| Presentation of La Fenice design exhibition
Many people have wondered why Wright and Le Corbusier
never built anything in Venice. Modern design is restricted to the Zattere
area and Gardella and James Stirling's small building, which nonetheless
stands on the edge of the historic city.
Even the most uncompromising authors of the new give way in the face of
Venice's slightly melancholy air; more than anywhere else, here the powers
of nature seem to continually take hold of human endeavour. In Venice,
the disruptive force of the elements has merged with construction work
to form a precarious balancing act, creating the soothing image of a purely
natural existence. Anything new appears completely out of place here.
As a result, even categorical innovators have cautiously asked “to
assess the static consistency of the surviving facade and walls […]
let us question the building as it is today. Let us question the project
in a dialogue between the new and the old”. The idea of “preserving
and innovating” has taken shape.
It is not the first time this has happened. Italy underwent a similar
ordeal in 1945 at the end of the second World War. The bombing and destruction
which had tortured people and their cities led to widespread discussion
on the best way forward. With key contributions from Enzo Paci and relationalists,
a completely original approach was developed, one which took on board
sensitive realities. Designs for the future were to be interwoven with
elements of the new and the old, with permanency and emergency, tradition
and renovation. There was a feeling that the new architecture could be
“neither realistic nor idealistic but relational”.
This inspired the idea of continuity, a means of overcoming the fixed
nature of rationalist and organicist ideologies. The vision is summed
up in words such as Epochè, Lebenswelt, Intenzionalità.
In other words, “Essentially, real modernity means using new forms
to make the old alive and present; the real revival is the new horizon
which opens up through modernity. Modernity negates the fossilisation
and death of the old, bringing it back to life in new forms. Similarly,
man is not a negation of nature which he erroneously sets against himself
as something complete and conclusive, seeing himself as pure freedom and
spirit; it is the continuation of nature's process of evolution which
is always being reborn in man and taking on new forms” (Enzo Paci).
What became known as environmental pre-existences characterised building
immediately after the War. Important work included Casa Perego on Milan's
Via Borgonuovo (by BBPR) and Ignazio Gardella's PAC. It was taken up by
a handful of other architects whose works can be appreciated through the
words of E. N. Rogers: “A building cannot be truly modern unless
it has real roots in tradition; ancient buildings have a significance
today as long as they resonate with our voices”.
Later this theme emerged in more complex forms, not by chance in Venice
at the first international architectural exhibition under the banner 'The
Past in the Present'. Debate over the theme blew out of all proportion,
with significant consequences on how post-modernism was viewed, sanctioning
very different ways of “recovering” the past.
The Preliminary Project for La Fenice, supervised by the office of the
Prefect of Venice, was presented on 30th August 1996. It encapsulates
and summarises the debate over the rebuilding of the theatre (see special
issues of “ANAGKH” and “Quasar”). The project
sets out the blueprints for reconstruction, to involve consolidating,
renovating and restoring all surviving structures, parts, fittings and
decorations; reproducing the acoustics of the lost auditorium; preserving
the unique atmosphere of the lost theatre as regards those areas in public
use - within reasonable limits; updating the theatre's operating systems
and stage resources using cutting-edge technology; rationalising service
areas; and improving the running of the theatre.
As the project states: “the reconstruction project will have to
overcome the problem of physical, architectural and environmental restrictions,
meet public and occupational health and safety regulations and take account
of modern building and technological standards; these concerns make it
impracticable to reproduce every last detail of the theatre as it was
before the fire [...] Of course, it is impossible to reproduce the theatre
as designed by Selva, rebuilt by Meduna or modified by Miozzi; while similar,
it will not even be identical to the theatre as it was before the fire.
Extensively rebuilt, its lost parts replaced, functions modified and technology
improved, the new La Fenice will nonetheless be a mere evocation of its
former self”.
From the cold, bureaucratic language of the Preliminary Project, “as
and where it stood” is reduced to an intention, a desire, in the
awareness that we cannot “turn back time or wipe out history”
(Cesare Brandi).
|
|
I progetti presentati
|
|
|
