not have long traditions as academic discipline. Hence, its theory and methodology is not clear and consolidated. Much of the early design history was written by art historians. The result was history focused on successful objects and persons, and it was dominated by the aesthetic aspect of design. The most famous examples of this early design history are Nikolaus Pevsner’s Pioneers of Modern Design25 and Reyner Banham’s Theory and Design in the First Machine Age.26 The problem with these early examples is that are static. They do not show the dynamic processes which characterize the development of design.

Design is much more than the aesthetic aspect of an industrially produced object. Tony Fry’s encouragement to “acknowledge design beyond the aesthetic, and the social transformation of design”27 has been a guide line in my work.

In my view, it is necessary to apply methods which include a more complex actor/ structure perspective and conceive design as an integrated process in constant negotiation with, and as a part of, society as a whole. In what is called Science, technology and society studies (STS) there are developed theories and methods for analyzing this type of changes. What is common for these theories is that facts and artefacts not are considered as static entities but open for negotiations and interpretation. Actors,

25. Nikolaus Pevsner, Pioneers of Modern Design: From William Morris to Walter Gropius (New York: Faber & Faber, 1936) 26. Reyner Banham, Theory and Design in the First Machine Age (Oxford: Architectural Press, 1960) 27. Tony Fry, “Design History: A Debate?” in Block 5 (1981), p 15

22 organizations and institutions define and redefine meaning and use according to their own ends.28

The French science anthropologist Bruno Latour uses the term actor networks to describe how development and diffusion of facts and artefacts takes place through negotiations between different groups of interest.29 His point is that facts and artefacts are developed as a result of negotiation between the involved actors and their different needs and interpretations. The construction of these networks happens through conflicts within the network and in relation to other networks and elements. Latour claims that the extent and momentum of the network decide to what degree new facts and artefacts will succeed. But through the negotiations, is not only the facts and artefacts that develops. All of the negotiators change as well in the process of conflict and development. This dialectic development of facts and artefacts includes the demands and interpretations of all involved parties.30

One central element in the shaping of actor networks and thus the shaping of facts and artefacts is the scenario or vision. Scenarios and visions are used actors and institutions to describe possible goals and aims for other actors. As we shall see. the main actors - the designers - extensively used scenarios of a better, modern society as a basis for their promotion of design. Another central element in the shaping of networks is what is called translation. Translation is the way in which a phenomenon is shaped, defined and promoted to enroll other actors and interests. In my study the message of functionalistic design was shaped and reorganized by a variety of actors according to their varying needs and according to the changing social structures.

A related theory is Roger Silverstone and Leslie Haddon’s focus on domestication.31

28. Michel Callon, “Society in the Making: the Study of Technology as a Tool for Sociological Analysis” in Wiebe E. Bijker, Thomas P. Hughes, and Trevor Pinch, the Social Construction of Technological Systems - New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology (Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1989), p 83 - 101 29. Bruno Latour, Science in Action. How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society (Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1987), p 179 - 213 30. Ibid. 31. Roger Silverstone and Leslie Haddon, Future Compatible? Information and communication technologies in the home. A methodology and case study. (Sussex: SPRU, University of Sussex, 1993)

23 They are concerned with how technology is domesticated in its meeting with the patterns of use. Both users and technology can be altered in the process in which technology is adapted to or creates user patterns. This theory is based on a wide definition of user and the existence of strategic actors. New technology is considered to be domesticated in its meeting with the actors and institutions of the recipient culture.32 This approach focuses on the processes through which the product or technology is accepted as a part of the users’ everyday life. Hence, it is the cultural integration processes which are the central object of interest from the domestication perspective.33

Both Latour and Silverstone/Haddon have developed their theories in accordance with technology studies. But the development of technology and the development of design are in many ways similar processes, and I find their theories helpful in my study of Italian design. Design can be considered both a “fact” and an “artefact”. The phenomenon must be seen as socially constructed as well as something which “con- structs” and works on society.

Latour’s actor networks is useful to understand the development of Italian industrial design through the negotiation between groups like the missionaries of functionalism, the experimentalists, the industry and the market. Silverstone/Haddon’s term domestication is an interesting angle to apply to my study of the how the message of functionalism was received, interpreted and transformed by industry and public.

In my study these theories act as an orderly background for my analysis. The theories are first and foremost used to structure the material. They act as an analytic tool and focal point for my analysis.

32. Nora Levold and Per Østby, Teknologi på vandring: Elementer til en analyseramme for studier av teknologioverføring (Trondheim: CTS working paper, 5/1993), p 12 33. Stig Kvaal, Kulturvitenskapelige innfallsvinkler til integrert produktutvikling (Trondheim: CTS working paper, 9/1998), p 16

24 1.6 Structure of the thesis

This thesis is structured in the following way: Chapter two deals with the latter half of the forties. Here I will focus on how Italy after world war two had to create a new, democratic state and re-build industry, infrastructure and homes. On this background I will examine the VIII Triennale in 1947 and the IX Triennale in 1951, especially describing their characteristics and how they reflected contemporary society.

In chapters three and four, I will examine the events of 1954. This year represented the breakthrough for Italian industrial design. Based on studies of the political, industrial and economic development, I analyze the founding of the award Compasso d’Oro and the magazine Stile Industria. Furthermore I will analyze the manifestation of the X Triennale. My first aim is to determine in what way these institutions would influence the development of Italian design in the years to come. Secondly I will use the description of these institutions to analyze the changes in the functionalistic message.

Chapter five is a study of the period labeled the golden years of functionalism, i.e. the years from 1954 to approximately 1959. The development of Italian design which followed the breakthrough is examined through the development of the institutions mentioned above. These are analyzed in order to establish the direction of the development of Italian design in the period.

Chapter six deals with the situation in which Italian design found itself towards the end of the fifties and early sixties. By studying the development of the Compasso d’Oro and some rather articulated polemics of both particular and general character, I will strive to explore what I have found to be the disintegration of Italian functionalism.

In chapter seven, I will summarize and conclude my study.

25 1.7 Sources

My primary source has been the magazine Stile Industria, which was published from 1954 to 1963. The Biblioteca Nazionale Braidense in Milan let me examine and copy all 41 issues. The magazine is an excellent source for studying both the development of design theory in the period and the relation between design and society. The reason for this is the two functions Stile Industria embodied - organ for internal debate, and propaganda vehicle towards “the outside world”.

The "life" of Stile Industria consists a good guide to exploring the conditions of industrial design in Italy in the period of the great economic wonder. "Life" here meaning to a great extent the articles, discussions and polemics themselves, but also the structural actions in the immediate surroundings of the core environment. Stile Industria was the most important channel for design discussions and design promotion during the period it was published.

Stile Industria was the only magazine in Italy which dealt exclusively with industrial design during the period I have studied. But numerous other magazines for related fields of interest, like e.g. architecture, contributed to the discourse on industrial design through single articles on the subject. Thus, magazines like Domus, Casa- bella, Civiltá delle Macchine, Comunitá et.al. has been eclectically studied to widen my base of information.

I have conducted archive studies at the Settore Biblioteca, Documentazione, Archivio of the Triennale di Milano. They have offered the complete archives of the editions I have examined. This is where I have found my other major source; the Triennali programs. This documentation has been crucial to understand the intentions and realizations of the different exhibitions and their characters.

During my stay in Milan, I also tried to gain access to the ADI archives. Regrettably, and partly due to practical reasons, I never succeeded in this attempt. This would have supplied me with more information on the professional view and on the inten-

26 tions and strategies of the actors involved.

Given the period I have studied, interviewing the persons involved has not been an option. I have interviewed Paolo Rosselli, Alberto Rosselli’s son and Gió Ponti’s grand-son. He supplied me with essential insight into the life and background of two of the most prominent actors in Italian post-war design. This interview was important because of the difficulties finding this type of information in written sources. In using oral sources, it would be preferable to conduct several interviews on the same topic. But in my case, it has not been problematic, because the interview was used to obtain background information.

1.8 Terminology

As a final remark, I would like to clarify some of the terms used in my study. The terms design, industrial design and functionalism are often used in a manner which creates confusion rather that understanding. Exact definitions hardly exist, but I will at least explain how the terms are used here, in order to avoid misunderstandings.

Design is one of the most abused and most vaguely defined words in the English language. It is both a noun and a verb, and is defined by the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary as drawing, arrangement or planning, or the art of making such drawings.34 The verb is defined as deciding how something will look or work by making plans, drawings or models of it.35

The dictionary’s definition includes the drawing and planning of every thinkable material object. Today the word is used to describe the most diversified activities and is seen in compositions like nail design, sound design, fashion design, interface design

34. design n 1 (a) drawing or outline from which sth may be made. (b) art of making such drawings. 2 general arrangement or planning (of a building, book, machine, picture, etc.). 3 arrangement of lines, shapes or figures as decoration on a carpet, vase, etc; pattern. 4 purpose, intention. [...] design v 1 (a) decide how sth will look, work, etc, esp by making plans, drawings or models of it. (b) think of and plan (a system, procedure, etc). [...] 35. A. P. Cowie (ed), Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English Fourth Edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989) p 325

27 et. al. Even when specified as industrial design, it is not given what the term actually means and includes. Therefore, I find it necessary to launch the definition of the term industrial design which will be used in this study:

Industrial design is the planning, developing and forming of three-dimensional objects produced in series by industrial production methods.

This definition excludes fine arts, architecture, graphic design and arts and crafts, but still leaves us considering an immense range of objects - from the paperclip to the air- plane.

This is a study that deals with industrial design. Still, I have found it suitable to often use the term design as short for industrial design to avoid complicating the language more than necessary. Even though we now have a very precise technical definition of design, it is important to bear in mind that industrial design does not exist in a vacuum. It is a phenomenon which takes place in, and negotiates with, a social context. And it is this fact which makes design history a part of our mutual history.

Functionalism is defined by the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary as “principle in architecture, design, etc. that the purpose and use of an object should be determine its shape and construction.”36 I do not wish to elaborate on this definition. But it is crucial to remember that the term functionalism was never used by the actors themselves. It is a definition constructed in retrospect.

36. Ibid., p 501

28 2 Creating the message

“The role of the architect and the other components of the grand orchestra, acquiring increasingly higher value in modern society, are called upon to transform every existing formal representation into poetic song: from the spoon to the Scooter Vespa city.”1 Des: C. D’Ascanio, Prod: Piaggio (1946)

As the quote shows, the post-war years were not only characterized by reconstruction, economic growth and wealth. An enthusiastic group of modernists architects, artists and designers set out to transform the Italian material culture through the formal expression of the new time; functionalism.

This chapter will give a brief presentation of the situation of Italian design in the first post-war years. As in other areas of society, the turmoil of the war had created a kind of tabula rasa in a both positive and negative sense. The only institution of any influence on, and interest of the public in this period was the Triennali exhibitions. I will show how the Triennale resumed its activity, and furthermore how the organization made use of the heritage from before the war. Finally I will show how the Triennali exhibitions and the design scene adapted to a situation very different from the monar- chist/fascist past.

Such an introduction is crucial, because the Triennale and the persons involved in its organization came to play a vital part in the design institutional conglomerate so significant from 1954 onwards which I will explore in the following chapters.

1. Ernesto N. Rogers in a contribution to a conference in Zurich, November 1946. Quoted in Domus 215 (Nov. 1946)

29 Giovanni Muzio’s Palazzo dell’Arte from 1933 in Milan

2.1 The Bird Phoenix - The re-emergence of the Triennali

From its establishment in 1923, the Biennale of decorative arts in Monza soon became an important institution for Italian material culture. But it was after the translo- cation to Milan and the shift to cycles of three years that the exhibition can be said to have found its form.

The Triennale exhibitions in the years to come became an important feature to the design scene in Italy. They started up under the patronage of Consorzio Milano- Monza-Umanitaria, a society concerned with cultura materiale, or the cultural aspects of our material environments. Three Biennali and one Triennale took place in Monza; 1923, 1925, 1927 and 1930.

The initiators’ ambitions were to unify the beautiful with the useful; to rise above the dichotomy art - industry and show that also industrially manufactured products could be aesthetically pleasant.2 The reality, however, was of a more traditional kind. The exhibited objects presented at these interwar Triennali were mainly luxurious artifacts intended for the bourgeois. Even if the initiators were occupied with industrial products, the cultura materiale did not yet include the needs of the greater part of the population; the workers and peasants. Industrial production was nevertheless conquering new territories, which were to be reflected also in the exhibitions as time passed by.

The IV Triennale in 1930 was the last to be staged in Monza. For the fifth edition in 1933, the Palazzo dell'Arte in Milan was chosen as exhibit location. The building was

2. Anty Pansera, Storia del disegno industriale italiano (Bari: Laterza, 1993), pp 12-13

30 finished only the same spring, projected by arch. Giovanni Muzio, and was a gift to Comune di Milano by Fondazione Bernocchi. It was innovative in its structure, con- taining extremely flexible interior solutions making it a multi-functional organism. From the very beginning, it became the permanent headquarters of the Triennale. In addition to the Triennali, also other exhibitions took place there.

The V and VI Triennale in 1936 and 1940 were rather ambiguous. They were strongly influenced by the fascist regime and the recent invasion of Ethiopia, but at the same time characterized by the avant garde modernism represented by pioneers like Per- sico and Pagano. Here the first signs of Modern style were apparent, but in a rudimen- tary fashion. But the interlude of the war brought new times.

Along with the peace and the battle against fascism came the “age of the neo-realism”, as post-war functionalism also was called. Being less than homogeneous, this movement’s aim can still be summarized as the realization of the new being, and above all the new role of the intellectual. In architecture, the neo-realism was expressed through the architects’ awareness of their productive and political role in society. They should not only create homes, they should also participate in the reconstruction of a new and better society. The slogan, architecture - politics - industry indicates how architecture was separated from its artistic surroundings and placed in a new setting where achieving the best total solution for society as a whole became the ideal.

In the light of the post-war reconstruction, this made for two major focal points: Urban- istics, and new materials and construction methods. The interest in urbanistics, or city planning was only a natural consequence of the reconstruction. Obviously it was on the agenda for creating a new and better life for the average italian, including private housing as well as public buildings and areas. The Quartiere Triennale Ottava, which was built as part of the VIII Triennale, fit this pattern perfectly, and is probably the best example of consistent urbanistics in the period.3 The extensive research on new materials and construction methods was to play an important part in the rationalization of especially office building construction. Facades in glass and steel or aluminium was

3. Anty Pansera, Storia e Cronaca della Triennale (Milano: Longanesi, 1978), p 63

31 seen as great progress, being cheap, fast and rational, and thus considered modern. In the same way as modern factories produced affordable and standardized products of high quality, architects should create cheap and standardized quality houses.

The neo-realism and the social concern showed by architects and designers contributed both to the setting in which the eight and the ninth Triennali were staged and to their contents.

The VIII (1947) and the IX (1951) Triennali took the exhibitions towards the new era, and set the standard in terms of organization and extent for the ones to come. The X (1954) and XI (1957) edition will constitute the core of this study, but a briefer presentation of the two first post-war Triennali is useful to create a more complete picture of the period as a whole.

2.2 VIII Triennale 1947 - Socialistic functionalist visions

The first post-war Triennale was the eighth edition and was held in 1947.4 It was an admirable achievement arranging this large and complex exhibition only two years after the end of the war.5 The economic problems, the damages to houses, factories and infrastructure from allied bombing, and the destruction of organizations that the war had caused, surely made for less favorable circumstances, especially considering that the budget was reduced to one-eighth of the amount compared to the pre-war editions.6 Also, the Palazzo dell’Arte had been severely damaged by the bombing, leaving e.g. the archives nearly ruined.

The destructions of industrial infrastructure and private homes caused by the war turned out to be less devastating than many had feared, leaving 80% of the factories and 95% of the dwellings intact. Nevertheless, the reconstruction would prove to be a huge social and industrial task, only amplified by the immense migration to the north-

4. An VIII Triennale was planned and scheduled for April - June 1943, but never saw the light of day due to the escalation of the war. 5. The exhibition opened on May 31, and closed on September 14. 6. Anty Pansera, Storia e Cronaca della Triennale (Milano: Longanesi, 1978), p 60

32 ern cities, both from the south and the surrounding regions.

Although only seven years separated the VII (1940) and the VIII Triennale, the society from which they derived had changed profoundly. The 1940 edition met with the same destiny as other cultural events under totalitarian regimes, becoming little more than a propaganda vehicle. The Triennale of 1947, on the other hand, emerged in a new democratic state, in a country devastated by war, but among an enthusiastic people believing in the future.

The preparations for the VIII Triennale had started in May 1945. The CLNAI - Comi- tato di liberazione nazionale per l’Alta Italia -, central organ for the partisan government, nominated Piero Bottoni extraordinary commissioner of the Triennale. He was to take over the tasks and powers usually embedded in the president of the institution and the directive committee; the turmoil of the war and the liberation had dissolved and weakened the former elected organizations.7 Together with collaborators chosen by Bottoni himself, he began to work on new statutes for the institution and on the program of the VIII Triennale.

More or less spontaneously, the coagulation of the different committees preparing the exhibition program led to the consolidation of a new organization: Il Centro studi della Triennale, coordinated by a council of executives (Albini, Belgioioso, Bianchetti, Della Rocca, Gardella, Pollini, Rogers and Rusconi Clerici). Each committee was responsible for the research and preparation of their assigned section of the Triennale, e.g. foreign participation or city planning. The Centro Studi was to be the natural origin of the preparing studies also for the following Triennali.

The theme of the VIII Triennale was "the reconstruction as a social problem". Quickly nicknamed "the proletarian Triennale", all signs of decorativism and bragging exhibitions of luxurious housing and utilities that had marked the interwar Triennali were absent. The aim was to address the housing situation of the Italian people, and to express a wish to meet the needs of the nation. This was to be attained by e.g. Quar- tiere Triennale Ottawa, a practical experiment that should show the continuity in hous-

7. Ibid.

33 ing policies neglected by the country’s political decay the latest 25 years.8

The members of the Centro Studi and others involved in shaping the VIII Triennale, were of course ideologically formed by the pre-war environment. This does not mean that they were fascists, rather the opposite: Many of them sympathized with the socialist movement, and some, like Ernesto N. Rogers, had spent the war in exile. Because of this, the socialist influence on the exhibition may have exceeded, seen in retrospective, the expected level given the political climate of 1947.

Surely, the communists and the socialists played an important part in the War of Liber- ation, but so did the christian democrat-movement. The christian democrats showed impressive organization, and their ability to seize power was by far greater than the socialists’ the first post-war years. In May 1947, the christian democrats managed to expel the left-wing parties from the anti-fascist coalition government and form the first government of the centre, reliant on the parliamentary support of all the right-wing parties.9

Seen in the light of this situation, the polemics accompanying the exhibition criticized it of being biased and of promoting communism. But it must be fair to assume that much of this criticism was based on the disappointment that the VIII Triennale tried to reach out to the working class and focus on their problems. Such attempts could perhaps by some be interpreted as a social diminution of the exhibition, or even as political agita- tion.

2.3 Quartiere Triennale Ottava - Modern housing for the masses

As indicated above, the most permanent and interesting proof of the practical experiments at the VIII Triennale in 1947 was to be the Quartiere Triennale Ottava (QT8). QT8 was a quarter consisting of cheap, functional housing for working class families. It was raised before and during the VIII Triennale.

8. Ibid., p 63 9. Paul Ginsborg, A history of contemporary Italy - Society and politics 1943 - 1988 (London: Penguin, 1990), p 112

34 The idea for the QT8 was not new: Bottoni and Guiseppe Pagano had discussed the nature of the architectural exhibitions in the Parco di Milano after the V Triennale (1933), when they watched the experimental buildings being torn down. They agreed that it was an incredible waste of resources, and began to play with the thought of a more permanent exhibition space.10 Bottoni explained the background for the project:

“It was in that encounter we decided to promote an initiative for a permanent quarter out of Parco di Milano, a quarter where the experiments of the Triennale could find a proper location, easy to be examined, seen, controlled, criticized, and particularly enduring as a test site not only for the endurance of the materials and their structural and economical convenience, but also for the verification of the habitation quality and its correspondence to Man’s demands over time.”11

Bottoni prepared this project for the Amministrazione Provinciale di Milano in 1938- 1939 in the zone between San Siro and Lido di Milano, but it was not to be realized until after the war.

At the feet of the artificial hill Monte Stella, at the north-western perimeter of Milan, began the general constructions of the new quarter the autumn of 1946. Given the size of the project, the Triennale could only function as a prime mover, co-ordinating the initiatives of many other institutions, both private and public. The Comune di Mil- ano owned and administrated the land and the public services, the Ministerio dei Lavori Pubblici administrated the infrastructure and sanitary installations, etc. The hygienics departments of several universities promised experimental contributions. The Centro Industriale Lombardo offered to construct an apartment building that would exemplify economic and technical solutions. And when it came to projecting and constructing buildings, private initiators were not scarce. The urbanistic unity of the QT8 was guaranteed by a regulation plan which aimed to frame the single initiatives. This regulation plan was integrated in the new strategy presented by the Comune, to direct the city’s expansion to the northern regions.12

The Quartiere Triennale Ottava was an ambitious project, drawn out to become a

10. Anty Pansera, Storia e Cronaca della Triennale (Milano: Longanesi, 1978), p 60 11. From an interview with Bottoni by Marina Rossi for her Master’s thesis “Il QT8, un esperimento di architettura e urbanistica”, in Controspazio, 4, October 1973, p. 65 12. Anty Pansera, Storia e Cronaca della Triennale (Milano: Longanesi, 1978), p 64

35 complete unit and creating the ultimate living environment. Different kinds of apartments and houses with a total of approximately 10000 inhabitants were planned, spanning from single houses to twelve-story apartment buildings. But the quarter should also include schools, kindergartens, cinema, theater, sports centre, church, hotel, post office, banks, stores, public and private offices, cafés and restaurants.13 Parks and recreational areas completed the picture of an ideal neighborhood that would improve the inhabitants’ daily life, and hence their quality of life.

2.4 The exhibition - Cheap and rational products for the masses.

The same spirit and theme which were reflected in QT8 also dominated the industrial design exhibition. Focus was set on cheap, long-life, useful objects related to the home.14 At the Palazzo dell’Arte, the 1947 Triennale also visualized the program of the QT8, from urbanistics to constructive systems, apartment interiors, domestic products, and works of art. The exhibition dedicated to urbanistics was dominated by the regulation plan for the QT8. It showed the general intentions for the area. In the same way, the habitat exhibition presented posters, drawings and models of projects already approved of. The section called “Unification, modulation and industrialization in construction” consisted of concrete examples, to underline the existing possibilities regarding the socio-economic demands of house building. This was an extremely relevant topic for a society in great need of renewal.

The foreign participation was not very impressing; only Austria, Czechoslovakia, Swit- zerland and Sweden were represented. But given the international political situation, this hardly came as a surprise. And as we shall see, the number would increase greatly for the coming editions.

One of the more interesting sides to the exhibitions from a professional point of view, was the emphasis on the different conventions arranged during the Triennali. The VIII Triennale was no exception in that relation. Five conventions were held this year, all with themes closely related to the exhibitions. The convention for modern decorative

13. Carlo Bassi, “Il quartiere della Triennale a Milano”, in Comunitá 1 (Nov. 1947) 14. http://www.triennale.it/history/tri08.htm

36 and industrial art intended to define industry’s function in the fields of decorative art, and the relation between industry and market.15 Conventions for building technology, housing sanitation and urbanistics also took place the same summer, and used the QT8 as reference for their discussions. In addition, the first national congress of architecture students was arranged within the Triennale environment. The schools of architecture in Milan, Turin, Rome, Venice, Florence, Naples and Palermo all sent representatives. Their aim was to account for the rather drastic turn of events since the war, and to discuss a future program.16

Anyhow, most of the many fascinating programs and initiatives of 1947 for renewing and changing society remained nothing but programs and initiatives. The most prominent moments of the debate on architecture and design was not to surface for another decade, but the VIII Triennale turned out to be the beginning of an exciting era in italian design.

As we have seen, the first post-war years and the VIII Triennale were characterized by a very strong social aspect of industrial design. The ideal was to create cheap, rational products which were useful and affordable. In this way, the functionalist ideas of function and form were integrated with the strong sentiments for social justice, the improvement of the living conditions for the working class, and the wish to bring the whole population in contact with modern culture.

2.5 New times - and a setback for functionalist design

But the unifying social eagerness which followed in the immediate aftermath of the war would soon dissolve. The christian democrats’ well-organized political take-over of 1947, would be completed with corresponding support of the electorate during the 1948 elections. The intense campaign turned out to be a close race between communist leader Togliatti and prime minister De Gasperi, with both domestic and foreign interventions. But immense support and propaganda from the church and from USA,

15. Co-ordinated by Richard Bauer, Piero Bottoni, Ernesto N. Rogers, Franco Albini, Enrico Peressutti, and others. June 20 - 22, 1947. 16. Anty Pansera, Storia e Cronaca della Triennale (Milano: Longanesi, 1978), p 65

37 the Marshall Plan and the coup d’ état in Prague strongly influenced the result of the election in favour of the christian democrats.17 They obtained 48,5 per cent of the votes and an absolute majority in the Chamber of Deputies.18 This made De Gas- peri’s job less a game of tactics, bringing it closer to realpolitik. But the communists and the left in general would continue to play an important part in Italian politics, even though they lost this battle of organization and position.

As the fifties came closer, the Italian economy started out on the expansive growth that would continue for twenty years. Considerable industrial expansion, reconstruction, and improvement of communication systems boosted the national finances. As in many other western european countries, this was made possible through the Marshall Plan and governmental planning.

In addition to changing the political climate, the elections also altered the framework for culture. It marked the end of the joint venture represented by the resistance, dis- closing needs and disagreements that had been suppressed by an artificial and provisional consensus the first post-war years. In addition, the deficient and distorted matrix of the dominating culture during the two decades of fascism had resulted in a deeply felt lack of cultural, and to a certain extent, ideological references among the public. Hence, the intellectuals and the cultural elite felt the obligation to point out and enhance a new cultural and artistic superstructure. Such a project could easily seem forced, and, not surprisingly, this constructed ideology struggled to adapt to the social and historic reality.

