Lotus. The first thirty years of an architectural magazine
Mauro Marzo
The
year 1963 was a memorable one for the British racing
driver Jim Clark. At the helm of his Lotus 25 custom-made for him by
Colin
Chapman, he had won seven of the ten races scheduled for that year. The
fastest
lap at the Italian Grand Prix held at Monza on 8 September 1963 had
allowed him
and his team to win the drivers’
title and the Constructors’
Cup,[1]
with three races to go before the end of the championship. That same
day,
Chapman did «the
lap of honour astride the hood of his Lotus 25».[2]
This
car, and its success story, inspired the name chosen
for what was initially imagined more as an annual dedicated to the best
works
of architecture, urban and industrial design, rather than a traditional
magazine. It was Bruno Alfieri, the son of a fine art publisher and a
fan of
motor racing,[3]
who established «Lotus»
in
Venice in 1963.
For
the compilation of the first edition of the annual,
published in Italian and English in 1964,[4]
he availed himself of the advice of Sigfried Giedion and the
observations of
Henry Russell Hitchcock for the East Coast of the USA, Esther Mc Coy
for the
West Coast, Jürgen Joedicke for German architecture, and
Giulia Veronesi[5]
for the Italian and French situations. "Lotus. Architectural
annual, Annuario
dell’architettura,
Annuaire de l’architecture
1964-65, edited by Giulia
Veronesi
and Bruno Alfieri, Bruno Alfieri, Milan 1964”,
announces
the frontispiece of the first bountiful volume. The published works
were
selected based on their «high
level of artistic achievement»,[6]
or based on their ability to spot
«new
ground in the experimental stage»,[7]
including the defects of the experimental. The arduous task that the
annual set
itself was to draw «a
picture of the world situation as objectively as possible»,[8]
as Alfieri wrote in the Introduction, inviting designers and critics of
architecture from every corner of the world to indicate works to be
considered
for the next edition. In the pages that followed, Veronesi stated that
the
objective was not to take stock, but before anything else, to make it
possible
to carry out what any
“critical
examination”[9]
requires, namely, basic knowledge of the works. If it was not yet time
to
express evaluations, it was still possible to highlight some “outstanding
traits”[10]
on the international scene that emerged from this annual. From the
pages of
what was presented as a tool for information and work emerged the
conclusion of
the process of assimilating the two “vastly
influential”[11]
and “opposite”[12]
aesthetics of the century, that of Frank Lloyd Wright and that of Le
Corbusier.
And this therefore implied that the «frantic
search for structural,
technical, or aesthetic novelty has now been given way to a thoughtful
elaboration
and adoption of these secure premises, which in themselves might be
considered
a “basic vocabulary” which the
architect’s new, original syntax will mould,
into plastic coherent speech».[13]
As highlighted by Alessandro Rocca, the first edition of the annual
outlined: «a
scenario dominated by the masters of the first generation with a major
American
presence, a good seventeen works out of thirty-eight»,[14]
among which appeared two projects by Skidmore, Owings &
Merrill. Rubbing
shuolders with Wright, Le Corbusier, and Mies van der Rohe were Alvar
Aalto,
Josep Antoni Coderch, Eero Saarinen and, among the Italians, Angelo
Mangiarotti, Giovanni Michelucci, Pier Luigi Nervi, Nicola Pagliara and
Gino
Valle. The almost square format of the volume (24 x 25cm), the clarity
of the
layout and the first-rate picture quality, due to the experience gained
by
Alfieri in the field of fine art publishing, accompanied presentations
of the
works that were more descriptive than critical-interpretive, focusing
on the “formal
and technological innovations”[15]
of the projects. Small modifications appeared in the subtitle of the
second
edition of 1965 –
“Architectural
annual” was
flanked by the words “of
today” and
associated with the adjective “contemporary”,
while the merely descriptive register of the articles remained
unchanged.
However, the gradual process of transforming the annual had begun, as
corroborated
both by Veronesi’s
essay, and the Introduction, with Alfieri’s
expressive title A New Lotus. These
laid emphases on the loss of meaning of the subdivisions between
organicism,
rationalism, and neo-neo-classicism by then overwhelmed by the fresh,
no-longer-postponable
objectives that the social and economic changes of the moment posed.
The very
figure of the architect had changed, assuming the role of a “social
planner”[16]
and a technician called to solve problems that did not relate
exclusively to
the scale of the building, but extended to embrace the neighbourhood,
the city,
and the region. «The
world itself it goes on its way, faster and faster. Architects are
required to
plan airfields with more runways, to take part in town-planning
enterprises
that affect the lives of millions, to design factories […]
and seaports […]».[17]
Even while «as
we look, with unstinted admiration, at the drawings of Carlo Scarpa
[…] or the
entrance bridge to the Fondazione Querini Stampalia […], we
cannot help being
disturbed by the thought that far greater and urgent necessities are
demanding
our attention elsewhere».[18]
In his essay, like Alfieri, Veronesi analysed the theme of the great
changes
that could be observed in the world of architecture, tackling them from
a point
of view that lay more within the discipline, however. In the generation
which
followed that of the maestri, “recent
trends”[19]
were being defined, in which there was no longer a net opposition
between the
rational and the organic, but an “attempt
at a reconciliation”
set
in motion by the technique. In the current “ideological
confusion”[20]
that crossed and confused the various trends, and the multiple
languages that
the annual limited itself to reflecting on, the eclecticism could reach
a form
of redemption only in that “technical
and scientific preoccupations which underlie the researches of
architects al
over the world”.[21]
No
further modifications came, but substantial alterations
were made to the editorial initiative the following year, when in the
subtitle
the noun “annual”
was
replaced by the word “review”:
LOTUS 3. An International Review of
Contemporary Architecture, Rivista internazionale dell’Architettura d’oggi, Revue
internationale de l’Architecture contemporaine, 1966-67.
The name of
Giulia Veronesi also disappeared and at the helm of «Lotus»
remained
Alfieri alone. The annual’s
formula had revealed all its shortcomings, both in terms of the
completeness of
its contents, and in terms of the illustration of the works; space
requirements
and impartiality had imposed the use of “minimum
common denominators of layout”[22]
creating a sense of visual boredom for the reader. With the abandonment
of the
pretence of an all-embracing catalogue, came a way to restrict the
scope of the
investigation and give ampler room to the comparison between the ideas
and the
presentation of “research
and design phenomena that could provide useful indications on the
architecture
and design of tomorrow.”[23]
But it was in an essay on architecture's search for new relationships
by
Alberto Rosselli –
a designer and university lecturer for whom
planning was
seen as a “decision-making
process” – that
it became clear how the magazine intended to restrict the field of its
own
interests. If the most questionable aspects of contemporary
architecture
coincided with a loss of awareness of its own nature, and a consequent
tendency
to succumb to the influence of other collateral disciplines, it became
vital to
question the role that research could take in the profession’s
world. It was essential, wrote Rosselli, “to
know how to see a certain reality”
and “to
know how to interpret it”,[24]
in order to find answers to the problems it posed, to reinstate
continuity
between the culture of architects and the operative tools at their
disposal. It
became necessary to investigate the nature of the phenomena,
recognizing their
internal structure and relationships with the outside world since
architectural
design was by now engaged precisely “in
this world of relationships”.[25]
With
issue 4 of «Lotus»
there
came a refinement of the process that led the periodical to shift the
axis of
its purpose from that of information and professional updating to one
of a
critical examination of the key issues intrinsic to the architectural
project.
The objective of «Lotus»
was
clearly defined in the introduction to this edition, written by
Alfieri. The
launch of the new version allowed a continuation of the discourse that
had
begun in the pages of the international magazine «Zodiac»,
desired by Adriano Olivetti and founded in 1957 by Edizioni di
Comunità on
Alfieri’s
initiative. The result was those reflections «interrupted
by the practical difficulties in which the staff […]
gradually became involved
after the death of […] a distinguished man […]
who imposed his personality on
the cultural rebirth of Italy in the fields of sociology, architecture,
town
planning and industrial design, after the last world war».[26]
The selective process at the base of the annual's idea inevitably led
to the
imposition of a critical discourse that was elucidated in an article by
Rosselli. The construction of the modern city had not failed out of a
lack of
theories and visions, but through an inability to understand a
situation that
was becoming increasingly complex, in addition to a shortage of
operational
tools fit for the new scale of the issues. The role of the architect in
the
next decade seemed to be “conditioned
by the passage from one state of «a view of the
world» to another of ‘the
interpretation of reality’ in all its nuances”.[27]
If the genuinely original phenomenon that architects must learn to deal
with
was represented by the “new
scale of the problems”,[28]
the questions that they would face ranged from a shortage of housing,
hospitals
and schools, to urban sprawl and a need to “control
the landscape and re-establish the environment”.[29]
Issue
5 of the magazine, published in 1968, marked another significant
step. «Lotus»
had
an editorial board of a high level, consisting, beyond Alfieri himself –
the
periodcal's editor and director, of the American architectural
historians
Esther McCoy and Henry Russell Hitchcock, the art historian Giuseppe
Mazzariol,
the then director of the Fondazione Querini Stampalia in Venice,
Abraham
Rogatnick, professor of architecture at the University of British
Columbia,
already in contact with Mazzariol, and finally, Robert Venturi. The
latter,
together with Denise Scott Brown, published in this edition a lengthy
article
entitled A significance for A & P
Parking Lots; or Learning from Las Vegas,[30]
while Philip Johnson opened the magazine with Why
We Want Our Cities Ugly. But it was the whole edition that
displayed a clear leap in quality compared to its predecessors. Esther
McCoy,
an expert connoisseur of Californian architecture, wrote about Rudolph
Michael
Schindler,[31]
to whose work was also dedicated a second article entitled Ambiguity in the Work of R.M. Schindler.[32] Mazzariol painted an overview of a
project by Guillermo Jullian de la Fuente,[33]
also author of the sketch on the front cover of this edition, and an
article on
the language of Arthur Erickson,[34]
while Rogatnick penned EXPO 67: The Past
Recaptured.[35]
But it was not until two editions later that the magazine reached the definition of a clearer thematic orientation. «Lotus» 6 and 7, 1969 and 1970, addressed the issues posed by the relationship between architecture and the city that had entered the Italian debate, also following the publication of two fundamental books on the theme: Origine e sviluppo della città moderna[36] by Carlo Aymonino, published in 1965, and L’architettura della città[37] by Aldo Rossi which went to press the following year.
