27 April 1997

Catalogue of Masterworks: Italian Design 1960-1994
The Bard Center for Studies in the Decorative Arts, New York

## Masterworks: Italian Design, 1960-1994

Essay by R. Craig Miller

> Masterworks: Italian Design 1960-1994 is organized by the Denver Art Museum and circulated by The American Federation of Arts.

The enormity of Italy's renaissance in the field of design after World War II is now difficult to imagine. During the previous two centuries Italy's role in the evolution of the Modern Movement had been peripheral at best. By the war's end, it lay defeated and devastated. And yet, within the short period of some fifteen years, it arose phoenixlike to usurp the leadership of Western design -- almost singlehandedly producing major designers, manufacturers, critical milieu, and retailing system that would set the pace for Modern design in the second half of the twentieth century. This remarkable achievement is the raison d'être for Masterworks: Italian Design, 1960-1994.

### The Genesis of the Italian Design Miracle

Like many European countries after World War II, Italy was faced with the enormous task of building a new society -- economically, politically, and culturally. This process came to fruition about 1960, in what is often called the "Italian miracle," a resurgence that marked Italy's return as a major power in Europe and the Western world.

Scandinavia and the United States, major leaders in contemporary design in the immediate post-war years, proved to be important models as the Italians sought to rebuild their design industry. Design was readily acknowledged in Scandinavian countries not only as a cultural force but as an indispensable aspect of the overall economy, an attitude that inevitably led to an important alliance of government, industry, and designers. Another model was the small scale of Scandinavian companies, which allowed them to readily combine handcraftmanship with industrial production and thus offer designers great leeway in their work. Both models helped define Italian industry in the post-war years.

The influence of the highly industrialized American design community was markedly different. First of all, America set an important precedent in the manner in which it adapted the Modernist style, which had developed in Europe between the world wars. What had once been a strongly socialist and highly theoretical movement was transformed into an expression of a democratic capitalist society and eventually into a formalism, in which the purely visual aspects of an object increasingly took precedence over theoretical considerations. The structure of the American design industry also provided an important model for its Italian counterpart. Major companies -- such as Knoll and Herman Miller -- were run by individuals whose vision affected every aspect of their operation. They often hired architects as their principal designers, most notably artists such as Eero Saarinen or Charles Eames who were part of the initial generation trained at the Cranbrook Academy of Art. American manufacturers devised innovative retailing techniques: they developed a showroom distribution system to present their products; catered increasingly to a luxury clientele; and, by the 1950s, expanded their market to an international audience. American and Scandinavian leadership in the field of contemporary design dissipated soon after 1960, but not before it had helped set a number of critical precedents for the Italian design industry.

Ultimately, however, the phenomenal success of Italian design in the 1960s was founded on a number of distinctive Italian attributes. Of paramount importance was the respect accorded to design as one of the most creative and internationally influential aspects of Italian art. This central attitude was embraced by government, industry, universities, the media, and the general public of Italy.

Italy, moreover, developed a strong infrastructure for design criticism. The opportunity to debate ideas publicly in diverse media -- often acrimoniously -- accounts in no small part for Italy's continuing vitality as a center of new movements. Similarly, the Milan Triennales and other exhibitions, such as the Salone del Mobile, were used assiduously to showcase new Italian designs nationally as well as internationally.

Unlike the United States or Germany, Italy had historically lacked a strong research and technological base; its designers instead drew on a long design tradition and concentrated on promoting an "Italian look" as a means of distinguishing their products. Largely developed by modernist designers and manufacturers, this look achieved international recognition during the 1960s in every medium from automobiles to fashion. It was characterized -- as Penny Sparke, the noted British design historian, has observed -- by a seeming simplicity, a sophisticated palette of materials, fine craftsmanship, expressive form, and the employment of new technology, the latter most often adapted secondhand. Perhaps most significantly, while American designers such as Florence Knoll had perfected a restrained elegance in the 1950s, reflecting the influence of Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, the Italians went further, developing an overt flair and bravura unmatched in contemporary design. They initially called it "utility plus beauty."

