Me, being a very visual person, I was almost intimidated by the reading about Rationalism. I kept rereading the lines trying to make sense of the words. But now, having seen examples in person, the text no longer are just words on a page but a word puzzle that, in my opinion, is a good representation to describe the movement. In Italian Rationalism, Rationalism was described as a double paradox. The first being summed up in a phrased mentioned in the book, “new archaic age,” and the second being a building’s form “both timeless and universal, at the same time creates a specific response to a particular place.” Keeping in mind that the text mentioned that there is not a clear explanation of Rationalism, this post is an attempt to deconstruct the paradoxes and to find my own definition.
Starting with the second paradox, “a building’s form ‘both timeless and universal, at the same time creates a specific response to a particular place,’” my interpretation of this is functionalism. A great example is Adalberto Libera’s elementary school he designed. His basis of design was fulfilling the needs of the school and recreating the city wall that once existed. Other than the interior layout design to maximize space, light, and communication efficiency, there literally would be no explanation for the design of the exterior of this same building if it would have been moved to some other location. Continuing with this line of thinking, the timelessness would be the reinvention of the city wall. The only connection I can think of to the “universal” mentioned is the similarity to the modern movement that was growing in popularity not only within other nations but also overall shown in the coming century. Once again, in response to creating a specific response to a particular place, the objective of this building was heavily influenced by its location (also a modern movement concept of creating dialogue with a space). Even with the same goal in mind, this school would most definitely have looked different if the location of the school had been changed.
Now for the first paradox,“new archaic age,” I do believe this goal may have been one of the reasons the movement did not do too well. The book describes this as “primitive values [being] heralded by the modern machine civilization.” Favoring neoclassicism and roman styles, rationalism wanted to revamp a style whose values include organic shapes and realism with a modern (avant-garde, I might add) style that values geometric, rigid, and abstract forms. Ambition for modern times, but probably too out there for the 20’s. Terragni’s Novocomum is a prime example of the disconnect between the two styles. As mentioned on our tour, the building was not received well and many had to fight for its survival. Undeniably a beautiful design, the best metaphor I can think of to use as a personal layman’s reference is that it is like writing an amazing paper about the wrong topic.
As a general conclusion for the two paradoxes, a small excerpt from Italian Rationalism best describes not only the architecture but the movement.
“The architecture enters the town as if ‘entering a foreign land’; and yet it does enter, at the cost of expressing a sort of amazement at its own presence.”