The indexes of these two numbers were structured in four parts. In the first part of «Lotus» 6, a project of Louis Kahn offered Mazzariol the opportunity to reflect on the image of the city of Venice;[38] the second part[39] examined the theme of the project on an urban scale through an article on the design of the city by Angelo Villa, professor of design at the IUAV and editor of “Lotus”,[40] and some case studies: The Municipal Master Plan for Bari (with comments by Carlo Aymonino, Ludovico Quaroni and Antonio Quistelli), a competition project for the centre of Plovdiv, Bulgaria (Giancarlo De Carlo), the redevelopment of Midtown Manhattan (James Stirling, Geoffrey Baker), a competition for a new centre in Moscow. The third part presented projects which, by their sheer size or function, imposed themselves as figures on the urban or territorial scale: these included large hospitals, universities, and airports designed by Carlo Aymonino, Constantine Dardi,[41] Giancarlo De Carlo, Arata Isozaki, Cesar Pelli, and James Stirling.
The fourth part, entitled “Studies and Notes”, closed the issue with an article by Abraham Rogatnick on the decline of the architect's profession in North America.[42] «Lotus» 7 was introduced by a long essay on urban structure seen as a “parameter of judgement (analysis) and invention (project) for the architectural intervention”,[43] by Angelo Villa, who had become a member of the editorial board in the meantime. In the first part, writings, and projects by Carlo Aymonino,[44] Guido Canella,[45] Aldo Rossi,[46] Constantine Dardi, Gianugo Polesello and Luciano Semerani[47] offered the opportunity to reflect on the relationship between the architectural project and the city in the Italian experience. The comparison between some of the methods through which teaching tackled this issue was the subject of an article La progettazione nelle facoltà di Milano, Roma, Venezia[48] which closed this first section.
The second part, on “the architectural project and the urban dimension”, presented works by Denys Lasdun and Geoffrey Copcutt.[49] The third part, on “the formation of the modern city” illustrated two situations abroad, London and New York, and two Italian situations: Bologna with the P.R.G. and the project of Kenzo Tange,[50] and Venice with an article by Gianni Fabbri,[51] professor of design at the IUAV, who just a few years later would publish, together with Aymonino and Villa, a volume on Le città capitali del XIX secolo. Parigi e Vienna.[52] Finally, the fourth part “Studies and Notes” contained an article by Gillo Dorfles on the need for a “re-semantization of urban planning”.
After
issue 7, an ample volume of over 400 pages, «Lotus»
suspended
publication. As Pierluigi Nicolin wrote, this number represented the “maximum
compendium”
of
the first formula imagined by Alfieri but also “his
waning”.[53]
With respect to the year when «Lotus» was born,[54] the panorama of Italian periodicals dedicated to architecture had been significantly amended, enriched by numerous new publications.
The
two historic publications, «Casabella»
and
«Domus»,
both founded in 1928, nevertheless retained positions of absolute
importance in
the periodical scene, both for their authority and distribution, and
for
following quite distinct roads. The former, directed by Ernesto Nathan
Rogers
from December 1953 to January 1964, added to its title the concept of “continuity”
which
in turn implied the idea of a “mutation
in the order of a tradition”.[55]
To fully understand the conditions and the sense of architectural
events post-war,
in order to imagine future possibilities «we
must examine the reasons for the Modern Movement, distinguishing
between those
that arose for contingent reasons […]
from those that might aspire to a
longer durée since they
involve
essential contents,»[56]
wrote
Rogers. The editorial board, through the contribution of many of the
future
protagonists of Italian architecture,[57]
addressed key issues of the architectural debate and imposed them at an
international level. Their critical reflections ranged from unexplored
horizons
represented by certain figures of the history of relatively recent
architecture, to the situation of urban planning in other countries, to
the
theme of inserting contemporary design into environmental remains. «Domus»,
directed uninterruptedly by Gio Ponti from January 1948 to July 1976,
and
marked by a certain ecumenism in the selection of the architectural
works it
published, favoured “the
mature work of an international architectural koiné”,[58]
with articles that described “projects
identified according to the logic of the author’s
object”.[59]
Many magazines were born during the ’50s, driven by “rather different motivations and work programmes”:[60] «Spazio», founded in 1950 by Luigi Moretti, ended its experience after only seven issues in 1953; «Prospettive» directed from 1951 to 1963 by Carlo Enrico Rava, who many years earlier had led the activities of Gruppo 7; «Edilizia Popolare», a mouthpiece of the council housing association Associazione Nazionale Istituti Autonomi Case Popolari, began in 1954 as did «Stile Industria», dedicated to industrial design, directed by Alberto Rosselli with the collaboration of Alfieri (who in turn would invite Rosselli to collaborate with «Lotus»); «L’Architettura: Cronache e Storia», founded in 1955 on the initiative of Bruno Zevi who would direct it uninterruptedly for 45 years. Finally, in 1957, thanks to Edizioni di Comunità, «Zodiac» saw the light, a half-yearly publication distributed internationally, which, like «Lotus», shared the singular destiny of being named for a car, according to Alfieri,[61] who was its first director. And it was precisely after resigning from directing this magazine that Alfieri decided to return to Venice and found «Lotus».
The
phenomenon of the flowering of architectural
periodicals, which began in the ’50s,
continued with particular
intensity, both in the decade when «Lotus»
was
born and in the next. Although known in certain cases for its
continuity and
cultural proximity with existing periodicals, the approach of magazines
born in
the 1960s displayed a logical progression in addressing issues that
evolved
together with social and political phenomena. In particular, one
influence on
the Italian debate would be the unfolding of events connected to the
objections
raised by university students that, after the first episodes of Milan
in 1963,
was set to escalate into the protests of 1968.[62]
It
was starting precisely from 1963 that we can see the
opening of certain magazines towards a debate no longer sitting between
strict
disciplinary fences, but “willing
to discuss issues inherent in any form to architecture”.[63]
In 1963, Eugenio Battisti founded «Marcatré», a bulletin on contemporary culture aimed at renewing research methodologies through an interdisciplinary approach, divided into thematic sections devoted to different dimensions of art – from literature to music, from the visual arts to architecture – with contributions from, amongst others, Umberto Eco, Gillo Dorfles and Vittorio Gregotti. That same year, under the direction of Franco Isalberti, the magazine «Edilizia Moderna» resumed publication that, in some special issues edited by Gregotti, dealt rigorously with issues ranging from industrial design to the form of the territory.[64] Then, in 1964, «Op cit.» appeared, under the direction of Renato De Fusco, which owed its title to the particular way each theme was addressed “like a composition of selected parts of essays on aesthetics, of criticism and poetics which, quoted textually”[65] were then led back to a unitary discourse. In 1969, Paolo Portoghesi founded the magazine «Controspazio» of which, as suggested by Francesco Tentori, it is possible to recognize two editorial periods: the first “a prevalently Milanese direction” until 1972, the second “a prevalently Roman direction”[66] developed from 1973 to ’81. In the first period, a key role was entrusted, until his premature death, to a young pupil of Rogers, Ezio Bonfanti, whose article on the autonomy of architecture[67] was a real “opening gambit”[68] of the magazine. Reflection on the perceived need for a fresh relaunch of the discipline was addressed through a reinterpretation of the work of some Italian maestri – Mario Ridolfi, Giuseppe Samonà and Ludovico Quaroni – through recognitions in the world of university teaching, but also through analysis of “interrupted works of architecture”,[69] i.e. those planned works which, while never built, offered the possibility to explore the wealth of design research. In 1970, «Parametro» appeared, a magazine directed by Giorgio Trebbi in collaboration with Carlo Doglio and Glauco Gresleri, hinging on analyses of themes relating to architectural design on urban and territorial scales. In conclusion, to give a single example linked to the university world, the IUAV established the «Quaderni di progettazione» of the “Gruppo Architettura”, publishing, between 1970 and 1975, research, seminar proceedings, and theses on the relationship between dwelling, services, amenities, and the city, with essays from, amongst others, Aymonino, Canella, Dardi, De Feo, Fabbri, Nicolin, Panella, Polesello, Semerani, and Villa.
It was precisely on the theme of the house that «Lotus» focused its attention in issues 8, 9 and 10, after four years of suspended publication. As a result, in September 1974, the periodical gazed onto a scene of architectural journalism that was much changed with respect to its year of foundation. On the one hand, there was the feeling of a saturation in the editorial space, on the other, a radical change could be spotted in the themes dominating the national and international debates.