During the post-war period, Italy produced a number of major architects who found little opportunity to build, given the convoluted Italian economic and political situation. Italian manufacturers in almost every medium soon realized that they could give their products a distinctive look by employing these artists as designers, a serendipitous arrangement that has provided the Italian design industry with a continuous and remarkable pool of talent over the last four decades.

Italy's rise to design prominence was also fueled by the nature of its manufacturing infrastructure. After the war, Italy developed new industrialized factories but still maintained its small, family-owned workshops. The latter often functioned as subcontractors for industries as well as fabricators for designers developing new ideas. This duality accounted repeatedly for the ability of Italian companies and designers to introduce new products rapidly and without large financial investments.

### The Battle Between Modernism and Anti-Modernism

The primary reason for Italy's central position in contemporary design during the last quarter century, however, is that it was the center -- and, indeed, in many respects, the originator -- of one of the great ideological battles of the late twentieth century. This struggle between Modernism and Anti-Modernism was not just a stylistic contest as so often portrayed in the popular press, but rather a serious theoretical debate between advocates of two diametrically opposed design philosophies.

The Italians did not, of course, originate Modernism, a movement that began much earlier in Europe during the post-World War I period and was associated with schools such as the Bauhaus in Germany. Early Modernist designers had sought to express a new urban, industrialized society and were initially strongly socialist in their politics. Industrial design -- i.e., the mass production of objects for Everyman -- was one of their primary tenets. Thus these designers utilized new technology and industrial materials such as glass and steel; they favored light, minimal forms (highly geometric in the 1920s but more biomorphic in the 1930s); they emphasized the inherent qualities of materials and manufacturing processes over applied ornament or pattern; and they were opposed to any overt historical references. In short, Modernism was envisioned from its inception as the style of the "avant-garde."

After World War II, the Italians, following the American precedent, adopted Modernism as a symbol of a new democratic and capitalist society; but they modified and renewed it in a number of distinctive ways. The Italian Modernists became increasingly formalist after 1960, alternately embracing a biomorphic aesthetic as well as a highly geometric mode; indeed some designers worked in both aesthetics simultaneously. While clearly concerned with rationalist issues of function, materials, and technology, their primary concern increasingly became one of style -- the "Italian look." Beauty had now supplanted utility as the dominant design criterion, a decisive break from their German precursors at the Bauhaus.

Italy, on the other hand, was primarily responsible for the advent of Anti-Modernism in the design field. While the Italians prefer the terms "Radical Design" or "Anti-Design," the word "Anti-Modernism" is used in the context of this exhibition. "Post-Modernism" is, of course, the term most commonly used in America, but it presents a number of problems. First of all, the prefix "post" implies that this movement developed after Modernism, whereas in Italian design the two aesthetics developed simultaneously from the 1960s onward. Moreover,"Post-Modernism" has now acquired a pejorative -- if not derogative -- connotation for many people. Perhaps most importantly, the term is limiting in that it is most often used as a stylistic label to refer to the historicizing work of American architects such as Michael Graves and Robert A. M. Stern, whose important Anti-Modernist designs were not produced until the late seventies and early eighties. The term "Anti-Modernism" expresses the one essential fact -- that whatever its pluralistic manifestations, it arose in strong opposition to Modernism.

The Italian Anti-Modernists in large part proposed a new conception of design, one that challenges many of the fundamental tenets that had so decisively governed the field since the 1920s. Anti-Modernism initially grew out of the belief that by the 1960s Modernism had lost its ideological bearings and was now simply producing formalist objects for a vast consumer society. From this perspective, designers had become the "tools" for keeping affluent capitalist governments and economies afloat. The Anti-Modernists proposed an alternative theorectical framework for Modern design: its primary purpose would be to make cultural, intellectual, and political statements, thus reclaiming an initial mandate of Modern design as an important means of reforming society.