The political changes were also reflected in the theoretical development of industrial design. One of the most interesting of the movements that saw the light of day in this peculiar environment, was the Movimento d’Arte Concreta (MAC).19 Among the founders were Gillo Dorfles, one of the most prominent art- and design critics of the time, and artist/designer Bruno Munari. They were later joined by other architects and designers like Roberto Menghi, Joe Colombo and Enzo Mari, and of course several

17. On March 20 1948 George Marshall warned that all help to Italy would cease in the event of a Com- munist victory. 18. Paul Ginsborg, A history of contemporary Italy - Society and politics 1943 - 1988 (London: Penguin, 1990), p 118 19. Founded in Milan in 1948.

38 artists of different kinds. MAC promoted “the synthesis of the arts”, that is a closer relation and interdisciplinary exchange between architecture, painting, sculpture and industry.20 Their manifest revealed a rather revolutionary attitude:

“The artists should be interested in machines, abandon the romantic brushes, the dusty palette, the canvas; they have to start understanding the mechanical anatomy [...]. No more oil-colors, but hydro-flames, chemical reactions, chromium-plating, rust, anodic col- oring, thermal alterations. No more canvas, but metal, plastic materials, rubber and syn- thetic composites.”21

The manifest was written by Bruno Munari. In the inter-war years, he had been active in the futurist environment. The MAC manifest could be seen as a prolongation of futurist ideas, judging by the emphasis on machines and industrial materials. Interest- ingly enough, this time the neo-futurists linked up to progressive politics, rather than fascist ideology.

In a rather difficult time for the geometric abstractism, the MAC found inspiration in the pre-war modernists like Kandinsky and van Doesburg. It was the only of these groups in Italy that predicted and glanced at some of the directions on which visual culture would later embark. Notably, in this context, was the emphasis put on industrial design, visual perception and interdisciplinary art studies. MAC dissolved in 1958, partly due to natural retirement, partly due to the rise of more efficient arenas of debate.

Summing up these structural changes, the conditions under which the VIII Triennale arose with its “proletarian” features, no longer existed. While the VIII Triennale had promoted the new modern style for the masses, the IX Triennale turned towards the traditional decorative- and luxurious art as a reaction to the former edition, which had excluded these bourgeoisie interests.

20. Anty Pansera, Storia del disegno industriale italiano (Bari: Laterza, 1993), p 113 21. Bruno Munari, Manifesto del Macchinismo (1952)

39 2.6 IX Triennale 1951 - The return of borghese values

The Triennale organization was altered through the bill of April 1, 1949. To the second article of the statute, which lists the organizing organs, the Centro Studi was added. This formalized the Centro Studi’s position, although it originated from the ad-hoc groups under Bottoni’s work with the VIII Triennale. The Ente Triennale di Milano was now administrated after the following structure:

Administrative organs: 1) The President (Il Presidente) 2) The Council of Administration (Il Consiglio di Amministrazione) 3) The Accountants (I Revisori dei Conti) Technical organs: 1) The Executive Commission (La Giunta Esecutiva) 2) Center of Studies (Centro Studi Triennale di Milano)

The 19 members of the Consiglio di Amministrazione, and the Presidente were nominated by the President of the Republic, on proposition from the Prime Minister. The representatives were delegated from local- and federal governmental institutions, and several relevant organizations.22 The Presidente led the Consiglio di Amministrazi- one, the Comitato Direttivo del Centro Studi, and the Giunta Esecutiva. The Consiglio di Amministrazione nominated the Giunta Esecutiva and the Comitato Direttivo del Centro Studi on proposition from the Centro Studi itself.23

The Centro Studi was to function as the permanent executive part of the organization. Its assignment was to prepare and equip the periodic exhibitions, but also to create a continuity in the work of the Ente. The bureaucracy was quite complicated, but it was clear that the Centro Studi (permanent) and the Giunta Esecutiva (periodic) were the organs with the most influence on the planning and realization of the exhibitions.

In 1949, after the introduction of the renewed statute, the Consiglio di Amministrazi-

22. From the Normativa della Triennale, printed in Anty Pansera, Storia e Cronaca della Triennale (Mil- ano: Longanesi, 1978) 23. Ibid.

40 one for the following Triennale (1951) was elected. The Comune di Milano nominated Ivan Matteo Lombardo24 as Presidente, and the former Presidente, Piero Bottoni, as council member along with Gió Ponti and others. Apart from these, the 19 members of the council were new names. The nomination process was clearly influenced by the new times both in the political game and the organization.

Piero Bottoni was made delegate of the QT8 - the project neither had nor could have been finished during one Triennale. It is easy to get the notion that he was pushed out of the leadership because of the IX Triennale’s new profile, and left to play with his “darling” - the QT8. There, the construction work continued, and temporary exhibitions were held in the completed buildings.25

The Giunta Esecutiva was formed only 18 months before the opening of the exposition, and consisted of Franco Albini, Luciano Baldessari, Adriano di Spilimbergo, Mar- cello Nizzoli, Elio Palazzo and Gió Ponti. Both the Consiglio di Amministrazione and the Giunta Esecutiva had been elected on the new statute and the announced aim to accept “all tendencies in art”. Still Ponti withdrew from the Giunta Esecutiva shortly after its formation, claiming he was allowed too little working space.26 Ponti’s decition must be interpreted as a reaction to his disapproval of not deciding on a clearly defined theme for the exhibition and the subsequent lack of unity.

The self-intended diversity in the Giunta Esecutiva resulted in a program in complete lack of coherence. Each member pointed out different fields of interest and directions to follow. Albini, with the support of Bottoni, underlined the necessity of expanding the Triennale both in time and space, making it more a continual experience and less “exhibition”. Baldessari, Spilimbergo and Ponti, due to their history and formation, wanted to emphasize “exceptional objects”, i.e. fine arts. Nizzoli had a vision of “a for- est [...] in which lies sparse houses, one by each architect, as he likes it the most.”27

24. Social democrat, minister of foreign commerce in the first post-war government. Responsible for the first billion-dollar mortgage issued to Italy after the war. 25. Anty Pansera, Storia e Cronaca della Triennale (Milano: Longanesi, 1978), p 70 26. Ibid. 27. G. Veronesi, “La Fantasia alla IX Triennale 1951”, in Profili: disegni, architetti, strutture, esposizioni. (Firenze: Vallecchi, 1969), p 75

41 The effects of the policy of including all tendencies was rather dubious, and it is not unlikely that ulterior motives could be involved, e.g. the wish to promote one’s own interests.

In October 1950, the activity of the Centro Studi, led by Mario Melino began. It co-ordinated the international logo-competition, the national competition for utilities, the international retrospective and avant garde film festival, and the international congress of art proportions studies. The latter contained contributions by Le Corbusier, Enrico N. Rogers, Max Bill, et al. In the occasion of the prominent visit, the members of the Mov- imento Studi Architettura (MSA) showed Le Corbusier around the QT8. The eccentric Swiss made no secret of his disapproval of the project, and he briefly and arrogantly commented it as uninteresting.28

In the program of intentions for the IX Triennale (1951), ideological changes could be seen. The "inconvenient" social task so clearly incorporated in the previous Triennale, was abandoned for a more cynical "merchandise"-oriented focus. This made the IX Triennale more commercial and more similar to the Fiera campionaria, than the previous "proletarian" Triennale.

According to Gió Ponti, member of the council, being less thematically/ideologically selective, the exhibition would reflect the real situation in the society much better, thus seeing future tendencies easier. This principal was to be widely criticized for denouncing every critical function the Triennale could have, and not dealing with concrete problems of the present.29

2.7 The exhibition - Heterogenous expressions of theory and practice

The IX Triennale opened on May 12, 1951, a year late with respect to the stipulated three-year cycle. Still, the preparations were intense; it even turned out to be necessary to ask the workers to disregard the celebration of May 1. Twenty-seven full- period exhibitions and nine of shorter duration were offered, co-ordinated by Nizzoli

28. Anty Pansera, Storia e Cronaca della Triennale (Milano: Longanesi, 1978), p 70 29. http://www.triennale.it/history/tri09.htm

42 and Baldessari. Their task was a difficult one - to create a sense of unity connecting all the exhibitions that originated from a program with little or no common direction.

The extremely heterogeneous event included sections dedicated to themes as film- and theater scenography, the history of architecture, illumination, ceramics, urbanistics, sacred art, glass, hospital architecture, form and color in sports, graphic design and commercials, et al. One of the more original sections was Enrico N. Roger’s “Architettura, misura dell’uomo” (“Architecture, measure of man”). He wanted to show how the human mind and body are the definitive deciding factors in architecture:

“The physical measurements of man determines architecture’s necessary dimensions: It is the constant measurement caused by our anatomical and physical conditions. [...] Man, architecture, man, that is the continuous cycle of origins, means and aims.”30

But not everyone was satisfied with this approach either - critics claimed that:

“Rogers flees into abstractism, that is, in an aesthetic mysteriousness, which eludes problems in stead of clarifying them (we do not ask for solutions; the social situation do not permit particular solutions for which only profound modifications in the economic structure could open the road).”31

This represented a conflict of interest between the practical and the theoretical. Simi- lar conflicts would surface later on as well, e.g. in the debate on what industrial design’s most important task was - practice or methodology. Such a debate could be seen as a call for a pragmatic way to deal with industrial design. Another possibility is to interpret this discussion as a wish to return to the clean, clear and straightforward socialist functionalism of 1947.

The sections dedicated to urbanistics,32 habitat,33 and industrial design34 seemed, with the exception of the historic parts, conceptualized for the diffusion of the modern-

30. Ernesto N. Rogers, “Architettura, misura dell’uomo”, in Domus (luglio/agosto 1951) 31. Carlo Doglio, “Accademia e formalismo alla base della Nona Triennale”, in Metron 43 (settembre/ ottobre 1951) 32. Co-ordinated by G. Astengo and E. Bonfante 33. Co-ordinated by F. Helg, A. Castelli Ferrieri, A. Magnaghi, F. Marescotti, M. Terzaghi, L. Fiori, B. Buffoni and M. Nizzoli 34. Co-ordinated by L. Belgioioso, E. Peressutti, F.Buzzi Ceriani, M. Huber

43 “La forma dell’utile” - the industrial design exhibition at the IX Tri- ennale (1951) ist “taste”, in its most different interpretations, among the public. Hence, the first presented refined examples of residential urbanistics, while the second focused on bourgeoisie habitat, which was exemplified broadly and thoroughly. The chosen level of prices and prestige, resulted in the complete neglection of the problems regarding popular housing. This must be seen as another indication of the failure, or perhaps even falseness, of the “open to all tendencies”-policy.

The intention with "la forma dell'utile", the industrial design exhibition at the IX Trien- nale, was to underline the many aspects of serial production and the possibilities of new relations between the designer and the industry, but the suggestions never left the program-stage. Critics claimed that the installation did not communicate with the public and that despite the lining up of a heterogeneous specter of objects, the exhibition did not show the contribution of the designers and industrial design well enough.35 Belgioioso and Peressutti, who equipped the exhibition, left out any additional explanation, leaving the public to interpret the section merely on the base of objects and photos. In another setting, such a choice could have proven to be fruitful, but when the aim was to indicate methods and propositions of the relation between designer and industry, it was claimed that more information should have been offered.36 This criticism could be the reaction of an avant-garde that wanted the ideals and intention of the 1947 Triennale back.

The foreign participation rose from only four nations at the VIII Triennale to 12 at the

35. Anty Pansera, Storia del disegno industriale italiano (Bari: Laterza, 1993), p 119 36. Ibid.

44 IX Triennale. Most west-european countries were represented: England, Spain, Aus- tria, Finland, Germany, Holland, Sweden, Belgium, France, Denmark, Switzerland, and also the USA. As opposed to the former edition, the participating countries did not have a common theme to which their contributions had to concur. As with the rest of the IX Triennale, this resulted in a dipersed and rather chaotic impression.

The IX Triennale clearly represented a long step away from the proletarian angle pen- etrating the VIII Triennale. The reasons, as we have seen, were both changes in the political system, the reinstating of traditional class differences, and possibly also the wish to promote personal agendas. It is tempting, when witnessing this development, to label it a dialectic one. The theory of evolution through thesis and anti-thesis, leading to a more moderate synthesis could prove to be a plausible explanation. In this case the emergence of the proletarian eighth edition seven turbulent years after the former, shifting to the strongly bourgeoisie ninth edition, and reaching a more moderate expression three years later. A thorough examination of the X Triennale will show whether this hypothesis should be applied. But there is no doubt that the experience drawn from the first two post-war Triennali, with their differences and flaws, strongly set the course for what is commonly known as the golden years of Italian design; the 1950’s.

2.8 Conclusion

In this chapter we have seen how the Triennale rose from the ashes of the war and reemerged as a strong and vital institution almost immediately after the setting up of the new republic. Considering the dimensions of such an event, and the state of Italian politics, economy and cultural life in the afterglow of the war, the opening on May 16 1947 was nothing short of a remarkable achievement. A brief orientation on the political situation and the forming of the new state has been given, and we saw the predominantly social intentions of the “proletarian Triennale”. The other significant feature of the VIII manifestation was the experimental quarter, the QT8, which created a permanent side to the Triennale and brought it out of its rigid exhibition format. Also, the QT8 must be said to have paid a large contribution to the growing awareness of the Triennale among the public.

45 But conditions changed rapidly in the life of the new Italian republic. The christian democrats’ new governmental position, the abolition of the artificial unity of the days of the resistance, and alterations in other parts of the social structure changed the rules of the game also for art and culture. Regarding the Triennale, we have seen that this caused the IX edition of 1951 to leap in the opposite direction with respect to the former. The result was an exhibition dominated by expensive items, only available to the wealthy part of the public. Such an ignorance of the social question so clearly explored by the VIII Triennale made the IX manifestation more similar to an ordinary art exhibition, and hence less interesting to the popular masses with their need for cheap, functional accommodation and utensils.

As the forties became the fifties, Italian society entered a period of growth, and an increasing part of the population found themselves taking part in the fascinating modern life. In the following chapters we will se how the economic miracle and technological diffusion and inventions were mirrored in what I will call “the golden years of Italian industrial design”, a period spanning approximately from 1954 to 1959.

46 3 Missionaries

“Today, that [...] the values of Italian design are affirmed around the world, STILE INDUSTRIA intends to promote among Italian industry, public and artists a concrete interest in the aesthetic values of the product, from the creation, through the Typewriter Lettera 22 presentation, to the propaganda, values that con- Des: M. Nizzoli, Prod: Olivetti (1954) stitute a unifying expression in modern style of production.”1

These words from the introduction of the new design magazine, Stile Industria, exemplifies in a brilliant fashion the optimism and eagerness so symptomatic for the strategic actors in Italian design in the mid-fifties. We can easily see a strong-felt notion among the prime movers of being part of something great and immensely important, and even though hard work lay ahead, the modernist movement was the absolute creed, and to the involved parties, the sky was the limit.

In the previous chapter we saw how the Triennale reemerged after the war and became an important feature to the design scene. This and the following chapters will show the birth and growth of three new institutions, and how they together with the Tri- ennale formed a dynamic and progressive framework for Italian design. These institutions were the award Compasso d’Oro (1954), the magazine Stile Industria (1954) and the association Associazione per il Disegno Industriale (ADI) (1956).

The questions that will be raised in this chapter are: How did the missionaries of functionalist design promote their message of a modern design? Furthermore, what was their message and how did they communicate this message? Finally, how did the institutions mentioned above contribute to deliver the message?

In this chapter I will first discuss the most important background factors for the devel-

1. Alberto Rosselli, "STILE INDUSTRIA" in Domus 292, (1954), p 82

47 opment of industrial design, like the political and industrial landscape in Italy of the fifties. Then I will present some of the main actors, before examining the founding of the Compasso d’Oro.

3.1 The Italian political system and industry

The fifties brought the consolidation of the Italian Republic as we know it today. This period also saw the founding of the main political balance of power, and the new state structure. The christian democrats (DC) gained power and succeeded in keeping it through the first post-war legislature, from 1948 to 1953. But their popularity soon decreased. Many lost their patience and were not satisfied with what the DC government achieved.

But DC was still by far the biggest single party, receiving 40.1 per cent of the votes, and Giuseppe Pella formed a minority government which relied on the support of the small centre- and right-wing parties.2 Anyhow, the 1953 elections would turn out to be the beginning of a long period of “stable instability” - DC and DC coalition minority governments rapidly shifting and strongly limited in their freedom of action.

Thus, Italy became a non-socialist democracy. As we saw in the previous chapter, there were strong socialist and communist currents in the post-war years. In the world of industrial design, this had been reflected e.g. through the VIII Triennale. If the left- wing parties had succeeded in gaining government position, the further development of industrial design might have turned out different. Instead, the Italian nation was formed under the rule of the DC.

Another prominent feature of the Italian state were the enti pubblici - government special agencies, which counted 841 on a national level in 1947. The most important of these were the autonomous state agencies administrating the railways, telephones, postal services and state monopolies.3 The largest of these state agencies was the Institute for Industrial Reconstruction (IRI). IRI was employing 216.000 persons by

2. Paul Ginsborg, A history of contemporary Italy - Society and politics 1943 - 1988 (London: Penguin, 1990), p 142 3. Ibid., p 150

48 1948, and was involved in important industries like steel, engineering, shipbuilding, shipping, electricity and telephones. Through IRI, the state controlled a large number of companies, but normally also private investors held shares in these joint-stock enterprises. IRI made the state and the DC government less dependent on the private industrial elite. Through IRI’s dispositions, the state would play a very important part in the “economic miracle” about to happen.

3.2 Industry and design

Italy, as opposed to Britain, Germany and France, did not participate in the first wave of industrialization. Late arrival on the arena combined with government policies, contributed to a quite particular industrial structure, dominated by small, often family- owned companies. Some larger cooperations made indispensable contributions to Italian industry, but compared to the formerly mentioned countries, the smaller firms dominated the field. This situation seem to have been favorable to the development of industrial design. As I see it, less tradition meant less obstacles and loads from the past, more freedom in innovation, and probably more daring experimentation. A young, diversified and flexible industrial structure could, without the burdens and restrictions of the past traditions, meet the new conditions created by technological innovations.

In fact, starting difficulties of a new company were often solved only by attempting new methods. Also from a formal point of view, embracing creativity in all its forms represented a road to success. In the same way, the dimensions of firms encouraged boldness in facing the new. Renzo Zorzi writes that the Italian industry was characterized by an elastic internal structure, the ability to more easily convert in case of failed projects, and by being less influenced by habits.4

In addition to these factors, which in my view were favorable to creation and innovation, also larger companies showed an increasing interest in industrial design. One good example was the Olivetti cooperation, one of the world’s largest producers of

4. Renzo Zorzi, “Civiltá delle macchine, Civiltà delle forme” in Valerio Castronovo, Giulio Sapelli (ed.), Civiltá delle macchine - Tecnologie, prodotti, progetti, dell’industria meccanica italiana dalla ricostruzione all’Europa (Milano: Fabbri, 1990), p 144

49 office machines. The president, Adriano Olivetti, son of the founder, had since before the war worked hard to create a unifying corporate identity. His project included everything from company buildings’ architecture, graphic design and advertisement, and of course product design. Adriano Olivetti engaged young and talented architects and designers such as Marcello Nizzoli, Ignazio Gardella and Ettore Sottsass.5 In this way, he became a pioneer in this field.

But Adriano Olivetti’s devotion to la cultura materiale exceeded the limits of his own firm; he participated in discussions on design, joined the Associazione per il Disegno Industriale (ADI) and in other ways contributed to the diffusion of industrial design. The fame and success of Olivetti’s consistent emphasis on design was not limited to Italy. In 1952, New York’s Museum of Modern Art (MOMA) decided to add graphic- and industrial design to their fields of interest, and chose Olivetti for their very first monographic exhibition.6

The fact that both small firms and the few bigger ones embraced design and innovation, tells us something of an Italian peculiarity. Italian industrial structure seem to have been favourable for inventive design. One reason could be the fact that many firms had to start from scratch. A second important factor seem to have been the flexibility of the industrial sector. Small, flexible companies and large corporations existed in a fruitful symbiosis. The third important factor was the intervention of the IRI. The governmental support secured many of the firms during the difficult start-up stage.

3.3 Consumption growth

As I will document later, the Italian economy grew considerably in the years to come. One important consequence of the economic boom was the increase in public wealth and consumption. In addition to the increase in public spending, consumption also altered character quite rapidly. The rise of consumption industry, especially electric appliances, radio and television (official television broadcasts started in 1954), and

5. http://www.olivetti.it/ 6. Renzo Zorzi, “Civiltá delle macchine, Civiltà delle forme” in Valerio Castronovo, Giulio Sapelli (ed.), Civiltá delle macchine - Tecnologie, prodotti, progetti, dell’industria meccanica italiana dalla ricostruzione all’Europa (Milano: Fabbri, 1990), p 144

50 Scooter Lambretta Scooter Vespa Des: C. Pallavicino, Prod: Innocenti (1947) Des: C. D’Ascanio, Prod: Piaggio (1946) the evolution of mass production mirrored the increasing standard of living.

One example that illustrates the economic growth and the increased importance of consumer goods was the scooter. In the first post-war years, it represented the first level of wealth for the middle class.7 Soon the scooter became attainable to the working class. Piaggio’s Vespa, designed by Corradino d’Ascano in 1946, and Innocenti’s Lambretta, designed by Cesare Pallavicino in 1947 dominated the market. They were the first individual means of transport available to a larger part of the population. The next step in the development of consumption and illustrating the increased wealth of the middle class, was its desire for the “Italian Volkswagen”, the FIAT 500, designed by Dante Giacosa in 1956. The ever growing wish and need for individual, private transport was certainly not diminished by the building of the autostrade, a huge politi- cally controlled public project with enormous spin-off effects in terms of e.g. employ- ment.

Now that we have looked at some aspects of the political and industrial background, it is time to take a closer view at some of the most important design events and institutions. But first, I want to introduce a person who in different ways played a central role in the following events; Alberto Rosselli.

7. In 1947, the prize of a Vespa was equivalent of two months worker’s salary.

51 Alberto Rosselli (Photo: Paolo Rosselli)

3.4 Alberto Rosselli - The modernist entrepreneur

Alberto Rosselli was born in Palermo in 1921, and came from a upper middle class family. His father was an engineer, and the family moved about according to his professional assignments. Rosselli started engineering studies at the Politecnico di Mil- ano, but the education was interrupted by the war. During the war, he stayed in Switzerland. There he came to know the Italian jewish architect Ernesto N. Rogers, who also spent the war years in exile. Rogers no doubt inspired Rosselli’s interest in industrial design, and the two would be frequenting the same environment for the rest of their careers. When the war was over, Rosselli returned to the Politecnico di Milano, where he earned a degree in architecture in 1947.

After the war, Rosselli got to know, and later married, the daughter of another Italian design icon, the architect and designer Gió Ponti. This relation explains much of the tight relationship that came to be between Rosselli and Ponti in the years to come. However, it would also serve to complicate their professional companionship later on.

52 In 1949 Rosselli started a design section in Gió Ponti’s magazine Domus, and he would edit this section until the birth of the magazine Stile Industria in 1954. In 1950 Ponti and Rosselli, together with the engineer Antonio Fornaroli, established the studio Ponti-Fornaroli-Rosselli. From 1967, Rosselli also collaborated with engineer and designer Isao Hosoe. In addition to his work as designer and director of Stile Industria, Rosselli also embarked on numerous other tasks within Italian industrial design circles. He contributed to the Triennali both as an exhibitor and as a committee member. He was among the prime movers for establishing Compasso d’Oro, and several times jury member of the award. Rosselli also became the first president of Associazion per il Disegno Industriale (ADI). In 1963 he became professor of industrial design at the Politecnico di Milano. Rosselli also wrote two books on design theory (Lo spazio aperto8 and I metodi del design9). He died in Milan in 1976.

Even though Rosselli never entered politics, his political stand was quite clear. He voted socialist, and this was reflected in his design ideology. He wanted to create the best possible material environment for all. Design should be for all, not just for the elite. Rosselli, in the same way as other modernist designers, wanted to create products of high functional and aesthetic quality. This can be exemplified through the construction of buildings where the components were standardized to achieve a uniform, cheap and high quality result.

Three of Milan’s most remarkable buildings from the 1950’s and 1960’s are signed Alberto Rosselli. The city’s tallest building, the Pirelli tower from 1956 (studio P-F-R cooperation), the Corriere della Sera building (1958), and the San Carlo hospital (1965). Like the rest of his work, they all reflect purity, simplicity and fascination for the possibilities and challenges inherent in new technology and materials.10

As designer, Rosselli did many projects for Arflex, one of the technologically most

8. Alberto Rosselli, Lo spazio aperto - Ricerca e progettazione tra design e architettura (Milano: Pizzi, 1974) 9. Alberto Rosselli, I metodi del design (Milano: Clup, 1973) 10. This chapter is based on an interview with Alberto Rosselli’s son, Paolo Rosselli conducted in Aprile 2000, and the biography Stile Industria: Alberto Rosselli (Parma: CSAC, 1981)

53 Cover of the second edition of Stile Industria Graphic design: Bruno Munari (1954) advanced furniture manufacturers in Italy at the time. His fascination for plastics resulted in several designs both for Kartell, the great pioneer in plastics production, and for Saporiti. His sense of simplicity and elegance is probably best demonstrated to the broad public through the bus Meteor, designed with Isao Hosoe in 1970 for Car- rozzeria Renzo Orlandi.

