The arts and the future city ABSTRACT
Transcript
The arts and the future city ABSTRACT
The arts and the future city ABSTRACT The framework in which, better than in any other, cultural complexity becomes clear as a network of perspectives is the city: it is here that the greatest variety of subcultures, together with the widest range of contrasting modalities, seems able to handle its meaning. The city is at the same time an active place of cultural production and a passive and active place of memory keeping. It fuels styles and models of sensitivity also, and especially, through art and architecture. Therefore, it becomes itself a cultural model (Benedict, 1934), able to orient taste, but also to continually disorient it through agency (Bauman, 1992, 190-191). Starting from the revitalization of the cultural capital of the cities, art can play the important role of cultural magnet by catalysing moods and emotions, conveying otherwise chaotic needs and languages, promoting new tolerance and social and cultural integration. However, in the meantime, from a secluded and distinct place that organises the use of cultural and artistic products within recognizable boundaries, the city is becoming an undifferentiated place, a citybeyond, scattered and/or boundless. Characterized by the undifferentiated and the mutant, the uncertain and the liquid, the deformable and the relative, the space of art perception will be rethought within and without the city. KEYWORDS Knowing futures: ART, IMAGINATION Creating futures: POLITICS, TECHNOLOGY Minding futures: RESPONSIBILITY 1 Living the city The image of the space that we live in is the outcome of the social construction of the symbolic and cultural universes in which it has been able to produce itself, in a succession of objectifications that have then produced a social representation of it. Our sense of space, post-modern, no longer absolutely westerner (since it is by now shared by other cultures) but rather projected towards the future, is more and more commonly specified through the global-local dialectical relationship. On the one side, the community space (gemeinschaftliche) in which we locally produce cultural meanings has traditionally ended up by shaping up as the place, point of resistance to globalisation: it is endowed with values like concreteness, particularity, stability. The city is the most faithful example of it, allowing us to use spatial categories that still bind our past with our present and future. On the other side, the transformation and the loss of set boundaries in societal dimensions (gesellschaftliche) has long removed strong distinctions within globalized spaces, which rather bring to mind an abstract, universal and dynamic outcome (Castells, 1984; De Certeau, 1984). Castells introduces us to a post-modern vision of the world (inclusive) and to one that is dramatically modern (exclusive), where on-line and territory identities are either cohabiting or marked by conflict, respectively. And again it is in a local space that, according to Castells, cultural meanings are formed, whereas a global space is privileged by the economic and technological power. The (evidently local) space into which the form of the 2 city organises itself is where at first the pòlis emerges, where the sense of living makes its appearance after that of the oikos and immediately before that of heimat. It is here that for the first time space becomes place. Sociologically, the place becomes what is defined by its located, precise, physical-spatial nature (Bonomi, 2004, 14). In it the factors that underlie the generation of value operate economically; from the social point of view, the actors recognize one another because of somehow shared forms of life and languages. However, every Lebenswelt is no longer isolated, but rather interconnected with others by flows of communication (of commodities, capitals, ideas and cultures) when it becomes an agglomeration of places, just as the city is, where the single places are more and more open to the outside and less and less closed as overlapping provinces of meaning (Schutz, 1960). In the moment of the city founding, as the place par excellence, the main difference between the expression of sunoikìa (the most elementary dimension of living together) and that of pòlis (the actual city) is the politiché téchne (Curi, 2000), political art to be understood as a sharing of responsibilities, not only of privileges. In the pòlis, moreover, the classic priority of political acting (pràxis) over technical doing (pòiesis) is in use (Galimberti, 2002). Kant maintains that the city shapes up globally as a