To a considerable extent, many Anti-Modernists also sought to establish design as a field separate from but equal to architecture. Design did not necessarily have to follow architectural parameters -- as was so often the case with Modernism -- but could develop in entirely independent ways, much like American streamlined design during the 1930s or the more recent "Studio Movement" in the American craft field.

Anti-Modernism also marked the revival of a decorative tradition in design that had abated in the 1930s in the face of the growing theoretical and aesthetic acceptance of Modernism. This renewed interest in decorative design constituted one of the first serious challenges to the undisputed authority of the Modernist industrial design aesthetic in more than a quarter century.

Such radical conceptual shifts in design would, in short order, necessitate major changes in almost every aspect of the field. Reacting against the "good taste" of the Modernists, the Anti-Modernists initially advocated the "banal" and the "everyday." More fundamentally, they championed an intuitive and anti-rationalist methodology. They sought affinities with the fine arts versus architecture, as "a means of introducing a dialectic element into the design process," as Penny Sparke has also noted. They searched for a new sense of form, often drawing on diverse sources such as vernacular, "Third World" kitsch, and even historicizing designs. In their conscious attempt to find a direction completely antithetical to Modernism, they brazenly employed strong pattern, ornament, color, and texture, as well as unorthodox combinations of vernacular and luxury materials. The Anti-Modernists favored "low" technology; they most often produced their designs by hand in limited numbers in small workshops and distributed them through galleries or exhibition. Not generally concerned with producing prototypes for mass production, the Anti-Modernists likewise showed little interest in new technology or industrial materials. Indeed, much of their work was visionary and was not even intended for execution. It is, in fact, important to note two related factors: the Anti-Modernists were among the first designers to realize the importance of mass media as a means of disseminating their ideas; and, second, they regarded their visionary projects to be as valid as any mass-produced design.

Neither Modernism nor Anti-Modernism sprang into being overnight or, for that matter, evolved in a distinct linear manner from the sixties through the nineties. This exhibition seeks to elucidate this turbulent ebb and flow, one of the most important chapters in late twentieth-century design.

### The 1960s

The 1960s brought enormous economic prosperity, as well as transformation, to Italy. The influence of American rock and roll, television, film, and the "blue jean" aesthetic swept Europe and introduced a greater informality in Italian society. This change in lifestyle was reflected in the forms, materials, and arrangement of furnishings. Even the influence of the women's liberation movement later in the decade could be detected in the emerging careers of Gae Aulenti and Anna Castelli-Ferrieri, among the first Italian women to receive international attention as designers.

The sixties was a period of unparalleled Modernist achievements (see plates 1 & 2). Designers produced an extraordinary array of domestic furnishings, which manufacturers soon marketed on an international scale. Stylistically this work often perpetuated the biomorphic aesthetic of the fifties, though with quite different theoretical underpinnings; but increasingly a new "high tech" geometric look made itself felt.

The introduction of a number of new materials and technologies had a pronounced effect on Modernist design in these years. Polyurethane, a material that can be molded into almost any shape, dramatically changed the form and construction of furniture. Large blocks of foam eliminated the need for frames and even legs. Designers also realized the material's imaginative potential for modular units and strong sculptural shapes; a change thus ensued from planar, two-dimensional compositions to massive, three-dimensional forms. Upholstery techniques were in turn altered with the introduction of a generation of stretch fabrics needed to cover such idiosyncratic forms. Gavina and B&B Italia were among the earliest manufacturers to use these new materials.

Plastic had been used in the forties and fifties to great effect by designers such as Saarinen and Eames, but the sixties saw the introduction of a stronger generation of materials such as ABS and more sophisticated manufacturing processes such as injection molding. Given their stylistic sophistication, the Italians were responsible in many respects for the transformation of plastic from a utilitarian substance for kitchenwares into a refined material for furnishings. Companies like Kartell and Artemide began to manufacture furniture and lighting that employed plastic as a reflection of a new lifestyle for the sixties.