“From
1963 until now much has happened and it seems to me that is was well
worth
while for the magazine to take up its course, duly renewed and
revitalized”.[70]
By issue 8, the periodical had resumed its path with issues that were
no longer
annual but half-yearly until issue 11, and subsequently, quarterly. The
frequency
was not the only aspect to change: the name of the magazine was
transformed
into «Lotus
International. Rivista di architettura»;
the format became larger (26 x 26cm);
the graphic layout and the composition of the covers were entrusted to
Diego
Birelli,[71]
who by issue 10 was listed in the colophon as “art
director”;
the head office also moved from Venice to Milan. Finally, the editorial
board
and its members changed. Working together with Alfieri, who remained at
the
helm of the magazine until issue 13 of 1976, was a board consisting of
figures
of major cultural and scientific importance: Gae Aulenti, Vittorio
Gregotti
(until 1981), Christian Norberg-Schulz, Lionello Puppi (until 1977) and
Joseph
Rykwert. The new editor was Pierluigi Nicolin who had to “undertook
the task of welding the heterogeneous material which reached the
editorial
offices into a harmonious whole”.[72]
With issue 14 in 1977, the baton passed fully to Nicolin who would lead
«Lotus»
to
become one of the most influential magazines of European architecture
ever, despite
being, as Rocca wrote, restricted to the dimension of a “minority
magazine reserved to a small audience of loyal readers, professors and
students, but also professionals thirsty for culture”.[73]
Also
simply browsing the indexes of these first three issues
dedicated to the theme of the house, emerges a set of designers,
architectural
critics and historians that attests to the cultural weight of the
editorial
operation set in motion by Alfieri on resumption of publication in
1974: Oriol
Bohigas, Charles Correa, Denise Scott Brown, Peter Eisenman, Michael
Graves,
John Hejduk, Rob Krier, Alvaro Siza, James Stirling, Osvald Mathias
Ungers, and
Robert Venturi, but also Kenneth Frampton, Massimo Scolari, and
Manfredo
Tafuri. The theme of dwelling was addressed through a historical
reinterpretation of certain experiences during the Modern Movement
period, and
through contemporary projects that offered critical-operational
interpretations
of that tradition or which openly entered “into
conflict” with
it.[74]
Even
if the occasion of three successive issues based on a
single theme would not be repeated, the tendency of the magazine to
assume a
monographic approach appears evident. In relation to this aspect,
during the
period when «Lotus»
was
still directed by Alfieri, two issues acquired particular significance:
11 and
13. The first defined “an
area of interest –
neither definitive nor complete –
through
some projects accompanied by critical comments”
which,
viewed as a whole, enabled an exploration of the composite world of
contemporary architecture. Gregotti, for example, presented the figure
of
Ungers and he, in turn, explained his design criteria. In addition, of
this
German architect was published a submission to the “Roosevelt
Island Housing Competition”,
flanked by another developed for the same competition by OMA. Vittorio
Savi
commented on the work of Aldo Rossi of whom some competition entries
for
Trieste were shown; Antoine Grumbach introduced some projects by the
Krier
brothers; Nicolin interpreted the works of Aldo van Eyck; while
Francesco Dal
Co, with an article on The
necessity of architecture,
dealt with some projects by Gino Valle. Issue 13 of «Lotus»,
the last one directed by Alfieri –
who would subsequently direct «Interni»,
from February 1976 to September 1979, and «Casabella»
from
May to December 1976
–
is
worth mentioning not only for the contributions of Tafuri (who
published his
famous essay Ceci n’est pas une ville),
Bernardo Secchi (who wrote on historical town centres) and Norberg-Schulz
(who
investigated the question of the genius
loci more widely dealt with in the monograph published three
years later by
Electa), but above all, because the issue opened with publication of
the table
of Aldo Rossi’s
The Analogous City.
The
same year
that Pierluigi Nicolin, a Graduate in Architecture from the Politecnico
of
Milan under Franco Albini, and a founding member of Gregotti Associati,
took
over the direction of «Lotus»,
the Italian magazine situation had
changed further. In January 1977, the baton of «Casabella»
– after
the run of Alessandro Mendini,
who had opened the magazine to the Italian neo-avant-garde, and a brief
spell
under Bruno Alfieri –
passed to
Tomás Maldonado. An Argentine artist and designer, a
lecturer, and later the
Rector of Hochschule
für Gestaltung ‒ the Ulm School
of Design, Maldonado accompanied architecture,
the
periodical’s
traditional focus of
interest, with analyses of the problems of contemporary culture. The
interaction of various disciplines –
not
least that of Semiotics which Maldonado had introduced as a subject at
Ulm – along
with the monographic slant of
the issues, became unmistakable traits of this phase of the magazine.
The
monographic formula was also a feature of «Hinterland»,
whose subtitle announced: “the
design and context of architecture for the management of territorial
interventions”,
and whose first issue
came out in December 1977. This periodical, bimonthly and thereafter
quarterly,
directed by Guido Canella with the collaboration of Enrico Bordogna and
Gian
Paolo Semino, had an international sweep thanks to the quality of its
contributions and the translations in English and French. Through
various
monographic issues, the focus of the magazine addressed not a survey of
the
objective nature of the buildings, but the identification of new
analytical and
operative tools aimed at establishing closer connections between the
architectural project and an idea of the context, where the
construction
contributed to territories’ settlement processes, stories and
specific
characteristics, the “dynamics
of the political
and economic phenomena”.[75]
The
monographic
formula that characterized «Casabella»
and «Hinterland»
in those years –
that had previously characterized some
issues of «Edilizia
Moderna» and
would return in the magazine «Rassegna»
directed by Gregotti from 1979 –
became one of the salient features of «Lotus»,
together with the critical rigour of
its articles, the quality of the images, and its square format of 26 x
26cm (which
would grow to 28 x 28cm from January 2014). Rocca is therefore correct
in
affirming that the magazine: “was
born an adult
and in the following thirty years retained an editorial physiognomy
that was
substantially unchanged”.[76]
If the monographic approach set a characteristic of the editorial line that would endure, helping to strengthen the magazine’s identity, the change in the themes dealt with over the course of the decades was a litmus test of the continuous evolution of the theoretical-design issues at the core of the architectural debate. On the «Lotus» website,[77] the history of the magazine is divided into four stages, all except for the first identified on the basis of the homogeneity of the topics dealt with, but also in relation to the succession of the various publishers: for the first step, as already seen, Bruno Alfieri was both director and editor of the magazine; in the second, «Lotus» was published by Industrie Grafiche Editoriali (later Gruppo Editoriale Electa); in the third, the edition passed to Mondadori; in the last step there was again a connection between the figure of the director and that of the publisher, thanks to the foundation of Editoriale Lotus.
If
the first
season of the periodical, from 1963 to 1970, coincided with the gradual
transformation of the annual-catalogue into a magazine, the second –
with which this article’s survey will
conclude –
lasted from 1974 to 1994.
In this period, the investigations of «Lotus»
concentrated on certain issues:
the relationship between project and context, the inseparable binomial
formed
by ‘architecture and the city’, the value of the
relations with university
research and with what was being designed and built in architectural
and urban
spheres around the world. The third phase covered the period 1994-2001
and
featured a broadening of the magazine’s
interests. A reconnaissance began around certain themes –
from minimalism to high-tech, from
neo-casual to deconstructivism, from researches into the immaterial to
those
into the landscape –
which, if we
exclude landscape, appear eccentric with respect to the foci of
interest of the
previous phase and their overall heterogeneity. However, in a process
of
opening the magazine to “post-ideological
thinking”,[78]
this operation assumed the precise
objective of building a map of the composite trends recognizable in the
architectural culture of the time. Finally, in 2002, the fourth and
last stage
began. In the face of the magnitude and speed of the transformations
taking
place in globalized society, «Lotus» cautioned the
need to investigate the
nature and character of these changes, since only by becoming familiar
with the
issues and problems, would appropriate design responses become
possible. The
division into periods proposed on the website outlines a relationship
between
temporal phases and convincing changes in thematic horizons, if we
exclude the
location of Issue 80 dedicated to the city of Berlin, which seems more
consistent with the topics tackled during the second phase of the
periodical’s
evolution; however, ultimately, this
is a marginal element. The more interesting aspect here is that,
despite the
transformations recognizable in thematic horizons, the propensity for
in-depth
investigations of certain questions, the scientific quality of the
contributions,
the ability to select projects and works based on their relevance with
the foci
of interest of individual issues was to remain unchanged over the forty
years[79]
of being directed by
Pierluigi Nicolin. The critical commitment of
«Lotus» was thanks to his “intellectual
vivacity”[80],
as was the preservation of the
independence in cultural choices with respect to the logic of the
publishing
market, plus the unswerving interest in the evolution of architectural
thinking.
The issues addressed by the periodical during the Seventies and Eighties intertwined tightly with the key issues of the international debate in which Italian architecture assumed a role of absolute primacy: the critical rereading of the tradition of the Modern, the interpretation of the past, the relationships between project and the context, the relationship between architecture and the city. These are themes which pervaded the whole of this second season of «Lotus», re-emerging, with variations, in many successive issues, admittedly at times linked together in the form of a diptych: suffice to think of the issues dedicated to critical investigation of early twentieth-century architecture, to those on teaching in European and American universities, or to those dedicated to the relationship between architecture and construction. The two issues “from the archives of modern architecture”, published in 1977 and 1978, dealt with a critical examination of architects far-removed from one another: Mel’nikov, Taut, Oud, Libera, Mollino, and Terragni ‒ about whom Tafuri published his well-known article, The subject and the mask. An introduction to Terragni.[81] There is no history of modern architecture, Nicolin claimed in the editorial to the 1978 issue; we can only perceive “a series of indistinct and decoded files from which each of us has to draw according to his own private guilt-prone procedures”.[82] Returning to look at modern architecture through approaches that can relativize, break up or even disrupt established theories, does not mean wishing to write the umpteenth revised history. It means starting the construction of one’s own personal archive, moving through personal transcriptions “prominent figures to background positions […], or eventually, outflanked by our own manoeuvres, hit on some new explanation by pure chance”.[83] Investigating the Modern, disassembling it, recomposing it, means thinking that it is still possible to learn from that period of the history of architecture, as long as it is extricated from time-worn historiographical interpretations. To this end, the presentation of different approaches to the teaching of architecture in European and North American universities is of unquestionable importance. The two issues 21 and 27, published in 1978 and 1980, constitute a diptych that is not limited to investigating the general fundamentals of the didactics of design, but considers that the “architectural production” elaborated in university classrooms identifies «a particular area of design research, having established its own rules and conditioning factors, which do not correspond to those of professional practice or of work done for a purchaser or for a market».[84] The conditions of the schools of architecture in the countries examined – Austria, Belgium, France, Great Britain, Switzerland and Italy – were profoundly different from the point of view of both content and approach, but also from the point of view of quantity; ranging from the 20,000 enrolled at the Faculty of Architecture in Rome to the 40 students of the Department of Architecture at the Royal College of Art in London. Although it is possible to detect a great methodological heterogeneity, one element does seem to link the various cases examined: ten years after the unrest of ‘68, it appears that everywhere the myth of “creativity” and the illusion “concerning the thaumaturgic capacity of politics to generate an ‘alternative’ architecture”[85] have vanished. Issue 27 opened with an intense introductory article by Kenneth Frampton and Alessandra Latour that outlined the historical evolution of the teaching of architecture in the main schools of the United States. The insights given with respect to the current situation were limited to three cases: those of Columbia University, the Cooper Union, and Cornell University. Rafael Moneo and Robert Slutzky described the teaching method of the Cooper, the former focusing on the work of John Hejduk, the latter explaining how the “pedagogy of form” was dealt with at the New York school. The section dedicated to Cornell University focused on teaching in the Graduate Studio of Urban Design directed by Colin Rowe, who, together with Fred Koetter, had published Collage City two years earlier. The maestro from Ithaca would also publish the text of a conference on the teaching of architecture in America[86], in which a clear distance is taken from those schools where courses on Sociology or Economics assumed ever-greater weight, in the unfounded belief that a project can derive from a summation of individual disciplinary contributions. In fact, it was precisely on this same aspect that Nicolin, in an issue dedicated to the teaching in European universities, had criticized the excessive “sociologization of many faculties”[87] and the “abandonment” of architecture as a focus of interest.
