This lecture explores the complex relationship between Italian Futurism and Italian Fascism. Giovanna Zapperi examines how Futurism's embrace of modernity, technology, and a specific vision of masculinity intersected with, and in some ways contributed to, the rise of Fascism, while also analyzing post-war attempts to separate Futurism from its association with the Fascist regime.
Futurism's Formalist Interpretation: Early interpretations of Futurism focused primarily on its formal innovations and avant-garde spirit, often separating it from its political context. This approach, exemplified by Alfred Barr, minimized the movement's ties to fascism.
The Two Futurisms: A common narrative divides Futurism into "first futurism" (1909-1916), characterized by formal innovation, and "second futurism" (post-WWI), associated with fascism. Zapperi challenges this simplistic dichotomy.
Post-War Reassessment: Post-WWII Marxist art historians, particularly Carlo Giulio Argan, reevaluated Futurism, emphasizing its inherent contradictions and its role in shaping fascist ideology. This involved separating artists like Umberto Boccioni from the fascist alignment of Marinetti.
Futurism's Contribution to Fascist Ideology: Zapperi argues that Futurism's celebration of technology, aggressive masculinity, and a cult of death significantly contributed to the conceptual framework of Fascism. The "new man" envisioned by Futurism found resonance in Mussolini's regime.
The Myth of Boccioni: Umberto Boccioni's early death became a powerful myth within Futurism, symbolically linking the movement's aesthetic and violent energies with the rise of Fascism. His image was re-purposed post-war to align Futurism with a more palatable modernist narrative.
This lecture delves into the intricate relationship between Italian Futurism and Fascism. Giovanna Zapperi dissects how Futurism's enthusiastic embrace of modernity, advanced technologies, and a particular vision of hyper-masculinity intersected with, and arguably contributed to, the rise of Fascism. The presentation also analyzes the post-war efforts to disentangle Futurism from its problematic association with the Fascist regime, revealing the complex and often contradictory nature of this historical connection. The lecture uses detailed analysis of key figures and texts to explore how the narrative surrounding Futurism evolved over time.
Futurism's Formalist Interpretation: Initial interpretations of Futurism primarily focused on its stylistic innovations and its avant-garde spirit, often neglecting its political context. This approach, exemplified by Alfred Barr, downplayed the movement's strong links to the rise of fascism. This allowed for a more palatable assimilation of Futurism into the canon of modern art.
The Two Futurisms: A common, yet simplistic, narrative divides Futurism into two phases: "first futurism" (1909-1916), characterized by formal innovation and an avant-garde spirit, and "second futurism" (post-WWI), inextricably linked to fascism. Zapperi challenges this binary view, arguing for a more nuanced understanding of the movement's internal complexities and its continuous evolution.
Post-War Reassessment: Following World War II, Marxist art historians, most notably Carlo Giulio Argan, re-evaluated Futurism. Their analyses highlighted Futurism's inherent contradictions and its crucial role in the formation of Fascist ideology. This involved a deliberate effort to separate artists like Umberto Boccioni from Marinetti's explicit fascist allegiances, rescuing their work from association with the regime.
Futurism's Contribution to Fascist Ideology: Zapperi contends that Futurism's fervent celebration of technology, its projection of an aggressive and hyper-masculine ideal, and its glorification of death substantially contributed to the conceptual foundations of Fascism. The "new man" envisioned by the Futurists found a ready echo in Mussolini's regime, providing a powerful visual and ideological framework for its ambitions.
The Myth of Boccioni: Umberto Boccioni's untimely death took on a mythical significance within Futurism. This tragic event became a powerful symbol that linked the movement's aesthetic and violent energies to the genesis of Fascism. Post-war, Boccioni's image was strategically re-purposed to portray Futurism as a more acceptable component of the modernist narrative, separating his artistic contributions from the negative legacy of Fascism.
On Formalist Interpretation: "Marc's diagram… posited Futurism halfway between post-impressionism and abstraction… Despite the ideological implications that were secluded in its history and development…" This quote highlights the initial focus on formal aspects, overlooking political context.
On the Two Futurisms: "The separation between the two Futurisms provides a narrative of the good and the evil… that seems inadequate to apprehend Futurism and its history as a complex cultural phenomenon." This challenges the simplistic division.
On Post-War Reassessment: "Futurism was presented as Italy's most significant contribution to the development of modern art… Carlo Giulio Argan dismisses… the futurist movement for its inner contradictions and its embrace of the nationalist agenda…" This shows the shift in interpretation.
On Futurism's Contribution to Fascism: "A number of themes… such as the new man, the emergence of a technophile nationalism, the cult of death… found their way into the regime…" This directly links Futurist ideas to Fascism.
On the Myth of Boccioni: "From 1916 on, Balla provided a series of variations… Boccioni became the symbol of both the futurist myth and of its contribution in blood to the war that gave birth to fascism." This illustrates the creation of a myth around Boccioni.