Lighting also underwent a dramatic change during this period. A number of important technological innovations, such as the halogen bulb, occurred; but perhaps the most significant development was the concept of lighting as a sculptural element. Isamu Noguchi, the Japanese American designer/sculptor, had explored this idea in the 1950s; but the Italians carried it much further by designing fixtures that could be varied in profile and size. Plastic, moreover, allowed lamps to be fused into continuous sculptural forms, often with varying degrees of translucency. The "high tech" look led to the exposure of industrial components such as cords, transformers, and automobile headlights. Joe Colombo and the Castiglioni brothers were responsible for some of the most innovative of these designs during this decade.

The sixties also marked the intermittent beginnings of the Anti-Modernist movement with groups such as Superstudio and Archizoom (see plates 3 & 4). Initially centered in Florence, these groups grew out of the social unrest of the period, particularly the student and worker demonstrations of 1968 and 1969.

Individuals such as Ettore Sottsass, whose career has spanned almost a half century, played a central role. Many of Anti-Modernism's theoretical mandates and much of its stylistic vocabulary were originated by Sottsass. Harbingers of a new design vocabulary appear in his work as early as 1962; but it was a furniture series designed in the mid-sixties for the manufacturer Poltronova, near Florence, that marked a dramatic change from Modernist precepts in material, form, scale, pattern, and concept -- developments that would come to fruition some fifteen years later with his design group Memphis.

Other Anti-Modernists such as Gaetano Pesce and teams such as D'Urbino, De Pas, and Lomazzi used polyurethane and plastic but quite differently from their Modernist counterparts. Strongly influenced by American Pop Art, their designs were as much sculptural and cultural statements as objects for everyday use. Similarly, Anti-Modernist designers like UFO and Sottsass, who were fascinated with the sculptural qualities of lighting, transformed such fixtures into luminous, almost surreal, totems.

In reality, many Anti-Modernist works of this decade and the next were not executed. Their status as visionary projects accounts in no small part for the strong interest of the Anti-Modernists in cultural criticism. Some designers, among them Alessandro Mendini, initially pursued careers as influential editors of major periodicals such as Domus, Casabella, and Moda, where they could actively promulgate their radical theories.

The student/worker demonstrations of the late 1960s were a sign of the increasingly serious social problems facing Italy. After some two decades of enormous growth, the fabled Italian miracle had come to an end. Italy had achieved much of its success through the availability of cheap labor and the appeal of the Italian look. It was now seriously challenged on a number of fronts by the seemingly limitless labor pool of the developing countries and the growing economic and technological might of Germany and Japan.

The 1970s Italy was threatened by enormous turmoil and insecurity throughout much of the seventies. Mass demonstrations continued and eventually escalated into the terrorism of the infamous Red Brigades. The oil crisis of 1973 severely impacted the economies of the plastic and Venetian glass industries. The angst of the decade finally culminated in 1979 with the kidnapping and assassination of the country's prime minister, Aldo Moro.

In the design field, however, there were a number of positive developments. Milan solidified its position as the center of Italian design, particularly for the Anti- Modernists. The landmark exhibition Italy: The New Domestic Landscape, organized by Emilio Ambasz for the Museum of Modern Art (New York) in 1972, was instrumental in establishing the prestige of Italian design worldwide.

While Modernism clearly remained the predominant style during the 1970s, it was unable in many respects to evolve in decisive new directions (see plate 5). The fascination with biomorphic and geometric forms of the sixties continued unabated; likewise, polyurethane and plastic remained favorite materials.

During this period the high-tech look followed two approaches. One group of Modernist designers and architects, including Marco Zanuso and Richard Sapper, reduced objects -- from skyscrapers to TV sets -- to sleek, minimal, geometric forms in shades of black and grey. Another group was fascinated with overtly showing the industrial components and construction of their designs, much in the sense of the popular phrase "letting it all hang out." Both aspects of this high-tech aesthetic proved enormously popular and continued well into the 1990s.

