{"id":3361,"date":"2026-06-03T15:44:10","date_gmt":"2026-06-03T15:44:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.rivistapirelli.org\/?p=3361"},"modified":"2026-06-04T14:19:20","modified_gmt":"2026-06-04T14:19:20","slug":"the-problem-with-the-triennale","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.rivistapirelli.org\/en\/the-problem-with-the-triennale\/","title":{"rendered":"The Problem with the Triennale"},"content":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3357,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[47],"class_list":["post-3361","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-architecture-and-design"],"acf":{"riassunto":"","composizione_articolo":[{"acf_fc_layout":"composizione_articolo_testo","composizione_articolo_testo_testo":"<p>The crisis from which it was born, and by which the 11<sup>th<\/sup> Triennale is inevitably effected, has matured over time, but became known approximately a year ago, when work began on drafting the programme; for better or worse, it will resolved next autumn, when a meeting of experts will proceed with an objective examination of the situation and, one hopes, will sketch out a serious programme for reform. The fact that officially started this crisis is well known. Even before the broad strokes of this 11<sup>th<\/sup> exhibit became clear, the \u201cMovement for the Study of Architecture\u201d (msa), to which many of the best architects and graphic artists belong, compelled its adherents to refrain from any involvement. The reason for the conflict could not have been the exhibition programme, which had not yet been outlined: the controversy was thus not a controversy over trends, but over organisational method. The Triennale cannot be solely an exhibition, select as it may be, of the artistic production of all countries. [&#8230;] This contention was not even disputed \u2013 on principle \u2013 by the Organisation\u2019s leadership. It did not deny the need for a thorough restructuring, but only the possibility of investigating and implementing it before beginning to organise this exhibition, which had already been delayed by other hindrances. It is known that the calendar for international art events is strictly set by agreements that cannot be broken without running the risk that the event itself will be moved to other countries. We have thus arrived at an exhibition that can be said to be, if not makeshift, at least anticipatory. Many people who in the abstract align rather closely with the theses of the msa but are not formally obliged to follow its directives, have collaborated with the implicit or explicit reservation that the necessary reform would soon, and willingly, be looked into and undertaken.<\/p>\n<p>The obviously modest level of this Triennale is the most certain proof that this reform cannot be delayed. We must recognise that despite the perilous and difficult situation created by the breakaway of many high-value artists, it maintains a properly modern taste, and does not indulge in compromise apart from rare cases. If overall the level of quality is lower than in previous editions, this is due chiefly to the non-contribution by many artists: however it is clear that the goal for the leadership must not be solely to recapture a precious solidarity that has been lost, but rather to ascertain the conditions that will allow the Triennale to be, as it should be, the result of a collective inquiry. [&#8230;]<\/p>\n<p>Since we propose to gauge the shortfalls of the basic structure by examining this exhibition, we will begin with one of the main themes: the \u201crelationship among the arts\u201d. [&#8230;] Today, and we will see why, this is a subject in which no one any longer takes an interest: not even organisations in this field, which in fact have explicitly stated that they are not interested in seeking a synthesis of the three arts (architecture, painting, sculpture), but instead want to indicate under what conditions they are presented in a \u201ccultural relationship\u201d rather than a \u201ccollaborative relationship\u201d. This is a plainly contrived distinction, as a collaborative relationship cannot be something other than the active form of a cultural relationship; and, implying a separation between active and contemplative culture, it is perhaps a more serious distinction than the outdated traditional distinction between \u201cmajor\u201d and \u201cminor\u201d arts, or between pure and applied art, which is the same. But in accordance with a statute clearly drafted when the \u201csynthesis of the arts\u201d was topical, the Triennale Executive Committee must consist of architects, painters, and sculptors; nor can it expect from the latter two groups an explicit recognition that painting and sculpture now have little or nothing to do with the problems that the Triennale must address. Fortunately, the Committee, consisting of reasonable people not given to bombast and abstractions, did not seek out a hypothetical search for a \u201cplastic unity\u201d of the arts, and did not raise sham problems where no actual problem exists: it hung a few paintings on the wall, and as for sculpture, it sent nearly everything into the park, in the open air. But simply putting forward this outdated subject was enough to put a strain on other areas, or if nothing else to deprive them of their ideological foundation.<\/p>\n<p>The \u201csynthesis of the arts\u201d cannot in fact be understood as the convergence or cooperation of the three \u201cmajor\u201d arts for the simple reason that it occurred through entirely different channels and specifically through the work that goes by the name Industrial Design<em>.