Instead, the themes addressed by “Lotus” in this period always revolved around questions directly related to the project in its diverse scales of operation. Some issues programmatically focused on the analysis of small-scale works interpreted in opposition to the “destructive clumsiness of large scale architecture” and taken as a more suitable scope for reflection to explore “strictly architectural matters and techniques”.[88] Meanwhile, Issue 22 from 1979, for example, was dedicated to interpreting some “small works”[89] in which Nicolin saw the start of processes to relativize the concept of typology, searches for “pertinence” compared to settlement models, and evidence of adaptation to the morphological structure of the contexts. The projects of Bohigas, Grassi, and Ungers presented in this issue concerned housing, but alongside these were interventions that reasoned over the question of limit: the ”square by the sea at San Sebastián” by Luis Pena Ganchegui with the works of Eduardo Chilida and the “marginal squares” at Lauro by Francesco Venezia, which were said to constitute an “indirect criticism of the senseless spread of towns across the countryside”. The theme of the small-scale returned in Issue 66 of 1990, dedicated to American lofts, which told of the origin of this phenomenon of reuse in the SoHo neighbourhood of Manhattan, determining relationships between the “concept of home” and “that of habitability”. In fact, in the loft we can identify all the elements of the traditional house but in the form of fragments, of “traces freely arranged and continually capable of creating new significances”.[90] However, the issue that managed to weave the dialogue of greatest intensity between the theme of housing and the questions posed by small scale was number 60 of 1988. Titled “Living in architecture”, it presented works by Libera, Le Corbusier, Rietveld and Ponti. Among the articles, all bona fide essays – suffice to think of that by Vittorio Savi on the “orphic, surrealistic” Casa Malaparte[91] or that of Bruno Reichlin on La Petite Maison[92]; equally worthy of mention, the writings of Fulvio Irace[93] and Giovanni Chiaramonte[94], which constitute a diptych of remarkable methodological interest. The points of view of the architectural historian and the photographer focused on the same architectural object – the Villa Planchart by Gio Ponti in Caracas, bringing a twofold interpretation. The fact that in the same issue photographs were published of Villa Malaparte taken by Paola De Pietri and La Petite Maison taken by Paolo Rosselli is no coincidence. In the ‘80s, and more precisely starting from Issue 41 of 1984, the insight came to build an intense dialogue in the pages of the magazine between working drawings, critical texts, and photographs, seeing the latter not as mere images accompanying the text but as explorations of the very meaning of architecture. This resulted in a cooperation with Gabriele Basilico, Olivo Barbieri, and Luigi Ghirri (to whose work on Italian landscapes would be dedicated one of the «Lotus Documents» in 1989), Paolo Rosselli and Chiaramonte, not only on the house, but on the constructed space in general, on the scale of individual buildings, the city, and the landscape.
However,
before
tackling the theme of the project in relation to the city at least
another two
issues dedicated to housing should be recalled: the first was number 44
of 1984
in which the “restless
domestic space”
was investigated through projects –
by, among others, Steven Holl, John
Hejduk, and Juan Navarro Baldeweg –
which
were not destined for that “standardized
inhabitant”
created by the architectural research
into minimum building standards for accommodation, but were built
around an “occupant
transformed into personage”.[95]
In
Issue 41,
published that same year, the theme of housing was addressed in
relation to the
central areas of the city in which the phenomenon can often be observed
of an
exasperated characterization of contemporary buildings that creates, “to
paraphrase Milizia […] a big tumult in details within the
disheartening modesty
of the whole”.[96]
However, observing a plan
of Herculaneum, “the
subtle play of meditations that develops between the form of the town
and the
form of the houses as it appears in this or that part, an active or
passive
element in the articulation of space […]”[97]
can help. It can even urge us to
think that we can reach a solution for the problems posed by the
inclusion of
contemporary buildings in central areas of the city, by adding to the
Vitruvian
triad firmitas, utilitas,
and venustas, “a
fourth term that can help us understand
how buildings should be set together to speak to each other: what we
need is a
theory of rapport – propinquitas”.[98]
If the relationships between architectural design and the urban form were one of the main thematic nuclei addressed by the magazine between 1974 and 1994, the analysis of the historical city, the suburbs, areas characterized by decommissioning phenomena, and spaces for infrastructure systems were some of the specific approaches that this thematic core assumed in various issues. The city was studied through its form, its history, its most significant works of architecture, present or recent. The demarcation of the scope of the investigation, the attribution of a title to the issue, the selection of projects taken together constitute the assumption of a main point of view that could bring out similarities, differences, and linkages between the various design approaches, or between different urban situations. If Issues 50 and 51 from 1986 were devoted to the study of American and European cities, other issues examined specific cities: Vienna (no. 29, 1981), Milan (no. 54, 1987), and Berlin (no. 80, 1994). The magazine had already shadowed the latter several times between the Seventies and Eighties, for events linked to its International Building Exhibition. Other issues concentrated on large-scale urban transformations. Issue 67 of 1990, for example, was divided between a historical-critical reinterpretation of the E42 project in Rome, and analysis of contemporary interventions such as the recovery of the Docklands in London, or the Olympic Village of Barcelona. Just a few months after the end of the Olympic Games, a large section of issue 77 from 1993 was dedicated to a debate on the results of the action to redevelop the Catalan city, attended by Mario Botta, Ignasi de Solà-Morales, Jacques Lucan, Jose Luis Mateo, and Franco Purini. Two numbers were also dedicated to the relationship between the city and technical infrastructures. Issue 56 of 1988, entitled “Space, time and architecture”, opened with an article by Semerani on the Moll de la Fusta project in Barcelona by Manuel de Solà Morales, and closed with an essay on American parkways by Christian Zapatka who, in 1995, would be the author of one of the «Lotus documents» dedicated to the American landscape. The relationship between technical infrastructure and urban identity was addressed by Issue 59 in 1988 through examination of certain projects – Plečnik’s riverfront for Ljubljana[99] presented in an essay by Alberto Ferlenga with the photographs of Luigi Ghirri, the renovation of the Atocha station in Madrid,[100] or Navarro Baldewg’s restructuring of the windmills in Murcia [101] which, acting through points or lines, launched larger-scale urban redevelopment. Closing the issue was an article on the station in Stuttgart designed by Paul Bonatz[102] who, like Plečnik, worked on the theme of infrastructure in relationship to the identity of the site, and like the Slovenian architect, was one of the figures who belonged to the so-called “alternative modern”.
Again
on the
relationship between the city and architecture, mention must be made of
Issue
64 from 1990, significantly entitled “The
other city planning”,
in which were published Siza’s
projects for the Chiado in Lisbon,
the Diagonal block by Moneo for Barcelona and, looking at a more recent
past,
Perret’s
project to rebuild Le
Havre. This issue opened with an essay by Manuel de Solà
Morales[103]
who identified an urban
project tradition altogether different from the official one of the
CIAM. “Another
modern tradition”
whose history was studded with the
works of Berlage and Oud in Holland, Fisker in Copenhagen, Plečnik in
Ljubljana, and Folguera in Catalonia. «Urban
design means taking the geography of a given city, with its demands and
suggestions, as a starting point, and introducing elements of language
with the
architecture to give form to the site»,[104]
which means taking into account the
complexity of the urban structure more than a simplification and,
conversely,
working according to an inductive process that allows a generalization
of what
is particular and local, according to the Spanish architect. Generated
by
complexity and overlapping, the urban project “shows
itself to be the most suitable, rich, variable opportunity
[…] for the planning
of the modern city”.[105]
To
this theme
were dedicated another two issues that addressed the questions raised
by the
city block (no. 19, 1978) and the neighbourhood (no. 36, 1982) seen as
cornerstones of the city’s form. In both numbers, the task of
introducing the
projects of contemporary architecture was entrusted to essays of a
historical
nature: in number 19, Enrico Guidoni and Manuel de
Solà-Morales tackled
respectively the theme of the road and the city block from the Middle
Ages to
the 18th century and the analysis of urban
expansions in the 1800s;
in Issue 36, Jacques Lucan analysed the neighbourhood as a form for
constructing the city, through examples drawn from the history of 20th
century French town planning and projects by Le Corbusier.
The
different
keys to interpreting the relationships between architecture and the
historical
city correspond to different design methods, or so it says in the
editorial to
Issue 18 of 1978,[106]
dedicated to presenting
some projects by Giancarlo De Carlo –
who
that same year became director of the magazine «Spazio
e Società»
–
as well as Stirling, Van Eyck, and
the Saals’
experience in Oporto
illustrated by Gregotti. If it is true that a city is formed through
heterogeneous stratifications, if we can assume that each urban
settlement is
in fact a city-collage that “combines
historic times and spaces in an exiting and inextricable kaleidoscope
where
everything can happen”,[107]
then we can speak of a city which
builds on itself, a design seen as a superimposition of different
systems. It
is equally true, however, that if we accept the idea of a city made up
of
homogeneous parts, defined according to a process of the additive type,
it will
tend to “confirm
in space the expectations of time, through a sharp distinction of
conservational operations and recycling, and to make sure that the new
is not
confused with the old”.[108]
Examination of the many ways through which a design can relate to the pre-existing is a theme that resurfaced several times in this season of «Lotus», and demonstrated a certain interest in its ability to raise questions that interact on both the urban and architectural scales.
“The shift from an attitude where the new intervention is seen as being in contrast to the architecture of the past to one which avails itself of analogy”,[109] is, for example, the topic that forms the backdrop to Issues 46 from 1985 and 72 from 1992 which analysed the different types of relationship that the contemporary project could establish with ancient artefacts that it found itself close to. Emblematic with respect to this question is, in Issue 72, the presentation of the Athenian interventions of Dimitris Pikionis around the mound of the Acropolis and the Philopappos monument, in a twofold interpretation consisting of the photographs of Giovanni Chiaramonte[110] and an essay by Yorgos Simeoforidis.[111] Equally paradigmatic appears the selection of projects submitted in Issue 46: Asplund’s expansion of the Palace of Justice in Gothenburg, Grassi’s renovation of the Roman Theatre of Sagunto, and Moneo’s Museum of Roman art in Merida, each developed from a particular “con-text” inside which the contemporary project must relate to a “pre-text”.