One response to the social and economic unrest was perhaps the "conservative" drift of some Modernist designers, such as Mario Bellini and Vico Magistretti, back toward more traditional forms and materials. The increasing cost of producing plastic and polyurethane now made native materials such as marble, wood, and leather more attractive economically, if not aesthetically.

In short, the Modernists produced few major innovations in form, technology, or materials during the 1970s. Perhaps most disturbing, the movement seemed to evolve increasingly into a purely formalist style with fewer ideological underpinnings, much as the Anti-Modernists had originally charged. This precarious situation would eventually lead to a creative crisis that would explode in the next decade.

Ironically, Anti-Modernism lost much of its energy and direction in the early 1970s (see plate 6). As with Modernism, much Anti-Modernist design of this decade was an extension of ideas developed in the sixties, in particular, the fascination with Pop Art by groups such as Studio 65 and Archizoom. A number of designers, however, were at last able to have their work executed in a wide range of mediums, a development that would lay an important foundation for the next decade.

Certainly the most significant event of these years was the founding of Studio Alchymia in Milan. Begun by Alessandro Guerriero, the gallery became a venue for two generations of Anti-Modernists -- such as Andrea Branzi, Michele De Lucchi, and Ettore Sottsass -- who would exert a major influence in the 1980s. It was Alessandro Mendini, however, who would lead Alchymia through its various manifestations over the next decade and who would ultimately prove to be an enormously influential -- but conversely, an enigmatic -- force in the Milanese design scene. Two imaginative design exhibitions mounted by Alchymia -- Bau Haus (1979) and Bau Haus Side 2 (1980) -- served as major catalysts to coalesce and reenergize the Anti-Modernists into a force that would soon impact Western design worldwide.

### The 1980s and '90s

The 1980s will long be remembered as a decade of conspicuous consumption. Italy rebounded economically to a remarkable degree, but it now faced serious challenges to its design leadership from Spain and Japan, as well as the United States and France. A number of these countries began the important transition into a post-industrial era, seeking a new foundation for design in the information age. Many foreign designers, particularly the Japanese, had studied or worked in Italy, and now returned to their native lands where they became international leaders in the design field. Hard-pressed to retain their international markets, a number of Italian manufacturers began to hire foreign designers, among them, Oscar Tusquets-Blanca (Spain), Michael Graves (United States), Philippe Starck (France), Borek Sipek (Netherlands and the Czech Republic), and Jasper Morrison (Great Britain) -- a notable shift in the balance of power in the field of contemporary design.

The eighties and nineties also saw the emergence of a younger group of designers who found themselves in a highly ambiguous position. Having inherited two contrary design philosophies -- Modernism and Anti-Modernism -- shaped by some of the most important designers of the entire Modern Movement, this new generation was faced with the formidable challenge of charting new directions for Italian design into the next century. The power of global mass culture -- rather than technology, aesthetics, or theory -- has proven to be highly seductive to this group, often blurring the distinction between "fashionable trends" and "high design." A number of these designers felt compelled to form their own companies, such as Maurizio Peregalli with Zeus, to ensure the production of their work. Major manufacturers were, in turn, forced to form smaller divisions, such as Alessi's Tendentse, as a means of initially enlisting this new generation.

Unquestionably, the most important event of the 1980s was the triumph -- at least temporarily -- of the Anti- Modernists over the Modernists, a philosophical shift that shook every aspect of the design field with a seismic impact (see plates 7 & 8). The acclaim and controversy generated by the national and international press most certainly contributed to Anti-Modernism's success. Equally influential was the decision of many manufacturers, such as Alessi or Cassina, who had once championed the Modernists, to now hire the Anti-Modernists to design a multitude of products in almost every medium.