3.5 Stile Industria - The voice of modern style

The architectural magazine Domus, founded in 1928 and edited and directed by Gió Ponti, had over the years shown an increasing interest in industrial design. In 1949, a section with articles related to industrial design, graphic design and packaging was established, edited by Alberto Rosselli.11 The extent of the articles grew, and after five years' symbiosis, Rosselli separated the design section and founded his own magazine, Stile Industria.12 Stile Industria was published by Editoriale Domus, which also published Domus.

11. Anty Pansera, Storia del disegno industriale italiano (Bari: Laterza, 1993), pp 94 - 95 12. Alberto Rosselli, "STILE INDUSTRIA" in Domus 292 (march 1954), pp 81-89

54 For many years, Stile Industria was the only Italian magazine dedicated to industrial design. 41 issues were published between 1954 and 1963; every three months in the beginning, then every two months. Presenting his new magazine, Rosselli underlined the purpose of Stile Industria:

“Today, that [...] the values of Italian design are affirmed around the world, STILE INDUS- TRIA intends to promote among Italian industry, public and artists a concrete interest in the aesthetic values of the product, from the creation, through the presentation, to the propaganda, values that constitute a unifying expression in modern style of production.”13

As we see, the magazine was established to be a vehicle for promoting industrial design among public and industry. And for Rosselli and his likes, industrial design was equivalent to functionalism. By means of Stile Industria, the missionaries of functionalism got their channel for propaganda and information. Their intentions were explicitly expressed in the first editorial, symptomatically titled “Design: quality factor”:

“A new category of artists who direct their activity towards industrial production, who are familiar with new technology, who interpret its meaning and translate it into the most correct, most useful and most beautiful design of an object, can - together with the industry - lead to the synthesis which represents the highest level of the industrial culture.”14

Stile Industria’s mission was to promote design as quality factor. And, as we see, quality meant correct, useful and beautiful design. This functionalistic ideology should lead to the highest level of industrial culture through an improved relation between design and industry. In the modernist world-view, industrial products should be given the same aesthetic values as handicraft. Stile Industria strived to achieve this goal by Rosselli’s editorials which constantly underlined the importance of good design. Fur- thermore, the magazine covered relevant activities like exhibitions, conferences, et. al., and eagerly reported foreign situations.

Another important task was to present new design. Stile Industria’s policy on this matter was quite different from what can be seen in most design magazines of today. They covered the entire spectre of industrial products, not only the typical fields of design. In addition to furniture, lighting and cutlery, we find articles on milling

13. Ibid., p 82 14. Alberto Rosselli, "Disegno: fattore di qualità" in Stile Industria 1, (1954), p 1

55 machines, toilets, boats, cars, sewing machines and much more. This clearly shows that Stile Industria’s mission was to promote design in all fields of industrial production. To them, design was a matter of social responsibility and material culture, and certainly not merely fashion.

3.6 Compasso d’Oro - A prize for good industrial design

The fact that 1954 was a remarkable year for of Italian industrial design, could not only be seen by the fact that the first issue of Stile Industria saw the light of day, but also by the foundation of the famous and prestigious design award Compasso d'Oro. The department store La Rinascente played an important part in the setting up of the award. Reopened after the war only in December 1950, La Rinascente was the leading chain of department stores in Italy, with branches in all the major cities. A company of this character offered a vast specter of products, spanning from toys to furniture, make-up to sport accessories. The firm thereby had a “natural” concern for the quality, functionality and aesthetics of their goods.

One reason for setting up the prize could be an exhibition staged the year before. In October 1953, the exhibition "Estetica del prodotto"15 could be seen at La Rinascente in Milan. The objects had been selected by a La Rinascente technical staff aided by Alberto Rosselli, who commented the event asking:

"What does this exhibition mean, if not that among thousands of products offered the public in a department store, only a few dozens, unfortunately, can be considered exemplary in their technical and aesthetic nature?"16

But adds how:

"We are grateful to La Rinascente for this initiative that we regard as an effective work of propaganda and at the same time an example of culture and industrial civility; but we are awaiting, from many industries, from many artisan complexes, from technicians and artists, from responsibles of these productions in general, a real understanding of the problem and an effort in this direction."17

15. Organized and presented by Carlo Pagani, Albe Steiner and Bruno Munari. 16. Alberto Rosselli, "L'estetica del prodotto alla Rinascente" in Domus 290, (1954), p 64 17. Alberto Rosselli, "L'estetica del prodotto alla Rinascente" in Domus 290, (1954), p 64

56 The award Compasso d’Oro Graphic Design: Albe Steiner (1954)

The good review in Stile Industria and other media and the success among the public, mainly due to the idea of holding the exhibit in a such a "secular" place, must have influenced La Rinacente's decision to patronize a design award. They had obviously been in contact with the design missionaries. The Milanese department store, fronted by two senior executives, Aldo Borletti and Cesare Brustio, gave in this way life to an idea Carlo Pagani, Gió Ponti, Alberto Rosselli and others had been playing with for a while. The department store’s need for marketing combined with the design missionaries’ desire for promoting their ideas created a win - win situation.

Being a company selling products of such great diversity, La Rinascente possessed valuable knowledge about the state of Italian industrial production, and was also an active importer. This led to another, and possibly more idealistic, motivation for their engagement; the desire for a national industry capable of making better products and of competing better with imported goods. Also, especially Brustio was perfectly aware of to what extent the industry could determine the retailer's opportunities in deciding the public's taste.18

The prize itself (graphic design by Albe Steiner) was awarded the product, by assign- ing the golden compass to the producing company, and the silver compass, accompanied by 100000 lire, to the designer. One year later, in 1955, two additional awards

18. A. Grassi, A. Pansera, Atlante del design italiano 1940/1980 (Milano: Fabbri, 1984), p 32

57 were established; the Gran Premio Nazionale and the Gran Premio Internazionale. These were not intended for products, but for persons, companies or institutions that had contributed to the promotion of design in, respectively national and international context.

But the award was not merely to be an instrument for promoting sales; the personalities involved being idealists believing strongly in their case, their purpose was more profoundly rooted:

"With the Compasso d'Oro, one wishes to honour the merits of those industrials, artisans and designers, who in their work, through a new and particular artistic effort, give the products quality of form and of presentation, such as to give them a unitarian expression of their technical, functional and aesthetic characteristics"19

As we can see from this situation, commercial motives and professional interests merged in an ideological message which was utilized in both camps. Compasso d’Oro became a strategic actor in the development of design through encouraging designers and companies to develop products which corresponded with the award manage- ment’s functionalistic ideology.

The award intended to prosecute the entering of what they saw as aesthetic values in industrial production. In the beginning, even though still not being the competitive stimulation and testing circuit for the industry it aspired to be, it assumed the function of arena for official critique of industrial production right away.

The theoretical motivations for this critique naturally changed with the passing of time and the different compositions of the jury. One distinction was often made: For the juries of the first editions, the standards remained faithful to the notion that the aesthetic qualities of the production should be integrated in the production "politics". Towards the end of the decade, the focus turned from the relation product - production to product - market. This preference given to commercial motivations could be interpreted as a will to lead the attention towards the social aspects of the use, given that the broad public would benefit from commercially well adapted products.20

19. From the award regulations.

58 In the beginning (1954 - 1958), the awards were restricted to the type of products sold in department stores, defined in the regulations as clothing (cloth, clothes, accessories), habitat (furniture, illumination, cloth, accessories), kitchen utensils (table, kitchen, electric appliances), articles of sport and travels, office accessories, toys and packing. Not many were in this way disqualified, but it was not until 1958, with the intervention of the ADI that all types of products would be considered, giving e.g. the important car industry an opening. In 1962, La Rinascente withdrew completely from the foundation, leaving it in the presumably more capable hands of the ADI. This coin- cided with the change from yearly editions to longer intervals (1964-1967-1970).21 I will deal with that event in a later chapter.

Not surprisingly, the first issue of Stile Industria presented the new award very enthu- siastically. The initiative was praised and seen as a way of supplementing the magazine's own ambitions regarding the research, propaganda and affirmation of good design. Since the missionaries of “good design” were placed in both camps, they obviously had to support their own message. The industrial-political side was here, as it was regarding the "L'estetica del prodotto" exhibition, considered a major issue of interest:

"This award, with its programme and its announcement, hence represents the very important affirmation of the most modern principles of production and constitute the first manifestation that appreciates and emphasizes the problem of production not only as an economic fact, but also an aesthetic one, of culture and of custom."22

We see that Stile Industria used the Compasso d’Oro as an opportunity to promote their message. The award was seen as a means for the same purpose, which was to emphasize industrial production as a culturally integrated problem. In addition it was a way to promote the designers own profession and thus their private mission.

The somewhat different position design held in Italy at the time, compared to other countries, was also commented. Rosselli stated in the magazine that in other countries there existed associations and organizations created to supervise and guide in

20. Enzo Frateili, Continuitá e trasformazione - Una storia del design italiano, 1928-1988 (Milano: Greco, 1989), p 72 21. Anty Pansera, Storia del disegno industriale italiano (Bari: Laterza, 1993), p 161 22. Alberto Rosselli, "Un premio per l'estetica del prodotto" in Stile Industria 1, (1954), p 6

59 best possible way the industrial production. The long felt need for action in this area was in the interest of both the industry itself and the public, above all as confirmation of the most important principals of the new industrial culture. In Italy, on the other hand, at least until then, the success of most products was seen as a result of the “natural” creativity of the Italians and the special interest taken by some industrialists.23 Seeing this as pleasant qualities, but far from satisfying, Rosselli welcomed the Compasso d'Oro as one of the means necessary to structure Italian design; raising the average quality and no longer having to rely on some outstanding exceptions.

3.7 Award regulations - An expression of functionalist ideals

The jury of the the first Compasso d'Oro was composed of the following persons: Aldo Borletti, vice president of La Rinascente, Cesare Brustio, general vice director of La Rinascente, Gió Ponti, Alberto Rosselli and Marco Zanuso, architect, designer, member of the executive committee of the X Triennale. As we can see, the jury was a combination of design missionaries and industry leaders that saw the possibilities of the new design.

To get a better view on and insight into the main message of the design entrepreneurs, we can look at the regulations of the Compasso d’Oro. The jury would base their decisions on:

-The originality of the formal solution and the accordance to functionality. -The novelty of the technical and productive solution. -The economic value according to the market demands, and on the executed perfection.

It can no doubt be argued that the first point was predictable, but it says very much about the ideology in force: The formal solution should be original compared to competing products, but functionalism was the invariable truism of the day. In other words, to be original meant to have the form of modern times, the aesthetics of the machine age.

23. Ibid.

60 The second point was very symptomatic for the reigning technological optimism; new and advanced technology was seen as a plus in it self, as a bearer of fortune and hope for the future. The germ of a current design-methodological problem can be found in this encounter between functionalism and new technology. The very basis of functionalism is that the object should be given a form that is logically connected to its function, but advanced technology can make it hard to find any such connection. What is, for instance, the logical form of a radio? With today's technology it can be made much smaller than what is practical. But in 1954, this was only a beginning problem, and viewed upon with great enthusiasm.

The third point is quite ambiguous; it can be interpreted from a socialistic point of view and seen as an attempt to reward products that are cheap, making it an asset that ordinary people in a relatively poor country like Italy could afford them. It can also be interpreted as a more capitalistic strategy, considering the fact that all the people involved were wealthy upper bourgeois, and hence likely to praise the qualities of an expensive product as long as the market was willing to pay for it. Anyway, given the ideological foundation of the award, the first scenario seems to be the more plausible.

3.8 I Compasso d’Oro 1954 - Everyday products for the everyday people

In the spring of 1954, 470 companies delivered around 5700 products to the jury, from which 198 were selected and formed an exhibition at the Circolo della Stampa di Mil- ano. 15 of these were honoured with the Compasso d'Oro and presented at the Palazzo d'Arte during the last month of the X Triennale. The award regulations suggested that 20 Compasso d'Oro were to be assigned, but the jury found it appropriate to reduce this number to 15.

Taking a closer look at the assignations, the domination by simple, everyday products available to a broad part of the public seems clear, even when considering the mid- 1950s Italian surroundings. One of the biggest profiles of Italian design in this period was Marcello Nizzoli. Two of the products awarded in this first edition of the Com- passo d'Oro were his designs: the sewing-machine BU Supernova for Necchi and the

61 Sewing machine BU Toy monkey Zizi Des: M. Nizzoli, Prod: Necchi (1954) Des: B. Munari, Prod: Piogomma (1954) Des: A. Magnaghi, Prod: SAFFA (1954) type-writer Lettera 22 for Olivetti. The other awarded products spanned from toy and furniture to gun and kitchen.24 The jury commented the SAFFA kitchen as "a production that fits in the morality of modern taste that in the kitchen, as in the bathroom, concentrates on line and not on luxury", thus underlining the "proletarian" image of the award.

3.9 Conclusion

This chapter has presented some of the background for the breakthrough of italian design. We have seen how the young Italian republic found its form through some rather turbulent political struggles, and had a look at state intervention in Italian industry. Adding a very brief survey of the industrial structure, I have described some aspects of the structural framing that is necessary for the understanding of the breakthrough of Italian functionalist design in the golden years. The main entrepreneur of the following events was Alberto Rosselli, probably the most active and influential person within the core environment. He cooperated with an already established designer and main character in Italian architecture and design, Gió Ponti.

24. The other awards went to: The automatic rifle 48 AL by Mario Antonio Franchi for Luigi Franchi, the fisherman's vest Italia by Araldo Sasone for Contex Borgomanero, the table service Colonna by Giovanni Gariboldi for Richard Ginori, the soap container for travels by Franco De Martini for Atkin- sons, the iron chair DU30 by Gastone Rinaldi for RIMA, the children's chair in plywood by Carlo De Carli for Cassina, the table lamp by Gino Sarfatti for Arteluce, the toy monkey in foam-rubber Zizi by Bruno Munari for Pigomma, the vase by Flavio Poli for Seguso, the briefcase 24 ore by Giovanni Fontana for Valextra, the table fan Zerowatt V.E.505 by Ezio Pirali for Fabbriche Elettroniche Riunite, the kitchen by Augusto Magnaghi for SAFFA, and finally the stamped plastic by Max Huber for Stabilimenti di Ponte Lambro. The latter is one of the rare examples of graphic design awarded a Compasso d'Oro.

62 We also saw that the extremely favorable economic, industrial and political conditions made for a powerful boost of Italian industrial design in the mid-fifties. In addition, we saw that actors and institutions such as Rosselli and Compasso d’Oro clearly were- products of their contemporary society as well as contributors to the alterations within the sphere they were operating. Rosselli was the ultimate functionalist, with his extreme faith in correct and honest design and the possibilities inherent in the rapid industrial and economical development.

The Compasso d’Oro in its early stage was both an instrument for and a consequence of, functionalist ideology. The focus was less explicitly socialistic, and had turned towards a preoccupation with rationally designed objects. But the distaste for luxury and unnecessary complexity was still at the very base of the common creed.

In the next chapter, I will look into the other major reason for my defining 1954 as the big breakthrough, the X Triennale. The X edition was a Triennale completely dominated by design, and was a success both among the public and most critics. It also hosted the first international congress on design in Italy, which set the standard for discussions on design in the years to come.

4 The awakening

“Today, the tenth Triennale [...] aspires to be, not a merchandise fair nor an exhibition of master- pieces [...], but a battle for the house, for the city of this new, open, liberal, progressive humanity.”1 Recliner P40 Des: O. Borsani, Prod: Tecno (1954)

This quote from the communist newspaper La Voce Comunista’s review of the X Tri- ennale in 1954 exemplifies the exhibition’s unifying character. It won the approval of those concerned with the social tasks and the battle for a more “progressive humanity”, something which the VIII edition in 1947 also had managed but the IX edition in 1951 completely failed to do. But as we shall se, the X Triennale was much more than a revival of the sentiments which had dominated the days of the reconstruction.

The previous chapter showed the institutional newcomers marking the breakthrough of Italian design in 1954, the Compasso d’Oro and Stile Industria. We saw how the missionaries of functionalism through these institutions improved the promotion of their message. In this chapter I will examine the other main event of the same year, the X Triennale. It would turn out to be one of the most successful editions in the institution’s history, and above all the “Triennale of design”.

The questions to be answered in this chapter are: How did the Triennale develop according to the improved economy and the increase in industrial production? In what way was the X edition different from the previous editions, and how did these changes arise? And in what way would the X Triennale and the actors involved influence Italian design and society for the years to come?

In this chapter I will first explain how the X Triennale came into being, the journey from the collapsed economy of the former edition to the opening. Then I will examine the

1. Antonio Banfi, “Discutiamo della Triennale come di una nostra battaglia” in La Voce comunista, (15 settembre 1954)

65 exhibition’s different features, underlining the X Triennale’s strong focus on design. Subsequently, I will present the international conference on industrial design, and discuss how it influenced the Italian design environment.

4.1 The birth of a new Triennale

In his “obituary” of the IX Triennale, Gió Ponti expressed his grief over the fact that all the work done and all the projects realized during the exhibition never would see the light of day again. He proposed a more permanent organization of the Triennale, so that important and useful know-how more easily could be passed on to coming editions.2 Such a continuance of knowledge had been one of the principle arguments for establishing the Centro Studi, but the continuous operation of the Triennale organization, as we know it today, still lay far ahead.

In the same article, Ponti stressed the importance of starting the planning of the X Tri- ennale immediately. In his optimistic manner, he hoped that an early start, improved cooperation and the use of recycled know-how would result in a “perfect Triennale”.3 A rather pretentious expectation, of course, but the X edition clearly would show that the Triennale had matured.

Ponti’s ambitions could be interpreted in two ways; First; a purely unselfish wish to improve the circumstances for the X Triennale preparations after the IX edition flop. On the other hand, he could be seeking revenge. After all, he had withdrawn from the IX Triennale’s Giunta Esecutiva. Thus, his appeal could have been an attempt to assure that the X Triennale would be dominated by him and his likes. A combination of these two suggestions is probably the more plausible.

Due to the red figures of, and lack of public interest in the IX Triennale, the administration and organization of the Ente was paralyzed. As a result of this situation, the ratifi- cation of the nominations for the Consiglio d’Amministrazione did not take place until April 1953, more than a year later than what was stipulated in the statutes. In other

2. Gió Ponti, "Dalla IX alla X Triennale" in Domus, (dicembre 1951), p 1 3. Ibid., p 2

66 words; quite a different situation than the one Gió Ponti had requested.

The exhibition could not be postponed either, because of the tight schedule of the Bureau International des Expositions, creating a considerable time pressure on the X Triennale organs. So the preparations went on. Ivan Matteo Lombardo was re-elected Presidente della Triennale, and both Piero Bottoni, Raffaele Calzini and Adriano di Spilimbergo followed him from the former edition of the Consiglio d’Amministrazione.4

The Giunta Esecutiva was nominated in August 1953, merely a year prior to the opening. The five members represented different backgrounds, and hence different interests; architect and designer Carlo de Carli, sculptor Lucio Fontana, painter Mario Radice (member of MAC from 1948), painter Attilio Rossi and architect and designer Marco Zanuso. Piero Bottoni continued his work with the QT8, and Riccardo Bauer replaced Mario Melino as Centro Studi delegate to the Consiglio d’Amministrazione.5

The Giunta Esecutiva was diversified, like its predecessor had been. But as opposed to the previous edition, the new Giunta Esecutiva laid their differences aside and decided to create a common direction for the X Triennale.

4.2 X Triennale 1954

In spite of great cultural differences within the Giunta Esecutiva, an agreement on the program of the X Triennale was achieved. Emerging from this, confirming the presup- positions of the former edition, the X Triennale program appreciated the new relationship between the world of art and the world of industrial production as an important problem. In other words; the need for industrial design, or more specifically, functionalistic industrial design

The exhibition opened as planned on August 28, 1954.6 On the opening day, Ivan Matteo Lombardo presented the organizers’ aspirations for the X Triennale. Industrial design should be offered much attention, more so than at any other edition. He said:

4. Anty Pansera, Storia e Cronaca della Triennale (Milano: Longanesi, 1978), p 75 5. Ibid. 6. Catalogo della Decima Triennale (Milano: Centro Studi Triennale, 1954) p 20

67 “It is in relation to this interpretation of art as something never arbitrary or merely decorative, but fundamental and necessary, that this Decima Triennale in its program has fronted: 1) The unity, and hence the correlation of the arts, and 2) the collaboration between the world of art and the world of industrial production. The substance of the solutions that the Triennale proposes to these two problems rises from a single field of research, the functionality of art. In this sense, painting and sculpture resolve [...], not as ornamentation, but as elements of, or essential commitment to architecture. Architecture presents itself as moment of perfect correspondence and almost reversibility, between technology and expression; industrial production springs to our attention due to industrial “form”, where the “form” never is something externally applied, but is the most appropriate, and thus most splendid expression, that spontaneously flourishes in constructions, utensils and objects, when these are technically concluded.”7

The first of the two points Lombardo refers to here, the unity and correlation of the arts, was a vision which was often mentioned in the discussions on the Triennali’s function. The second point, the collaboration between the world of art and the world of industrial production, must be viewed as one of the major issues for the core environment within Italian design. And in this period, the relation design - industry seemed more important to the missionaries of functionalism than it had only few years earlier. The same issue was fronted as the main concern both in connection with Compasso d’Oro and in Stile Industria. This being one of two central points in the program says everything about how industrial design would dominate the X Triennale.

The president went on, explaining the position industrial products had achieved in modern society:

“In this context, Aristotle’s definition of beauty as the splendor of truth could assume a new sense of most current interest. We have arrived, not as one might think, at a sort of industrialization of art or “aestheticization” of technology, but at that ideal place, equally distant from the calligraphy of academics as from a blind technological determinism, where the product of technology, escaping from the shapeless accident, enters the sphere of art, while this latter - rejecting every unfounded attitude, abandoning every capricious and proud personalistic whim - assume a precise civil- and social function. The experiences of this Decima Triennale must be understood in this sense and in this direction.”8

His speech expresses, in a very articulate manner, the wide-felt and indisputable faith in functionalist ideology so prominent in the years to come. The notion of having

7. Ivan Matteo Lombardo, “Proposti e realtá della Decima Triennale” in Catalogo della Decima Trien- nale (Milano: Centro Studi Triennale, 1954) p 22-23 8. Ibid.

68 reached, or being close to reaching the highest level of development through the methods and beliefs of one’s own time, is hardly exceptional from a historical point of view, but it seems extremely unison and expressive in this period.

4.3 The exhibition

Like at the two previous Triennali, one exhibition was dedicated to industrial design (also the XI Triennale in 1957 featured a separate industrial design exhibition, but after that it disappeared for a long period). But also other exhibitions, especially those related to furniture, offered a contribution to industrial design. "La Mostra della casa"9 reconstructed a series of housings to show how it was possible to replace unsuitable, i.e. traditional inventory with elements projected in harmony with the designated surroundings. The catalogue stresses that the section was constructed as authentic apartments, denouncing in advance possible allegations of avoiding social responsibility.

“Presenting the residences’ internal structures and their interiors as complementary elements, [la Triennale] has wanted to present an absolutely realistic experience. The chosen residences are not projected as abstract ideals, but realized, or being realized as parts of economic housing projects by public agencies and industrial corporations, and they are reconstructed in the Palazzo dell’Arte virtually identical”10

This section was clearly an attempt to continue the theme of the VIII Triennale, i.e. public housing. Following the general developments in the society, it was not as “proletarian” as the 1947 edition. Still, it focused on reasonable, functional habitat, showing alternatives to traditional middle class taste. The emphasis on the social task was still clear, but less extreme than during the first post-war years. But functionalistic ideology was turning its attention more and more toward the relation with industry. In other words; from reconstruction to industrial expansion.

At the X Triennale, the traditional sections dominated by arts and crafts - ceramics, glass, fabrics, silver and gold, etc. - were arranged within the collective exhibition “Mostra merceologica”.11 Such a re-organization eased both navigation and compre-

9. Co-ordinated by V. Latis, I. Diotallevi, G.C. Malchiodi, V. Gandolfi, M. Labó, E. Ratti, P.L. Spadolini, F. Melotti and G. Migneco 10. M. Labó in Catalogo della Decima Triennale (Milano: Centro Studi Triennale, 1954) p 37

69 hension among the visitors, but might also have isolated and diminished arts and crafts, given the industrial profile of the X Triennale in general.

"La Mostra del mobile singolo"12 insisted on the necessity of conceptualizing the furniture as utility articles and forms, and showed recent Italian production and prototypes about to be put into serial production, alongside foreign examples, above all Scandi- navian.13

The two following sections proposed how the furniture showed in "La Mostra del mobile singolo" could be applied to housing environments. “La Mostra dello standard”14 consisted of an apartment - unrealistically big, one might claim - equipped with the furniture mentioned above, demonstrating the “possibilities opening up to those who use serial produced furniture in the house.”15 “La Mostra di ambienti”16 suggested three complete apartments, more modest in its dimensions (ca. 50 m2). The contribution from Ponti, Fornaroli, Frattini and Rosselli was a monolocale, where they wanted to include all facilities of modern life, in spite of limited space. Giovanni Gariboldi’s studio-soggiorno aimed to show interior flexibility. Osvaldo Borsani equipped his part exclusively with furniture from Tecno S.p.a., one of Italy’s leading manufacturers, known for technologically advanced production and use of modern materials.17

Industrial design dominated the X Triennale to such an extent that architecture hardly was left any space. There were no traditional architectural exhibitions at the Palazzo dell’Arte. Design and industry was the agenda, and this was probably expressed most precisely in the “Mostra della industrializzazione edilizia e della prefabbricazione sper- imentale”18 (exhibition of building industrialization and experimental prefabrication) and the “Mostra degli elementi costruttivi nell’edilizia”19 (exhibition of building con-

11. Co-ordinated by U. Zimelli, V. Latis, S. Asti, F. Helg, E. Reggio Alberti and S. Favre 12. Co-ordinated by F. Albini, F. Berlanda, L. Fratino, E. Freyrie, G. and N. Valle, B. Cassinari and E. Rambaldi 13. Anty Pansera, Storia del disegno industriale italiano (Bari: Laterza, 1993), p 128 14. Co-ordinated by I. Caccia Dominioni, C. Casati, I. Gardella, V. Magistretti, M. Righini, L. Minguzzi and E. Morlotti 15. Catalogo della Decima Triennale (Milano: Centro Studi Triennale, 1954) p 105 16. Co-ordinated by M. Bega, O. Borsani, G. Ponti, A. Fornaroli, G.F. Frattini and A. Rosselli 17. Catalogo della Decima Triennale (Milano: Centro Studi Triennale, 1954) p 111-114 18. Co-ordinated by M. Grisotti 19. Co-ordinated by E. Gentili-Tedeschi, G. Ciribini, A. Calvarino, R. Donatelli, F. Longoni, G. Pericoli, C. Santi and G. Veneziani

70 struction elements). The titles say it all: The only sections resembling exhibitions of architecture dealt with the relation between construction and industry, in other words bringing architecture closer to the world of industrial design by introducing aspects of serial production to architecture as well.

