A lightning bolt. The activity of Bruno Zevi in post-war Italy

This essay focuses on Bruno Zevi’s working period immediately after Second World War, coming back to Italy after his stay in London and in the USA. He starts right away his impressive attempt of popularizing contemporary architecture through “Metron”, the first magazine to be printed in Italy after the war, from 1945 to 1954. In this crucial phase he founded the APAO (Association for Organic Architecture), he contributed to the editing of the Manuale dell’Architetto (an handbook with all the new construction and ready-assembly techniques), he published Verso un’architettura organica (1945), Saper vedere l’architettura (1948) and Storia dell’architettura moderna (1950), he curated the first Frank Lloyd Wright exhibit in Italy and he greatly contributed to the spreading of modern architecture and urbanism all around the country. Zevi also paying special attention to social issues, raised the question of inner spaces where man lives and where the collective theme is expressed, and stressed the need of shaping the building in the name of human use and enjoyment.

First of all, the fundamental assumption was clarified: the genesis of modern architecture is deeply-rooted in functionalism, not in the neoclassical stylisation trends, not even in the provincialism of minor styles. Then, the concept of organic architecture was explained: a social, technical and artistic activity, oriented to create an environment suitable for the birth of a new democratic society. Organic architecture was modelled according to the human scale, allowing fot the development of the spiritual, psychological and material needs of the interconnected man. Organic architecture was therefore the antithesis of monumental architecture, which served the State myths. Furthermore, the need for a dialogue between urban planning and architectural projects was assessed, underlining the right of architectural freedom within the limits of planning strategies.
General principles were also listed, to be interpreted as values of political and social order and not as aesthetic or formal rules: 1. Political freedom and social justice as inseparable elements for the construction of a democratic society; 2. The need for a constitution (Italian Republic Constitution was approved two years later, on December 22, 1947) assuring citizens freedom of speech, press, association, worship; equality of race, religion and gender; and the exercise of political sovereignty through universal suffrage; 3. The guarantee, alongside individual liberties, of full social liberties. Thus, the end of monopolies and the liberation of labor force. An impulse towards international cooperation of peoples, against nationalist and autarchic myths as the primary cause of fascism.
What was outstanding, besides the obvious condemnation of the rhetorical architecture of the regime, was the emphasis assigned on a greater theme: the social theme. Organic architecture was chiefly a social practice, and subsequently a technical and artistic exercise. The APAO took the field pushed by the wind of the "Partito d'Azione" 8 . This accent on the ethical and political commitment was undoubtedly a crucial feature of the Italian version of organicism.
In fact, the APAO had a quite generic program in terms of specific objectives, and a more precise agenda for political purposes: one of the most evident principles was the identification between organic architecture and democracy. Beyond the political commitment, when the first concrete tasks were presented, the weaknesses of a to refer to, in order to promote its diffusion. At the first APAO National Congress, in 1947, Zevi tried to respond to his critics. His statement, in the unmistakable Zevi's style, was peremptory: «Organic architecture is a functional architecture, respecting not only the techniques and purposes of the building, but also the psychology of users. Everything else is gratuitous comment, you can go and update yourself» 10 .
It is true that the strong initial political conception in the APAO was replaced by a simpler cultural orientation over time 11 . The values of collaboration and solidarity rose up as if they could acquire an autonomous validity, becoming themselves the reason for being associated. The initial impetus was emptied out, the architectural results were often, in spite of the intentions, essentially formalistic. Nevertheless, Zevi defended its principles tirelessly: «organic mannerism? It seems absurd: mannerism of anti-Mannerism. In fact, it is a paradox. But consider how, in every age, around the rare poets, large groups of imitators arise, creating the artistic network, setting affinities and consents to facilitate the emergence of the genius.
Even today, builders and minor architects need a method, they need even to copy» 12 .   Matera, 1951-53, in Carlo Olmo, ed., Costruire la città dell'uomo. Adriano Olivetti e l'urbanistica (Torino: Edizioni di Comunità, 2001 adherence to the language proclaimed in Frank Lloyd Wright's Broadacre city and announced in Italy by Zevi in that very moment 14 .