Ettore Sottsass in many respects remained the undisputed leader of the Anti-Modernist movement in the 1980s. Frustrated with the utopian and spiritual focus of Alchymia, he launched his own group, Memphis, which during its brief tenure (1981-86) became the exemplar of Anti-Modernism internationally. Sottsass has continued to develop this aesthetic over the ensuing decade, more recently as an architect.

Anti-Modernism is not, however, a monolithic style. Rather it is a pluralistic way of thinking that very much reflects the individual aesthetics of its various advocates from Aldo Rossi's and Luca Scacchetti's decidedly neo-classical manner, to Massimo Iosa-Ghini's and Prospero Rasulo's fascination with the streamlined and biomorphic designs of the 1930s. It is, however, Alessandro Mendini who has emerged as a preeminent figure in Anti-Modernism during the 1990s. After pursuing a highly theoretical approach for some two decades, he is now executing a considerable body of work as both a designer and an architect.

The importance of the Domus Academy in Milan should be noted. Founded in 1982, it was one of the first design -- rather than architecture -- schools in Italy. Under the leadership of Andrea Branzi, it has become an influential training center. The younger generation of Anti-Modernists, however, has faced a series of serious dilemmas as it has sought to extend the movement in new directions. Unlike Modernism, which readily lends itself to a codifiable set of stylistic rules, Anti-Modernism is a highly individual and intuitive design philosophy. Moreover, the large shadow of figures like Sottsass -- much like Frank Lloyd Wright earlier in the century -- has often proven difficult for disciples to escape. Thus the most original developments in Anti-Modernism -- at least for the moment -- are ironically occurring outside of Italy with designers such as Sipek and Starck.

The 1980s were clearly a difficult period for the Modernists (see plates 9 & 10). Established "masters" such as Mario Bellini and Vico Magistretti often ventured into architecture searching for new directions. Anti-Modernism, moreover, was not without its influence: a number of Modernist designers sought inspiration -- often in a visual manner only -- from historical sources such as Shaker and bentwood furniture and low-tech materials such as wicker and turned wood. Magistretti's work for De Padova stands out as among the most assured. An expanded contract or office furnishings market, which had steadily grown since the seventies, provided additional opportunities for industrial designers. Perhaps the most original Modernist work, though, was created by a younger generation -- designers such as Alberto Meda and Antonio Citterio -- who brought a remarkable freshness back to an ideological and visual idiom that had originated some seventy-five years earlier.

Italy is, alas, no longer in a position to claim hegemony over Western design, though it is most certainly still a major center. The present situation is perhaps best described as one of equivocal flux, with the balance shifting incrementally among the Modernists, Anti-Modernists, and a new generation seeking alternate directions. There is, of course, no black or white in design; rather there is the fundamental question of quality. Over the last four decades Italy has produced two divergent design philosophies and two bodies of work of extraordinary passion, originality, and virtuosity. Even now, that achievement may be perceived as one of the richest and most compelling chapters in the history of the Modern Movement.

R. Craig Miller Curator of Architecture, Design & Graphics Denver Art Museum

Acknowledgments: The author would like to thank Joy, Erving, and Daniel wolf for their kind assistance in completing this article. A number of colleagues at the Denver Art Museum read various drafts and made innumerable suggestions, including Laura Caruso, Marlene Chambers, and Carla Hartman. Special thanks are also due the staff of the AFA for their kind assistance.

__________________

Exhibition Itinerary

Musee du Quebec
Quebec, Canada
October 2-December 15, 1996

Albright-Knox Art Gallery
Buffalo, New York
January 3-March 16, 1997

The Bard Graduate
Center for Studies in the
Decorative Arts
New York, New York
April 11-September 10, 1997

Alyce de Roulet
Williamson Gallery,
Art Center College of Design
Pasadena, California
October 17, 1997-January 4, 1998

[End]

Thanks to the author and The Bard Center