Cities and historic buildings between the two World Wars. An itinerary among critique, architectural design and restoration

Abstract

The essay analyses the contribution of art historians and art critics in the debate on historic buildings and historical city centres between the two World Wars. In particular, it analyses the debate on the relationship between tradition and innovation in architecture which art historians and critics had with architects, planners and restorers. In the years preceding the Second World War, and the complicated phase of reconstruction, the perspective of art historians on cities and historic buildings was, in many cases, more critical and aware than that of architects. Architects, who in general considered tradition and modernity as opposites to be reconciled on an ad hoc basic, always with an eye to compromise, were engaged in defending or radically defeating the last remains of die-hardism. The essay traces the contribution of art historians to the debate on urban and historic urban fabric transformations in the years of the Fascist regime. In particular, the paper studies their attempts to go beyond - from a theoretical and methodological point of view - the typically nineteenth-century contrast between ancient and new or, similarly, conservation and transformation. The purpose is to analyse their efforts, which, however, turned out to be unproductive during the actual post-war reconstruction. Their theory tried to establish a relationship between the opposites (new/old) through critical analyses, involving town planning and restoration to the same extent, even if with different roles.