Architecture critics describes these projects as expressions of architectural Neorealism, borrowing the term from Luchino Visconti, Roberto Rossellini and Vittorio De Sica movies. Italian film industry undoubtedly reached extraordinary results in those years. But if an objective representation of reality can be produced through the cinematographic instrument, architecture cannot be a pure mean of representation. In architecture, realism must be of a moral kind: a commitment to be inside reality during the design process.
In Zevi's critical approach as well, there was a certain kind of diffidence regarding the so-called Neorealist projects. The aesthetic of Zevi was far from the popular and traditional vocabulary proposed by those plans and previously supported by Giuseppe Pagano amongst all 15 . Moreover, according to him, being inside reality consisted first and foremost in accounting for a bond between culture and economy.
During the inaugural speech for the foundation of the In/Arch (National Institute for Architecture) it was stated clearly: «the verdict is automatic, the diagnosis is clear: if the relationship between economy and culture is broken, architecture is in a state of paralysis» 16 .
Social growth and architectural development must go hand in hand, and the Capital must bring them 17 .
A decisive meeting was at this point the one with Adriano Olivetti and his utopian vision of "personalist socialism" 18 , the concept for a new society which looked at socialist and liberalist organisations but went beyond both models, never neglecting the primary foundations of associations: individual freedom and the manifestation of all differences of people, expressed through participation.
The Olivetti project covered the entire span of cultural production: urban planning and architectural achievements corresponded to the formation of a new democratic society "educated with Art" 19 . The matter was a total re-foundation of the country, a change in the social, cultural, architectural and artistic fields, carried out with a political campaign. The Comunità movement was instituted in 1947, and flanked by the vast cultural production of the Olivetti publishing house, the Comunità Editions founded in 1946.

Bruno Zevi and "Metron"
The relationship between Adriano Olivetti and Bruno Zevi was not an easy one. In after war Italy, the need for free zones of debate to establish a new democratic culture was resolved in the flowering of numerous magazines. Editorial offices became headquarters for cultural initiatives not fitted within the conservative Academia.
One essential result of the meeting between Olivetti and Zevi was the circulation of the magazine "Metron". First published by Sandron editions, it was the first journal to be printed in 1945, immediately after the war. Once again Zevi, as s lightning in the sky, beat the others to the punch. The following year, "Metron" was flanked by "Casabella -Costruzioni" curated by Franco Albini and Giancarlo Palanti, and by 14 As a matter of fact in 1935, still as a high school student, Zevi had participated to the XIII international architectural congress in Rome.  The first twenty-four numbers, in small format, rough paper, and with few illustrations, were organised quickly but carefully to update the Italian culture, secluded from the international circuit by fascism. It was an inexpensive magazine, made for everyone.
The attempt was to intervene in the debate on Reconstruction themes with a widespread tool, informing about architectural and urban, as well as social and political developments in other countries. Zevi supplied most of the material concerning prefabrication and urban planning in England and America, collected thanks to his role within the United States Information Service at the American Embassy.
From the issue number twenty-five, an enhanced care on images and graphics was employed. From the issue number thirty-seven, when the magazine begun to be part of the Comunità Editions, it was further renewed and enriched. Above all, in the new "Metron" published by Olivetti, articles exploring arguments yet unfamiliar, such as nineteenth century architecture, or other fields of expression such as painting, sculpture, photography and theatre, found a place: «it is not a matter of gratuitous interpolations» writes Zevi in the first issue of the new edition «we are dealing with the necessity of inserting modern architecture into an historical perspective, framing it in terms of a culture. To fulfil this requirement, it is essential to recall the precedents of modern movement, exploring the experiences through which modernity took shape and character, searching for its roots in that "old architecture" still unknown and often despised in its entirety, in the name of abstract and anti-historical prejudices. Similarly, the reconsideration of some experiences carried out by painting and sculpture in those years will enlighten the figurative results to which the modern movement is linked in many ways» 20 .