In the park, architecture found room to breathe; two of Buckminster Fuller’s famous geodesic domes, housing the USA pavilion, accompanied by several experimental houses designated for different environments, including Casa unifamiliare di serie by Ponti, Fornaroli and Rosselli. But the project most clearly expressing the program’s intention to develop a “uniform relation between architecture, painting and sculpture”20 was probably the labirinto dei ragazzi (labyrinth for children) by Belgioioso, Peressutti, Rogers, Steinberg and Calder. The construction of curved interlocking walls combined elements from the different arts, but more important, it involved the public in its function. They wanted to create a symbiosis between object and Man.

The foreign participation at the X Triennale counted most of the West European countries - Spain, England, Germany, France, Austria, Switzerland, Holland, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland - and USA, Canada and Israel. In accordance with the general program of the 1954 manifestation, were the foreign contributors instructed to dedicate their sections to industrial design. Norway was represented at the Triennale for the first time. The exhibition, coordinated by Ferdinand Aars and Arne Korsmo, received many words of praise despite the predominance of arts and crafts. Gió Ponti even called the Norwegian section “this year’s revelation”.21

4.4 The industrial design exhibition

The industrial design exhibition at the X Triennale, co-ordinated by Achille & Pier Gia- como Castiglioni, Marcello Nizzoli, Alberto Rosselli et. al.22, would prove to be the most significant section of the 1954 edition. In the catalogue, Morello explained the intentions of, and the background for the exhibition:

20. Catalogo della Decima Triennale (Milano: Centro Studi Triennale, 1954) 21. Gió Ponti, "Saluto alla Decima Triennale Augurio alla Undicesima" in Domus 302, (gennaio 1955), p 2 22. Roberto Menghi, Augusto Morello, Lorenzo Pepe, Michele Provinciali and Mauro Reggiani

71 “Mostra dell’Industrial Design” - the industrial design exhibition at the X Triennale (1954)

“Industrial design promotes the problem of form in the industrial production process, thus constituting the fundamental intersection between art and industry. Its history starts with our century, with the decadence of the artisan, and reaches with Bauhaus [...] its first theoretical formulations and modern realizations. The evolution of the principles characteriz- ing the work at Bauhaus lead [...] to the formation of industrial design schools [...], to the constitution of organs and associations of designers, whose members contributed to industry’s qualitative improvement of production. This section’s committee has wanted to show [...] the recent results of this renewed collaboration between technology and fan- tasy.”23

Morello here announced Bauhaus as point of departure for the theoretical formation of industrial design and functionalistic practice. And he explained the exhibition as an attempt to show how far this development had come in terms of realizing the modern- istic project. It was typical for functionalism at its peak to consider the development of industrial design as a linear function starting with Bauhaus. But Morello also emphasized technology, production and industry more that what had been done in the late forties.

Alberto Rosselli was also very enthusiastic in his comments on the X Triennale in Stile Industria. He argued that mass production, if proper industrial design methods were applied, was not a hazard to society, but rather quite the opposite.

23. Augusto Morello, “Mostra dell’Industrial Design” in Catalogo della Decima Triennale (Milano: Centro Studi Triennale, 1954) p 129

72 “From the quantity of mass produced objects which has achieved a perfection in design such as to justify their presence at this exhibition, from the knowledge of the width of industrial production’s limits and from the increasingly tight and decisive relation the latter has acquired with life and modern society, we extract the moral significance of the work we are engaged in.”24

Thus, to Rosselli, industrial design was not only the proper vehicle for improving our way of life, but also a moral task symbiotic with modern society. He elaborates:

“The utensil, while acquiring its personality, its beauty, also becomes an expression for a more vital and sensible society, for a more extensive culture, truly universal. The number, the series, the quantity, do not anymore represent a discouraging prospect, an insecurity in the coming of our industrial epoch, but [...] they supply the vehicle for a new aesthetic experience, homogenous and cohering to every manifestation of our life.”25

It is obvious that Rosselli’s agenda exceeded the sphere of design. His visions were that culture and society as a whole would improve through the implementation of functionalistic design theory.

Alberto Rosselli also interpreted the Industrial Design exhibition as being much more than an attempt to show the aesthetic aspects of products. He stressed number, series, quantity - which to the artisan was a threat, but to the designer the ultimate goal of modern times. The exhibition also clarifies what should be the constant values of research on the correct form of an object - the relation between form and function, between form and mechanics, between form and production methods, and between form and market.

“This analysis directs the public’s attention to the most significant design details of many products: In a telephone, the interest in some functional details which also promote perfection in design is emphasized; in a door handle, the study of a better hand grip which gives the form new characteristics; in a plastic cup, the form of the handle and the perfect junction of the parts constitute the motive for research connected to new materials; in a sink, the new form derives from overcoming traditional concepts and from analysis of the dimensions and the nature of the material.”26

This is a representative example of the polemic character of most of the editorials in Stile Industria, and Rosselli used them as propaganda for his “cause”, constantly

24. Alberto Rosselli, "L’oggetto d’uso alla Triennale" in Stile Industria 2, (ottobre 1954), p 1 25. Ibid. 26. Alberto Rosselli, "“Industrial Design” alla X Triennale" in Stile Industria 2, (ottobre 1954), p 2

73 underlining the importance of incorporating the functionalist design ideology in industrial production and enlightening the public on these issues. They became an important part in the core environment’s mission - constructing the modernist empire.

But, as we have seen, the editorials commenting the Triennale were more celebrative in their approach. It seems like he felt the need to take a break from the constant rally- ing for the implementation of his functionalistic agenda, and hail the results of successful examples. Nevertheless, he never ceased to use these examples to encourage to further improvement.

In a Domus editorial, Gió Ponti praised the X Triennale as yet another triumph, and argued for its unique position in both the local sphere and international design circles:

“The Milanese Triennale, with its tenth edition, has once again proved its validity as a vital manifestation of art, as an international manifestation, as a milanese manifestation. A vital manifestation in the field of arts because it responds to a genuine interest in the solution of the aesthetic problems in relation to our life, our culture and customs, in all their aspects, technical and formal. [...] La Triennale was born as a exhibition “of modern decorative and applied arts”, was biennale and assumed for these arts the function which the venetian Biennale filled for the “fine arts”. From this ingenuous start, it has developed its function to an increasing level of importance, also embracing architecture. Today, it is one of the most important exhibitions in the world, and I am happy to have dedicated to its beginning and development much of my life and of the striking power of this magazine, which, as a mirror of Italian arts, is a continuing Triennale.”27

Both Ponti and Rosselli were, as demonstrated above, praising the X Triennale in a manner which in retrospect seems uncritical to an alarming degree, especially considering their journalistic responsibility. But it would be a hasty and unreasonable judge- ment to label them inattentive or yes-men. There are two reasons why their writings are both understandable and sincere: Ponti had been an active contributor to the Tri- ennali exhibitions for a long time, as organizer as well as exhibitor. At the 1954 edition, Rosselli, being both Ponti’s colleague and son-in-law, joined in on this “sitting on both sides of the table”. The two designers and architects were represented with individual and collective works in several sections, in addition to their organizing tasks. Bearing this in mind, the intonation of their editorials becomes quite obvious. All these hats they wore also bring forward the temptation to disqualify their writings, but it

27. Gió Ponti, "La X Triennale é in corso" in Domus 299, (ottobre 1954), p 1

74 would be premature and suspicious to do so. Their writings must be seen in the light of their situation. Gió Ponti and Alberto Rosselli had dedicated their life to industrial design and functionalism, and were missionaries for “the good cause”. The size of the inner circle of italian design in this period implicated that a handful prime movers took part in more or less every event or activity related to design.

It is not likely that the magazine directors Ponti and Rosselli would compromise the integrity of their cause by protecting the exhibitors / organizers Ponti and Rosselli even if it should have proven desirably. Another important filter to apply to the reading of the text, is the historical perspective. It is crucial to remember that the writers did not possess any of our knowledge about what was to happen in their future. To us, their hopes and descriptions may seem somewhat naïve, but the contemporary obser- vations of the X Triennale constitute an important “subjective truth”.

The development of the Triennali through the VIII (1947), IX (1951) and X (1954) editions followed a clearly dialectic pattern. I launched this theory when discussing the extreme differences between the VIII and the IX Triennali in chapter two. The “proletarian” Triennale in 1947 caused a reaction, or anti-thesis, which materialized in the heterogeneous 1951 edition dominated by bourgeoise preferences. As we have seen, the X Triennale had an articulated social focus, but not as extreme and biassed as the VIII edition. It focused on the relation design - industry and thematically it covered a wide range, but not as undirected as the IX edition. Hence, the X Triennale could be interpreted as the synthesis emerging from the two previous editions.

4.5 Congresso dell’Industrial Design

Industrial design dominated the X Triennale. In addition to the exhibition, an international congress of industrial design, arranged by the Centro Studi Triennale28, took place during three October days in 1954.29 The congress was among the first arenas for theoretical discussions on industrial design. Different topics regarding industrial

28. The executive committee consisted of Enzo Paci (president), Giulio Carlo Argan, Ernesto Frua, Gino Martinoli, Berto Marucchio, Marcello Nizzoli, Ernesto Nathan Rogers, Enrico Peressutti and Marco Zanuso. 29. October 28 - 30

75 design, like function, structure, market and fabrication methods were debated, and resulted in a relatively precise, yet extensive definition of the concept of industrial design.30 The time was more than ripe for such a disclosure, considering the problems regarding the consolidation of the profession and its relationship with society and industry. It did not by any means end that discussion, but helped formalize it into being less of a fumble in the dark.

The congress fits the pattern of 1954 perfectly - the year when virtually every initiative taken regarding industrial design became reality. Alberto Rosselli welcomes the event with great anticipation:

“the first international congress of industrial design in Italy responds to a national demand currently due, and connects unambiguously to the announced program of the X Trien- nale.”31

Designers, artists, industrialists and journalists from all over the western world, but first and foremost from North America, showed great interest in this Italian initiative.32 Hence, the gathering contributed to draw attention to the Triennale in general as well. Each of the three days had a specified agenda. The first day was dedicated to “Indus- trial design and culture” (conducted by Giulio Carlo Argan33), the second day dealt with “Industrial design and production processes” (conducted by Konrad Wachs- mann34) and the third day considered “Industrial design in society” (conducted by Max Bill35). Several other international capacities contributed to the congress as well.36

Under the heading “Industrial design and culture”, Enzo Paci (president of the congress’ executive committee) and Giulio Carlo Argan underlined the importance of incorporating design in the planning of all human activities, and that design should

30. Anty Pansera, Storia del disegno industriale italiano (Bari: Laterza, 1993), p 125 31. Alberto Rosselli, "Notiziario della X Triennale - Il Congresso dell’Industrial Design" in Stile Industria 2, (ottobre 1954), p 22 32. Ibid. 33. Professor and central technical inspector for the Italian Ministry of public education 34. Professor of industrial design at Illinois Institute of technology 35. Head of the Hochschule für Gestaltung - Ulm 36. E.g. Architecture historian Nikolaus Pevsner from London, professor of industrial design Gyorgy Kepes from Massachusetts Institute of Technology, professor Enzo Paci from Universitá di Pavia, architect and designer Ernesto Nathan Rogers, designer Walter Teague from New York, engineer Gino Martinoli, designer and professor Marcello Nizzoli from Politecnico di Milano, engineer Leonardo Sinsigalli and architect and designer Marco Zanuso.

76 also include formal planning on the most basic level, i.e. urbanistics, in order to keep design from serving capital.37 Paci claimed that industrial design “stands between art and society”. This was yet another example of how design was commonly viewed as a way of improving society through material culture.

On the second day, Wachsmann and Teague talked about “Industrial design and production processes”. Although Italian and North American design were separated by an ideological and conceptual ocean bigger than the Atlantic, Italians respected the tradition for and the great extent of incorporation of design in North American industry. Their experiences with industrial design in large scale production gave authority to the words of Wachsmann and Teague.

Their concern was mainly the designer’s creative process and how to apply the results to the production. Wachsmann stressed the importance of inventing genuinely new forms. Distrusting imagination as the source of inspiration, because of its reliance on existing forms, he pointed to material and structural research to enable invention beyond imagination. Here we see the division between the “old” and traditional and the “new” and modern. He claimed, along with Teague, that such a process could only be achieved by collaboration in groups. It was necessary to divide artisan and industrial designer in the sense that whereas the traditional artist found all the skills needed from idea to product within himself, the artist of modern society can only create within the framework of a team.38

The two North Americans’ focus on design as team work underlines one of the major differences between design theory in the USA and in Europe. In the USA, the large cooperations had employed industrial designers who worked in teams developing products. Industry had embraced design as a tool for promoting sales. In Europe, designers normally operated on their own, as consultant designers working on a freelance basis.

37. Enzo Paci, Giulio Carlo Argan, “Disegno industriale e cultura” in Le arti, number dedicated to the X Triennale, (1954) 38. Carlo Santi, "Il I Congresso Internazionale di Industrial Design alla X Triennale" in Stile Industria 3, (gennaio 1955), p 44

77 In his relation on “Industrial design and society”, Max Bill firmly disagreed with the North Americans’ views on design. This was hardly surprising, considering the fact that he just had founded the Hochschule für Gestaltung in Ulm as a heir to Bauhaus, embracing the latter’s socialistic approach to design. Bill refused to see industrial design as a sale-promoting tool for the industry. Production methods did not interest him, because he believed in the unlimited possibilities of modern technology. What was important according to Bill, was the relation between object and man, object and society:

“Every object has to be at man’s service, and because the sum of men forms the human society, these objects have to solve a function in human and social life.”39

The Milanese scene must be said to hover somewhere between the socialist ideology here expressed so bluntly by Max Bill and the pragmatic capitalist interventions by Wachsmann and Teague. Carlo Santi comments in Stile Industria:

“The industrial designer’s work, concludes the American designer, is also in great demand from the industry because it is a factor of sales in a regime of free competition. This last argument illuminates the genesis and the evolution of this new form of expression in a capitalistic regime, but it does not explain the moral reasons at ground for this evolution which is inevitable because it is the result of the revaluation and the profound respect for the material existence of the ordinary man.”40

In other words, we see a deep fascination by the possibilities offered by huge productive machinery and the incorporated position held by Industrial design in the United States, but the Italian design scene was not willing to abandon their preoccupation with ideological, cultural and social concerns. In a sort of compromise, Santi summed up the results of the conference concluding that the industrial designer is:

“a complex figure which has to create the object through a process of synthesis, moulding form and mechanics. This seems to be the clear result of the congress, denying every “styling” or decorative “design” detached from the product.”41

Italian design needed to come closer to the North American way of production in order

39. Max Bill, quoted in: Anty Pansera, Storia e Cronaca della Triennale (Milano: Longanesi, 1978), p 78 40. Carlo Santi, "Il I Congresso Internazionale di Industrial Design alla X Triennale" in Stile Industria 3, (gennaio 1955), p 45 41. Ibid.

78 to fulfill its functionalist ideals because functionalism was based on effective mass production. But the Italian modernists, with their socialist agenda, were not too fond of the capitalist regime which they meant exploited industrial design as sales promoter. They strived to apply the positive aspects of what they saw on the other side of the Atlantic to their own ideology without importing what was seen as unhealthy side effects. This attempt succeeded only up to a certain point. As we shall see later on, the increasing similarity to the North American capitalist production system would be one of the processes contributing to the fall of functionalism.

Already in 1955, Alberto Rosselli expressed his concern regarding problems connected to detaching industrial production from culture and society. But he was quite optimistic in his approach, so it would be dangerous to interpret this as an omen.

“If we consider [the relation with production], the term “industrial design” itself, which derives from the United States, seems to restrict us to a specific development of the industrial process, which has reached a new phase where design [...] is inserted into production and itself becomes an active element and generator of economic values, equally to, or even more than good technology or good advertising. From this point of view, industrial design represents one of the fruits of a regime of free competition, in which particular economic and productive conditions have lead to the unstoppable increase in markets and hence to a succeeding search for a higher quality of the product.”42

Here Rosselli argued that industrial design defends its position in the production process and free market economy. If properly applied, design will increase the quality of the product. But the argument was based on an assumption that a reflective use of design in the production process was a result of big markets and advanced production methods. His question then, was whether integrated design processes could succeed in a country like Italy:

”Within these limits, the fulfillment of an original and vast design in our country would seem particularly difficult, or at least limited to those productions having reached such a level of development. [...] But it is evident, and everyday new examples, including Amer- ica’s own interest in our production, confirm it, that even if the limits which our industries are confined to necessarily are different, the possibilities so well known to our nature as artists and technicians remain alive all the same. [...] We refuse to consider “industrial design” as a “method” valid only for production and for sale.”43

42. Alberto Rosselli, "Incontro alla realtá" in Stile Industria 3, (gennaio 1955), p 1-2 43. Ibid.

79 Not surprisingly, Rosselli concluded that Italy was capable of establishing a framework for good design, but based on other principles. Italian design must be based on the characteristics of the nation and its people, i.e. tradition of art, culture, invention and technology. And yet again, Rosselli confirmed his dedication to functionalism by underlining that design was not to be exploited as merely a method to improve sales:

”In these last years, we have assisted a progressive crystallization of design within forms which can find their counterpart more in the “fashion” than in the true and real research of shape. A copied and not interpreted American fashion risks the hazard of sacrificing, in Europe, and hence also in our country, those forces which incorporate the true elements of originality.”44

What Rosselli stressed here, was the importance of continuing the positive development Italian design was experiencing, and be careful not to adopt American styling. Despite his admiration for industrial production in the United States, Rosselli always considered styling unsuitable for European conditions, and too commercial. But at the same time, he commented that the success of Italian design in the United States was not entirely positive. He feared that it was merely an “antidote for the monotony of the standard, a style imported for the sake of sales”45 However, both sides of this story reflected Rosselli’s mission - making design a tool for producing honest and functional objects, avoiding the perils of capitalism and fashion.

Italian design did not let go of its cultural connections to become capitalistic like industrial design in the USA, but much of what lay ahead would take directions far from those advocated by Rosselli.

The first industrial design congress in Italy confirmed that it was a complex field, but that it could be fruitful to debate issues despite difference of opinions. The subjects of discussion would follow the evolution of industrial design for years to come, and most of them are relevant even today.

44. Ibid. 45. Ibid.

80 4.6 Conclusion

This chapter has examined the X Triennale and its implications. We saw how the “Tri- ennale of design” was planned and organized in very short time, and still becoming a great success among both critics and the public. The exhibition became a manifestation of the position industrial design was about to seize in Italy - prosperous, but still idealistic and eager.

The international conference on industrial design was welcomed with enthusiasm, and created a vivid debate on the nature and function of design as professional activity. The result was something close to a common consciousness within the Italian design environment on their own aims and purposes. The most important part of this result was the construction of an “Italian way”. As we saw, both the American commercial- ized design and the strictly socialistic German Ulm-school were represented at the conference. By negotiating between the “American way” and the “German way”, the synthesis, or “Italian way” was constructed.

The hopes and thoughts expressed by Ivan Matteo Lombardo in his opening speech may have been somewhat excessive regarding the synthèse des arts majeurs, but his views upon the importance of industrial design surely were reflected in the manifestation of the X Triennale. Never before or after in the institution’s history has industrial design dominated the Triennale so completely as it did in 1954. Adding to this picture the birth of both the award Compasso d’Oro and the magazine Stile Industria, it is clear that 1954 represents an enormous boom for Italian design, at least measured by institutional standards.

The X Triennale aspired to analyze the relation between “art” and “production”, hence showing the proceeding accelerating process of transition already in progress. Never- theless, it can not be said to have been achieved on the primary level. It is doubtful whether the exhibiting sculptors, artisans, designers and architects felt that their work was becoming one dynamic entity, which was the organizer’s aim.

The shift from craft economy to industrial economy, with the corresponding alterations

81 in the cultural- and social landscape. The profound changes in the structures was, more rapidly than ever, reflected in the ideas, the way of life, the customs and the absorption of mythical images from a world not longer so far away.

Joining the events and institutions discussed in the previous chapter - the founding of Compasso d’Oro and Stile Industria - the X Triennale completes the image of the year 1954 as the big breakthrough for Italian design. The political, economical, industrial and cultural structures were favorable, and the functionalist ideas celebrated victory after victory. Industrial design became institutionalized, vital and visible.

In the next chapter, I will look into the events of the next few years, presenting the XI Triennale, the evolution of the Compasso d’Oro and the founding of the Associazione per il Disegno Industriale (ADI). These years after the breakthrough were full of optimism on behalf of the future of functionalism.

82 5 A glimpse of paradise

“We do not possess riches of production materials, but historically and through our sense of Car 500 vocation, we possess first class cerebral materi- Des: D. Giacosa, Prod: FIAT (1956) als; the world has, generously and with confidence, showed its appreciation and expects from us those things we produce according to a tradition of purity and logic.”1

The two previous chapters dealt with the breakthrough of functionalistic Italian design, more precisely the events of 1954. This chapter will explore the following “golden years”, discussing the development of new institutions and the direction of ideology and production.

What happened after the breakthrough of Italian functionalistic design? How did Ital- ian design develop in the years to come? How did the central actors balance their message between social responsibility and relations with industry? The task at hand is to answer these questions in order to establish whether the functionalistic ideology was merely a castle in Spain, or if its advocates’ conviction would prevail.

In this chapter, I will first follow the second (1955) and third (1956) edition of the Com- passo d’Oro, emphasizing the awarded products and the juries’ opinions. Then I will examine the founding of the Associazione per il Disegno Industriale (ADI) (1956). In the latter part of the chapter I will discuss the XI Triennale (1957) and the fourth Com- passo d’Oro (1957).

1. Gió Ponti, "Una mostra permanente di disegno industriale al Museo della Scienza e della Tecnica" in Stile Industria 9, (dicembre 1956), p 33

83 Bucket KS 1146 Chair Lusia Des: G. Colombini, Prod: Kartell (1955) Des: F. Albini, Prod: Poggi (1955)

5.1 II Compasso d’Oro 1955

While the products competing for the first edition of the Compasso d’Oro in 1954 spanned over the last few years, the ones competing for the 1955 edition obviously were a result of the last year's innovation alone. 280 companies delivered 1300 items to the jury, which selected 130 of these to be showed at the Circolo della Stampa di Milano. Twelve Compassi d'Oro were assigned to the following products:2

The round table with steel legs by Salvatore Alberio for Arform, the chair Lusia by Franco Albini for Poggi, the lamps by Gino Sarfatti for Arteluce, the lamp Luminator by Achille and Pier Giacomo Castiglioni for Girardi & Barzaghi, the glasses and saucers by Umberto Nason for Nason & Moretti, the thermos flask Original Verex by Egon Pfe- ifer for Dewas, the ice bucket by Bruno Munari for Tre A., the bucket in polyethylene by Colombini for Kartell, the vacuum cleaner Elchim by Giuseppe De Göetzen for Chiminello, the water skis Universal by Enrico Freyrie, the rain coat Dolomiti by Ubaldo Dreina for Sangiorgio, and the fabric Arcobaleno by Gianni Dova for JSA.

Compared to the first edition, the number of products handed in to the jury dropped from 5700 to 1300 and the participating companies from 470 to 280. This was of course a consequence of the much smaller time span the 1955 Compasso d’Oro included. Nevertheless, the numbers indicate a great interest shown by the industry.

2. A. Grassi, A. Pansera, L'Italia del design - Trent'anni di dibattito (Casale Monferrato: Marietti, 1986), p 30

84 The jury of the II Compasso d'Oro was identical with the first one, with the exemption that Ernesto N. Rogers, architect, designer, director of Casabella substituted Gió Ponti. There were no fundamental changes in the judging criteria neither. The jury declared that it would "adapt itself to the basic principles of the report from the 1954 jury", emphasizing functionality, technical solutions and economic values. The jury confirmed how the recent important initiatives to a certain degree had been imple- mented, but deplored how the industrial companies still did not appreciate the importance of good relations with the designers:

"In the best of cases, the designer is called for to collaborate with the development department when the structure of the object is already fixed and defined in detail, and when the economic and material problems are decided, so that the work of the designer becomes conditioned such as not allowing him the freedom of choice desirable for him to contribute to the renewal of the production."3

The industry might have shown great interest in design, but according to the jury, the industry did not take the consequences of that interest. As we discussed in the previous chapter, the main problem was still that the companies failed to incorporate designers from the very beginning of the product development process. In that way, design became more of an extra feature than a tool for developing the product from the planning phase.

However, the industry got a little "pat on the shoulder" in the declaration of the positiv- ity in "...the quantitative effort by the industry and the craftsmen who have demonstrated intensity of work and a will to renewal". But the jury kept asking for "conceptual simplicity" and for an

"...aesthetic adherence to usage, function, production technology and economic problems, considering that the value of a product and its importance on the market are closely related to the quality of the given solutions, not only to one but to the entire series of the project's problems."4

In this way the jury wanted to remove all doubt about the need for improvement in the methods for product development in Italian industry. The missionaries had gained the

3. From the jury's report, reproduced in A. Grassi, A. Pansera, Atlante del design italiano 1940/1980 (Milano: Fabbri, 1984), p 36 4. Ibid.

