Leone Battista Alberti famously argued that beauty is “the adjustment of all parts proportionately so that one cannot add or subtract or change without impairing the harmony of the whole”. This quote seems particularly relevant when referring to architecture, the only art that is supposed to remain and stand timelessly. However, it can also be argued that it is the addition and subtraction of elements, according to the needs of the people inhabiting the building, that adds to its beauty; an underlying and ever running narrative that speaks of the men and women that have resided in it. After all, the ultimate purpose of a building is to serve the people that occupy it and even the context that surrounds it, as it is the case with most monuments; and as people and times change, so must the building. The chronology of a specific building can be altered, destroyed, accentuated, or be kept safe and consistent through remodelling and restoration respectively. This act of storytelling through a building is expertly shown in Carlo Scarpa’s remodelling of the museum of Castelvecchio in Verona. Sergio Los suggests that “Scarpa was more interested in historical transparency than in the theory of restoration” however, can Scarpa’s work be considered historically transparent if he omits periods of history and accentuates others? This essay aims to explore the extent in which Scarpa was successful at evoking and celebrating the identity of Verona, while making room for a new beginning for it as a museum. This will be done through briefly analysing the role of the building in the city’s history and the city’s impact on it; some of the components Scarpa highlighted, which ones he undermined and how he made way for the design of the museum.
Castelvecchio in relation to Verona
One of Carlo Scarpa’s main objectives while setting out the new design for the museum was revealing its original extent and function; to understand Scarpa’s design better it is necessary to review the original purpose for which it was built. The castle was originally built by the Scaligeri family, annexing a commune wall built in the 12th century, this wall would later be one of the more emphasized elements by Scarpa. It was this wall that separated the living quarters or Reggia on the western side of the wall, away from the city, from the military components from the castle. Due to the direction of the thrust of the castle, it is clear to see that it wasn't built to defend the city from foreign forces, but rather its occupants from revolts within the city. Another crucial component in the castle was the bridge crossing the Adige river, this was exclusive for the inhabitants of the castle to guide them to friendly territory, which would be closed off during the Napoleonic occupation and later reopened for the public.
Aims for the renovation
Scarpa had three distinct approaches when deciding the renovations that were to take place: Firstly, he wanted his own interpretation of the building’s history to be reflected in the changes that were going to be made. He wanted Verona’s history to be told through the building, as Samia Rab Kirchner put it, he wanted to “revive the ancient splendour of the city through his own novelty”. Secondly, he wanted to accentuate the architectural value of the original components, original referring to the construction made by the Scaligeri family under the rule of Cangrande and even those before that. Selecting the elements through their historical voice and putting more architectural value on the Commune wall and the Cangrande sculpture, both of which represented very distinct phases of Verona’s past. Scarpa also used bold elements that were clearly modern by using materials like concrete and iron to contrast and accentuate, but not compete with the original building, as seen in figure 1. Finally, he wanted to satisfy the requirements for modern museography, by working closely with the museum’s director Magagnato. Making of the museum an art piece of itself and allowing it to complement and even enhance the experience of looking at the pieces housed by it. In a nutshell, as Sergio Los noted, “He wanted to disentangle the periods of building, to show the building as a great museum in itself and, by his repairs, to reveal the phases of enlargement and structural alteration”. And to do so it was vital to clean the building up from the renovations done during the 1920’s as both Magagnato and Scarpa agreed as vital for the renovation success.
Avena’s renovation
Castelvecchio was heavily bombed during World War 1 due to its strategical position on the border of Italy. However, after the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 and Italy’s borders being moved up, this building was no longer crucial for the Italian military, allowing it to make a smooth transition into an Art Museum. From 1923 to 1926 renovations were made by the museum’s new director Avena and his architect Forlati. Following fascist ideals, Forlati designed the renovations to look late gothic. The interior was made to look like 16 or 17th century and the outside was given a new facade with gothic windows, layers which were overlaying and obscuring the commune wall and each other. These alterations were the first ones in the history of Castelvecchio that were not utilitarian but merely decorative. Forlati aimed to imitate a gothic style both on the inside and outside, trying to merge everything into one whole, a very contrasting idea compared to that of Scarpa.