set of realizations fit for functions, while the aesthetical judgement comes out autonomously when the purpose becomes clear to the spectator, however without being linked to a particular goal. Kant, therefore, looks at the architectural construct from the double perspective of 3 the utility and feeling of beauty, but the priority of pràxis over pòiesis was destined to be overturned in the century just over, in which the technical-economic doing and the functional aspect of doing prevail over the symbolic aspect of political acting, reducing our cultural horizon (becoming more and more a-topical) to a desert of goals. The modern city is that in which building prevails over living (Heidegger, 1976; Gregotti, 1996). The city, and in particular the post-modern metropolis, even breaks its connections with a specific identity and loses its territoriality, while the idea itself of the place as representation of a social order is challenged. As Cacciari maintains, the more the metropolis becomes powerful, the “less able it seems to organiserationalize the life that flows in it” (2004, Technological development, therefore, 51). negatively implies a decreased level of social responsibility. The space of the modern city interests us as the place and frame in which a public (of users and/or consumers) can approach, better and in more ways that in any other, all the expressions that identify that particular place: in other words, expressions first of all of art, of architecture . It is in the city, in fact, that the most important civil and religious monuments can be found and likewise major museums, galleries, spaces devoted, formally or informally, to art. Not that ancient cities did not count within their boundaries architectural and artistic beauties; but, unlike modern cities, life in them saw great correspondence between space and time. Actions were assigned a precise social function within predefined frames of space and time. The ways of using art in the post-modern city no longer 4 consider the biunivocal space-time relationship since, like the places in which the use occurs, they are in continuous becoming: it is in fact an interclass and intercultural use, which nowadays makes Bourdieu’s categories on the matter obsolete (and all directed to explain fruition/use as the reproduction of selective class mechanisms) (Bourdieu). And this is because the city no longer offers itself as an immediately recognizable object of observation, but rather presents the user with an entirely new look in comparison with the past. An idea of the greatly awaited progress in the city in the nineteenth century can be formed also through reading J. Verne’s The five hundred million of Bégum. Set in an unreal and visionary America, in a place where only the name is anchored in the solid heritage of reality but where everything is pure pretence, the destiny of the entire civil society is played out. Two different ways of understanding and conceiving progress and two cities, Franceville and Stahlstadt, confront one another: the former is the dream of a utopian self-disciplined bourgeois city, legacy of the eighteenth -century Enlightenment, and the latter is a city made of steel and coal, embodiment of the German technology. Both functionalistic models of efficiency, but still too distant from the cultural use that people make of the city today, in line rather with what Jünger defined as global style (Jünger, 30). According to this new perspective , what characterizes the city in the phase we are living is its transition from being inserted in a Weltstaat, worldstate, to becoming itself a Weltstadt (world-city), that is to say an absolute metropolis, in which it is extremely clear that what globalization globalizes are indeed 5 styles, networks, clips, vacations, trips, work, training, communication, economic action. The prevalence of technical doing over political acting concerns the contemporary city, in an overturning of values in comparison to the pòlis. The nineteenth century industrial city, instead, was rooted in a particular equilibrium between economics and politics, destined to create economic growth and wealth at least till the 1970s, when the industrial model undergoes a crisis. The advent of the so-called post-industrial phase will then hand over to new models (technological and industrial innovation first of all) the planning of the city development (Vicari Haddock, 52). In the end, it is always the urban policies that produce also macroscopic social changes, when not new social subjects within important interest groups. The cultural use of space in a city refers to the sense of