85 industry’s attention, but had a harder time convincing industry that rather drastic measures had to be taken in order to improve the quality of the production. The measure that had to be taken was to integrate design from the first step of the product development process. Only in this way could the designers reach their goals.

With the second edition the Gran Premio Nazionale and the Gran Premio Internazion- ale Compasso d'Oro5 were instituted and assigned respectively to Adriano Olivetti and Marcel Breuer. The purpose of this honorary award was to "...acknowledge not a single production, but the institutions and personalities of greatest importance in the field of industrial design."6

5.2 III Compasso d’Oro 1956

The essential numbers of the III Compasso d'Oro in 1956 were 1450 items suggested by 285 companies, of which 96 were selected for the exhibition at the Circolo della Stampa di Milano.7 In other words not very different from the II edition, but the number of assigned Compassi were reduced to nine:

Stainless steel trays by Roberto Sambonet for Sambonet, kitchen utensils by A Lagostina for Lagostina, polyethylene pail by Roberto Menghi for Smalterie Meridion- ali, fishing reel Atlantic by Carlo Alinari for L'Alcedo, suede calves-leather suitcase Arcata by Natale Beretta for Beretta, toiletry articles by Max Bill for Verbania, sewing machine Superautomatica mod. 1102 by Marco Zanuso for Borletti, electromechani- cal clock Cifra 5 by Gino Valle for Solari and the carpet Jungla Giuseppe Ajmone for Pugi.

The jury explained this reduction as a necessary and “natural” development:

"The number of awards is smaller than the ones of the preceding years: the contingent of the awards are slowly stabilizing to reach that medium permitted by the Italian productive

5. The jury consisted of Ivan Matteo Lombardo, president of the Triennale, Duke Tommaso Gallarati Scotti, president of the Fiera Campionaria di Milano, Umberto Brustio, president of La Rinascente, Sir Herbert Read, president of the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London and Gió Ponti, architect, director of Domus. 6. Alberto Rosselli, "Affermazione del disegno industriale" in Stile Industria 6, (1956), p 17 7. A. Grassi, A. Pansera, Atlante del design italiano 1940/1980 (Milano: Fabbri, 1984), p 39

86 Sewing machine 1102 superautomatica Bucket Des: M. Zanuso, Prod: Borletti (1956) Des: R. Menghi, Prod: Smalterie Meridi- onali (1956) rhythm".8

In other words; a reduction in the number of awards was necessary due to the Com- passo d’Oro’s annual schedule. While the first edition could consider the entire production of several years, the situation was now that the awarded objects had to be found among the last year’s production.

But the reduced number of awards could also be interpreted as a signal to the industry. The jury was not satisfied with the results achieved by the industry. The interest had been established, but the industry had not taken full responsibility for their ambitions. Mostly, the industry had failed to integrate design completely in the product development process, and could thus not benefit fully from its potential.

The jury also lamented the scarce participation among the greater industries, along with a formal crisis in some fields like the radio-/television set production accused of not being as inventive as the comparable domestic appliances production. The furniture industry was criticized for its lack of vitality, while the kitchen utensils industry was praised for its adaptation to the use of the continually developing new materials and technology.9

For the '56 jury, Franco Albini and Pier Giacomo Castiglioni, architects and designers, joined Borletti, Brustio and Rosselli. The Gran Premio Nazionale was given to Gió

8. From the jury's report, reproduced in A. Grassi, A. Pansera, Atlante del design italiano 1940/1980 (Milano: Fabbri, 1984), p 37 9. A. Grassi, A. Pansera, L'Italia del design - Trent'anni di dibattito (Casale Monferrato: Marietti, 1986), p 46

87 Ponti, jury member the proceeding year. This kind of "intra family" role swapping was to be the rule rather than the exception in the Triennale committees, the magazines' editorial staff, the ADI and the Compasso d'Oro juries and winners. Not at all odd, given the situation, but important to bear in mind when studying the events. Ponti, in his speech at the ceremony offered his explanation of the peculiar position of Italian design: "We do not possess riches of production materials, but historically and through our sense of vocation, we possess first class cerebral materials", i.e. a natural talent for design, and elaborates:

"The world has, generously and with confidence, showed its appreciation and expects from us those things we produce according to a tradition of purity and logic. [...] This has been a success of an Italian way of viewing things exclusively according to essentiality and purity, as opposed to those considering them according to the buyers’ taste - interests which have nothing to do with any considerations of aesthetic values."10

What Ponti here seemed to point out, is what we in the previous chapter termed the third way; between German ideology and American commercialism. We see that the functionalistic values such as purity and essentiality were promoted at the expense of purely commercial design. Ponti did not seem to have much respect for “the buyers’ taste”. It was a widespread notion among the missionaries of functionalism that the public had to be taught to appreciate good design. This attitude could seem quite arrogant, but functionalistic design theory was based on the principle of objectivity. Good design was based on eternal truth, and was not a matter of subjective taste. In retrospect it is interesting to see these “positivist” ideas. It may seem as the modernist designers at no point had any doubts about the righteousness of their mission.

5.3 A design museum?

Another sign of this apparent success of industrial design was the initiatives which were taken to establish a design museum.

The 1956 Gran Premio Internazionale Compasso d’Oro went to the Museum of Mod- ern Art in New York (MOMA) for being "...first among the museums of the world in col- lecting and exposing along with the greatest works of contemporary art the best

10. In Stile Industria 9, (1956)

88 examples of industrial production".11 And during this same event, Ponti made the first official statement on an idea he had worked on for several years; the setting up of a section dedicated to industrial design in the Museo della Scienza e della Tecnica.

The museum had opened its doors to the public only in 1952, but Ponti and the museum's founder and director, engineer Ucelli had been discussing the matter through correspondence since 1947. The choice of location was important to them both, as a way of stressing the technical/functional aspects of design, and the planning of the exhibition space, which presupposed the relocation of the Museo Navale, was already to a great extent developed.12 In the occasion of his Gran Premio Nazion- ale, addressing Ucelli, Ponti explained how the time was ripe for

"...instituting in your museum (and not in any other, as some seems to think) that section of industrial design models, which is really the most relevant activity for a technical museum if it wants to be an institution participating to life and ongoing events and not simply a historical institution, or an asylum for old models (invalidity and old age of machines!)".

This view directly contrasted the one advocated by Giulio Carlo Argan, who at the Compasso d'Oro arrangement in his praising of the Museum of Modern Art proposed a similar solution in Italy. The same Argan was responsible for the 1953 exhibition "Arte e tecnica" at the very Museo della Scienza e della Tecnica.13

The dispute between Ponti and Argan illustrates an important question about the direction Italian design was taking. Ponti, in his characteristic modernist manner, wanted the design museum integrated in the Museo della Scienza e della Tecnica. He saw design as a natural part of science and technology. Argan wanted a concept similar to the MOMA, because he saw design as modern art. But on the axis between art / social task on one end and market / industry on the other, Italian design was slowly sliding closer toward the latter end.

For years, the museum question was widely debated: E.g. in the occasion of the five

11. From the jury's report, reproduced in A. Grassi, A. Pansera, Atlante del design italiano 1940/1980 (Milano: Fabbri, 1984), p 37 12. A. Grassi, A. Pansera, L'Italia del design - Trent'anni di dibattito (Casale Monferrato: Marietti, 1986), p 41 13. Anty Pansera, Storia del disegno industriale italiano (Bari: Laterza, 1993), p 123

89 years anniversary of the Museo della Scienza e della Tecnica in 1957, and in a 1961 ADI publication, where the assumption was made, that an agreement with the museum would be manifested within a short period of time, enable it to enter "...its definitive phase next year". This would not happen; in fact, the project was never to see the light of day. Anyhow - this debate illustrated two central elements of the current development: the actors needed to demonstrate the achievements of their mission. In addition the ongoing tension between design as an inseparable part of technology and design as art.

5.4 Associazione per il Disegno Industriale

Functionalism had now experienced its breakthrough e.g. through the X Triennale, the Compasso d’Oro and Stile Industria. Another example of Italian design’s increased vitality and presence was the foundation of the Associazione per il Disegno Industriale (ADI).

The first ADI assembly took place on April 6 1956 at the Museo della Scienza e della Tecnica in Milan. An organizing committee14 led by Alberto Rosselli and Giulio Castelli had worked for some months on the statute and sent out invitations to join the organization, and presented the results of its work on this first assembly. They had composed a statute, defining the ADI’s purpose and the guidelines for its activity.

The organization counted 90 members even before the official founding, so the establishment of the ADI must be seen as a formalization of an already existing network. On this April evening the members elected the first executive committee, marking the beginning of the official activities of the ADI. Not surprisingly, the executive committee consisted exclusively of organizing committee members: architect/designer Alberto Rosselli (president), architect/designer Enrico Peressutti, engineer/industrialist Giulio Castelli, architect/designer Antonio Pellezzari and graphic designer Albe Steiner.

14. The organizing committee consisted of: engineer Giulio Castelli, doctor Gillo Dorfles, architect Igna- zio Gardella, architect Vico Magistretti, architect Angelo Mangiarotti, graphic designer Bruno Munari, architect Marcello Nizzoli, doctor Antonio Pellizzari, architect Enrico Peressutti, architect Alberto Rosselli and graphic designer Albe Steiner.

90 The ADI was open for both companies and persons who in one way or another contributed to the promotion of industrial design. Representatives for both the economic, productive, technical and aesthetic aspects of the activity could take part, as well as critics and scholars.

“Such personalities which [...] contribute to the affirmation of the intentions on which the modern movement of industrial design are based can take part in the Association.”15

This fact that the ADI was to be an association for industrial design and not an association for industrial designers is important. It aimed to be an arena for all interested parties, and not exclusively for designers. The reason for this decision might have been the dissatisfaction with the industry’s achievements the missionaries of functionalism had expressed at the 1955 and 1956 Compasso d’Oro. By incorporating the industry in the ADI, these problems of communication and implementation could be solved more easily.

The organizing committee had set out points of activity which the ADI should promote: Exchange of experiences between the members, visits at factories, international activities, conferences, diffusion and documentation of the members’ professional activity, lobbying at governmental organizations, and support to all initiatives that can lead to the formation of specialized schools.16

Most of these points were followed quite closely during the first years of ADI’s life, e.g. through a visit at the motor cycle manufacturer Motom, and a meeting with Dante Gia- cosa (the designer of the FIAT 500).17 Other examples were a conference on the rela-

15. From the statute of the ADI 16. a) Exchange of experiences between the members, discussions on specific problems regarding personal experience, work in groups and production. Visits at factories and photographic and cine- matic documentation. b) International activities, invitations and reunions with persons and associations of industrial design in other countries. c) Conferences of diffusion open to a larger sphere of industrialists, artists, technicians, producers and consumers. d) Diffusion and documentation of the members’ professional activity in the fields of production and technology with the aim to direct and extend the profession through the publication in magazines, the construction of a photo archive, and the organizing of exhibitions on specific arguments. e) Creation of study commissions for the formulation of common principles of professional reward. Lobbying at governmental organizations for the juridic appreciation of the profession and the protection of the intellectual property. f) Com- mon action and support to all those initiatives that can lead to the formation of specialized schools in Italy. 17. Attività dell’ADI” in Stile Industria 8 (ottobre 1956), p 21, and “Dante Giacosa parla all’ADI” in Stile Industria 26-27 (maggio 1960), p 35-41

91 tion between market and industrial design, Rosselli’s visits to the American Society of Industrial Designers (SID) and the Aspen conferences.18 Furthermore, an exhibition of Italian design in Paris, the ADI’s contribution to the founding of the International Coun- cil of Societies of Industrial Design (ICSID), the participation at the World design conference in Tokyo19, etc.

The two last points regarding lobbying and formation of specialized schools would however prove to be harder to accomplish. The education problem was heavily debated within the ADI and through the pages of Stile Industria. Even though several of the traditional departments of architecture started courses in industrial design, a proper design education would not be any closer to realization.

Also this time Alberto Rosselli combined his roles, as he often did. As the Stile Indus- tria director, he wrote an editorial about the founding of the ADI, of which Rosselli was one of the initiators and elected president. Rosselli welcomed the association that finally had seen the light of day, and presented the purposes of the ADI and the importance of such an organization. His vision was that the ADI should become an arena unifying all parties involved in the sphere of industrial design, abolishing all artificial limits of interest between design, production and market which he felt existed due to lack of interaction between the parties.

Still, Rosselli’s design ideology shone through, so even though ADI was not to be an organization driven by an extreme and coordinated ideology, like e.g. the Movimento Studi d’Architettura, it would be influenced by the views of its first president. Hence, there was no doubt about the leading ideology within the ADI. And I do not believe the ADI would have gained its position as an inclusive arena for discussions if it had chosen the form of a movement instead of an association.

Rosselli’s visions for the new association were that it should help direct the development of Italian design:

18. Attività dell’ADI. Coordinamento fra ricerche di mercato e industrial design” in Stile Industria 12 (giunio 1957), p 13-16, and “Attività dell’ADI” in Stile Industria 8 (ottobre 1956), p 21 19. Alberto Rosselli, “A Parigi il disegno industriale italiano” in Stile Industria 12 (giunio 1957), p 1, and “World design conference 1960 - Tokyo” in Stile Industria 28 (1960), p XI-XXIV

92 “We ascertain today a particular state of production, we often observe even in the most industrialized countries which have preceded us in the research on new systems and in new relations between design and technology, that the most evident reasons for many fail- ures, many emphatic regressions, lie in the incomplete maturation of these ideas: the excessive faith in technological methods or the superficial interpretation of creative values, the influence provoked by external factors, the reaction determined by false forms. Conse- quently, we affirm that the insufficiency does not lie in the means at disposition, but in the principles directing them.”20

This statement from Rosselli was symptomatic for functionalism at this mature state of its development. The socialistic aspect so prominent in the first post-war years was much less explicit now, and the focus had shifted to the importance of establishing well-functioning relations between design, production and market. But, as we see, the perils were believed to lie in the seduction by the “false”. The functionalistic interpretation of the ongoing progress was that improved technology and the expansion of markets should ease the production and diffusion of well-designed items, not create an artificial demand for change and new models.

5.5 XI Triennale 1957

In the previous chapter we saw that the X Triennale in 1954 had found a form which appealed to just about everyone. Let us now examine XI Triennale in 1957 to see where the road had led.

As the X Triennale came to an end, Ponti celebrated it as one of the most successful editions in the history of the Triennale. Like everyone else, the “miracle in Milan” impressed him, but he repeated the arguments for embarking on the planning of the next Triennale immediately. Ponti proposed a quick election or re-election of the Giunta Esecutiva, so that this could begin the work on the XI Triennale’s program without any unnecessary delay. In addition to planning the actual exhibition, the Giunta Esecutiva should, in Ponti’s opinion, use the three years available to promote the Triennale among the public, and make sure that the exhibition would be perceived as a point of arrival for all forces working with design, architecture, arts & crafts, and art in the whole of Italy.21

20. Alberto Rosselli, “L’Associazione per il Disegno Industriale in Italia” in Stile Industria 7 (giunio 1956), p 1

93 Economically, the X Triennale came out in balance, and the work with the next edition began the following summer. The Centro Studi Triennale di Milano had existed since 1950, but merely as an ad hoc unit strictly connected to Mario Melino. On June 5th 1955, the Centro Studi formally found its place within the Triennale organization with the election of a provisional committee22 led by Riccardo Bauer. The work began during the summer, a consultant committee directed by Agnoldomenico Pica23 was nominated in January 1956, and the Centro Studi moved in on the first floor of the Palazzo dell’Arte.

Milan was still governed by a coalition (DC, PSDI, PRI), and the social democrat Vir- gilio Ferrari remained in the mayor’s office and played an important part in the nominations of the Triennale direction. On November 9th 1955, Ivan Matteo Lombardo was re-nominated president of the Triennale. The fact that most of the members of the former Consiglio d’amministrazione, including Riccardo Bauer and Piero Bottoni, were to be found also in the new one24 must be seen as a vote of confidence on behalf of the X Triennale. The Giunta Esecutiva on the other hand, was almost completely renewed. The architect Carlo De Carli remained from the former edition - the four other members were new: architect Carlo Mollino, painter Giuseppe Ajmone, sculptor Luigi Broggini, and Tommaso Ferraris.

5.5.1 The exhibition

The XI Triennale’s international exhibition of modern architecture, “Mostra internazionale di architettura moderna”25, presented a historical perspective on the evolution of

21. Gió Ponti, "Saluto alla Decima Triennale Augurio alla Undicesima" in Domus 302, (gennaio 1955), p 1-4 22. Riccardo Bauer, Franco Albini, Carlo De Carli, Agenore Fabbri, Carlo Meo, Marcello Nizzoli, Elio Palazzo, Agnoldomenico Pica, Ernesto Nathan Rogers, Attilio Rossi, Italo Zetti, and Tommaso Fer- raris (secretary - also secretary of the Ente Triennale). 23. Additional members: Enrico Bettarini, Pier Giacomo Castiglioni, Agenore Fabbri, Ernesto Frua, Gianni Mazzocchi-Bastoni, Enzo Paci, Attilio Rossi, Marco Zanuso and Tommaso Ferraris (secretary) 24. Additional members: Gino Bacchetti, Fernando Cantile, Luigi Chiaraviglio, Mario Conti, Luigi Crema, Giacomo Jori, Franco Miele, Eugenio Montale, Giovanni Muzio, Renato Passardi, Mario Radice, Adriano di Spilimbergo, Cesare Valle, Cesare Vizzardelli, Fernanda Wittgens, Ugo Zanchetta and Tommaso Ferraris (secretary) 25. Organized by Alvar Aalto, C. G. Argan, M. Grisotti, P. Lingeri, G. Michelucci, L. Moretti, P.L. Nervi, N. Pevsner, A. Pica, J. Tschumi, G. Vaccaro, E. Carboni, A. and P. G. Castiglioni

94 “Mostra internazionale dell’Industrial Design” - the industrial design exhibition at the XI Triennale (1957) architecture up to contemporary modern architecture. The collection of photos and models was impressive, but some critics claimed that the exhibition lacked a critical aspect and social context.

As at the former editions, the sections dedicated to fine arts and arts and crafts were gathered in the exhibition of art production, “Mostra delle produzione d’arte”.

The XI Triennale presented two new themes. The museology exhibition, “Mostra di museologia”, dealt with relevant problems such as the reconstruction of numerous museums after the destructions of the war. A separate exhibition of graphic design, “Mostra di arte grafica”26, showed the impact printed paper had on daily life through books, papers, advertisements et al.

For the last time in over 20 years, industrial design was honored with a separate exhibition, “Mostra internazionale dell’industrial design” (organized by Gillo Dorfles, Leonardo Ricci, Alberto Rosselli, Marco Zanuso, Angelo Tito Anselmi, S. Asti and G. F. Frattini). On the ideological level, the international exhibition of industrial design at the XI Triennale once again turned its back on the informative eclecticism, relying on the self-justifying quality of the professional activity.27 In other words, the organizers

26. Organized by E. Bonfante, A. Colombo, F. Grignani, A. Rossi, L. Sinisgalli and I. Weiss 27. F. Buzzi Ceriani, V. Gregotti, “Contributo alla storia delle Triennali”, in Casabella-Continuitá 216 (1957)

95 strived to exhibit items which were representative of the average production in stead of choosing objects based on a defined purpose.

The objects displayed at the exhibition were selected from the last three years' production from the criteria that they should in the best possible way illustrate and evaluate the international situation. Leonardo Ricci, member of the organizing committee, expressed his views on selection methods, writing how one should

"establish if such objects will become true friends of man, giving him happiness, poetry, reality, in synthesis with the global increase of being, or become enemies, distracting him, removing him from reality and poetry."28

Ricci expressed through a rather excessive pathos the functionalistic ideal of objects as “true friends of man”, and obviously felt the need for a more eclectic strategy. Yet again, we see the belief in an objectively correct design.

Vivid discussions on what to emphasize took place in the organizing committee, but the results were to be appreciated in wide circles. The profile of the exhibition wanted to demonstrate the circle of the material culture, from arts and crafts products, to the results of the most advanced technology. At the centre of attention was the cultural and production context in which the designer worked - how industrial design was influenced by cultural surroundings and restrictions in production methods. The organizing committee also wanted to emphasize the different approaches to projects, the envi- ronmental and functional motivations that determine the market demand, and the different formation of designers.29

The foreign participation at the XI Triennale rose to 19 countries on three continents, including for the first time e.g. several East European countries and Japan. The participating countries were Spain, Switzerland, USA, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Holland, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Canada, Romania, Germany, Yugoslavia, Japan, Bel- gium, Austria, France, Norway, and Mexico. This representation confirmed the Trien- nale’s position as the world’s most important exhibition of industrial design.

28. From a letter from Leonardo Ricci to Dorfles, Rosselli and Zanuso. ADI archives, here quoted from Anty Pansera, Storia del disegno industriale italiano (Bari: Laterza, 1993), p 152 29. Anty Pansera, Storia del disegno industriale italiano (Bari: Laterza, 1993), p 152

96 In light of the vast participation, especially from Europe, and the recent signing of the Treaty of Rome, Alberto Rosselli pronounced the “European Triennale”, but stressed the importance of maintaining a local/national characteristic of industrial design.30 The latter argument is one of the explanations for the international fame of Italian design ever since. Reflecting over the international participation, Angelo Tito Anselmi commented on the immense difference between industrial design in the USA and in the Nordic countries:

“Personalities such as Kaj Franck, who designs glasses and ceramics [...] in limited series, and work with a couple of collaborators for a small Finnish company, [appears] extremely far from the climate of American studios in which tens of designers work on variations of minimum cost on the same object to be produced in hundreds of thousands of copies.”31

Once again, the different types of relations between design and industry were debated. It had been an important issue at the X Triennale’s international congress of industrial design, and surfaced again three years later. It illustrates how the Italian functionalistic missionaries were confused by this problem and had difficulties deciding which line they should follow.

Nordic design was admired for its simplicity and honest use of materials, but the attempts of adopting its characteristic organic forms into Italian design was one of the experiments that caused critics to scream neoliberty when the occasion rose.32 The USA was envied for the way industrial design had been incorporated in the productive system and the dimensions and the automatization of the latter, but frowned upon for the formal language of styling and the frequent updating of models by means of changing details.

5.5.2 The rebel yell

As we saw in the previous chapter, the X Triennale was a success both among public and critics, and had more or less avoided critical comments. Three years later, in 1957, some of the more radical socialistic elements expressed their dissatisfaction

30. Alberto Rosselli, "Triennale Europea" in Stile Industria 13, (1957), p 1 31. Angelo Tito Anselmi, "La mostra del disegno industriale" in Stile Industria 13, (1957), p 4 32. The debate on neoliberty will be discussed in the next chapter.

97 with what they considered to be a capitalistic predominance in the field of industrial design. What seemed to have become a linear, increasing success now might have started to crack up.

One important indication of this crack-up was the criticism raised by the Movimento Studi d’Architettura (MSA). It was founded in 1945 as a “free association of architects” centered around Ludovico Belgioioso, Enrico Peressutti and Ernesto N. Rogers, deeply rooted in the modern movement:33

“[Only] with the modern movement we find ourselves facing men who feel new, without original sin to confront but also without inherited virtue from which to profit”34

The rhetoric here proves the socialistic ideology of the MSA similar to the one shared by the rest of the early Modern Movement, but the MSA was rather extreme compared to the rest of the environment, which in the latter part of the fifties started to drift away from their earlier focus on social responsibility. Under Giancarlo De Carlo’s presi- dency, from 1955, the MSA’s activity became more formal and public. Their meetings were arenas for vivid discussions, and members wrote intense articles for various parts of the press.

In April 1956, the MSA decided not to participate in any way to the XI Triennale. This drastic decision was made on the grounds that they felt the Triennale had turned away from the social tasks, and their dissatisfaction with the organization of the Ente Trien- nale and the Centro Studi. The MSA distributed questionnaires regarding the state of the Triennale, a commission for the purpose of analyzing the problems of the Trien- nale was set up in October 1956, and in January 1957, a committee started to work on the program for a conference due to coincide with the XI Triennale. Two of the most prominent members of the Movimento Studi d’Architettura, Marco Zanuso and Ettore Sottsass, did not share the movement’s views on the Triennale, and left the MSA because they wished to contribute to the development of the exhibition.35

33. A. Grassi, A Pansera, L'Italia del design - Trent'anni di dibattito (Casale Monferrato: Marietti, 1986), p 16 34. Ernesto N. Rogers, in Casabella 271 (1963) 35. Anty Pansera, Storia e Cronaca della Triennale (Milano: Longanesi, 1978), p 81 - 82

98 Towards the end of the XI Triennale,36 Tommaso Ferraris and the Triennale direction invited the MSA to hold the scheduled conference within the framework of the XI Tri- ennale, where it took place on the 19th and 20th of October 1957. The invitation must be interpreted as a wish to bring the conflict into proper forms, and functioned well as tactical defence from the Triennale.

At the conference, Giancarlo De Carlo and Eugenio Gentili Tedeschi presented the results of the MSA analysis and their proposals to changes in the Ente Triennale organization structure. They wanted to alter the nomination- and election process for the Consiglio di Amministrazione and the Giunta Esecutiva, and a shift in the internal balance of power in favour of the Centro Studi.

According to the MSA, the Centro Studi did not operate as the statute demanded, and proposed a revision of the statute and its implementation, and an enlargement of the Centro Studi. The Triennale direction agreed to the enlargement, but the other suggestions did not result in much. Several committees were formed to elucidate the different aspects of the Centro Studi’s activities and how to improve the organization, but apart from the enlargement, it all ended in postponements, tactics and bureaucratic legislation.37

The MSA protests against the XI Triennale showed that parts of the core environment disliked the course Italian design in general, and the Triennale in particular, had taken. Concrete results were rather scarce, but the MSA raised the boycott and the members rejoined the Triennale activities, many of them as Centro Studi delegates.