Representative
of the various relationships that the project can entertain with
history and
with the very idea of the context, are the works of Navarro Baldeweg
and
Stirling presented in an issue significantly entitled “Transcriptions”
(no. 58, 1988). If the Spanish
architect blurred “samples”
and “rewritings”
of the Iberian context “almost
by stealth, echoes of classicism (Soane) or the modernism (Aalto, Siza)”,[112]
the British architect
achieved outcomes that were completely different. He “does
not carry out his opposition in
line with the contrast between the old and new which the modern
movement had
accustomed us to: his process falls entirely in a hermeneutic dimension
of
architecture”,
that of heresy. In this
he showed that he had learned one of the main lessons of his mentor and
friend
Colin Rowe who, encouraging his students to have faith in modern
architecture,
had nonetheless always stressed the importance of being critical of it,
of
being ready to disassemble it, reassemble it, subvert it, ultimately to
be
well-disposed towards heresy.[113]
For
Nicolin, “the
impossibility of conceiving the foundation and marking direct reference
to
general ideas, the propensity to link the single part only to a
“virtual”
whole, care to avoid short-cuts towards facile generalizations”,[114]
focused the “attention
on the concepts of place, of region on specific cases and on the
ability of the
individual architect”.[115]
It is not marginal, then, that Issue 62 of 1989 imposed its reasoning around that complex interweaving of contextual characteristics and individual talents which the published projects provide some examples of. Entitled “The Weak Project” in a blatant paraphrasing of Gianni Vattimo’s expression, and opening with an essay by Colin Rowe on ‘talent and ideas’,[116] this issue presented some “regionalist” works – those of the Portuguese Alcino Soutinho, the Spaniards Cruz y Ortiz, and the Italians Cino Zucchi, Pasquale Culotta, Giuseppe Leone and Marcello Panzarella (the last three professors at the Faculty of Architecture in Palermo) – which brought to light the multifaceted character that the interweaving between individual paths of design research can assume; a local context and an international debate.
In
Issue 25 of
1980, emphasis had already been placed on these aspects, following the
evolution of the formal research of some architects: Stirling who, as
Nicolin
wrote,[117]
“from
the machinist collages of the first manner”
went on to assume “fragmentary”
positions; Ungers who, by that time
distant from the premises of Team 10, referred to “a
pluralism inspired by Schinkel”;
and then the personal trajectories
of Krier, Rossi, Van Eyck, Linazasoro, Zaha Hadid and Koolhaas. As was
stated
in the previous issue on “unity
and fragments”,
in contrast, individual authors’
projects and research on the city “show
with a certain degree of clarity
the fact that urban architecture no longer constitutes the premise of a
unifying address […]
even if all agree in
their criticism of the city of the CIAM.”
“Contextualism”
itself –
the subject of the debate published in
Issue 74 of 1992, with contributions from Derossi, Grassi, Gregotti,
Lucan,
Portughesi, and Scott Brown –
while being “an
attitude so diffused as to
practically involve a large part of contemporary architecture”,[118]
featured such a wide range of
positions remote from one another as to be considered a sort of “convention
to implement the peaceful
coexistence of differing options within the disillusionment of the
current
pluralism”.[119]
Also
Issue 70
from 1991 would return to examine the variety of methodological
approaches and
options in language that characterized the various projects, through
the
outcomes of some major competitions for European cities.
If
it is true
that the “weak
project” leads
to the impossibility of relying
on conventions established once and for all, and if it is true, as some
argue,
that at least in part the reasons for the “instability
in the frame of reference should be sought in the technology itself
[…] in
search of incessant innovation”,[120]
for the architect it becomes crucial
to question the “uncertain
and provisional character of the results of constant technical and
scientific
development”,[121]
and to reflect on that
theme of construction which is at the centre of so many issues of «Lotus».
Number 28 from 1981, on the “Romanesque
and Byzantine”,
published a series of projects –
including those of Mario Botta,
Vittorio Gregotti, Richard Meier, Aldo van Eyck, Carlo Scarpa and
Francesco
Venezia –
which had “the
merit of revealing […] an unveiling of the material
conditions through which
buildings are actually constructed”.[122]
If, in most cases, the
buildings result in a forgery, manifesting an equipoise
“between
architectural grammar and
constructive capacity”,
or expressing the
scarcity of means, staging a sort of “aesthetics
of the poor”,
the most significant
works seem to belong to other categories at the extremes of which arise
the
Romanesque and Byzantine. If Botta’s
“Romanesque”
works, far from representing examples
of an Arte Povera made available to
a
consumerist society, “aspire
to richness while yet working with the poverty of the architectural
means
available to us”[123],
in Scarpa’s
“Byzantine”
works, “a
craft culture of age-old tradition celebrates its gilded twilight.
[…] The
world has moved on. The creation of a grand opera is an increasingly
rare event”,[124]
wrote Nicolin.
The theme of construction featured heavily in several other issues. In one dedicated to “Construction: routes and discourses” (no. 37, 1983), the works of Ridolfi were interpreted by a pair of essays by Francis Cellini and Claudio D’Amato, while the works of Siza were commented on in a pair of articles by Roberto Collovà and Francesco Venezia. Another example is provided by two issues entitled “Engineering in Architecture” (no. 45, 1985) and “Architecture in Engineering” (no. 47, 1985); the former opened by two articles of Werner Oechslin and Luca Ortelli on Santiago Calatrava; the latter publishing the outcome of the competition for the new Accademia bridge, with articles by Portoghesi and Rossi, accompanied by the famous passage of Georg Simmel on Bridge and Door.[125] Finally, the diptych consisting of the issues on “Technical Applications” (no. 78, 1993) and “Intelligent Buildings” (no. 79, 1993), showed different ways to approach the issues of construction: at one extreme, projects that work through a process of assembling components and place the focus on the system of connections – as in the works of Nicholas Grimshaw and Renzo Piano; at the other extreme those projects with a “plastic and all-embracing approach” in which the tendency is “to involve placing a general Gestalt ahead of any other consideration, so that the form of the individual element is deprived of its autonomy by its essential subordination to whole”[126] – as in the works of Nervi, Torroja, and Calatrava.
It is impossible to follow over the twenty years of «Lotus International» from 1974 to 1994, the richness and critical calibre with which the various themes were addressed: those on museums (Issues 35 from 1982, 53 and 55 from 1987), those linked to green spaces (Issues 14 from 1977, 30 and 31 from 1981, 52 from 1986 and, relating to infrastructure, number 56 from 1987) prefatory with respect to the landscape issues that would gain ever-greater importance in the subsequent phases of the magazine’s life; those relating to specific regions such as Catalonia (no. 23, 1979) or India (no. 34, 1982).
Certainly, the jaded debate on some of the key issues that had marked the previous decades, such as reflections on the urban project or the debate around the post-modern, induced «Lotus», in the period between 1991 and 1994, to gradually move its main foci of interest towards other content. Here ends our discourse, since, if it is true that the magazine’s approach remained monographic, if it is true that the themes of housing, the landscape and the city would continue to be addressed, it is equally true that the change in the general contents marked a new chapter in the magazine’s history. In the face of the four decades’ continuity of Nicolin’s directorship, over time not only were the thematic horizons of the magazine and its graphics transformed, [127] also the members of the steering committee[128] underwent numerous changes, as did the editorial staff, which from 1980 to 1994 featured, amongst others, Georges Teyssot, Daniele Vitale, Italo Rota, Luca Ortelli, Alberto Ferlenga, Mirko Zardini, and Alessandro Rocca.
While its number of members remained restricted, the editorial staff would continue to change in subsequent years; the single fixed point in these variable geometries was and is Nicolin, the true soul of the magazine.
Before closing our discourse on the first thirty years of the life of «Lotus», we should look again at three important stages in its history.
The first stage coincides with the launch in 1982 of the series «Lotus Documents», whose twenty-third and last number would be published in 1999. The documents had the same format as the periodical of which they constituted an offshoot, defining two areas of investigation: on the one hand, an in-depth look at matters already dealt with in the “mother” magazine; on the other, the presentation of theoretical research and design by some of the leading figures in the Italian and international architectural debate. Among the documents on the first sphere, of note here are those already mentioned on L’architettura del paesaggio americano by Christian Zapatka (no. 21, 1995), Designing Cities by Manuel de Solà (no. 23, 1999) and Interior Landscapes by Georges Teyssot (no. 8, 1987). Among those on the second sphere, we can only recall a few here: Oswald Mathias Ungers. Architetture as Theme which opened the series, Aldo Rossi. Three Cities. Milano, Perugia, Mantova (4/1984), Álvaro Siza. Poetic Profession (6/1986), Giorgi Grassi. Architecture Dead Language (9/1988), Franco Purini. Seven Landscapes (12/1989), Vittorio Gregotti. Five Necessary Dialogues (14/1990) and Luciano Semerani. Passaggio a nord-est (16/1991).
The second phase coincided with an exhibition in 1985 at the Fondazione San Carlo in Modena. The idea of organizing an exhibition in which «Lotus» presented the work of the “its own workshop”[129] – formulated by Pierluigi Nicolin, Vittorio Savi and Rossella Ruggeri, then director of the Poletti Library in Modena – was related to the decision to deposit archival materials from the periodical’s twenty-three issues (consisting of photographs, letters and drawings, many of them unpublished) at the library, whose funds came from a bequest by the Modenese architect, Luigi Poletti. Alberto Ferlenga and Luca Ortelli edited the catalogue and designed the exhibition which constituted a “taking stock”[130] and, at the same time, a re-appropriation of the work carried out by the magazine. The exhibition was divided into three sections: the first, mounted in the Corridor of Honour of the Fondazione San Carlo, represented the promulgation of a virtual number of “Lotus”; the second exhibited, on three sides of the Cardinals' Hall, the magazine’s archival materials donated to the library; the third consisted in a wooden room built at the centre of the Cardinals' Hall housing an analytical index and a selection of photographs.
The
third phase
coincided with the foundation in 2000 of a new magazine «Lotus
Navigator».