cum-munitas, understood not in an ideal-typical sense, but rather as a precise reality, in which only some traits of it appear, thus connoting a geocommunity (Bonomi, 17). The expression community, however, cannot be referred to the Gemeinschaft without implicit reference to the sharing of responsibilities. The latter is a distinctive trait of city inhabitants rather than of commuters, city users and metropolitan businessmen (all categories used by Martinotti), accustomed to a discontinuous relationship with the places of the city. The latter find themselves not in a condition of cummunitas but of im-munitas (which exonerates them from rather than involving them in a common duty) (Esposito). They, too, are “immune” citizens who, in their disembedding (Giddens) daily present us with the issue on the sense of their cultural identity (re6 embedding) and of the relationship with the use of places (the city first of all) and of the art scattered in them. We cannot deny the desolating perspective that will befall us around 2030, when 60% of the planet inhabitants, according to demographers’ disheartening forecasts, will live in an urban dimension. Places, cities and art, devoid of symbolic purposes and policies, already run the risk of locking themselves into a senseless self-referentiality without any future. Endowing art and architecture with an important social function means, on the contrary, indicating a course, with the purpose of recreating sense of belonging and sense of place. Returning to governability However, going back to the hypothesis of a possible survival of the city, the fundamental and necessary attributes to distinguish it will have to be carefully observed. It is a matter of “compactness, mixité , proximity, recognizability, boundary” (Salzano), that already distinguish the pòlis-city, provided with set boundaries and civil codes. An era is over, generating in the twentieth century, in addition to the Weltstadt, first the so-called scattered city (Indovina, 1990) and then what is called the meta -city (Martinotti). All over the world, scattered cities tend to sprawl into the surrounding territory: Milan as well as Naples, the Veneto district as well as Marseille or Barcelona, Buenos Aires as well as Istanbul; they no longer have boundaries, they expand in all directions to occupy lands that were once agricultural. The evolution towards meta-cities -real cities-beyond- witnesses the loss of governability of these immense areas in 7 continuous transformation, which from municipal and district space spill over into regional space, generating the serious political problem of the relationship with institutions no longer certain. If the city expands uncontrollably, the countryside, on the other hand, reaches out towards urbanization. New communities are born characterized by segregation (gated communities), by fear of being contaminated by other communities, in total loss of sense of place, and in the most absolute and careless squandering of resources of the environment and the territory. The scattered city, the meta -city, reflects sociologically in the concept of endless city understood as geocommunity , endless in that it is complex. Vis-à-vis these characteristics, can it still be maintained, therefore, that, like the metropolis of the early 1900s, it reproduces forms of sociation (Simmel), reduces social distance by promoting mobility through the dimension of discovery and multiple affiliations (Bonomi, 18-20) ? How to bring back to forms of equilibrium the discontinuity that characterizes the urban sprawl has become one of the main tasks for those that have to think about living the city, more than ever before building: a task for architects and city planners but also for sociologists, anthropologists, philosophers. Coming to terms with the scattered city and the total loss of territorial and historical identity that it involves, means also to consider “the emergence of new voids, the transformations of the infrastructural system, the flows of novel activity and the unexpected consumption of parts of the urban infrastructure (that) force administrators and technicians to confront with a picture ‘on the move’: the unstable and incessant 8 landslide -triggered by the new relationships silently established between the city’s traditional pieces by the so many spontaneous processes of appropriation of territories by individuals and communities- (which) undermines the old perception of the closed urban form” (Irace, 2005). From these considerations the idea emerges of a new “polycentric city ”, built on places of aggregation to the different scales, that aims at valuing