L’architettura americana cerca una identità: 1932-1948
- Autores: Raffaella Russo Spena
- Directores de la Tesis: Josep Maria Rovira Gimeno (dir. tes.)
- Lectura: En la Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC) ( España ) en 2015
- Idioma: catalán
- Tribunal Calificador de la Tesis: Lluís Domènech Girbau (presid.), Fabio Mangone (secret.), Carolina Beatriz García Estévez (voc.)
- Programa de doctorado: Programa Oficial de Doctorado en Teoría e Historia de la Arquitectura
- Materias:
- Enlaces
- Tesis en acceso abierto en: TDX
- Resumen
The thesis analyses the debate on the architecture of the European Modern Movement that took place in the United States during the period between the two world wars. With regard to this debate, which not only involved those operating in the architectural sector, but that ended up involving vast sectors of American society and the organization of architectural schools, the extreme characteristic features that lead back to a dialectic of modernity are emphasized gathering around the polarities represented by regionalism and universalism. The aim was to analyse the social, cultural, and artistic context where an idea of architecture was being defined that, at the same time, was "modern" and "American", during the period between the Great Depression, which reached its peak in 1932, and the beginning of the Cold War, with the post-war reconstruction and the Marshall Plan of 1948. The starting and ending dates of the period under study were precisely established in correspondence of two events organized by the MoMA in New York, since these two events were believed to mark two moments of crucial reflection in modern architecture. In the sixteen years between the two events organized by the MoMA, American architecture demonstrated a progressive emancipation, as much from the cultural domination imposed by few isolated "pioneers", almost all European, as from the mythology of an American technological "exceptionalism" symbolized, in architecture, by the skyscraper and, therefore, the outlets of a process that was taking root and spreading were questioned: architecture no longer appeared indifferent to place and time but, on the contrary, it needed to be attentive to a topographical, climatic and cultural context. lt was no longer the legacy of a functional and rigidly sachlich culture of the early twenties, but it was the product of a personal and creative approach towards design. After all, during the period that separates the two dates, social, political and economic events occurred that would have extraordinary repercussions on architecture, as well.