While outside the period examined
here, it is important to note that this stage represented the moment
when the
process of strengthening the interest of «Lotus
International»
in the landscape project reached
maturity, as witnessed by its issues on “Uncultivated
land” (no.
87, 1995) and “The
Two gardens”
(no. 88, 1996). The new four-monthly
bilingual periodical would not last beyond nine issues. Its format (24
x 32 cm),
graphics (by Andrea Lancellotti) and structure, were profoundly
different from
those of the “mother”
magazine, while characteristics common
to the two periodicals were its monographic format and the working
group:
Pierluigi Nicolin at the helm, Alessandro Rocca, Giovanna Borasi and
Lorenzo
Gaetani doing the editing. Each number, open to explorations of various
disciplines, from architecture to design, from photography to the
visual arts,
consisted of an opening essay that defined the critical-interpretative
approach
to the theme, and a broad review of projects and works. Although
favourably
welcomed, «Lotus
Navigator»
failed to achieve economic
self-reliance, and was forced to suspend publication. On the other
hand, ever
fiercer competition from online publishing was joined, from the end of
the
Eighties, by a condition of overcrowding of the publishing panorama by
architectural magazines that “fished
in the same waters”.[131]
From 1982 to 1996, Gregotti directed «Casabella»,
while in 1989 he helped the rebirth
of «Zodiac»
under the direction of Canella. In
1989, appeared «Materia»
directed by Portoghesi, while between
1989 and 1991, Semerani published «Phalaris».
From 1989 to 1992 Marco De Michelis
directed «Ottagono»
and from 1992 to 1996 Vittorio Magnago
Lampugnani headed the direction of «Domus».
Between the Eighties and the
mid-Nineties, “the
sector magazines
started to become a haze, following a veritable mass of editorial
initiatives
promoted by the most disparate institutions –
industry associations and professional
orders, companies variously involved in the market of architecture and
design,
university departments –
characterized
by a plethora of guidelines.”[132]
In the face of a scenario
combining saturation of the publishing market, economic criticality,
and a
general dulling of the cultural impact of architectural periodicals, «Lotus»
began a profound rethink about its
structure, objectives and image. As already said, the depletion of
certain
thematic strands that had marked the history of the magazine from 1974
to the
end of the ’80s imposed a decisive change of route. The
change in direction
began with Issue 68 of 1991 and continued until 1994, when the contents
of the
magazine were profoundly renewed, and the axis of the reasoning was
already
reset to the coordinates of the countless fresh trends in the world of
architecture. This reading of the evolution of «Lotus»
ends here, and we shall not venture
into the changed cultural terrain of the successive phases. Before
concluding,
however, it makes sense to linger for a few lines on Issue 68, not only
because
this was the moment when “Lotus”
started to tackle new thematic
horizons, but also because it might arguably be numbered amongst the
most
beautiful issues ever published by the magazine. Titled “the
eye of the architect”
and enriched by contributions from
Kenneth Frampton, Vincent Scully and Anthony Vidler, this issue
published
sketches and drawings that some architects had made during their
travels: Le
Corbusier, Asplund, Aalto, Kahn, Krier, Siza, Hejduk, Sottsass and
Rossi. In
the editorial, Nicolin updated readers on the changes taking place in
the
magazine: the choice to publish two different editions, one in Italian
and one
in English, which would afford more room for texts and images, the
change of
the editorial staff [133]
and the management committee[134],
the renewed graphics.[135]
Not only that: each
number would be divided into two sections: a “Focus”
centred around a particular theme, and
a “Forum”
dedicated to a comparison of multiple
points of view on specific issues (clients, competitions, criticism,
the
relationships of architecture with the visual arts or the media) in
order to
make the periodical an arena for discussion increasingly open to
diverse
positions. It was indeed believed that “to
a proliferation of attitudes, a
replacement of the unique visions of architectural phenomenon with an
unprejudiced use of language […],
the
destructuring/dispersion that has affected our discipline”[136]
it was necessary to respond with “appropriate
communication tools”.
What we were seeing, wrote Nicolin, was a transformation of the Zeitgeist and, as far as contemporary
architecture was concerned, “a
paradigm shift with respect to the previous approaches, comprehensible
only
with the changing of the horizons that occurred in the Eighties”.[137]
Publishing
sketches from the travels of some masters just
when “Lotus”
was
embarking on a new road took on a value that was both metaphorical and
instrumental.
This permitted observation of “the
nature of different beginnings”,
predisposed reflection on what had caught the eye of some great
architects”;
let us imagine that, as in Le Corbusier’s case, travel
sketches might become
useful material for the construction of future projects.
[1] For
further information, see the
following web pages, last consulted in December 2017:
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Chapman;
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Clark;
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gran_Premio_d%27Italia_1963
[3] In
1979, Bruno Alfieri’s
passion for motor racing led him to leave Electa and found the
publisher
Automobilia, specializing in the history and image of the car, that
would go on
to work with some of the most prestigious car manufacturers including:
Alfa
Romeo, Lamborghini, Maserati, Mercedes, Porsche and, in particular,
Ferrari,
thanks to the personal support of Enzo Ferrari.
[4] Some
authors give 1963 as the date of
publication of the first volume of “Lotus”. In reality, the
annual was founded in Venice in 1963, but its first edition came out in
1964.
To check the correct date, beyond that on the volume itself, see:
http://www.editorialelotus.it/web/item.php?id=1
[5] Giulia
Veronesi, art historian and
critic of art and architecture, collaborated with the magazine “Casabella” under
the direction of Giuseppe Pagano and Edoardo Persico. Winner of the “Olivetti
Prize”
for architecture critics
in 1957, she edited the complete writings
of Edoardo Persico for Edizioni di Comunità, which came out
the same year the
first edition of the “Lotus” annual
went to press. She authored the following publications
(amongst others):
Joseph
Maria Olbrich, Il
Balcone, Milan
1948; J. J. Pieter Oud, Il Balcone,
Milan 1953; Difficoltà politiche
dell'architettura in Italia, 1920-1940, Politecnica
Tamburini, Milan 1953
(reprinted by Marinotti nel 2008); Josef
Hoffmann, Il Balcone, Milan 1956; Luciano
Baldessari architetto, CAT, Trento 1957; Edoardo
Persico. Tutte le opere (1923-1935), Edizioni di
Comunità,
Milan 1964; Ascesa e caduta delle Arts
Déco, Vallecchi, Florence 1966.
[6] B. Alfieri, (untitled), “Lotus. Architectural annual, Annuario dell’architettura, Annuaire de l’architecture, 1964-65”, Bruno Alfieri, Milan 1964, p. V.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] G. Veronesi, (untitled),
In “Lotus.
Architectural annual, Annuario dell’architettura,
Annuaire de l’architecture, 1964-65”, Bruno Alfieri, Milan 1964, p. XI.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.
[14] A.
Rocca, “Lotus”, in M. Biraghi –
A. Ferlenga (ed.), Architettura del Novecento. Teorie, scuole,
eventi, vol. I, Giulio Einaudi Editore, Turin 2012, p. 567. Reference should be made to the entire essay,
published on pp.
566-570, for a concise and fascinating history of the “Lotus” annual.
[15] S.
Micheli, Le riviste italiane di
architettura. Il luogo logico del dibattito architettonico,
in M. Biraghi,
G. Lo Ricco, S. Micheli, M. Viganò, Italia
60/70. Una stagione dell’architettura,
Il Poligrafo, Padua 2010, p. 129.
[16] B. Alfieri, A new Lotus, in “Lotus.
Architectural annual, Annuario dell’architettura
d’oggi, Annuaire de l’architecture
contemporaine, 1965-66”, Bruno
Alfieri, Milan 1965, p.
3.
[17] Ibid., p. 4.
[18] Ibid., p. 5.
[19] G. Veronesi, A Panorama, in “Lotus.
Architectural
annual, Annuario dell’architettura d’oggi,
Annuaire de l’architecture contemporaine,
1965-66”,
Bruno Alfieri, Milan 1965, p. 11.
[20] Ibid., p. 12.
[21] Ibid.,
p. 11.
[22] B. Alfieri, (untitled), in “Lotus.
An International Review of Contemporary Architecture, Rivista
internazionale dell’Architettura d’oggi,
Revue internationale de l’Architecture
contemporaine,
1966-1967”, no.
3, Bruno Alfieri,
Milan Venice (undated) [1966], p. 1.
[23] Ibid.
[24] A. Rosselli, L’architettura
ricerca nuove relazioni,
in “Lotus. An International Review of Contemporary
Architecture, Rivista
internazionale dell’Architettura d’oggi,
Revue internationale de l’Architecture
contemporaine,
1966-1967”, no.
3, Bruno Alfieri,
Milan Venice (undated) [1966], p.
2.
[25] Ibid., p. 3.
[26] B. Alfieri, A letter from the
editor, in “Lotus.
An International Review of Contemporary Architecture, Rivista
internazionale dell’Architettura d’oggi,
Revue internationale de l’Architecture
contemporaine,
1967-1968”, no. 4, Alfieri Edizioni d'Arte, Venice (undated) [1967], p. 5.
[27] A. Rosselli, The role of the
architect in the next ten years,
in
“Lotus. An International Review of Contemporary
Architecture, Rivista internazionale dell’Architettura
d’oggi, Revue internationale de l’Architecture contemporaine, 1967-1968”, no. 4, Alfieri Edizioni d’Arte, Venice (undated)
[1967], p.
10.
[28] Ibid.
[29] Ibid.
[30] R. Venturi, D. Scott Brown, A
significance for A & P Parking Lots; or Learning from Las Vegas,
in “Lotus.
An International Review of
Contemporary Architecture, Rivista internazionale dell’Architettura d’oggi,
Revue internationale de l’Architecture
contemporaine”, no. 5, Alfieri Edizione d’Arte, Venice 1968, pp. 71-91.
[31] E. McCoy, R.
M. Schindler, in “Lotus.
An International Review of Contemporary
Architecture, Rivista internazionale dell’Architettura
d’oggi, Revue internationale de l’Architecture contemporaine”, no. 5, Alfieri Edizione d’Arte, Venice 1968, pp. 92-105.
[32] D. Gebhard, Ambiguity
in the
work of R.M. Schindler, in “Lotus.
An International Review of
Contemporary Architecture, Rivista
internazionale dell’Architettura d’oggi,
Revue internationale de l’Architecture
contemporaine”, no. 5, Alfieri Edizione d’Arte, Venice 1968, pp.