not only the historical city centre and the eighteenth/nineteenth-century city, but also the more recent fabrics, placed in a heterogeneous way inside and outside the city” (ibidem). The plan of Gregotti’s study for the recovery of Acilia as a micro-city between Ostia Antica and Fiumicino, is actually born with this purpose: to free the city of Rome from no longer sustainable functions, surrounded by urban magnets (universities, trading centres, ministries, public bodies, technological areas, etc.) able to produce new governability and to “normalize” the scattered city. The ambition of this paradigmatic intervention is to challenge the global city, indifferent to the specificities of places, to rethink its surrounding territory in terms of recovery of identity and construction of a space in which cultural capital and social capital can cooperate. Art as a cultural magnet It is indeed from the revitalization of the cultural capital of the cities, that art, in turn, can develop an important function as a cultural magnet, catalyzing moods and emotions, conveying otherwise chaotic needs and languages, promoting new tolerance and cultural and social integration. In the city, the energetic centre of idea production, the risk of intolerance and of 9 ideological totalitarianism is traditionally less high than in secluded or inaccessible places; comparison is spontaneous, rivalry or conflict can also be important to promote processes of retroaction between inhabitants and artists. In many cases, the presence of foreigners, the forced melting pot have turned it into the crib of multiculturalism. The explosion of the outskirts, as an entirely new phenomenon in its quick sprawling via telecommunication, gives however to think that the idea of modernity in the cities is a failure, handing down to history the image of a city surrounded not by spaces of integration but rather of social exclusion. The cultural mix, in itself a very positive thing, rather than increasing the ability to absorb difference in the cities, has actually made them protected places, territories to be defended from the attacks of the peripheral tribes, which, instead, create opposition cultures and forms of communication. If it is true that “space degradation not only expresses social degradation but it also multiplies it”, as Marc Augé (2005) has clearly explained, and that it does not suffice to transform space and restore it to health in order to modify social relationships, it must, however, not be neglected that socio-cultural catalysts able to create or recreate identity do exist. Art can be one of them. In positive, rather than in negative, it can become the multiplier of shared ideas and languages, it can scatter for the future the seed of creativeness and self-awareness rather than the seed of violence and hate. To better understand how this project, rather than appear utopian, could instead show its feasible side it is necessary to step back a little and question those 10 issues that have traditionally been understood as the functions of art in the city and their development in the 1900s, turning the elitist and auratic image of art into the more democratic image we are familiar with. How works are received has indeed become a crucial problem for art socialization and diffusion. In as much as it refers to works, Bertrand de Jouvenel’s warning will have to be heeded: “there is never a single tomorrow -the future consists of a fan-like array of possibilities” (1972). This is much more so when the subject involved [art] cannot be reduced to the unit, according to rigid rationalistic schemata, therefore not even to that Weberian disenchantment that already aroused fear a hundred years ago. Art of all time (also the art of the future) needs re-enchantment and moving in a dimension of Wanderung, essential for art to be a true socio-cultural catalyst. Worthy of careful attention is Bauman’s proposal (1992), taken up and re-elaborated by Hannerz (1996), to adopt to this purpose the category of habitat of meaning. Closer to the dimension of agency than Schutz’s overlapping province of meaning, the concept of habitat of meaning takes into consideration the “heterogeneity of the actors and of the organisational settings” as well as of the likelihood “to extend and contract” the habitats themselves, which can intersect even if they carry different meanings. Thus, within the global ecumene, it is possible for several individuals, who are in some respects totally different from one another, to share several habitats of meaning. At last, the task of culture will become that of “exploring the way according to which mankind