<\/em> But in the Triennale, industrial design is its own subject, and is the focus of a special section: selected and organised with seriousness and subtlety, as well as a certain unilateral perspective, [&#8230;] industrial design appears to be some sort of new or futuristic art, an aesthetic science fiction. Certainly, the organisers could have put greater emphasis on its human and social aspect, delving into the core of a problem that even has political implications, and avoiding proposing American design \u2013 a pure sublimation of technique \u2013 as an optimal solution, albeit one not exclusive of all other alternatives. [&#8230;] Similarly, if we do not wish to return to the old concept of \u201capplied\u201d art, we must recognise that the artist, in order to express himself through industrial technique, which is the production technique of today, is also obliged to renounce traditional techniques, meaning those that defined him as a painter, sculptor, or architect. Otherwise, industrial technique will no longer be a creative technique, but simply the technique of mechanically repeating a technical procedure already performed and concluded.<\/p>\n<p>Strange as it may seem, this apparently extremist idea points not so much to a demonstration of the utter novelty as to the profound historical nature of design and the fundamental overlap of the conceptual interests alluded to by this word with those implicit in the more traditional meaning of the word. It describes an idea or formal invention preceding all technical specification, although it also implies the possibility of execution and in a certain sense reabsorbs the technical operation into the mental exercise. So as genesis and common root of all the arts, or an <em>a priori<\/em> formal principle, it is also a \u201csynthesis\u201d of the arts. Nor do I think that in the entire history of art a loftier example of this synthesis, as design, exists than that of Michelangelo.<\/p>\n<p>But it is clear that in the obvious specificity of the objects it produces, modern industrial design is worlds apart from Michelangelo\u2019s universalist vision. [&#8230;] That which is referred to as design, is rather conception or planning, or even invention, but implies thinking born of a fully lived experience, so it is still a technique. Actually, it is the specific technique of invention (and in essence the design contains all phases of the operation), but invention is also the discovery of something that virtually already exists, in the depths of the collective soul, and also as an unconscious aspiration or muddled demand (and hence, indeed, the <em>mythical<\/em> significance that objects produced from a good design take on). Therefore, every good form is born not so much from the objective resolution of a technical or functional problem as from a very broad and in-depth \u201cknowledge\u201d, which in itself constitutes the basis of the social nature of design. Thus, design reconnects directly to that wider problem of social life addressed by urban planners and architects. But how to demonstrate this total continuity, if the exhibition of industrial design and that of architecture and urban planning are researched and ordered by separate, non-communicating commissions? Without refusing my responsibilities as a Member of the Commission for the architecture exhibition, I must also recognise that the accusations of abstractness directed at this exhibition are more than justified, since an architecture exhibition that is unrelated to the industrial design shows could not possibly be otherwise. How could an exhibition on dwellings not be abstract when it avoids every structural problem, practically reducing itself to an international furniture show?<\/p>\n<p>Among the special exhibitions, the one on museology stands out in particular. It is a problem of limited extent, but is emerging nevertheless because the museum, as a centre of culture and of aesthetic education, occupies an important position in the conception of modern urban planning, which considers places whose function is education to be vital points of urban connection.<\/p>\n<p>Also in this case though, and without laying the blame at the feet of the organisers, the exhibition does not identify the fundamental problems of modern museology [&#8230;]. It is not sufficient to repeat once again that the modern museum is a thousand times preferable to a museum \u201cin style\u201d: we must examine that which the basic and irreplaceable function of the museum is, or will be, in contemporary society.<\/p>\n<p>As a typical instrument of aesthetic education, the museum is a school; and the question of the museum cannot be separated from that of artistic instruction. [&#8230;]<\/p>\n<p>The Triennale, even more than the presentation of a qualitatively selected production, must be the presentation of the results of an in-depth and methodical critical study of the current state of production, in view of ongoing improvements in quality. The preparatory work for any exhibition must consist of a full collection of data, a rigorous critical review, and a determination of the exhibition methods best suited to explaining to the public how this critical assessment was reached.<\/p>\n<p>[&#8230;] On this point we must be very clear: the Triennale is not just any \u201cart exhibit\u201d. It is the critical and documentary review of a series of problems, which should not be invented each time, but deduced from an objective investigation of the situation as it stands. The \u201cprogramme\u201d of the individual exhibitions is not a question of individual brilliance or inventiveness: there is a problem that emerges from the <em>de facto<\/em> situation and which, on different levels, is practically the same for all countries. The three major threads of this problem \u2013 urban planning, dwelling, and production \u2013 define upfront the areas of research for every Triennale. Only in the framework of these overarching problems, coordinated amongst each other by the methodological unity that is at that basis of both planning and industrial construction design, can those specific questions arise that are posed or hinted at by designs or creations of special interest. Special exhibits will thus only be enlargements of facts or problems that already have their place in the general fabric and in the ideological assumption of the exhibition. [&#8230;]<\/p>\n<p>And it\u2019s within that same organisational structure that the international character of the Triennale should be defined: clearly this should not result from the official participation of many diverse countries, but from a demonstration of the international character of contemporary artistic production.