92-105.
[33] G. Mazzariol, La
Feria a Valencia di Guillermo Jullian, in “Lotus. An International Review of Contemporary
Architecture, Rivista
internazionale dell’Architettura d’oggi,
Revue internationale de l’Architecture
contemporaine”, no. 5, Alfieri Edizione d’Arte, Venice 1968, pp.
34-62. This footnote
gives the Italian title of the
article, since neither the title nor the article were translated into
English
in this issue of "Lotus".
[34] Idem., Il
linguaggio di Erickson, in “Lotus. An International
Review of Contemporary
Architecture, Rivista internazionale dell’Architettura
d’oggi, Revue internationale de l’Architecture contemporaine”, no. 5, Alfieri Edizione d’Arte, Venice 1968, pp. 161-187.
[35] A. Rogatnick, EXPO
67: The
Past Recaptured, in “Lotus.
An International Review of
Contemporary Architecture, Rivista
internazionale dell’Architettura d’oggi,
Revue internationale de l’Architecture
contemporaine”, no. 5, Alfieri edizione d’arte, Venice 1968, pp.
12-33.
[36] C.
Aymonino,
Origine e sviluppo della città
moderna, Marsilio,
Padua 1965.
[37] A. Rossi, L’architettura
della città, Marsilio,
Padua
1966.
[38] G. Mazzariol, Louis
Kahn: progetto per Venezia, in “Lotus.
An International
Review of Contemporary Architecture, Rivista internazionale dell’Architettura d’oggi,
Revue internationale de l’Architecture
contemporaine”, no. 6, Alfieri Edizioni
d'Arte, Venice 1969, pp. 1-39. The
title is that in the
Index; instead, the tile on p. 1 is Un
progetto per Venezia. This footnote gives the Italian title
of the article,
since neither the title nor the article were translated into English in
this
issue of "Lotus".
[39] The second part was on “The designing of the city”.
[40] A. Villa, La
progettazione della città, “Lotus. An International
Review of Contemporary Architecture, Rivista internazionale dell’Architettura d’oggi,
Revue internationale de l’Architecture
contemporaine”, no. 6, Alfieri Edizioni
d'Arte, Venice 1969, pp. 96-101. This
footnote gives
the Italian title of the article, since neither the title nor the
article were
translated into English in this issue of "Lotus".
[41] On the figure of Constantino Dardi, in the
same number, see: M.
Tafuri, Dardi, in “Lotus.
An International Review of
Contemporary Architecture, Rivista internazionale dell’Architettura d’oggi,
Revue internationale de l’Architecture
contemporaine”, no. 6, Alfieri Edizioni
d'Arte, Venice 1969, pp. 163-169; C. Dardi, Lettura
di James Stirling, in “Lotus.
An International
Review of Contemporary Architecture, Rivista internazionale dell’Architettura d’oggi,
Revue internationale de l’Architecture
contemporaine”, no. 6, Alfieri Edizioni
d'Arte, Venice 1969, pp. 122-133. This
footnote gives
the Italian title of the article, since neither the title nor the
article were
translated into English in this issue of "Lotus".
[42] A. Rogatnick, The
Decline and
Fall of the Architectural Profession in North America, in “Lotus.
An International Review of
Contemporary Architecture, Rivista internazionale dell’Architettura d’oggi,
Revue internationale de l’Architecture
contemporaine”, no. 6, Alfieri Edizioni d’Arte, Venice 1969, pp. 266-270.
[43] A. Villa, L’architettura
nella formazione della città moderna, in “Lotus.
An International Review of Contemporary
Architecture, Rivista internazionale dell’Architettura
d’oggi, Revue internationale de l’Architecture contemporaine”, no. 7, Alfieri Edizioni d’Arte, Venice 1970, pp. 6-11. This footnote gives
the Italian title of the article, since neither the title nor the
article were
translated into English in this issue of "Lotus".
[44] C. Aymonino, Progetto
architettonico e formazione della città, in “Lotus. An International Review of Contemporary
Architecture, Rivista
internazionale dell’Architettura d’oggi,
Revue internationale de l’Architecture
contemporaine”, no. 7, Alfieri Edizioni d’Arte, Venice 1970, pp.
20-41. This footnote
gives the Italian title of the
article, since neither the title nor the article were translated into
English
in this issue of "Lotus".
[45] G. Canella, Un’architettura
di architetture, in
“Lotus. An International Review of Contemporary
Architecture, Rivista
internazionale dell’Architettura d’oggi,
Revue internationale de l’Architecture
contemporaine”, no. 7, Alfieri Edizioni d’Arte, Venice 1970, pp.
42-61. This footnote
gives the Italian title of the
article, since neither the title nor the article were translated into
English
in this issue of "Lotus".
[46] A. Rossi, Due
progetti di abitazione, in “Lotus.
An International
Review of Contemporary Architecture, Rivista internazionale dell’Architettura d’oggi,
Revue internationale de l’Architecture
contemporaine”, no. 7, Alfieri Edizioni d’Arte, Venice 1970, pp. 62-85. The title here is
that in the Index; instead, the tile on p. 62 is Due
progetti
[47] A. Villa, National
competition for the historical centre of Trieste: Dardi, Polesello,
Semerani, in
“Lotus. An International Review of Contemporary
Architecture, Rivista internazionale dell’Architettura
d’oggi, Revue internationale de l’Architecture contemporaine”, no. 7, Alfieri Edizioni d’Arte, Venice 1970, pp. 86-117. The title here is
that in the Index; instead, the title on p. 86 is
Il concorso per il centro storico di Trieste; below, the
initials
A. V. refer to the editor, Angelo Villa
[48] Rossi, La
progettazione nelle facoltà di Milano, Roma, Venezia
in “Lotus. An International Review of Contemporary
Architecture, Rivista
internazionale dell’Architettura d’oggi,
Revue internationale de l’Architecture
contemporaine”, no. 7, Alfieri Edizioni d’Arte, Venice 1970, pp.
130-172. This title only
appears in the Index; from p.
128 to p. 172 there is a series of Degree Theses with different titles;
in
fact, the section devoted to the theses begins on p. 128 and not on p.
130 as
written in the Index. This footnote gives the Italian title of the
article,
since neither the title nor the article were translated into English in
this
issue of "Lotus".
[49] A few years earlier, Manfredo Tafuri had
judged three experiences
as “very positive” for
their open form and for the fact that
instead of “cancelling the architecture in their urban
planning process they
relocated the constructions to a fitting context and exalted their
semantic
autonomy”. These were: Quaroni’s project for the San Giuliano sandbanks at
Mestre, Geoffrey Copcutt’s
studies for the surroundings of Glasgow, and
Kenzo Tange’s plan for the new Skopje. M. Tafuri, Architettura,
town design,
città, in “d’Ars Agency: bollettino
trimestrale”, nos. 36-37, 1967, p. 9.
[50] Vv. Aa., Bologna:
il P.R.G. ed il progetto di Kenzo Tange in “Lotus. An International Review of Contemporary
Architecture, Rivista
internazionale dell’Architettura d’oggi,
Revue internationale de l’Architecture
contemporaine”, no. 7, Alfieri Edizioni d’Arte, Venice 1970, pp.
354-409. This title only
appears in the Index; from p.
354 to p. 409, there is a series of articles by various authors, with
different
tiles. This footnote gives the Italian title of the article, since
neither the
title nor the article were translated into English in this issue of
"Lotus".
[51] G. Fabbri, Venezia:
ipotesi sulla città e strumenti progettuali, in “Lotus. An International Review of Contemporary
Architecture, Rivista
internazionale dell’Architettura d’oggi,
Revue internationale de l’Architecture
contemporaine”, no. 7, Alfieri Edizioni d’Arte, Venice 1970, pp.
280-297. This footnote
gives the Italian title of the
article, since neither the title nor the article were translated into
English
in this issue of "Lotus".
[52] C. Aymonino, G. Fabbri, A. Villa, Le
città capitali del XIX secolo. 1. Parigi
e Vienna, Officina, Rome 1975.
[53] P. Nicolin, Introduzione,
in Lotus international 1974-88.
Indici Indexes, Supplement to “Lotus
international”, no. 61, Electa, Milan, 1989, p. 6.
[54] On the panorama of Italian architectural
magazines, see: S. Micheli, Le riviste
italiane di architettura…,
op. cit., pp. 125-138; M. Mulazzani, Le
riviste di architettura. Costruire con le parole, in F. Dal
Co, Storia dell’architettura
italiana. Il Secondo Novecento,
Electa, Milan 1997, pp. 430-443; F. Tentori, L’Architettura
contemporanea. In dieci lezioni
(dividendo per undici). Zibaldone e bibliografia sull’architettura,
l’arte italiana e le
riviste del Novecento,
Gangemi, Rome 1999, pp. 117-121, 131-135. While
Silvia Micheli and Marco Mulazzani referred to “Lotus”,
Francesco Tentori did not mention the magazine.
[55] E. N. Rogers, Continuità
o crisi? in “Casabella-continuità”, no. 215, April-May 1957, p. 3.
[56] Ibid.
[57] The editorial board featured in various ways
and at different
moments: Marco Zanuso,
Giancarlo De
Carlo, Vittorio Gregotti, Gae Aulenti, Guido Canella, Aldo Rossi,
Giorgio
Grassi, Luciano Semerani, Carlo Aymonino, Aurelio Cortesi, Silvano
Tintori, and
Francesco Tentori.
[58] M. Mulazzani, Le
riviste di architettura…,
op. cit. p. 436.
[59] S. Micheli, Le
riviste italiane di architettura…,
op. cit., p. 126.
[60] M.
Mulazzani, Le riviste di
architettura…, p.
435.
[61] This
was Ford’s “Zodiac”.
On the story of Bruno
Alfieri and on the history of the
magazine until 1974, see: O. S. Pierini, Zodiac,
in M. Biraghi –
A. Ferlenga (eds.), Architettura del Novecento. Teorie, scuole, eventi,
vol. I, Giulio
Einaudi Editore, Turin 2012, pp. 949-954.
[62] See: S. Micheli, Le
riviste italiane di architettura…,
op. cit., pp. 127 and 129-130.
[63] Ibid., p. 127.