lives the global ecumene” (Hannerz 2001, 27-29). One of the 11 ways to do this -and not the least- is entrusted to art and the places (albeit less and less specifiable) where it occurs. We would like the city to still be one of them and not the last. Architecture and the arts (even the applied arts) are full of examples of this: turning traditional places into noplaces and noplaces into places. Augé’s terminology actually finds its more than semantic overturning where the changes that we see almost unconsciously are functional and symbolic substantial modifications: train stations and European (for example London with its Tate Modern, or Paris with the Gare de Lyon) and American undergrounds that are requalified as art containers. In the same direction goes the ambition (largely realized in a lot of European and non-European cities) of transforming means of transport and mobility places (already noplaces) into art galleries and meeting points. In contrast, traditionally connoted places (art galleries, but also restaurants and shops) present themselves as time places, symbols of the celebration of the ephemeral. Certainties, be they economic or cultural, have gone and the western tendency to the openclose mirrors the loss of concreteness of many traditional places, whose sites are located in spaces destined to a brief duration. Here the works of art on show are themselves destined to crumble. What end to imagine, in such contexts of use, for the subject-artistic object-place triad? With the aim to design new places, capable of again stimulating imagination to conceive future scenarios, the space for art perception can be rethought, within and without the city. Characterized by the undifferentiated and the 12 mutant, the uncertain and the liquid, the deformable and the relative, in the future space will have to generate places suitable to their use, and therefore of orders, but, in as much as modifiable and adaptable, they will in turns generate heresies (cf. Cacciari, 58). A brittle, not yet compact order. REFERENCES ARDOVINO, A. (2003). In Ardovino, A. et al. Eds., Heidegger e gli orizzonti della filosofia pratica. Etica, estetica, politica, religione [Heidegger and the horizons of practical philosophy. Ethics, aestheti cs, politics, religion]. Milano: Guerini e Associati. AUGE’, M. (1992). [Noplaces]. Paris: Seuil. (Italian Non-lieux translation. (1996) Nonluoghi . Introduzione a una antropologia della surmodernità. Milano: Eléuthera). BAUDRILLARD, J. (1974). La societé de consommation. Ses mytes ses structu res [The consumer society ]. Paris: Gallimard. (Italian translation. (1976). La società dei consumi . Bologna: Il Mulino). BAUDRILLARD, J. (1995). Le crime parfait [The perfect crime]. Paris: Editions Galilée. (Italian translation. (1996). Il delitto perfetto. Milano: Cortina). BAUMAN , Z. (1972 ). «A Note on Mass Culture: On Infrastructure». In D. McQuail (Ed.), Sociology of Mass Communication (pp. 61-74). Harmondsworth : Penguin. BAUMAN, Z. (1992). Intimations of Postmodernity . London: Routledge. BAUMAN, Z. (2000). Liquid Modernity . Cambridge: Polity Press. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. (Italian translation. (2002). Modernità liquida . Roma-Bari: Laterza). BAUMAN, Z. (2004). Wasted lives. Modernity and its Outcasts. Cambridge: Polity Press. (Italian translation. 13 (2005). Vite di scarto . Roma-Bari: Laterza). BENEDICT, R. (1934). Patterns of Culture. New York: Houghton Mifflin. (Italian translation. (1960). Modelli di cultura. Milano: Feltrinelli). BENJAMIN , W. (1955). Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner technischen Reproduzierbarkeit [The work of art at the time of its technical reproducibility ]. From W. B. Schriften. Frankfurt (Italian translation. am Main: (1966 ). L’opera Suhrkamp d’arte nell’epoca Verlag. della sua riproducibilità tecnica. Torino: Einaudi ). BEN JAMIN , W . (1982). Das Passagen Werk [Paris, the capital of the Nineteenth century: The passages of Paris]. Frankfurt am Main. (Italian translation. (1986). Parigi capitale del XIX secolo. I passages di Parigi. Torino: Einaudi ). BERMAN , M. Experience (1982). All That is Solid Melts into Air. The of Modernity . New Schuster. Italian translation. (1985). York: Simon and L’esperienza della modernità. Bologna: Il Mulino. BLUMER, H. (1939 ). «An Appraisal of Thomas Znaniecki’s “The Polish Peasant in Europe and America”». In Social Science Research Council Bulletin, 44. BONOMI, A., & Abruzzese, A. (2004). (Eds.). La città infinita [The endless city ]. Milano: Bruno Mondadori. BONOMI, A. (2004). “La città infinita [The endless city]”, in A. Bonomi, & A. Abruzzese (Eds.), La città infinita . Milano: Bruno Mondatori. (p. 13). BOURDIEU, P. (1979). La distinction [Distinction]. Paris: Les éditions de minuit. Italian translation. (1983). La distinzione. Critica sociale del gusto . Bologna: Il Mulino. CACCIARI, M. (2004). “Nomadi in prigione [Nomads in prison]”, in A. Bonomi & A. Abruzzese (Eds.), La città infinita . Milano: Bruno Mondatori. (p. 51). CAMAGNI, R., GIBELLI, M. C., & RIGAMONTI, P. (2002). I costi collettivi della città dispersa [Collective costs of the diffused city ]. Firenze: Alinea. 