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