The search for a method and a renewal in a devastated country were sharply There were also essays signed by Wright himself. The American architect reaffirmed the identification between democracy, as faith in the right of man to be free, and architecture, as process to build a world matching with natural needs of man. It must be said that from 1950, when "Metron" began to be published by Olivetti, the vitality characterising the journal in the early years gradually ran out, in comparison with the other two magazines still dedicated to architecture and urbanism, "Comunità" and "Urbanistica", again by Olivetti's Editions. After nine years, Zevi decided to suspend his first journal's publications and to start managing a new one, "L'Architettura -cronache e storia", through which the path indicated by "Metron" was continued with even greater impetus. Wright's work. Undoubtedly, the credit for the rediscovery of the American master in Italy and then in Europe after World War II belonged to Zevi. But, apart from the disclosure of Wright's projects, many critics began to underline the abstractness of the adjective "organic" and the difficulty of understanding what was meant by "organic architecture" as proclaimed by Zevi 31 . The book was the ideal source for the APAO principles declaration. Frank Lloyd Wright and Alvar Aalto were elected honorary members of the Association. But, as the APAO was more as a politic movement then an architectural school, Zevi's organicism was more a medium for a new social order to be established after fascism than an aesthetic reference for a new architecture.
Afterward, the effort to bring back together critic and history of architecture was attempted in Saper vedere l'architettura 32 , published in 1948. Here, Zevi began a difficult reconciliation path between the research of an architectural model related to social needs, and the reference to the work of an individualistic personality such as Wright's 33 . Moreover, his challenge was to combine the depth of analysis acquired before moving away from Italy, with his studies based on Benedetto Croce and Lionello Venturi, and the informative pragmatism learned in the USA.
Venturi was the referent par excellence, with his Storia della critica d'arte 34 . But while he considered in the historical development the taste as a primary source to analyse artists and critics activities, the intent of Zevi was to investigate what he believed to be the central, qualifying principle for architecture, namely the space.
For Zevi, the analysis of space and its use was the device for a new critical line.
The subtitle leaved no doubt: Essay on the spatial interpretation of architecture. The aim was informative, but it maintained the sophistication of art criticism manners and the accuracy of the Roman school of architectural history. The outcome was 28 Bruno Zevi, Verso un'architettura organica (Torino: Einaudi 1945   trying to overcome it. The two authors were linked by the centrality of the concept of space as cornerstone of architecture, while Giedion's insistence on isms divided them, especially the relevance attributed to abstract-figurative isms, which certainly were an essential component of modernity for Zevi too, but not the only one 40 .
For Giedion, the principles of space and time were transformed by Cubism, introducing simultaneity and interpenetration of planes; by Constructivism, conceiving spaces without human measure; by Neo-plasticism, returning to the essential elements of pure color, plans and their interdependence; by Futurism, pioneering time as a qualifying factor in spatial analysis.
For Zevi, the new conception of space was instead chiefly linked with the revolution of the Einsteinian law of relativity: space, time, matter and energy were interrelated, they influenced each other and, even more important, they were influenced by the user. This was specifically the reason why organic architecture was a democratic architecture.
Naturally, the core of this quarrel was Giedion's consecration of Gropius and Le Corbusier and Zevi's devotion to Frank Lloyd Wright. According to Zevi, Wright was the only architect conceiving spaces simultaneously in all dimensions, not simply adding or juxtaposing surfaces or volumes.
Designing simultaneously the inner space in all dimensions allowed a total emancipation from the pre-constituted forms, a total independence from the geometrical superimpositions. Yet, this conception of interior space, this design of the void, was uninterrupted, a centrifugal conquest of space: a free plan not because it was not divided by walls, but because it was produced from inside to outside, and then unfolded into the environment.

Conclusion
From 1944 to 1950, in only six years, Bruno Zevi contributed substantially to the evolution of architectural culture along with democratic civilisation, in a country hitherto oppressed by dictatorship.
Architecture and democracy, these were undoubtedly the two poles of Zevi's critical and historical discourse.
Of course, the importance of having introduced Wright's work was crucial. But, also according to Manfredo Tafuri and Francesco Dal Co, Zevi's choice of the Wrightian repertoire resided much more in his idea of democracy than in his abstract definition of organic architecture. In his Storia dell 'architettura italiana 1944-1985, Tafuri defined the essence of the Zevian theory about Wright: «Zevi's insistence on spatial valences must be understood as a metaphor. Space is the crucial feature where an exchange between design and fruition exists, where its oscillation between natural and unnatural conditions allows the reconstitution of "places" in which the environment of democratic society is recognisable» 41 .
The main issue for Bruno Zevi was the transmission of a message to shape, through architecture and urban planning, a new spatial dimension for emancipation, each