“Buildings that imitate look like humbugs and that's just what they are” said Scarpa referring to the muddled look these new alterations had given to the building. Whilst remaining pragmatic towards the changes that were to be made to the renovations made in other eras (e.g. Napoleonic), Scarpa acted “positively aggressive destroying Avena’s work” in the words of Richard Murphy. He introduced some asymmetry as, in his words, “the gothic demanded; Gothic, especially in its Venetian form, is not very symmetrical”. Most of the alterations made by Avena and Forlati were completely erased from the building by Scarpa except for the facade in the Napoleonic building due to its size and the danger of hurting the original wall. The solution Scarpa gave to this was to make it look as insubstantial, thin and not part of the castle as much as possible, as seen in figure 2. This approach begs the question, does this make the building truer? Arguably, by keeping the facade, even if it was not his intention and making it look alien to the building, Scarpa kept some of the history that Castelvecchio tells. It can be deceiving to the uninformed visitor but the approach taken speaks of the artificial nature of the changes made and even goes so far as to say they make a political statement of the times in which they were made, noting that early 20th-century fascism in Italy is not the essence of the country.
Cangrande Sculpture
The centrepiece of the museum’s collection is the sculpture of Cangrande della Scala, as this character was crucial to the city’s history and therefore Castelvecchio and how Scarpa wanted to tell its story. Under his rule, Verona flourished as a free city, proving himself both a great warrior and a ruler. It can be argued that it was his government who began a golden age for Verona, an era which can still be seen through the city’s architecture and culture. It was under Cangrande’s rule that Castelvecchio was built. To emphasize his importance, Scarpa put him where the Napoleonic staircase used to be, where it can be seen from the courtyard, the exhibition path to the Reggia wing and the path to the painting galleries, as it is shown in figure 3. Looking at it from below and afar the sculpture looks imposing and even intimidating, which makes it stand out from the building. Apart from repetition, Scarpa further highlighted his importance by locating him “where the historical interconnections are clearest” as Sergio Los states, it may be argued that in this way he was giving merit and celebrating Cangrande’s influence over the consequent history of Castelvecchio. The statue was originally on top of the Scaliger tombs, meant to be looked at from far below, however before entering the painting gallery there is a unique angle in which the statue can be seen frontally, clearly smiling (figure 4). The sculptor never intended the sculpture to be seen from any other angle apart from below and even altered the proportions for this purpose. This decision made by Scarpa may suggest his desire to further unite visitor and character/piece of art, by making them somewhat empathize with him, in this way contrasting his imposing image from all other angles.
Making way for a new beginning
By working closely with the museum’s director Magagnato, Scarpa was able to design a space within the Napoleonic wing with the new ideas about museography and how art should be experienced. As it was said jointly by Stavroulaki and Peponis “Visitors are introduced not to a story about art, but to the ways of seeing that are constitutive of it”. Although the whole building tells the story of Verona through its walls, this narrative does not disrupt the art pieces contained in the museum or simply display them, but rather complements it and acts as a tool for the viewer to understand them better, as Sergio Los suggests.
The sculpture gallery seems randomly ordered, with sculptures gazing at different directions and even at each other. However, upon close examination, the visitor gets the feeling of being part of a play; experiencing the gaze and reaction of sculptures towards each other. In this way evoking mostly biblical scenes and allowing the public to get involved in them as if it was first hand. For example, the sculpture of Jesus on the cross seems more dramatic and heartbreaking when the visitor notices the virgin Mary fainting across the room in his direction, as it is seen in figure 5, Stavroulaki and Peponis argue. On the other hand, the painting gallery plays upon the visitor’s movement in a different manner. Scarpa played with the light to emphasize an element in a painting, or make things appear different from a distance and then let them get really close to a painting from different angles by using an easel; in this way encouraging the viewer to take a more active role whilst visiting the gallery. According to Richard Murphy, “To comprehend truly his genius one needs to move through his spaces”.
Scarpa and Magagnato’s approach to museum design therefore evokes memories in the collective imagination of people by making them experience the galleries without the usual passiveness of a spectator; pushing the visitor to roam around the sculptures and paintings and almost participate with them.
Conclusion
This essay has explored the ways in which Scarpa evoked the history of Verona by celebrating the original building through his renovations and paved the way for a new beginning. Analysing Castelvecchio’s history and its role within the city, along with the alterations made by Scarpa and how he prepared the building for the future, was also an act of considering the richness that history might add or subtract from a building through its alteration. While it may be argued that Scarpa did not successfully evoke the city’s identity as, upon entering, the visitor is more aware of the changes made by Scarpa than the original building itself, as Samia Rab Kirchner notes. It can also be argued that the boldness of the changes made and the tension that the old and the new provoke, deliberately evoke the contrast of what Verona and Italy as a whole are; a country with a rich and valued history behind them and a present that is ever innovative, even the boldness in itself speaks of the Italian culture. Going back to the quote by Leone Battista Alberti, the castle as it is now can feel as a complete piece, a work of art from which nothing can be added or subtracted. However, does this mean that Castelvecchio’s story has ended?
Comments