5.5.3 Question marks

The XI Triennale reached out to, and was appreciated by the media and a broad public, partly due to the fact that times were characterized by increasing consumption among the population. As we saw above, this led to criticism, especially by the Movi- mento Studi d'Architettura, who claimed that the designers' morale was descending, and accused industrial design of being at the service of capital.38 What we see is that

36. The XI Triennale lasted opened on July 27. and closed on November 4. 1957 37. Anty Pansera, Storia e Cronaca della Triennale (Milano: Longanesi, 1978), p 85

99 the success in many ways became its own enemy. By reaching out to the broad masses, the missionaries risked losing control over their original message.

The art historian and design critic Gillo Dorfles had a less dogmatic view on functionalism than most of the designers. He considered industrial design as one of the most important forms of aesthetic expression in modern society, but meant that changes were inevitable and merely a sign of evolution.

“Antique religions had a need for expressing themselves through works that we call artistic; the ancient artisan created utensils in which we, today, appreciate the aesthetic value [...]; but for those epochs, most certainly, other types of values predominated, maybe conditioned by functional demand instead of some particular magical, ritual or sacramental reason.”39

Angelo Tito Anselmi, on the other hand, worried about the future of Italian design based on his experiences from the XI Triennale’s “Mostra internazionale dell’industrial design”, predicting the upcoming debate on neoliberty and the crisis of functionalism:

“Renouncing direct reference and close relation between anatomy and function, [Italian design] expands into more abstract forms. It can be claimed to have ceased, that urgent functionalistic justification used to polemicize against traditional stylistic design. Conse- quently, we are approaching other forms of stylization, so seducing in their best appear- ances that we from today on can anticipate a peril of far-fetched design in the years to come.”40

Thus Anselmi questioned whether functionalism was about to lose its position. He saw evidence of experimentation among Italian designers which ignored the basic principles of functionalism - the strict relation between form and function - and feared the coming of the formalismo.

Alberto Rosselli saw evidence of the same development, but refused to accept that functionalist ideas would be seriously challenged, and he also reprimanded the critics who longed for new and revolutionary products and forms:

38. Anty Pansera, Storia del disegno industriale italiano (Bari: Laterza, 1993), p 154 39. Gillo Dorfles, “Il prodotto industriale nella società moderna” in Catalogo della XI Triennale (Milano: Centro Studi Triennale di Milano, 1957), p 133 40. Angelo Tito Anselmi, “L’industrial design alla Triennale” in Civiltà delle macchine (settembre- novembre 1957)

100 “The criticism has too superficially emphasized, as indication of a crisis, the scarcity of novelties and prototypes in the various halls. Unfortunately, it is common to attribute the sense of vitality and progress to the term novelty, while the prolonged presence on the market by many products represents, if anything, a sign of the existence of a surpassing and much more severe crisis, namely the vanity of design, the productive dishonesty. Pro- duction has become more solid and evolved, and has thus limited the personal field of experimentation. Experimentation becomes research in its true sense, and leads in the best cases to a serious and enduring result. The stability of forms are today without a doubt more an indication of progress, balance and productive intelligence, than a crisis of interest and ability.”41

Even though the MSA upheaval was a protest from a group with rather extreme socialistic agenda, it is clear that it caught the attention of the usual missionaries as well. As we see, both Rosselli and Anselmi felt the need to warn against the latent menace.

5.6 IV Compasso d’Oro 1957

The jury42 of the IV Compasso d'Oro continued the restrictions signalized by its predecessor, awarding only five of the 1200 received contributions:

Plastic food containers by Gino Colombini for Kartell, the sewing machine Mirella by Marcello Nizzoli for Necchi, the ski boots Dolomite by Benso Cesarino Priarollo for La Dolomite, the fabric Alta Marea by Ruth Christensen for JSA and three colored glass vases by Vinicio Vianello for Vinicio Vianello.

In the report, the jury expressed its concern for "...the modest level of quality and scarce comprehension of the relevant formal problems in the production"43 and

41. Alberto Rosselli, "Triennale Europea" in Stile Industria 13, (1957), p 1 42. In the jury: F. Albini, A. Borletti, C. Brustio, P.G. Castiglioni, I. Gardella 43. From the jury's report, reproduced in Stile Industria 15, (febbraio 1958)

101 Sewing machine Mirella Boots Dolomiti Des: M. Nizzoli, Prod: Necchi (1957) Des: C.B. Priarollo, Prod: La Dolomite (1957)

"...the tendency by certain industries to realize forms of a craft-like nature with industrial manufacturing processes, which leads to hybrid solutions on the cultural level and predict- ably insufficient solutions from an economic point of view".44

While the number of contributing products was approximately the same as it had been in 1955 and 1956,45 the number of awarded products dropped from twelve in 1955, through nine in 1956, to five in 1957. This development, combined with the jury’s statements, indicates that they by awarding only five products possibly wanted to pun- ish the industry for the “scarce comprehension of the relevant formal problems in the production".

The Gran Premio Nazionale and Internazionale of 1957 went respectively to Pinin Farina and Kaj Franck. Pinin Farina, being one of the most successful Italian designers on the international scene, was a popular choice. He had worked as consultant designer for prestigious car manufacturers in France, USA and England, being perhaps the most important ambassador for the linea italiana.

Also the number of the so-called "selected" products was also heavily reduced, end- ing up at 49. These, along with the five Compassi constituted one of five parts of the Compasso d'Oro exhibition at the XI Triennale.46 The other parts were dedicated to the awarded products of 1955 and 1956, and a presentation of the winners of the Gran Premi Nazionali and Internazionali of the same three years. A retrospective

44. Ibid. 45. 1300 products in 1955 and 1450 in 1956 46. Expo equipped by Giancarlo Ortelli and Bruno Munari

102 exposition after such a short period of time may well have been a bit premature, but surely diffused knowledge about the award to the public.

5.7 Conclusion

This chapter has examined the golden years of Italian design, after its breakthrough in 1954. As we saw, the period 1954 to 1958 differed both from the first post-war years and following decade. In spite of the MSA boycott, the XI Triennale was success. The development and diffusion of the Compasso d’Oro and Stile Industria showed that the missionaries’ main preoccupation was sliding from the social responsibility towards the relation with industry. The profession’s consolidation with the establishment of the Associazione per il Disegno Industriale was part of this process.

From the mid-fifties onwards, the productive capacity and public purchasing power had increased considerably. This happened after a relatively moderate growth the first post-war years. New production methods and materials gave designers possibilities previously unthinkable. All these elements combined constituted a powerful fertilizer for industrial design. Especially since the core environment functioning as trendsetters was in ideological unison to an unparalleled degree in the same period. The discussions we have examined show that they agreed on most aspects on the agenda. Surely, topics were debated, and goals set that never were accomplished (e.g. the issues of museum and education), but the ideological unity naturally contributed to the vast success of the Italian design of the golden years.

But as we shall see in the next chapter, some of the favorable conditions mentioned above were to change, and with them the whole situation of Italian design. Paradoxi- cally, the further growth of one of the most important reasons for the prosperity of the golden years, the wealth and purchasing power of the public, would turn out to contribute to the shifts in design ideology and its output in terms of products with the turn of the decade.

Profound changes took place in Italian industrial design during the late fifties and early sixties. Some called it neoliberty. Some called it styling, or formalismo. And some

103 called it a crisis situation. This latter assertion created powerful reactions, especially when it came from the jury of the Gran Premi Compasso d’Oro 1959.

In the next chapter we will examine the events that took place towards the end of the decade, when the strict functionalistic ideas, which had reached an almost divine status, were questioned and people started whispering “crisis”.

104 6 Heretics

“It would be wise to remain on our aesthetic and dimensional line if the characteristics which have distinguished our design until now will remain intact, but I fear that on this matter, the future will 1 bring surprises.” Computer Elea Des: E. Sottsass, Prod: Olivetti (1959)

In the mid-fifties, the missionaries of functionalism were convinced of the impeccability of the Modern Movement. As we saw in the previous chapter, functionalistic design had won great acceptance and was consolidated through improved production and development of the institutions. The common belief was that there were still many battles to be fought, but they believed that through determined work, the obstacles would be overcome and the future become a linear function of the present.

Seen in retrospective, it is quite obvious that the equation determining the future included numerous other variables which contributed to a result differing considerably from the expected. Design’s positioning on the axis between social responsibility and relations to industry would prove to become an even more problematic issue with the approach of the sixties. Design ideology came under pressure both from internal and external forces.

In this chapter I will examine the tensions indicated above. Where was Italian design heading at the end of the fifties? Which internal and external changes took place, and in what way did they influence Italian industrial design?

To answer these questions, I will first focus on the immense economic boom of the late fifties, one of the most important reasons for the further developments of Italian

1. Dante Giacosa, "Dante Giacosa parla all’A.D.I." in Stile Industria 26/27, (1960), p 35

105 industrial design. This development can be seen through the launch of two controversial products and how they were received by the critics. I will also show the development through the changes in the Compasso d’Oro during this period. Subsequently, I will analyze the debate on the Gran Premi Compasso d’Oro 1959 that followed in the Associazione per il Disegno Industriale and in the columns of Stile Industria. This debate seems to be a good source to better understand what could be called the disintegration of post-war Italian functionalism. An analysis of the reactions to the turn taken by Italian design on a more general level will conclude this chapter.

6.1 Growing wealth and loss of common direction

As showed before, the Italian economy entered a period of unprecedented growth in the fifties and the first half of the sixties. The European markets opened up, and Italy emerged from its long lasting solitude.2

Compared to other European countries, the growth in Italian economy was impressive. Between 1950 and 1960, the Italian gross national product increased annually by 5.9 per cent, while the corresponding number for France was 4.4, for the Scandina- vian countries 3.5, and 2.6 for Great Britain. Between the periods 1946 - 1950 and 1956 - 1960, the industry’s contribution to the gross national product jumped from 36.9 to 46.9 per cent. The investments made in manufacturing industry rose from 4.5 per cent of the gross national product in 1953, to 5.2 per cent in 1956, and 6.3 per cent in 1962.3

The reasons for this remarkable development have been discussed earlier. The key elements were the Marshall Aid, government intervention, and the characteristics of the industrial structure. Two additional elements should be mentioned: The immense migration to the industrial centres in the north satisfied the demand for labour, and resulted in a relatively high unemployment rate (average of 7.3 per cent throughout the decade). Combined with the weakness of the labour unions, this meant that

2. Giulio Sapelli, “Le trasformazioni sociali e la differenziazione industriale” in Valerio Castronovo, Giulio Sapelli (ed.), Civiltá delle macchine - Tecnologie, prodotti, progetti, dell’industria meccanica italiana dalla ricostruzione all’Europa (Milano: Fabbri, 1990), p 14 3. Valerio Castronovo, L’industria italiana dall’ottocento a oggi (Milano: Oscar Mondadori, 1980), p 275 - 276

106 wages could be kept on a modest level. This again improved the companies’ profit and avoided inflation. Italy also managed to create a vital domestic market - consumption increased 59.8 per cent from 1950 to 1961.4

This considerable growth of consumption among the public and of industrial output, combined with the equally fast evolution of technology and production methods would strongly influence the upcoming changes in Italian industrial design. Through their growing purchasing power, common people started to show interest in more advanced and refined products. The focus shifted gradually from acquiring basic necessities to requesting a more diversified production, satisfying the expanding upper level market. This development would challenge the functionalistic ideas, and hence produce changes in design.

6.2 Two examples: Olivetti Diaspron 82 and Piaggio Vespa GS/GL

These changes in market demands from needs to desires could be seen through the re-design of two of the most representative products of the forties - the Olivetti Lexikon 80 and the Piaggio Vespa.

6.2.1 Olivetti Diaspron 82 - New shapes

In 1959, Olivetti launched the typewriter Diaspron 82, which was to substitute the leg- endary model Lexikon 80 from 1947. Both were designed by Marcello Nizzoli, who had collaborated closely with Olivetti from 1940 both as industrial designer, graphic designer and architect. He won the Compasso d’Oro for the portable typewriter Olivetti Lettera 22 in 1954, and the sewing machines Necchi BU in 1954 and Necchi Mirella in 1957.

The Diaspron 82 represented a break in his functionalistic tradition, and was received with surprise both among critics and public. The difference between the Lexikon 80 and the new Diaspron 82 was the shape of the die-cast shells covering the mecha-

4. Ibid., p 276 - 277

107 Typewriter Lexikon 80 Typewriter Diaspron 82 Des: M. Nizzoli, Prod: Olivetti (1947) Des: M. Nizzoli, Prod: Olivetti (1959)

nism. While the older version was simple and smoothly curved to follow the typewriter’s mechanical structure, the new one had more “edgy” shells with rectangular faceted planes.

What caused the commotion, was the fact that this radically new shape did not derive from changes in the object’s mechanical function, but from strictly formal considerations. This was an evident contradiction to the fundamental ideas of functionalism, and Alberto Rosselli’s comments on the Diaspron 82 in Stile Industria are very illustra- tive. He confirmed that the Nizzoli’s new typewriter had provoked reactions and interesting discussions on the principles of design, and had inspired some general reflections:

“a) Today, the formal evolution of industrial products is faster than the mechanical one [...] b) The technological factors can no longer be considered sole determinants of objects’ characteristics [...] c) Hence, one must admit that creative research [does] not follow the process commonly accepted by which technology is the only determinant of industrial design. A preeminence by the aesthetic thought over the technological thought is today observed in some manifestations of design which anticipate the end of an industrial phase [...] and prepares for a reform or perhaps a profound revolution. [...] We believe that it is necessary to consider Nizzoli’s recent experience not merely as a personal and isolated phenomenon, but in relation to the state of technological-mechanical evolution within the industry [...].”5

This statement is as close to giving up on functionalism as can be within the framework of a serious magazine. Rosselli goes all the way, claiming that we must accept that industrial design would be more and more determined by aesthetic and cultural

5. Alberto Rosselli, “Olivetti Diaspron 82” in Stile Industria 24, (settembre 1959), p 16 - 17

108 aspects and market demands. Hence, he more or less proclaimed the death of functionalistic design ideology based on socialistic sympathies, simplicity, modesty and rationality. Changes in society, culture and market demands compelled an evolution of product forms which by far exceeded the formal evolution deriving merely from technological and mechanical development.

It must, however, not be forgotten that Rosselli had always stressed the cultural factors of industrial design. His great vision was from the very beginning to create a close and vital relation between industry, culture and market, but based on what he considered to be the sound, reasonable and determined principles of functionalism. So the most surprising aspect of this remarkable article is not that Rosselli acknowledged the end of the modernist movement as it had been known until then, but that he did not stubbornly condemn the changes coming up. Instead he seemed to be concerned with adapting to a general situation which was changing around him, simply accepting that turning back the clock was not an option. But yet again; this combination of pragmatic abilities and ideological foundation was Rosselli’s strongest characteristic.

6.2.2 Piaggio Vespa GS/GL - Linea italiano yields to formalismo

The second example I will use to illustrate the disintegration of functionalism, is the re- design of the Vespa. Piaggio’s Vespa, originally designed by Corradino d’Ascano in 1946, had undergone some minor changes over the years. In 1962, the re-designed GS- and GL-models were launched. This national symbol of the linea italiana had matured during the first decade of production, according to both Bruno Alfieri and Angelo Tito Anselmi, reaching a higher level of quality and a more defined shape.6,7 But with the new decade came models which seemed to have been influenced by the among Italian puritans detested formalismo, or styling. The 1962 models GS and GL were equipped with chromium-plated lists on the sides, a feature normally linked to the huge American cars of the time, frowned upon by functionalists for representing every negative aspect of the commercial influence on industrial design.

6. Bruno Alfieri, “1939 - 1959 appunti per una storia del disegno industriale in Italia” in Stile Industria 26/ 27, (maggio 1960), p 6 7. Angelo Tito Anselmi, “Motociclette: il dopomostra” in Stile Industria 36, (febbraio 1962), p 17 - 22

109 The original Vespa from 1946 (left) and the re-designed 1962 GL-model (right) Des: C. D’Ascanio, Prod: Piaggio)

Anselmi considered these decorative interventions the Vespa’s “first yielding to the formalismo”.8 He was clearly disappointed in his description. The development was in his mind commercially motivated re-design and lack of formal sincerity:

“We fear that we now, with the launch of the model GL (gran lusso), have to say good bye to one of the best [...] post-war Italian designs. The round volumes of the classical Vespa are in fact damaged by a backward remark introduced only to please a formal tendency felt in the air.”9

These remarks by Anselmi were far more negative and condemning than Rosselli’s comments on the Olivetti Diaspron 82. A plausible reason for the different character of the comments was that Marcello Nizzoli was one of the most respected and visionary designers on the scene, responsible for a vast range of popular and celebrated products. In the case of the Vespa, it was the product, and not the designer which was at the centre of attention.10 Hence, Rosselli was likely to consider Nizzoli’s work as a barometer for future developments and find challenges and optimism in them even though they represented a quite obvious break with his own ideological background. Also, the re-design of the Vespa was directly associated with American styling, which was commonly regarded as immoral and false, while the Diaspron 82 represented something new, albeit it rocked the functionalistic foundation.

This indicated that rather drastic changes and events waited around the corner, and one of the best means to examine the changes in design is to follow the dynamics of

8. Angelo Tito Anselmi, “La Vespa verso il formalismo?” in Stile Industria 40, (dicembre 1962), p XIII 9. Ibid. 10. To my knowledge, Corradino d’Ascano did not enjoy a status similar to Nizzoli’s

110 the Compasso d’Oro, which constituted a good barometer of what was considered to be good design.

6.3 Compasso d’Oro 1958 - Re-organization

In the winter of 1958, La Rinascente proposed to hand over the administration of the product award Compasso d'Oro to the Associazione per il Disegno Industriale. The decision was made because La Rinascente considered ADI better qualified for administrating the award. The proposal was carried unanimously by the ADI members, and a permanent jury of five members was to evaluate the presented productions in periodic meetings.11 Due to this re-organization, no product awards were assigned that year. The Gran Premi remained in the hands of La Rinascente, but the department store was to endeavour the incorporation of two ADI members in the jury. The Gran Premio Nazionale 1958 went to Franco Albini, and the Internazionale was assigned to Den Permanente of Copenhagen, a sales organization for Danish craft and industrial products.12,13

With the new administration, fundamental changes in the award took place. These changes were certainly a result of structural movements in the design society, but would also affect future events and polemics. For instance, the award was opened for all types of products.14 As a result of this, in the years to come, also cars, planes, boats and industrial machinery would receive the award. Opening the award to all kinds of products was a direct consequence of the change in administration. While directed by La Rinascente, it had been restricted to the product categories sold in department stores. The new ADI direction had no interest in maintaining this restriction.

Another important change was that objects presented to the jury in previous editions of the award would not be accepted. A third alteration was that aspirant items had to

11. Of which three were to be chosen by La Rinascente from five names suggested by ADI, one chosen by La Rinascente and one by ADI. 12. In the jury: Aldo Borletti, Giulio Carlo Argan, Duca Tommaso Gallarati Scotti, H. O. Gummerus, On. Ivan Matteo Lombardo, and Nikolaus Pevsner 13. A. Grassi, A. Pansera, L'Italia del design - Trent'anni di dibattito (Casale Monferrato: Marietti, 1986), p 46 14. Industrial machinery and medical equipment would be excluded for another year

111 be no more than two years old.15 In addition, the number of Compassi to be assigned should not be fixed, so as not to give the jury any restrictions in its evaluations. But the most important decision was made in agreement with La Rinascente. It was decided to no longer maintain the yearly basis of the assignations. Angelo Tito Anselmi commented this decision in Stile Industria:

"It seems to us that a contribution to the structural renewal by means of good design is more urgent than a continuous dripping of small formal applications confided in the objects of daily use"16

In this way, the Anselmi expressed his well-known distaste for the cosmetic changes of models every year. This was a phenomenon seen in the American styling-ideology and eagerly criticized by most Italian designers and theorists as an unscrupulous marketing strategy. But seen in the light of the comments made the preceding years to the reduced numbers of assigned Compassi, there was a break in the pattern. A plausible explanation to this would be that the notion made by the former juries, that the extent of the award had to be adjusted to the "productive rhythm", was finally accepted also within Stile Industria. In other words: A reduction in the number of awards was necessary for the Compasso d’Oro to harmonize with Italy’s industrial production output.

6.4 Compasso d’Oro 1959 - Functionalism’s last victory

The V Compasso d'Oro (1959) was the first edition administrated by the ADI. Not surprisingly, the composition of the jury had altered profoundly. Until then, Aldo Borletti and Cesare Brustio, the two representatives from La Rinascente, had been in the jury for all editions of the award. The 1959 jury consisted of: Bruno Alfieri, Vico Magistretti, Giulio Minoletti, Augusto Morello and Giovanni Romano, names of a more anonymous nature, representing a younger generation, compared to the preceding years, when the jury members were persons highly profiled in Stile Industria.

This year, 1200 products were considered by the jury. The jury came up with six winners that were exhibited at the Padiglione d'arte contemporanea in Milan in March 1960. The awarded products were:

15."Attribuiti dall'A.D.I. i prossimi Compassi d'oro" in Stile Industria 20, (1959), p "0" 16. Angelo Tito Anselmi, "Compasso d'Oro 1959" in Stile Industria 24, (1959), p 40

112 Car 500 Lemon squeezer KS 1481 Computer Elea Des: D. Giacosa, Prod: FIAT (1956) Des: G. Colombini, Prod: Kartell (1959) Des: E. Sottsass, Prod: Olivetti (1959)

The lemon squeezer by Gino Colombini for Kartell, the FIAT 500 by Dante Giacosa for FIAT, the electronic computer Elea by Ettore Sottsass. for Olivetti, street-lighting fix- tures Genova by Oscar Torlasco for Fabbrica Apparecchi Illuminazione Greco, waterproof container by Sandro Bono for Bono, and the microscope LG t/12 by Ambrogio Carini for Galileo.

As we see, the jury took advantage of the new award regulations. Only two of the six winners, the lemon squeezer and the waterproof container, would have satisfied the previous editions’ restriction to items sold in department stores.

The prize to Dante Giacosa/FIAT for the 500 was somewhat disputed. Having been in production since 1956, it clearly broke the regulations of the award banning items older than two years from the competition, and many regarded this award to be the merit of the jury member Vico Magistretti, a specialist in car design. In fact, FIAT itself opposed the prize. The giant car manufacturer would have preferred getting a Com- passo d'Oro for the more recent model 128.17

This particular prize may have been handed out on a questionable regulation-technical basis, but, looking back, it is hard to find a more worthy winner than the 500, seen

17. A. Grassi, A. Pansera, L'Italia del design - Trent'anni di dibattito (Casale Monferrato: Marietti, 1986), p 47

113 from the award's design-moralistic point of view: It was, in every interpretation of the word a revolutionary product. By Italian standards, it was the first car designed with the intention of being attainable to "everyone", thus forming the next step of the ladder (the Vespa was of course the first) of the Italians' dream of mobility and personal freedom. The form of the car was truly inventive and new, utilizing the modest external measures extremely well. It was also an early example of the one-wheel-in-every-corner philosophy, providing the maximum stability to such a small vehicle. So, the demands for the relation form - function and true innovation were met, as was the economic-political one - the 500 represented a socialistic attitude in a market previously dominated by luxury.

As we have seen, both through studying the general development of society, industry and markets, and the examined examples, the evolution of Italian design towards the end of the fifties and early sixties caused strong reactions. Now I will examine the most specific reaction, the dispute concerning the Gran Premio Nazionale Compasso d’Oro 1959.

6.5 Gran Premi Compasso d’Oro 1959 - The design controversy

The Compasso d'Oro of 1959 is probably the edition causing the most disputes and discourse in the award’s history, with results effecting the award for years to come. But the 1959 Gran Premi were to initiate one of the most exciting and vigorous polemics ever seen within the framework of Italian industrial design. The Gran Premio Inter- nazionale went to Council of Industrial Design, the British governmental institution promoting design to industry and public. This can easily be interpreted as a way of telling the Italian government that it had not taken responsibility in this field, and that it should look to Britain for guidance.

The really controversial decision, however, was the choice not to hand out the Gran Premio Nazionale.18 On January 23. 1960, at the Circolo La Rinascente, the jury proclaimed the conclusions of their work.19 The session was opened by jury member and president of La Rinascente, dr. Aldo Borletti. His speech featured strong signals of the surprise to come, revealing the jury’s disappointment in the current situation of Italian

114 design.20 Borletti then gave the word to jury chairman Giulio Carlo Argan, who read the jury's report.