14 CASTELLS, M. (1984). “Space and Society: Managing the New Historical Relationship”. In M. P. Smith (Ed.), Cities in Transformation. Beverly Hills and London: Sage. (pp. 235-260). CASTELLS, M. (1996-2003). The Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture. London: Blackwell. CODELUPPI, V. (1989). Consumo e comunicazione. Merci, messaggi e pubblicità nelle società contemporanee [Consumption and communication. Goods, messages and advertising in contemporary societies]. Milano: Angeli. CURI, U. (2000). Filosofia come guerra [Philosophy as war]. Torino: Bollati Boringhieri. DE FLEUR, M. L., & BALL-ROCKEACH. S. J. (1989). Theories of Mass Communication. New York: Longman. Italian translation. (1995). Teorie delle comunicazioni di massa . Bologna: Il Mulino. DE CERTEAU, M. (1984). The practice of everyday life (S. Rendell, Trans.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. DE JOUVENEL, B. (1972) “Nature of Future”. In Toffler A. The "Introduction-Flechtheim Futurists, and deJouvenel", pp. 277-283. DICKENS, P . (1990). Urban Sociology: Society, Locality and Human Nature. Hemel Hempstead: Wheatsheaf. (Italian translation. (1992 ). Harvester Sociologia urbana. Bologna: Il Mulino). DISTASO, L. (2002). Lo sguardo dell’essere. Con Heidegger e Wittgenstein sulle tracce del guardareattraverso [The glance of being. With Heidegger and Wittgenstein on the track of looking-through]. Roma: Carocci. ESPOSITO, R. (1998). Communitas. Origine e destino della comunità [Communitas: Origin and destiny of the community]. Torino: Einaudi ). 15 ESPOSITO, R. (2002). Immunitas. Protezione e negazione della vita [Immunitas: Protection and denial of life]. Torino: Einaudi. FABRIS, G. P. (1995). Consumatore & mercato. Le nuove regole [Consumer & market. The new rules]. Milano: Sperling & Kupfer. GALIMBERTI, U. «Il futuro si chiama non luogo [The future is called noplace] ». La Repubblica , 18 July 2002, (pp. 42-43). GASPARINI, A. , LOGAN , J. R., & MANSUROV, V. (Ed s.) (1994 ). Riqualificazione e hinterland delle grandi città [Re-qualification and hinterland of big cities]. Milano: Angeli. GASPARINI, A. (1999). Luoghi, città, società [Places, cities, societies]. Roma: Carocci. GEERTZ, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books 1973. [Italian translation. (1987). Interpretazione di culture. Bologna: Il Mulino). GIDDENS, A. (1990). The Consequences of Modernity . Cambridge: Polity Press. (Italian translation. (1994). Le conseguenze della modernità. Bologna: Il Mulino). GOFFMAN, E. (1961). Encounters. Two studies in the Sociology of Interaction. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill. [Italian translation. (1979 ). Espressione e identità]. Milano: Mondadori. GREGOTTI, V., MARZARI, G., FIGINI, L. (1996) (Eds.), Opera Completa [The complete works]. Milano: Electa. HALL, J. R. (1999). Cultures of Inquiry. From Epistemology to Discourse in Sociohistorical Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. HANNERZ , U. (1983). Exploring the Inner City . Columbia University Press. Italian translation. (1992). Esplorare la città. Bologna: Il Mulino. HANNERZ, U. (1996). Transnational Connections. Culture, People, Places. London-New York: Routledge. Italian translation. (2001). La diversità culturale. Bologna: Il Mulino. 16 HEIDEGGER, M. (1976). Costruire abitare pensare [Building living thinking]. In Saggi e discorsi, It. tr. by G. Vattimo. Milano: Mursia. ILARDI, E. (2005). Il senso della posizione. Romanzo, media e metropoli da Balzac a Ballare [The sense of position. Novel, media and metropolis from Balzac to Ballare]. Roma: Meltemi. INDOVINA, F. (1990). La città diffusa [The scattered city]. Venezia: Daest Iuav. INDOVINA, F., FREGOLENT, L., SAVINO, M., DELPIANO, A., GUERZONI, M. (2005). L'esplosione della città [The explosion of city ]. the Bologna: Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Bologna. IRACE, F. (2005). “Magneti per il territorio [Magnets for the territory]”, Il Sole-24 Ore, 18 settembre 2005. (p. 42). JUNGER, E. (1998). Lo Stato mondiale. Organismo e [The organizzazione world state. Corporation