<\/p>\n<p>A few dozen national sections follow in succession on the second floor of the Palazzo dell\u2019Arte. Each of these has been set up by a commissioner or a commission designed by the government of the individual participating countries, without any advance understanding among them. Therefore, we can legitimately suppose that the personal taste of the organisers had little influence on the selection of themes and objects, let alone the presentation of the exhibits. Not only, therefore, is a marked qualitative divide apparent among the exhibits, but the representation of qualitative developments has never seemed so uneven. We certainly cannot deny that the differing figurative traditions, the differing economic and social structures, the differing public demand, and the differing lifestyles have a powerful effect on industrial production, resulting in trends that can be decisively divergent. The high level of quality in the objects displayed in the Finnish, Swedish, and Danish pavilions, for example, reveals a gradual aspect of the evolution from artisanal technique to industrial technique that cannot be seen in the French production, which is largely directed at elevating the qualitative tone of objects produced using traditional technical processes. The problem with the German industrial product, deeply rooted in the figurative culture of the Bauhaus, is very different from the problem with the American industrial product, whose form is the nearly mathematical result of a computation of technical and economic data. [&#8230;] What must be shown is the possibility for convergence and for integrating experiences [&#8230;].<\/p>\n<p>We believe that only in this way can the Triennale try to become an opportunity offered to foreigners (and even this word ought to be banned) to display the results of their work alongside our own, and to produce a truly international exhibition.<\/p>\n<p>The problem with the Triennale, of which we have tried to point out just a few salient aspects, is not an exclusively Italian problem. Insofar as a given object \u2013 whether a city, a neighbourhood, a building, or just a piece of furniture or furnishing \u2013 achieves a qualitative value that we feel the need to define as an aesthetic value, that object ceases to be the response to a particular practical and utilitarian need and to have a meaning limited to the individual or group that produced it and uses it. It takes on a universal value: if this were not the case, a show like the Triennale would have no reason to exist, or would only satisfy the hollow curiosity of finding out what sort of houses are inhabited by, and which objects commonly serve, \u201cforeign\u201d populations. If those objects interest us, it is because those people are in fact not foreign, and their different historic experience is simply one aspect of the common historic experience, in the same way that their lifestyle, with the forms that convey its image and are its instrument, is simply one aspect of the lifestyle of the society of which they, with us, are a part. Therefore, the Triennale must not arise so much from a desire to document as from a shared desire to document <em>ourselves<\/em>, to compare ourselves, to contribute critically to defining the image of modern society and the rhythm of its function or its progress.<\/p>\n"},{"acf_fc_layout":"composizione_articolo_gallery","composizione_articolo_gallery_immagini":[{"composizione_articolo_gallery_immagini_immagine":"https:\/\/assets.fondazionepirelli.org\/rivista-pirelli\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/03154432\/RP_PP_1957_5_4_008r.webp"},{"composizione_articolo_gallery_immagini_immagine":"https:\/\/assets.fondazionepirelli.org\/rivista-pirelli\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/03154436\/RP_PP_1957_5_4_007r.webp"},{"composizione_articolo_gallery_immagini_immagine":"https:\/\/assets.fondazionepirelli.org\/rivista-pirelli\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/03154440\/RP_PP_1957_5_4_012r.webp"},{"composizione_articolo_gallery_immagini_immagine":"https:\/\/assets.fondazionepirelli.org\/rivista-pirelli\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/03154445\/RP_PP_1957_5_4_004mod.webp"},{"composizione_articolo_gallery_immagini_immagine":"https:\/\/assets.fondazionepirelli.org\/rivista-pirelli\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/04124801\/RP_PP_1957_5_4_001r.jpg"}]}],"custom_sticky":false},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rivistapirelli.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3361","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rivistapirelli.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rivistapirelli.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rivistapirelli.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rivistapirelli.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3361"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.rivistapirelli.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3361\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3364,"href":"https:\/\/www.rivistapirelli.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3361\/revisions\/3364"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rivistapirelli.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3357"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rivistapirelli.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3361"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rivistapirelli.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3361"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rivistapirelli.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3361"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}