"The Commission of the Gran Premi Nazionale and Internazionale La Rinascente Com- passo d'Oro has, through a complete examination of the general situation, in unison acknowledged the existence of a condition of crisis in design. [...] It manifests itself in the stand-still and even abandonment of positions already accomplished, it transmits into an insufficient correlation between designers and production organisms and between these and the field of consumption; and has among its primary causes the lack of or scarce effi- ciency of organizational and didactic structures.”21

The jury gave the impression of an international crisis in design, and that the activity had taken two steps back after the progress of recent years. But this general aspect was, not surprisingly, perceived as mere rhetorics because of the decision to withhold only the Gran Premio Nazionale. Hence, the jury had proclaimed a crisis in Italian design, and elaborated its views on the fundamental purposes of design:

”This crisis finds expression especially in the tendency of design to orientate itself towards peripheral or superficial problems (e.g. domestic equipment) in stead of towards the great methodological problems (e.g. industrialized construction), which alone can permit design to develop into a broad horizon of social purposes.”22

It is clear that the department store president Borletti, the critic and professor Argan and the rest of the jury (which included only one Italian designer; Franco Albini23) had other thoughts on industrial design as professional activity than most of the designers and architects had. The jury’s declaration of crisis was founded on the belief that designers should be occupied with the greater methodological problems instead of more particular practical activity. Such a statement reflected the jury’s theoretical

18. In Anty Pansera, Storia del disegno industriale italiano (Bari: Laterza, 1993), and in A. Grassi, A. Pansera, Atlante del design italiano 1940/1980 (Milano: Fabbri, 1984), it is claimed that Giulio Carlo Argan received the Gran Premio Nazionale of '59, but that he declined it. The same author(s) says in A. Grassi, A. Pansera, L'Italia del design - Trent'anni di dibattito (Casale Monferrato: Marietti, 1986) that Argan was in the jury of the '59 edition, but was awarded the prize the following year. "Stile Industria" points him out as a member of the '59 jury, and does not mention anything about the Gran Premi of 1960. This incongruity of the sources is of course unfortunate, but I have come to the conclusion that the latter is the more plausible, and will henceforth be given precedence. 19. The jury was composed by Franco Albini (winner of the '58 Gran Premio Nazionale), Giulio Carlo Argan, Aldo Borletti, Silvio Coggi (president of the Fiera di Milano), Ivan Matteo Lombardo (president of the Triennale), Tomás Maldonado (director of the Hochschule für Gestaltung in Ulm) and Pierre Vago (general secretary of International Council of Societies of Industrial Design (ICSID)). 20. Aldo Borletti, quoted in Stile Industria 26/27, (1960), p XI 21. The jury's report, reproduced in Stile Industria 26/27, (1960) 22. Ibid. 23. Franco Albini had received the Gran Premio Nazionale Compasso d’Oro 1958

115 approach. A designer’s primary function will always be to carry out projects for their employers, not engaging in a grand restructuring of society. Surely, most designers would have an ideological foundation on which their practical work was based, but the abstract visions suggested by the jury seemed rather vague to most of them.

Argan finished his reading of the report by declaring the jury’s decision “to assign the Compasso d'Oro Internazionale to COUNCIL OF INDUSTRIAL DESIGN and, with regret, not to assign the Compasso d'Oro Nazionale”24

The honouring of the Council of Industrial Design was in no way controversial, and many would probably have appreciated a similar organization in Italy. But all this was effectively drowned by the shock-like atmosphere caused by the decision not to assign the Gran Premio Nazionale. An overwhelming majority of the audience did not at all share the notion of a crisis in Italian design. As usual on these occasions, virtually every single person feeling any connection to the milieu was present, and the feeling they got was the one of being stigmatized as incompetent. The reactions were energetic and profoundly negative, in the words of Angelo Tito Anselmi; "as much as their position as guests permitted".25 This led to a spontaneous request by some of the most indignant observers for an ADI assembly discussing the matters.

6.5.1 The debate at ADI

An ADI meeting took place on February 2nd, but was not recognized as an official assembly. When the meeting started, Marco Zanuso proposed to keep it closed, admitting ADI members only, but he was overruled. Vico Magistretti opened the evening with an orientation about the work of the Compasso d'Oro jury during 1959 (the ADI directed award for products), but the lion's share of the reunion would be dedicated to the debate on the Gran Premio Nazionale.

A quite peculiar situation arose: Franco Albini was the only jury member present (the secretary, Augusto Morello, had only administrative tasks and was not a member of

24. The jury's report, reproduced in Stile Industria 26/27, (1960) 25. Angelo Tito Anselmi, "Crisi del disegno o crisi del premio?" in Stile Industria 26/27, (1960), p XII

116 the jury). Hence, the debate would circle around Albini and Zanuso, the more active of the opposition, with interludes from other participants.26

Marco Zanuso started the discussion. He did not approve of the jury’s self-imposed role as executioners and ideological guardians, and pointed out that such behavior was unprecedented in the history of the award. He could not understand that the jury could proclaim a situation of crisis, neither international nor national, after the great initiatives of merely a few years back which had given life to e.g. the ADI and the Compasso d’Oro.27

Zanuso won six Compasso d’Oro through his career, and was jury member for the product award in 1954, 1955 and 1960. He embodied the role as spokesman for the profession. In the discussion he argued that he and his peers did not feel struck by a crisis, but rather as participants in a successful conquest. What the jury considered to be a crisis, the designers considered to be a process of necessary change and renewal.

Zanuso was also provoked by the relation’s definition of domestic equipment as “a superficial and peripheral problem” and of industrialized construction as “a methodological problem” (and hence more important), and claimed not to understand the term methodological.28

Here we see a clear conflict between theory and practice. The jury wanted to emphasize the methodological problems. In their opinion, Italian design needed to embark on a profound theoretical debate in order to improve its quality. Most of the designers were not all that thrilled about methodological discussions anymore. They were starting to get recognition for their work, and were more concerned with the practical exe- cution of their profession.

Gillo Dorfles joined in with Zanuso, and made two points: He found it contradictory to withhold the Gran Premio Nazionale as long as the jury of the Compasso d’Oro had

26. Ibid. 27. Marco Zanuso, quoted in "La discussione all’A.D.I" in Stile Industria 26/27, (maggio 1960), p XII 28. Ibid.

117 found products worthy of the price. How could several examples from Italian production merit an award, but no designer or other involved person be found worthy? Dor- fles considered giving the Gran Premio Internazionale to Council of Industrial Design a tactical and reasonable decision which perhaps could function as an eye-opener for the Italian government. But withholding the Gran Premio Nazionale would only damage such a process, and he blamed the jury for suffering of what he called “the Italian sin of self-punishment”.29

Even though the art and design critic Dorfles belonged to academia and not to the profession, he sided with the latter. As we saw in the previous chapter, Dorfles - like the designers - considered change a natural process of development. Whereas academia, here represented by Argan and Albini, felt that industrial design was about to run wild. They were old school modernists, and in their opinion, design could not be trusted to develop through its own negotiation with society, but should be controlled by firmly defined guidelines agreed to by everyone.

To get the discussion back on track, Albini reassumed the questions of crisis or no crisis, and whether or not the award could be used as a negative statuary example.30 And the dispute between Zanuso and Albini continued. Albini kept arguing that a correct methodology would automatically lead to good forms, while Zanuso continued to underline the utter importance of the implementation by the single designer to obtain good results.

The contrast between the conservative modernists’ emphasis on coordinated theoretical basis and the progressive designers’ desire for personal experimentation was getting more and more obvious. Other conflicts of interest following the same division lines were social responsibility versus market orientation, user focus versus industry focus, and user needs versus user desires. Those who declared the crisis were losing these battles. Italian industrial design had entered a process of adaptation to personal experimentation, market orientation, industry focus, and user desires. Hence, the declaration of crisis could be interpreted as the ultimate attempt to save functionalism

29. Gillo Dorfles, quoted in "La discussione all’A.D.I" in Stile Industria 26/27, (maggio 1960), p XII 30. Franco Albini, quoted in "La discussione all’A.D.I" in Stile Industria 26/27, (maggio 1960), p XIII

118 from disintegrating.

The debate went on for hours, but the main focus seems to have been Zanuso’s and his followers’ need to express their concern for the implications withholding the Gran Premio Nazionale could have for Italian industrial design.

In other words, the essence of the discussion was that the jury, represented by Albini, meant that the award could be used to state examples also in a negative sense, and that it did not constitute a problem separating the celebration of some successful products from the methodological crisis they proclaimed by withholding the Gran Pre- mio Nazionale. Zanuso and his followers disagreed, especially with the latter argument, and accused the jury of sabotaging the interests of the entire design environment. The evening ended with Zanuso writing a letter on behalf of several ADI members clarifying their protest. In the letter, they declared their disagreement with the jury’s decision and their fear that it would damage the work that had been done over the recent years to improve Italian design.31

6.5.2 The debate in Stile Industria

Stile Industria gave the situation proper attention; in the double issue of May 1960, the editorial was dedicated the award discussion. The magazine also presented its new program, rethinking its position in the light of the recent events. Angelo Tito Anselmi asked the question "crisis of design or crisis of the award?" in his big article presenting the events of both the jury's presentation on January 23. and of the reunion at the ADI. It also included a research carried out through a questionnaire answered by both Ital- ian and foreign designers, critics and industrialists.32

The debate at the ADI was, as we have seen, mainly about the decision to withhold the Gran Premio Nazionale 1959. Shifting focus to the declared crisis in Italian design, and continuing the discussion including persons not present at the meeting, Stile

31. Marco Zanuso, quoted in "La discussione all’A.D.I" in Stile Industria 26/27, (maggio 1960), p IVX The letter was signed by Marco Zanuso, Angelo Tito Anselmi, Alberto Rosselli, Vittore Lattuada, Pierluigi Spadolini, Achille Castiglioni, Sergio Asti, Roberto Sambonet, Marcello Grisotti, Piergia- como Castiglioni, Michele Provinciali, Paolo Tilche, Alberto Burzio, Giulio Gianoli, Emanuele Ranci, Raffaella Crespi, Olaf Von Bohr, Franca Santi, Mario Maioli, Gillo Dorfles, Franco Bettonica

119 Industria decided to send a questionnaire to both Italians and foreigners whose opinions they considered interesting contributions to the debate.33 Now we shall examine some of these comments on what was happening in Italian design.

Bruno Alfieri, critic and director of the magazine Zodiac, denounced the jury’s work as destructive and delusive. His opinion on the reasons for withholding the Gran Premio Nazionale was quite harsh:

“The battle of financial intervention by government and industry is won on other fields, not in a room where cocktails are served. Even though I substantially agree with the diagnosis scandalized by Argan, I find the non-assignation improper. During fascism, I would not have abstained from awarding Pagano and Terragni.”34

It is clear that Alfieri did not approve of this attempt to make a political intervention, and that it was self-destructive. “Marcello Nizzoli’s paper cutter for Olivetti is an excellent example of good industrial design, even if the government does not industrialize construction.”35 Addressing the question of a crisis in design, he was equally indignant:

“Design is accused of turning neoliberty. But we are convinced that the architectural crisis (if there is such a thing) is not called neoliberty, but rather decorativism or “ornamented modern”, and it is a crisis restricted to the United States. [...] The Fiat 1800, designed by engineer Giacosa and Pinin Farina, is a beautiful car, but is influenced by these American tendencies which we disapprove of.”36

Alfieri was rather ambiguous on this point. On one hand he said there was no crisis, and if at all, it was restricted to the United States. But on the other hand, he acknowledged explicit changes also within Italian design of a negative nature. In my opinion, this shows that Alfieri did not belong to the group of dogmatic methodologists, but in a

32. E.g. Bruno Alfieri (critic, director of "Zodiac"), Aldo Bay (president of Ar-flex), Reyner Banham (critic, editor of "Architectural review"), Arthur N. BecVar (director of the department of design, General Electric Co.), Max Bill (designer, director of Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm), Misha Black (designer, president of ICSID), John E. Blake (critic, director of "Design"), Giulio Castelli (founder of Kartell, former president of the ADI), Achille and Piergiacomo Castiglioni (designers), Jay Doblin (director of Chicago Institute of design), Gillo Dorfles (art critic), Jane Fiske McCullough (director of "Industrial Design"), Roberto Mango (designer, professor at the industrial design course in Naples), Peter Müller Munk (designer, former president of ICSID), Sigurd Person (designer), Pinin Farina (designer, industrialist) and Gió Ponti (designer, director of "Domus"). 33. "La nostra inchiesta" in Stile Industria 26/27, (maggio 1960), p IVX 34. Bruno Alfieri, in "La nostra inchiesta" in Stile Industria 26/27, (maggio 1960), p XV 35. Ibid. 36. Ibid.

120 more pragmatic manner tended to appreciate good design on individual basis along with the contemporary currents in Italian design.

The critic and editor of Architectural Review, Reyner Banham, was not pleased with the assignation to the Council of Industrial Design neither. He claimed that the jury was stuck in a primitive phase when considering design’s didactic function the principal one. Banham went on, giving an example of how such an attitude did not corre- spond with the real world. Nizzoli’s Diaspron 82 had been received also in Britain with criticism and fear of the implications it might have on public taste. Banham con- demned this as an extremely arrogant expression for the “aesthetes’” worry that the public would question the design they themselves admired and hoped would last for- ever.37

I must say Banham’s attack on his own “species” was quite surprising. But it shows that functionalist puritans were considered more and more conservative and reaction- ary. There was a growing group that did not think breaking basic functionalistic principles automatically disqualified new design.

Jay Doblin, director of Chicago Institute of Design, claimed that Italy should have been expecting this design crisis. Seen from an American point of view, this opinion was not all that strange. His argument was that when Italian industry was modernized, Italian design would consequently become more commercial. I doubt the Italians bought Doblin’s argument, but then again, the debate itself must have seemed rather distant to him.38

The designer Angelo Mangiarotti had an interesting view on the supposed crisis situation:

“I believe that fundamentally, the Italian culture crisis is a crisis of distrust in one’s own possibilities of renewal and contribution to European culture. This can not but influence negatively the proper activity. [...] The phenomenon, certainly not anymore sporadic and marginal, of formalistic interest among certain architects and designers is, by the way a consequence of the ideological regression going on in Italy.”39

37. Reyner Banham, in "La nostra inchiesta" in Stile Industria 26/27, (maggio 1960), p XVI 38. Jay Doblin, in "La nostra inchiesta" in Stile Industria 26/27, (maggio 1960), p XVIII

121 Mangiarotti had, together with Morassutti, almost been expelled from the ADI in 1959 after their complaint about not receiving the Compasso d’Oro for the sewing machine Salmoiraghi 44. I find his comments on the crisis in correspondence with this incident, revealing that what he defined as ideological regression, many others defined as progress and attempts to develop design in light of structural changes in markets and society.

Not surprisingly, Gió Ponti was of the same opinion as most of his Italian designer col- leagues. According to him, a crisis situation did not exist, and withholding the Gran Premio Nazionale would rather serve to create such a crisis than to help overcome it. Certainly, Ponti did not praise the entire Italian industrial production, but meant that proclaiming a general crisis was not the proper way to improve its quality.40

Given the work Ponti had put down for Italian design over the years, and the fact that he had received the Gran Premio Nazionale himself in 1956, it was unlikely that his answer would be different. But it is interesting that he did not express concern for the recent developments in Italian design, considering that he belonged to the generation prior to designers such as Rosselli, Zanuso and Nizzoli, whose views he seems to have shared.

Designer and industrialist (Rima) Gastone Rinaldi shared the jury’s opinion of a crisis in terms of the precarious need for establishing basic guidelines for the development of industrial design. But more interesting was his thoughts on withholding the Gran Premio Nazionale. Rinaldi did not approve of this decision, and his arguments were identical with the ones put forward by Gillo Dorfles:

“If today in Italy no designer, critic, industrialist or firm merit this honour, the assignation of the Gran Premio Nazionale must be suspended indefinitely, because it is improbable if not impossible that within a year or two (the space of time separating two editions) the desired ideal conditions will arise.”41

39. Angelo Mangiarotti, in "La nostra inchiesta" in Stile Industria 26/27, (maggio 1960), p XXII 40. Gió Ponti, in "La nostra inchiesta" in Stile Industria 26/27, (maggio 1960), p XXIV 41. Gastone Rinaldi, in "La nostra inchiesta" in Stile Industria 26/27, (maggio 1960), p XXV

122 I find this argument to be very strong. The Gran Premi were, as many of the contributors pointed out, not assigned for recent accomplishments, but based on a total evalu- ation of the candidate’s long term contribution and achievements in the field of industrial design. The previous winners - Franco Albini, Pinin Farina, Gió Ponti and Adriano Olivetti - received the award for their work during decades, and not for their most recent results. Thus, by withholding the 1959 award, the jury also proclaimed the absence of worthy candidates for years to come. The questionnaire revealed a massive disagreement on this matter, and in order to prove their point, many suggested candidates like Marcello Nizzoli, Stile Industria and the Triennale.

Once again, we see the two fronts of the battle; the conservative functionalists versus the progressive designers. The jury along with some followers meant that Italian design had lost touch with its origins and drifted into a condition of non-determined experimentation and commercial orientation. In their opinion, the remedy would be to engage in a theoretical debate which should result in a methodological basis for the entire profession. The progressive designers did not share this longing for the common catechism of the early functionalism. They wanted to explore the possibilities of their profession, and the best way to do so was through adapting to the changes in society, industry, technology, markets and production.

The dice was cast. In my opinion, the restructuring of the Compasso d’Oro in the years to come was a direct consequence of this debate and the 1959 Gran Premi jury’s relation. The Compasso d’Oro for objects broke with its annual schedule, presenting future editions in 1960, 1962, 1964, 1967, 1970, before hibernating until 1979.42

The Gran Premi as known in the fifties ceased to exist after the 1959 dispute. In fact, a Compasso d’Oro to a person, firm of organization was not assigned until 1967, when the Triennale and La Rinascente were awarded. A person was not awarded until 1970, when Gillo Dorfles received a Compasso d’Oro alongside Editoriale Domus, Edizioni di Comunitá and Brionvega.43

42. Roberto Rizzi, Anna Steiner, Franco Origoni (ed.), design italiano - Compasso d’Oro ADI (Zingonia: CLAC, 1998) 43. Ibid.

123 It would of course be hazardous to attribute these developments of the Compasso d’Oro to single events, but nevertheless I am convinced that the discussions of 1959 in general and the arguments presented by Dorfles and Rinaldi in particular did pro- voke the changes. The structural alterations in the Italian design environment at the turn of the decade were reciprocal to the developments of the award. Although I am likely to consider the impact on the Compasso d’Oro made by industrial progress, increased wealth and expanding markets greater than the award’s impact on design ideology and practice, the latter aspect was certainly present, given the prestige the Compasso d’Oro enjoyed among those dedicated to industrial design in Italy.

6.6 General criticism of new tendencies in Italian design

The debate on the Gran Premio Nazionale 1959 might seem a bit narrow and partic- ullar. But it was very symptomatic for the changes in process and the sentiments within the core environment. However, that debate was just the tip of the iceberg. Both before and after the Gran Premi 1959 upheavals, the direction taken by Italian industrial design was commented and criticized. I will now discuss some of the more articulated contributions which were made.

In 1963, Pier Angelo Cetica published the book La funzione sociale dell’industrial design - the social function of industrial design. As the title implies, it dealt with the relation between design and society, in past, present and future. The book stated that the function of design was to improve the social existence of Modern Man through providing him with objects in harmony with modern society. Cetica was not satisfied with the situation in Italian design in this connection, and according to him, the crisis was a result of too close bonds with the past and fear of the future:

“The key to solve the crisis in which industrial design currently find itself, is found [...] in completely abandoning any artisan-derived understanding of the object. [...] Artisan and designer have to be separated, and preferably ignore one another.”44

Cetica’s criticism was based on two rather frail arguments. First, he pushed at an

44. Pier Angelo Cetica, La funzione sociale dell’industrial design (Firenze: Editrice Fiorentina, 1963), p 70 - 71

124 open door - Italian designers had abandoned the formal expression of arts and crafts a long time ago. Second, he disregarded the transition processes - Italian small and medium sized industry depended on and benefited greatly from artisan elements in their production. This tradition was one of the main reasons why e.g. the furniture industry was so flexible and able to experiment. Small Italian family businesses neither could nor wanted to become General Motors. Cetica’s demands were rather uto- pian, expecting a complete restructuring of all industrial production over night.

An other attack came from Reyner Banham in 1958 with the article “Neoliberty - The Italian Retreat from Modern Architecture” in his magazine Architectural Review. The term Neoliberty derived from the assertion that characteristics from Stile Liberty - also known as Art Nouveau or Jugendstil - were recurring among Italian architects and designers. The article mainly concerned architecture, but much of what applies to architecture normally also applies to design. Banham argued that the promising modern architecture based on social responsibility which had dominated Italy since the war, now had come to an end:

“When the BBPR [Banfi, Belgioioso, Peressutti, Rogers] partnership staged at the London Furniture Exhibition of 1958 an Italian section that seemed to be little more than a hymn of praise to the Milanese borghese taste at its queasiest and most cowardly, [...] confusion followed hard on disillusion. [This, and other] recent works [...] call the whole status of the Modern Movement in Italy in question”45

Banham argued that reviving an earlier stylistic expression could only be justified if the reviver found himself culturally in a position analogous to that of the time he seeks to revive. Neoliberty could in his opinion not be justified by claiming that borghese life was as it had been at the beginning of the century. Surely, the financial situation of the upper class was similar to what it had been during the times of the Stile Liberty, but according to Banham, Stile Liberty died of a cultural revolution that seemed absolutely irreversible: The revolution of domestic appliances, the futurist movement, Adolf Loos’ Ornament and Crime, cubist painting, and all other elements constituting the foundation of the modern movement. Neoliberty was “thus to abdicate from the Twentieth Century”46

45. Reyner Banham, "Neoliberty - The Italian Retreat from Modern Architecture" in Architectural Review, (april 1959), p 231 - 232 46. Ibid., p 235

125 Armchair Sanluca Beer tap Spinamatic Des: A.&P.G. Castiglioni, Prod: Gavina Des: A.&P.G. Castiglioni, Prod: Poretti (1960) (1964)

Banham argued that reviving previous stylistic expressions in general, and the phenomenon Neoliberty in particular, was wrong. But I am not convinced that Neoliberty was the apt term to describe what was happening in Italian design towards the end of the fifties. The only apparent resemblance, in my opinion, was that industrial design was losing some of the socialistic responsibility which had been so prominent in the earlier functionalism. Hence, it was to a greater degree directed by the borghese taste and requirements, which most certainly had been the case during the times of the Stile Liberty.

But one swallow doesn't make a summer. The formal expression of Italian design clearly changed character in the late fifties and early sixties, but it is hard to see any direct connection with the Stile Liberty of the century’s first decade. Listed among products indicated as examples of this regressive Neoliberty were works by e.g. Achille & Pier Giacomo Castiglioni (armchair Sanluca for Gavina 1960, beer-tap Spinamatic for Poretti 1964), Vico Magistretti (armchair Carimate for Cassina 1962, table lamp Erse for Artemide 1963), Vittorio Gregotti (armchair Cavour for Azucena 1960), and Marco Zanuso (armchair Woodline for Arflex 1964). These objects clearly differs from the strict functionalism om the mid-fifties, mainly with regard to the extensive use of curves. But curved forms do not necessarily equal a revival of Stile Liberty, even though it is understandable that some of the most conservative functionalists were tempted to make such a hasty conclusion.

A less condemning, but none the less affirmative contribution to the Neoliberty

126 polemic came from Paolo Portoghesi. He claimed that functionalism, or realismo as he called it, had failed in Italy due to lack of correct social and cultural conditions. In his opinion, functionalism had been imported from Central Europe, and had never completely succeeded in Italy because its history differed too much from e.g. Ger- many’s. Thus, young architects tried to reinterpret recent Italian architectural history, and the result was the new tendencies labeled Neoliberty.

“The realismo [...] ended with succumbing to a suggested idealized image of the Italian working class, the new tendencies of our days are inspired by an equally inaccurate con- ception of our middle class.”47

As we see, Portoghesi did not applaud the new tendencies either, but as opposed to Banham, he was not convinced of the impeccability of functionalism either. Although Portoghesi’s vision was a practice which served the entire population, he understood the younger architects’ desire to object to the rigid code of functionalism: “Young [architects are] anxious to experiment [...] in an environment as free as possible and outside the limitations of a rigorous orthodoxy”.48

But returning to the argument of whether or not these new tendencies in architecture and design should be called Neoliberty. Banham and Portoghesi justified this definition by pointing to two symptoms; the formal expression dominated by curves, and what they referred to as a shift of driving forces regarding taste from the working class to the middle class. I fully appreciate that, taken out of their context, both these obser- vations could be interpreted as symptoms of a Stile Liberty revival. But my opinion is that the interest in more organic forms and in satisfying the desires of the middle class had other origins than nostalgia, and hence render the term Neoliberty inapt.

Regarding the increased attention towards the middle class and their desires, it was a logic consequence of the growing public wealth. The working class increased their purchasing power, and the middle class expanded, incorporating the more successful of the lower class. This development had two effects on industrial design; The first was that the composition of the market changed, and in order to attend to all layers of the population, industry and designers obviously could not neglect the middle class.

47. Paolo Portoghesi, "Dal neorealismo al neoliberty" in Comunitá, 65 (1958), p 79 48. Ibid., p 78

127 The other effect was to reduce the socialistic aspect of design which had been so prominent during the first post-war decade.

When it comes to the second of the two main arguments for the existence of Neolib- erty, the extensive use of curved forms, I also find more probable causes. First of all, the designers’ personal desire to experiment with forms different from the strict, basic lines which had dominated functionalism since the Bauhaus era should not be under- estimated. In addition, the improvement of production methods and new technology may very well have encouraged the renewal of formal expressions. The most evident example of this was probably the plastic revolution, in Italy led by Giulio Castelli’s49 company Kartell and designers like Joe Colombo, Marco Zanuso, Alberto Rosselli, Achille & Pier Giacomo Castiglioni, Richard Sapper, et. al.

Another possible cause, which is harder to document, but in my opinion still plausible, is external inspiration. Italian industrial designers had always been fascinated by design from the Nordic countries, whose contributions to the X and XI Triennali were deeply admired.50 Nordic design attracted great attention in Italy due to its use of natural materials and organic forms. I do not think it is more plausible that nostalgia for the flourishing shapes of Stile Liberty caused the new formal tendencies in late fifties’ Ital- ian design than that inspiration from contemporary Nordic design did.

However, the existence of this discussion serves to prove that the controversies surrounding the Gran Premio Compasso d’Oro of 1959 were not isolated from the general Italian design discourse. Italian design had been moving away from the pure functionalist ideology represented so clearly by the VIII Triennale in 1947. This movement could also be regarded as a progression, and not regression of design, which was the impression given by the Gran Premi jury. Functionalist design had become dogmatic, and was not able to meet the demands of the increasingly wealthy middle class.