and organization], It tr. by A. Iadicicco. Parma: Guanda. LA CECLA , F. (1996). Perdersi. L’uomo senza ambiente [Losing oneself. Man without the environment]. Roma-Bari : Laterza. LA CECLA , F. (1998). Non è cosa. Vita affettiva degli oggetti [It isn’t the thing. The affective life of objects]. Milano: Eléuthera. MALDONADO, T. (1998 ). Critica della ragione informatica [Critique of computer science reason]. Milano: Feltrinelli . MARTINELLI, F. (Ed.) (1981). Città e campagna. La sociologia urbana e rurale [City and countryside. Urban and rural sociology]. Napoli : Liguori . MARTINELLI, F. (1990 ). Le società urbane [Urban societies]. Milano: Angeli . MARTINOTTI, G. (1993 ). Metropoli [Metropolis]. Bologna: Il Mulino. MC QUAIL, D. (1986). Sociologia dei media [Media Sociology]. Bologna: Il Mulino. MEYROWITZ, J. (1985). No sense of Place. The Impact of 17 Electronic Media on Social Behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Italian translation (1995). Oltre il senso del luogo. Bologna: Baskerville). MICHELI, G. A. (2002 ). Dentro la città. Forme dell’habitat e pratiche sociali [Inside the city. Forms of habitat and social practices]. Milano: Angeli . PAPI, F. (2001). Filosofia e architettura. Kant, Hegel, Valéry, Heidegger, Derrida [Philosophy and architecture. Kant, Hegel, Valéry, Heidegger, Derrida ]. Como-Pavia: Ibis Minimalia. PARK, R. (1915). investigation of The city. human Suggestion behavior in for the the urban environment. The American Journal of Sociology, XX, March 1915 (pp. 577-613). (Italian translation. (1999). In R. E. Park, E. W. Burgess, & R. D. MacKenzie (Eds.), La città . Milano: Comunità). PARSONS, T. (1951). The Social System. London: Routledge and Paul. (Italian translation. (1965). Il sistema sociale. Milano: Comunità). RESTA, C. (2002). Ricordare l’origine. Riflessioni geofilosofiche [Remembering the origin. Geophilosophical reflections]. “DRP”, 4, (pp.11-18): http://www. geofilosofia.it/pelagos/Resta_falce1.html#note#note. RESTA, C. (2003). Heidegger e il tecnototalitarismo planetario [Heidegger and planet technototalitarianism]. in A. Ardovino (Ed.)., Heidegger e gli orizzonti della filosofia pratica. Etica, estetica, politica, religione, Milano: Guerini e Associati. ROSSI , P. (1989 ). [Comparison of Paragone modern degli ingegni and moderni e postmoderni post-modern minds]. Bologna: Il Mulino. RYKWERT, J. (1997). Vittorio Gregotti . Milano: Rizzoli. RYKWERT, J. (2005). Vittorio Gregotti & Associates. New Line Books. 18 SALZANO, E. (1969). Urbanistica e società opulenta [Town planning and affluent society ]. Bari: Laterza. SCHELER, M. (1925). Die Formen des Wissen und die Bildung and construction of knowledge]. In Philosophische SCHELER (Ed. ), [A philosophical view of the Weltanschauung worldVisione]. Bonn : Cohen 1929. SCHWARTZ, H. , JACOBS, J. & M. [The shapes (1979). Qualitative Sociology: a Method to the Madness. New York: The Free Press. (Italian translation. (1987). Sociologia qualitativa. Bologna: Il Mulino). SCHUTZ, A. (1960). Der sinnhafte Aufbau der sozialen Welt [Phenomenology of the social world]. Wien: Springer. (Italian translation. (1974). La fenomenologia del mondo sociale. Bologna: Il Mulino). SCHUTZ, A. (1979). [Sociological Saggi sociologici essays]. A. Izzo (Ed.). Torino: UTET. SECCHI, B. (2005). La città del XX secolo [The city of the 20th century]. Roma-Bari: Laterza. SIMMEL, G. (1957). Die Großstädte und das Geistleben (1903) [Metropolis and the life of the spirit], from Brücke und Tür, c/o M. Landmann and M. Susman. Stuttgart: Koehler Verlag. (Italian translation. (1995). La metropoli e la vita dello spirito. Roma: Armando). SMITH, M. P. (Ed.), (1984). Cities in Transformation. Beverly Hills and London: Sage. SMITH, M. P. (2001). Transnational Urbanism: Locating Globalization. Oxford: Blackwell. VERNE, J. (2005). I cinquecento milioni della Bégum [The five hundred million of Bégum]. Roma: Fanucci. VICARI HADDOCK, S. (2004). La città contemporanea [The contemporary city ]. Bologna: Il Mulino. WITTGENSTEIN, Chiarire L. [Building (1926-1928). Living Costruire Abitare Clarifying]. Wittgenstein, architect in Kundmanngasse, in La pluralità estetica 19 (2001). Torino: Trauben Edizioni, pp. 191-200. ZEVI, B. (1995). Paesaggi e città [Landscapes and cities]. Roma: Newton Compton. ZOLBERG, V. (1990). Constructing a Sociology of the Arts . Cambridge: Cambridge translation. (1994). University Press. Sociologia dell’arte. Bologna: (Italian Il Mulino). ZUMTHOR, P. (1993). La Mesure du monde [The measure of the world]. Paris: Editions du Seuil. (Italian translation: La misura del mondo, 1995, Bologna, Italy: Il Mulino). 20