[64] This
topic was addressed in
the double issue 87-88 in 1965, whose contributions included some from
Eugenio
Battisti and Christian Norberg-Schulz on landscape, and Salvatore
Bisogni and
Agostino Renna on urban design in the Naples area.
[65] R. De Fusco, in “Op.
cit”, Editoriale,
no. 1, September 1964, p. 6.
[66] F. Tentori, L’Architettura
contemporanea…,
op.
cit., p. 131.
[67] E. Bonfanti, Autonomia
dell’architettura, in “Controspazio”, no. 1, June 1969, pp. 24-29.
[68] M. Mulazzani, Le
riviste di architettura…,
op. cit. p. 440.
[69] “L’architettura interrotta”(Architecture interrupted)
was the
name of the column edited by Luciano Patetta in “Controspazio”.
[70] B. Alfieri, (untitled),
in “Lotus International”,
no. 8, 1974, p. 2.
[71] With regard to Diego Birelli's contribution to
the graphics of “Lotus
International”, Michele Galluzzo wrote in a booklet (p. 22)
published for the
exhibition “Diego Birelli Graphic Designer”, mounted at the
IUAV University of Venice, Archive Projects, 21.05-12.06.2015: “To
emphasize the change of direction and the permeability of the editorial
container, Birelli conceived the covers of the individual issues in an
uncoordinated manner with titles that changed from time to time, and
included
both stick characters of a Swiss pattern ‒ albeit graceful,
hieroglyphics or
lettering designed ad hoc as in the
case of issue eight.”
[72] B. Alfieri, (untitled),
op. cit., p. 2.
[73] A. Rocca, “Lotus”, op. cit., p. 566.
[74] Ibid., p. 3.
[75] S.
Micheli, Le riviste italiane di
architettura…, op.
cit., p. 137.
[76] A.
Rocca, “Lotus”, op. cit., p. 568.
[77] www.editorialelotus.it, consulted in December
2017.
[78] www.editorialelotus.it
[79] Pierluigi Nicolin became director of “Lotus” in
1977 and is still at the helm of the magazine today (January 2018).
[80] A.
Rocca, “Lotus”, op. cit., p. 568.
[81] M. Tafuri, The subject and
the mask. An introduction to Terragni, in “Lotus
international”, no. 20, 1978, pp. 5-31.
[82] P. Nicolin, From the archives
of the modern architecture, in
“Lotus international”,
no. 20, 1978, p. 3.
[83] Ibid.
[84] P. Nicolin, Architecture in
the University: Europe, in
“Lotus International”,
no. 21, 1978, p. 3.
[85] Ibid., p. 5.
[86] C. Rowe, Architectural
education in the USA: issues, ideas, and people. A conference to
explore
current alternatives,
in “Lotus International”,
no. 27, 1980, pp. 42-46.
[87] P. Nicolin, Architecture in
the University…, op.
cit., p. 3.
[88] P. Nicolin, Small works, in "Lotus International”, no. 22, 1979, p. 3.
[89] “Small works” was
the title of Issue 22 of “Lotus” in 1979.
[90] P. Nicolin, American lofts, in “Lotus
International”, no. 66, 1990, p.
5.
[91] V. Savi, Orphic,
surrealistic. Casa Malaparte in Capri and Adalberto Libera, in “Lotus
International”, no. 60, 1988, pp. 7-17.
[92] B. Reichlin, “Une
petite maison”
Lake Leman. The Perret-Le Corbusier
controversy, in “Lotus International”,
no. 60, 1988, pp. 59-83.
[93] F. Irace, Correspondences.
Villa Planchart by Gio Ponti in Caracas, in “Lotus
International”, no. 60, 1988, pp. 85-105.
[94] G. Chiaramonte, Villa Planchart.
Three rules and the ever-present Duchamp, in “Lotus
International”, no. 60, 1988, pp. 107-111.
[95] P. Nicolin, Disrupted
domestic space, in “Lotus International”,
no. 44, 1984, p. 5.
[96] P. Nicolin, Living in the
city, in “Lotus International”,
no. 41, 1984, p. 5.
[97] P. Nicolin, Architecture and
Grand Style, in “Lotus International”,
no. 42, 1984, p. 10.
[98] P. Nicolin, Living in the
city, op. cit., p. 5.
[99] A. Ferlenga, Riverbank among
the trees. A trip through the Lubjana of Plečnik, in “Lotus
International”, no. 59, 1988, pp. 7-14; in the same number of “Lotus” see:
D. Prelovšek, Note on he
construction of the riverbank. From the Austrian renovation to the
Plečnik
interventions, in “Lotus International”,
no. 59, 1988, pp. 15-33.
[100] M. Zardini, New railway
constructions. Rafael Moneo: renovation of the Atocha in Madrid, in “Lotus
International”, no. 59, 1988, pp. 101-113; photos by Dida Biggi.
[101] L. Ortelli, Similarities and
differences. The transformation of the Murcia mills by Juan Navaro
Baldeweg, in “Lotus International”,
no. 59, 1988, pp. 35-51; photos by Paolo Rosselli.
[102] F. Werner, The myth of the
atemporal. History of the Stuttgart station, in “Lotus
International”, no. 59, 1988, pp. 115-132.
[103] M. de Solà Morales, Another
modern
tradition. From the break of 1930 to the modern urban project, in “Lotus
International”, no. 64, 1990, pp. 6-31.
[104] Ibid., p. 7
[105] Ibid.
[106] P. Nicolin, Architecture in
historic towns, in “Lotus International”,
no. 18, 1978, p. 3.
[107] Ibid.
[108] Ibid.
[109] P. Nicolin, Interpretation of
the past, in “Lotus International”,
no. 46, 1985, p. 5.
[110] G. Chiaramonte, Odòs,
Meth-odòs, Theorèin, in “Lotus
International”, no. 72, 1992, pp. 6-19.
[111] Y. Simeoforidis, Un’opera di Pikionis nel
contesto. Sorveglianza in
atto, in “Lotus International”,
no. 72, 1992, pp. 20-21.
[112] P. Nicolin, Transcriptions, in “Lotus
International”, no. 58, 1988, p.
5.
[113] See: C. Rowe, Architectural
education in the USA: issues, ideas, and people, op. cit.; M. Marzo, Afterword, in
Ibid. (ed.), L’architettura
come testo e la figura di Colin Rowe, Marsilio, Venice 2010, p. 260.
[114] P. Nicolin, The weak design, in “Lotus
International”, no. 62, 1989, p.
5.
[115] Ibid.
[116] C. Rowe, Talent and Ideas.
A conference, in
"Lotus
International”, no. 62, 1989, pp. 7-17.
[117] P. Nicolin, The search for
forms, in “Lotus International”,
no. 25, 1980, p. 3.
[118] Ed., Contestualismo?
In “Lotus International”,
no. 74, 1992, p. 109. This
footnote gives the
Italian title of the article, since neither the title nor the article
were
translated into English in this issue of "Lotus".
[119] Ibid.
[120] P. Nicolin, Architecture as
Installation, in “Lotus International”,
no. 77, 1993, p.
45.
[121] Ibid.
[122] P. Nicolin, Romanesque and Byzantine,
in “Lotus International”,
no. 28, 1981, p.
5.
[123] Ibid., p. 7.
[124] Ibid.
[125] G.
Simmel,
Bridge and door, in “Lotus
International”, no. 47, 1985, pp. 52-56; also in G. Simmel, Saggi estetici (edited by M. Cacciari),
Padua 1972.
[126] P. Nicolin, Intelligent buildings, in “Lotus
International”, no. 79, 1993, p.
39.
[127] Over
the years, for its
graphics, the magazine availed itself of the guidance of various
designers:
Diego Birelli, Pierluigi Cerri and F. G. Confalonieri, Alessandra Dal
Ben,
Lioba Wackrnell, Andrea Lancellotti and Gaetano Cassini.
[128] Below is the evolution of the editors and
steering committee from
1980 to 2002. Among the editors, in 1980 Georges Teyssot joined Daniele
Vitale
and Italo Rota (no. 28); in 1981 joined by Luca Ortelli (no. 30); in
1982 (no.
34) Alberto Ferlenga became part of the editorial staff and Teyssot
left, in
the next issue assuming the role of editorial coordinator; that same
year, the
committee of experts was joined by Mario Botta, Francesco Dal Co,
Jacques Lucan
and Franco Purini (no. 34); in 1984, the committee of experts was
joined by
Marco De Michelis, Ignasi de Solà-Morales, Bernard Huet,
Werner Oechslin, and
Georges Teyssot (no. 41); in 1988 Mirko Zardini joined the editors (no.
56); in
the same year (no. 58) Teyssot was no longer editorial coordinator for
some
issues, but would return later to finally switch to the management
committee;
in 1990 (no. 65) Ferlenga and Ortelli left the editorial staff and
Alessandro
Rocca entered; in 1999, Mirko Zardini left and Giovanni Borasi arrived
(no.
101); that same year an external editorial board was added, consisting
of,
among others, Ignasi de Solà-Morales and Georges Teyssot; in
2000, Lorenzo
Gaetani arrived; in 2002 (no. 112) Mirco Zardini joined the external
editors,
and the following year (no. 118) Rocca left the editors.
[129] R. Ruggeri, Foreword, in Vv. Aa., The archives of an
architectural review,
Electa, Milan 1985, p. 7.
[130] P. Nicolin, Introduction, in Vv. Aa., The archives of an
architectural review,
Electa, Milan 1985, p. 10.
[131] A.
Rocca, “Lotus”, op. cit., p. 569.
[132] M. Mulazzani, Le
riviste di architettura…,
op. cit. p. 443.
[133] The editorial
staff consists of Mirko Zardini, Alessandro Rocca, Rita Capezzuto and
Gail
Swerling.
[134] The Management Committee consists of Mario
Botta, Ignasi de Solà
Morales, Adolfo Natalini, Franco Purini, Vladimir Slapeta, and Georges
Teyssot.
[135] The graphics are by Gianluca Poletti.
[136] P. Nicolin, L’occhio dell’architetto, in “Lotus
International”, no. 68, 1991, p. 2.
[137] Ibid.
Refback
- Non ci sono refbacks, per ora.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
![]() | FAMagazine. Scientific Open Access e-Journal - ISSN: 2039-0491 ©2010-redazione@famagazine.it |