49. Giulio Castelli, chemistry professor, director of Kartell, and ADI president 1957 - 1958. He studied at Politecnico di Milano under professor Giulio Natta, Nobel chemistry price winner in 1963 for his research on plastics. 50. See e.g. Alberto Rosselli, "“Industrial Design“ alla X Triennale" in Stile Industria 2, (1954), p 2, “Helsingborg 55” in Stile Industria 5, (1955), p 3 - 6, and “Triennale Europea” in Stile Industria 13, (1957), p 1

128 6.7 Conclusion

In this chapter we have seen how Italian economy bloomed in the latter half of the fifties, both compared to other periods and to other countries. This development caused changes in the composition of the market, which again inflicted new tendencies in industrial design. Then we examined two examples of these changes, the Olivetti Diaspron 82 and the re-designed Piaggio Vespa, and discussed how they were received by the critics. After a survey of the 1958 and 1959 editions of the Compasso d’Oro, we embarked on the debate regarding Neoliberty and other topics related to the new tendencies in industrial design.

We closely examined the situation resulting from the decision to withhold the Gran Premio Compasso d’Oro of 1959. We went through the jury’s relation and commented its conclusions and the initial reactions it provoked. The analysis of the succeeding discussion at the ADI and the debate in Stile Industria revealed strong reactions to the declaration of a crisis in Italian design and a somewhat less homogeneous sense of resentment with regard to the withholding of the award. Most of the numerous contributors to this debate acknowledged an ongoing process of changes in Italian design, but viewed this as a challenging or stimulating development rather than a situation of crisis.

The arguments of those who expressed concern about disturbing elements in the development of Italian design, as well as of those who consented to the declaration of crisis, fit the pattern of the discussions on the assertion of Neoliberty and styling/formalismo.

This examination showed that Italian design was undergoing a process of diversification. The ideologic consensus and conformity of formal expression which had dominated the first post-war decade was substituted by heterogeneous situation. In other words; the Italian functionalism was disintegrating.

129

7 Shaping things, shaping society, shaping sense

Table lamp Eclisse Des: V. Magistretti, Prod: Artemide (1964)

In the early sixties, both the Italian society and Italian industrial design was very different from what it had been shortly after the war. The country had become a democratic republic and founding member of the EEC. Economy and industry had experienced a strong, accelerating growth under the entire period. Italian design was established as world leading, and had proved to be one of the main explanatory reasons for the success of Italian manufacturing industry. Italian design had conquered the world, but could not longer be characterized as functionalistic.

As we have seen in the previous chapters, Italian post-war functionalistic design developed through three phases from the mid-forties to the early sixties. In this chapter I will sum up what I have found to be the main lines of development.

In the first phase the effort was concentrated on the import, expansion and build-up of functionalistic ideas and design, with a strong socialistic domination of the message. During phase two, the golden years, the ideas and efforts were consolidated and the missionaries brought the message to the broad public and the industry. In the third phase, the disintegration, more and new actors took part in the forming and transforming of the message. This led to a deprivation of its original meaning. It was the disintegration of functionalism, but far from the disintegration of Italian design.

I will conclude this chapter with some remarks on the bigger picture. What contributed to this dramatic development and change in the period from the first post-war years to the early sixties? How did the central entrepreneurs and missionaries of functionalism

131 interpret and adapt the message to the Italian framework? And how was the message formed and transformed in these three phases?

7.1 Phase I - The breakthrough

When world war two was over, Italian society was in a peculiar situation. After two decades of fascism and five years of war, the task was to build a new democratic republic and form a functional, dynamic society. Socialists and communists had played a crucial part in the liberation, and socialist sympathies would be widespread also in the years to come. But it was the christian democrats who seized power at the first elections in 1948.

Reconstruction was the most important point on the agenda, and the industry needed to be re-directed to civil purposes. Architects and designers wanted to contribute to the reconstruction, but also adapted their professional interests to the situation and contemporary discourse. This can be read from the theme of the VIII Triennale (1947): “the reconstruction as a social problem”. This “proletarian Triennale”, including the Quartiere Triennale Ottava (QT8), symbolized the architects’ and designers’ emphasis on satisfying the basic needs for the masses. The design theory was adjusted to fit in with the national situation and the social task, and the key words were simplicity, honesty and low costs. In other words; this first phase of post-war Italian functionalism was predominantly socialistic in its approach.

From the ashes of the fascist regime and the devastations of the war, a new and frag- ile democratic state rose, surfing on a wave of artificial post-war political unity. The most impressive achievement by the VIII Triennale was the realization of the Quar- tiere Triennale Ottava (QT8). The QT8 was a residential quarter in the north-eastern part of Milan housing approximately ten thousand people. This experiment, which aimed to create a complete living environment for the working class, was a good indication of the nature of the VIII Triennale.

With the stabilization of the political climate and the christian democrat government consolidating its power, the traditional conflicts of interest re-emerged. This had con-

132 sequences also for culture in general and design and the Triennale in particular. The IX Triennale (1951) would turn out to be a reaction to the previous “proletarian Trien- nale”. Focus turned from social responsibility to avant-garde modernism, emphasizing good form and increasingly ignoring economic aspects.

As the forties became the fifties, focus shifted from the reconstruction to more general concerns. The christian democrat government succeeded in their economic and industrial strategies, and Italian industry embarked on the progress which would explode in the latter part of the decade. The unique industrial structure, consisting of great numbers of small and medium enterprises, some big cooperations, and considerable and complex governmental intervention, made for favorable circumstances for industrial design. This was only enhanced by the self-sufficiency the Italian production apparatus had been forced to develop before the war.

The economic, political and industrial development of the fifties made a powerful fertilizer for industrial design, and especially for functionalistic design. The increasing interest in and effort made on behalf of material culture in the Modern Movement culminated in 1954. That year represented the big breakthrough. Not in the sense that the mission to transform the world was completed and everyone was satisfied, but in the sense that a foothold for design had been gained and industrial design became a visible force in society. The strongest evidence of the breakthrough was the founding of the award Compasso d’Oro and the magazine Stile Industria. The X Triennale, which was dominated by industrial design - including the first international conference on the subject in Italy, completed the picture of 1954 as the year of the breakthrough.

7.2 Phase II - The golden years

The industrial and economic progress continued and increased into the fifties. The design pioneers of the Modern Movement began coordinating their efforts, and the results came quickly. The year 1954 marked industrial design’s definite entrance in public society. The institutions which had been founded functioned on two levels. They represented arenas for internal debate and consolidation within the design environment. But equally important was their function as communication and propaganda

133 vehicles, designated to diffuse the message among industry and public. These institutions also increased the interaction between the core environment and the society as a whole. In this period, the ideas of functionalistic design were directed more towards fighting for the incorporation of design in the production process, and the diffusion of modernist ideas in society as a whole.

In the mid-fifties, the growth in economy and markets accelerated. Following the editions of the Compasso d’Oro we saw, both through the awarded products and the juries’ relations, how design became less of a struggle for acceptance and more of a prominent factor in industrial production. In that way, the award must be said to have functioned according to its intentions.

The 1956 establishment of the Associazione per il Disegno Industriale (ADI) constituted the final consolidation of the designer profession, and - equally important - created another arena for discussions on different matters of interest to the members. This latter function was enhanced by the fact that the ADI was not a association of designers, but open to all persons with a professional interest in the field - designers, technicians, industrialists, critics, et. al. This was an attempt to include the industry as a partner in solving the problems of integrated product development in stead of creating a front of designers against industry.

The XI Triennale in 1957 followed in the footsteps of its predecessor, functioning as a grand showcase for good design and diffusing the message to the public. However, the social task was less visible than it had been three years earlier. Not everyone applauded this development. The Movimento Studi d’Architettura (MSA) boycotted the XI Triennale, accusing design for serving capital and abandoning its social task. This was the first sign of the disintegration of Italian functionalism.

Despite increasing acceptance for design in industry, the ideologic missionaries of e.g. Stile Industria and Compasso d’Oro continued to deliver the message that industrial design had to be appreciated by all manufacturers and incorporated in product development. Even if the number of well designed products was increasing, the battle would not be won until everyone had “seen the light”.

134 7.3 Phase III - Disintegration

As industrial design consolidated, through e.g. the establishment of ADI (1956) and the impact of the XI Triennale (1957), the reciprocal effect of the achievements kicked in. This connection is clearly illustrated in the development of the market. Just as design had gained the major markets’ interest, the markets started to influence industrial design. The forming and transforming of the message continued as new actors entered the arena. This commercialization was a consequence of the economic miracle and the public’s increased purchasing power, but was not applauded by everyone (c.p. the MSA protest against the XI Triennale, accusing design for being at capital’s service).

The economic miracle of the fifties accelerated faster than ever before towards the end of the decade, and industrial design had entered the consciousness of both public and industry to a degree never seen before. Markets expanded and demands went up, and the emphasis on design’s social responsibility diminished both among the public and designers. The characteristics of design started to change, and it got noticed.

New technology and production methods created new assignments and possibilities for design, and the dogmatic functionalism was questioned by the younger generation. Influences from the United States and the Nordic Countries, diametrically opposite in nature, and an experimental spirit among the new pioneers resulted in design which broke clearly with the principles of functionalism. This caused articulate reactions, spanning from accusations of styling to Neoliberty. Climax was reached when the jury of the 1959 Gran Premi Compasso d’Oro proclaimed a crisis situation. Not many seconded the declaration of crisis, but the very existence of the polemics it produced indicated that a new, major change was taking place.

At the turn of the decade, as a result of these changes, the main concern of Italian designers turned from justifying their own existence and “fighting for the cause” to executing their profession and conducting personal experiments. This was a sign of

135 the disintegration of functionalism, because its ideology was based on a very strict understanding of what was allowed within the framework of good design. But turning away from functionalism did not by any means mean that industrial design got less important - rather the opposite. The polemics of the late fifties both provoked and inspired. Fortunately for Italian design, it was mostly turned into positive energy, sup- plying an environment in change with the initiatives necessary for adapting to the currents of society.

In 1960 Alberto Rosselli considered the recent events and the general development to be of such importance that he presented Stile Industria’s new program. Here he proclaimed that:

“1960 presents itself to our country as a year of new efforts. Italian industry, as most of European industry, has become more aware of industrial design, because time has created the premises necessary for this activity, which are the increase of production and the expansion of markets.”1

As we see, he stresses the increase of production and the expansion of markets as the major explanation for industrial design’s acceptance and diffusion. The predominance these commercial considerations won over the proletarian ideology which had dominated the early post-war years mark the disintegration of functionalism.

7.4 The forming and transforming of design

As we have seen, functionalism was not a static phenomenon. Its origins lay outside Italy, so the early Italian pioneers had to adapt the ideas and experiments to the national socio-cultural surroundings. The interaction and negotiation between different actors or entrepreneur and this framework proved to be process in which industrial design developed after world war two.

As indicated in the introductory chapter there were two processes at hand. First we have seen how a small group of enthusiastic and ambitious entrepreneurs set out to conquer the Italian society for functionalism. In my study I have also made use of the

1. Alberto Rosselli, "Stile Industria - un nuovo programma" in Stile Industria 26/27, (1960), p 1

136 term or metaphor missionaries. By using this term I wished to point out the religious connotations these actors provoked. They truly believed in their cause; to modernize society and improve the conditions for the Italian population.

While the first line of development is how the modernist entrepreneurs actively tried to spread their message, the second deals with the way in which the message itself was viewed, used, transformed and adapted in time and context. What at first had been a pure, clean and objective message of the relation between function and form, at a later stage became object for dispute and negotiation. In the end, it was stolen from its original owners and turned into a commodity in the same way as the artefacts is was meant to shape.

During the first post-war years, the functionalistic message was formed to fit the national social task of the reconstruction. The aesthetic expression of the inter-war years’ avant garde functionalism was used by the entrepreneurs to promote rational, modest and functional design. Industrial design’s role as constructor of the modern society was a result of the negotiation between the missionaries’ ambitions and the contemporary political, social, economic and cultural framework.

As Italy got back on its feet, the functionalistic message had to be transformed again. Through new negotiations between the missionaries and their surroundings, the message turned towards creating more dynamic relations with industry and spreading the functionalistic liturgy to the broader masses. Through this development, the entrepreneurs managed to turn industrial design into a major force in Italian society.

The third major change in post-war Italian design took place towards the end of the fifties. In this period, the ongoing process of forming and transforming of the message changed the design to a degree so drastic that it could no longer be labeled functionalistic. This happened through a gradual change of ambitions among the original missionaries and the entry of new and additional actors on the negotiation arena. Market desires and regards for the industry became more and more important for the development of industrial design. The message fell into the hands of new negotiation part- ners - progressive designers, new and more wealthy consumers, more conscious

137 industrialists, et. al. - and the missionaries lost control of the original message.

It might be strict to date the disintegration of functionalism to approximately 1960, because many of its ideas and expressions continued well into the sixties. Still, I have chosen to do so for two evident reasons: First, the debate on the denounced crisis showed that the golden years of unity was over. Italian industrial design had lost its virginity. Second, the new design bore evidence of experimentation and desire for something new. Much, although certainly not all, of Italian early sixties production represented a diversification of the formal expressions and a break with basic functionalistic ideology.

The first two post-war decades constitute an interesting epoch in Italian industrial design. As we have seen, the development of design took place through a continuous shaping and re-shaping of the message. Around 1960, this process resulted in changes so profound that the functionalistic paradigm fell. The missionaries of functionalism had been shaping things. Their mission had, as a result, been shaping society. And in the utmost consequence, they had been shaping sense.

7.5 Epilogue

In 1965, Alberto Rosselli declared that:

“I do not believe in a temporary aesthetics; but always in design solutions in accordance with a specific program of space, time and market”2

This statement shows that he did not see the recent disintegration of functionalism as a defeat. Being one of the most persistent advocates for the Modern Movement, one might expect a more rigid attitude towards the turning away from the early post-war ideology. But, as pointed out before, Rosselli possessed the rare combination of ideal- ism and pragmatism. In many ways, he represented the very reason for the immense success of Italian industrial design which began, but did not end, with the functionalism of the fifties.

2. Alberto Rosselli, quoted in “Sei domande a otto designers” in Edilizia moderna 85 (1965), p 18

138 Children’s chair K 1340 Des: M. Zanuso & R. Sapper, Prod: Kartell (1964)

Throughout the sixties, Italian industrial design did not lose ground. Rather the opposite - Italy strengthened its position as world wide laboratory for new design ideas and took the lead e.g. in the anti-design protest groups of the late sixties and the post- modernism a decade later.

The evolution of design in the first half of the sixties was influenced by the growing distance to the war and poverty. The “proletarian” ideological fundament was gone, and the market wanted products which satisfied more than basic needs. A good example of this development is the themes of the XII and the XIII Triennali. The 1960 edition was dedicated to la casa e la scuola - “house and school”, whereas four years later the theme was Il tempo libero - “spare time”. The contrast between the themes of VIII Triennale in 1947 - “the reconstruction as a social problem” - and XIII Triennale in 1964 - “spare time” - was immense, and exemplifies how both Italian society and industrial design had changed profoundly through the immense development of the fifties.

The growth in wealth and technological invention continued in the sixties. In Italy, the term “bel design” represented the mainstream commercial design which experimented with new shapes and materials. The most representative example was the plastic revolution led by companies like Kartell and designers like Joe Colombo, Marco Zanuso, Richard Sapper and Mario Bellini. The invention of polypropylene made it possible to make solid chairs, tables and domestic equipment in one cast in

139 Chair/bed Pratone Hat-and-coat stand Cactus Chair Sacco Des: Gruppo Strum (1970) Des: G. Drocco & F. Mello Des: P. Gatto, F. Teodoro & C. Paolini (1971) (1968)

every thinkable color and form.3 This will and ability to experiment made Italy a pioneer in radical modern design, whereas e.g. Germany was more conservative and stuck to geometric forms longer, represented by the ideas from the Hochschule für Gestaltung in Ulm and the products from Braun.

From the mid-sixties the design - industry symbiosis got criticized, and the reactions were at their earliest and most powerful in Italy. Designers felt the need to create a distance between design and the world of production and consumption.4

This development was a part of, and inspired by, the new radical expressions in art, politics and youth culture of the time. The advances in space technology and films like 2001 - A Space Odyssey inspired designers to create futuristic habitats. The North American hippie movement and the student riots in European cities made way for the occupation of the XIV Triennale during the summer of 1968. Pop art, especially its stars like Roy Lichtenstein and Andy Warhol, influenced Italian designers to play with forms, symbols and connotations. The result was objects which were more statements than products, like the hat-and-coat stand cactus by Guido Drocco and Franco Mello from 1971 and the chair/bed Pratone by Gruppo Strum from 1970.

3. Enzo Frateili, Continuitá e trasformazione - Una storia del design italiano, 1928-1988 (Milano: Greco, 1989), p 77 - 78 4. Ibid., p 104 - 110

140 Most of these experiments commonly known as anti-design took place within the frameworks of groups formed by designers in the late sixties. Strum was one of these, founded in 1966. Other examples were Superstudio (1966), Archizoom Associati (1966) and Gruppo 9999 (1967). Their common denominator was the desire to make a statement against the world of consumption, and most of their projects were thus prototypes which never reached mass production. An exception from this rule was the famous chair Sacco by Piero Gatti, Franco Teodoro and Cesare Paolini from 1968, which became a huge commercial success.5

One of the leading anti-designers was Ettore Sottsass. In the fifties, he had been a promising young modernist designer. But his evident desire to always move on and experiment made him the very symbol of the avant garde status Italian design has kept ever since the war. Today, Sottsass is probably best known as one of post-modernism’s godfathers. As a founding member of the groups Global Tools (1973), Alchimia (1976) and Memphis (1981), he went from anti-design, via “collage”-design in Alchimia, and returned to commercial design in Memphis. Memphis was founded because Sottsass re-discovered the importance of designing for mass production, and is considered the breakthrough for post-modernist design.6

Considering the post-war era as a whole, the most interesting observation is that Ital- ian industrial design seems to have been in a unique position when it comes to antici- pating and creating changes in formal expressions. We have seen how this applied to the functionalism of the fifties, the experimental anti-design of the late sixties and sev- enties, and the post-modernism of the eighties. But also the minimalism, or neomod- ernismo, of the nineties was pioneered by Italian design. It just goes to show that Italian industrial design during the last half century has possessed an impressive ability to constantly be pioneers.

5. A. Grassi, A. Pansera, Atlante del design italiano 1940/1980 (Milano: Fabbri, 1984), p 59 - 75 6. Ibid., p 114 - 121

141

Bibliography

Primary Sources

All issues of the magazine Stile Industria, 1954 - 1963. Published in 41 issues from June 1954 to February 1963 by Editoriale Domus, Milan

Bibliography

Franco Albini, "Dibattito sulla tradizione in architettura" in Casabella 206, (1955)

Isabelle Anscombe, Arts&Crafts Style (Oxford, Phaidon, 1991)

Angelo Tito Anselmi, “L’industrial design alla Triennale” in Civiltà delle macchine (settembre-novembre 1957)

Antonio Banfi, “Discutiamo della Triennale come di una nostra battaglia” in La Voce comunista, (15 set embre 1954)

Reyner Banham, "Neoliberty - The Italian Retreat from Modern Architecture" in Architectural Review, (april 1959)

Reyner Banham, Theory and Design in the First Machine Age (Oxford: Architectural Press, 1960)

Carlo Bassi, “Il quartiere della Triennale a Milano”, in Comunitá 1 (Nov. 1947)

F. Buzzi Ceriani, V. Gregotti, “Contributo alla storia delle Triennali”, in Casabella-Continuitá 216 (1957)

Michel Callon, “Society in the Making: the Study of Technology as a Tool for Sociological Analysis” in Wiebe E. Bijker, Thomas P. Hughes, and Trevor Pinch, the Social Construction of Technolog- ical Systems - New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology (Camebridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1989)

Rondo Cameron, A Concise Economic History of the World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989)

Valerio Castronovo, L’industria italiana dall’ottocento a oggi (Milano: Oscar Mondadori, 1980) Pier Angelo Cetica, La funzione sociale dell’industrial design (Firenze: Editrice Fiorentina, 1963)

A. P. Cowie (ed), Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English Fourth Edition (Oxford: Ox- ford University Press, 1989)

Carlo Doglio, “Accademia e formalismo alla base della Nona Triennale”, in Metron 43 (settembre/ottobre 1951)

Gillo Dorfles, “Il prodotto industriale nella società moderna” in Catalogo della XI Triennale (Milano: Cen- tro Studi Triennale di Milano, 1957)

Paolo Fossati, Il design in Italia 1945-1972 (Torino: Einaudi, 1972)

Enzo Frateili, Continuitá e trasformazione - Una storia del design italiano, 1928-1988 (Milano: Greco, 1989)

Tony Fry, “Design History: A Debate?” in Block 5 (1981)

Paul Ginsborg, A history of contemporary Italy - Society and politics 1943 - 1988 (London: Penguin, 1990)

A. Grassi, A. Pansera, Atlante del design italiano 1940/1980 (Milano: Fabbri, 1984)

A. Grassi, A. Pansera, L'Italia del design - Trent'anni di dibattito (Casale Monferrato: Marietti, 1986)

Thomas Hauffe, Design (Oslo: Cappelen, 1996)

Pat Hudson, The Industrial Revolution (London: Arnold, 1992)

Thomas P Hughes, American Genisis - A Century of Invention and Technological Enthusiasm, (New York: Penguin, 1989)

Wendy Kaplan, “Building Utopia: Pioneer Modernism on the American West Coast” in Paul Greehalgh (ed.), Modernism in Design (London: Reaktion, 1990)

Stig Kvaal, Kulturvitenskapelige innfallsvinkler til integrert produktutvikling (Trondheim: CTS working paper, 9/1998) M. Labó in Catalogo della Decima Triennale (Milano: Centro Studi Triennale, 1954)

Bruno Latour, Science in Action. How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society (Milton Key- nes: Open University Press, 1987)

Nora Levold and Per Østby, Teknologi på vandring: Elementer til en analyseramme for studier av teknologioverføring (Trondheim: CTS working paper, 5/1993)

Ivan Matteo Lombardo, “Proposti e realtá della Decima Triennale” in Catalogo della Decima Triennale (Milano: Centro Studi Triennale, 1954)

Adolf Loos, Ornament and Crime - Selected Esseys (Riverside: Ariadne, 1998)

Angus Maddison, Phases of Capitalist Development (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982)

Filiberto Menna, “Il Futurismo e le arti applicate. La Casa d’arte italiana”, in Studi di storia dell’arte in onore di Vittorio Viale (Torino: Fratelli Pozzo, 1967)

Augusto Morello, “Mostra dell’Industrial Design” in Catalogo della Decima Triennale (Milano: Centro Stu- di Triennale, 1954)

Bruno Munari, Manifesto del Macchinismo (1952)

Enzo Paci, Giulio Carlo Argan, “Disegno industriale e cultura” in Le arti, number dedicated to the X Tri- ennale, (1954)

Anty Pansera, Storia e Cronaca della Triennale (Milano: Longanesi, 1978)

Anty Pansera, Storia del disegno industriale italiano (Bari: Laterza, 1993)

Nikolaus Pevsner, Pioneers of Modern Design: From William Morris to Walter Gropius (New York: Faber & Faber, 1936)

Gió Ponti in Domus 192 (1943)

Gió Ponti, "Dalla IX alla X Triennale" in Domus, (dicembre 1951)

Gió Ponti, "La X Triennale é in corso" in Domus 299, (ottobre 1954) Gió Ponti, "Saluto alla Decima Triennale Augurio alla Undicesima" in Domus 302, (gennaio 1955)

Paolo Portoghesi, "Dal neorealismo al neoliberty" in Comunitá, 65 (1958)

Roberto Rizzi, Anna Steiner, Franco Origoni (ed.), design italiano - Compasso d’Oro ADI (Zingonia: CLAC, 1998)

Ernesto N. Rogers, in Domus 215 (Nov. 1946)

Ernesto N. Rogers, “Architettura, misura dell’uomo”, in Domus (luglio/agosto 1951)

Ernesto N. Rogers, in Casabella 271 (1963)

Alberto Rosselli, "L'estetica del prodotto alla Rinascente" in Domus 290, (1954)

Alberto Rosselli, "STILE INDUSTRIA" in Domus 292, (1954)

Alberto Rosselli, quoted in “Sei domande a otto designers” in Edilizia moderna 85 (1965)

Alberto Rosselli, I metodi del design (Milano: Clup, 1973)

Alberto Rosselli, Lo spazio aperto - Ricerca e progettazione tra design e architettura (Milano: Pizzi, 1974)

Marina Rossi, “Il QT8, un esperimento di architettura e urbanistica”, in Controspazio, 4, October 1973

Claudia Salaris, Storia del futurismo (Roma: Editori Riuniti, 1992)

G. Samoná, "F. Albini e l'architettura in Italia" in Zodiac 3, (1958)

Giulio Sapelli, “Le trasformazioni sociali e la differenziazione industriale” in Valerio Castronovo, Giulio Sapelli (ed.), Civiltá delle macchine - Tecnologie, prodotti, progetti, dell’industria meccanica italiana dalla ricostruzione all’Europa (Milano: Fabbri, 1990)

Roger Silverstone and Leslie Haddon, Future Compatible? Information and communication technologies in the home. A methodology and case study. (Sussex: SPRU, University of Sussex, 1993)

Penny Sparke, “Design History: Fad or Function? Some Afterthoughts” in Design History Newsletter 3 Penny Sparke, An Introduction to Design & Culture in the Twentieth Century (London:Allan & Unwin, 1986)

G. Veronesi, “La Fantasia alla IX Triennale 1951”, in Profili: disegni, architetti, strutture, esposizioni. (Firenze: Vallecchi, 1969)

Siegfried Wichmann, Jugenstil Art Nouveau (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1984)

Jonathan M. Woodham, Twentieth-Century Design (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997)

Renzo Zorzi, “Civiltá delle macchine, Civiltà delle forme” in Valerio Castronovo, Giulio Sapelli (ed.), Civiltá delle macchine - Tecnologie, prodotti, progetti, dell’industria meccanica italiana dalla ricostruzione all’Europa (Milano: Fabbri, 1990)