Relational spaces in Architecture, Aesthetics and Education. The Italian neo avant-garde architecture and the case of the Reggio Emilia Approach.

In the Reggio Emilia Approach, an internationally known pedagogical approach to early childhood education (Edwards & Gandini, 2018), spaces are considered “constituent elements of the formation of thought” (Rinaldi, 1998, p. 116), and the learning environment “takes on the role of one of the main and necessary educators” (Cavallini, Quinti, Rabotti & Tedeschi, 2017). The environment, in particular, is considered the third educator (Strong-Wilson & Ellis, 2007), right after teachers and families. An element still not underlined in the scientific literature regards the origin, in the Reggio Emilia approach, of the importance given to the environment, intended as a relational space and its close relationship with aesthetic reflections promoted by relevant exponents of Italian neo avant-garde architecture. As stated by Carla Rinaldi, direct collaborator of Loris Malaguzzi and president of the Reggio Children Foundation, the architect Tullio Zini has been “a great source of inspiration for the concept of environment and the aesthetics of the environment developed in Reggio Emilia” (Rinaldi, 2009, p. 61). At the same time, the architect and scholar Andrea Branzi played a central role in Reggio Children’s metaproject dedicated to the development of environments for young children (Zini & Ceppi, 1998). A relevant fact is that in April 1967, both Tullio Zini and Andrea Branzi were the protagonists, together with other young members of the architectural avant-garde, radical groups Superstudio and Archizoom1 , in an exhibition called “Superarchitettura”, organized in Modena at the main Municipal Gallery (Mello, 2017). The exhibition aimed to “propose the most relevant themes of the architectural culture of the 1960s through the projects of a group of young architects” (Branzi et 1 The exibition involved Andrea Branzi, Carlo Chiappi, Gilberto Corretti, Paolo Deganello, Claudio Greppi, Massimo Morozzi, Adolfo Natalini, Ali Navai, Marta Scarelli, Cristiano Toraldo di Francia, Tullio Zini. 108 SCENARI / #12 al., 1968). On that occasion, in addition to the projects, the group presented a Manifesto that declared the ideas that inspired their work. In the Manifesto, the group stated, provocatively, “Superarchitettura is the architecture of the superproduction, of the overconsumerism, of the superinduction to consumerism, of the supermarket2 (…)” (Branzi et al., 1968). As explained by Toraldo Di Francia, one of the most relevant exponents of Superstudio, it was a provocation aimed at investigating the “mind and language through the stoss, or creative shock, which Benjamin indicated as the prime function of art3 ” (Toraldo Di Francia, 2019). The fact that Toraldo Di Francia refers to Benjamin’s reflection on creative shock to define the poetics of Superstudio is particularly interesting, considering what Benjamin wrote in his essay The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction (Benjamin, 1935). In chapter 15, he stated “Architecture has always represented the prototype of a work of art whose reception is consummated by a collectivity in a state of distraction4 ” (Benjamin, 2006, p.39). The exponents of Superstudio, on the contrary, wanted architecture to become something closer to what Benjamin saw in Dadaism, with a shock effect (Impuls), a movement (Bewegung) in the mind of the viewer. Moreover, Toraldo di Francia added that the radical avant-garde intended to trasform “the compositional techniques of Dada to new use and engage in cultural nomadism by intermixing disciplines and favoring ambiguity over unity of language” (Toraldo Di Francia, 2019).In the Reggio Emilia Approach, an internationally known pedagogical approach to early childhood education (Edwards & Gandini, 2018), spaces are considered “constituent elements of the formation of thought” (Rinaldi, 1998, p. 116), and the learning environment “takes on the role of one of the main and necessary educators” (Cavallini, Quinti, Rabotti & Tedeschi, 2017). The environment, in particular, is considered the third educator (Strong-Wilson & Ellis, 2007), right after teachers and families. An element still not underlined in the scientific literature regards the origin, in the Reggio Emilia approach, of the importance given to the environment, intended as a relational space and its close relationship with aesthetic reflections promoted by relevant exponents of Italian neo avant-garde architecture. As stated by Carla Rinaldi, direct collaborator of Loris Malaguzzi and president of the Reggio Children Foundation, the architect Tullio Zini has been “a great source of inspiration for the concept of environment and the aesthetics of the environment developed in Reggio Emilia” (Rinaldi, 2009, p. 61). At the same time, the architect and scholar Andrea Branzi played a central role in Reggio Children’s metaproject dedicated to the development of environments for young children (Zini & Ceppi, 1998). A relevant fact is that in April 1967, both Tullio Zini and Andrea Branzi were the protagonists, together with other young members of the architectural avant-garde, radical groups Superstudio and Archizoom1 , in an exhibition called “Superarchitettura”, organized in Modena at the main Municipal Gallery (Mello, 2017). The exhibition aimed to “propose the most relevant themes of the architectural culture of the 1960s through the projects of a group of young architects” (Branzi et 1 The exibition involved Andrea Branzi, Carlo Chiappi, Gilberto Corretti, Paolo Deganello, Claudio Greppi, Massimo Morozzi, Adolfo Natalini, Ali Navai, Marta Scarelli, Cristiano Toraldo di Francia, Tullio Zini. 108 SCENARI / #12 al., 1968). On that occasion, in addition to the projects, the group presented a Manifesto that declared the ideas that inspired their work. In the Manifesto, the group stated, provocatively, “Superarchitettura is the architecture of the superproduction, of the overconsumerism, of the superinduction to consumerism, of the supermarket2 (…)” (Branzi et al., 1968). As explained by Toraldo Di Francia, one of the most relevant exponents of Superstudio, it was a provocation aimed at investigating the “mind and language through the stoss, or creative shock, which Benjamin indicated as the prime function of art3 ” (Toraldo Di Francia, 2019). The fact that Toraldo Di Francia refers to Benjamin’s reflection on creative shock to define the poetics of Superstudio is particularly interesting, considering what Benjamin wrote in his essay The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction (Benjamin, 1935). In chapter 15, he stated “Architecture has always represented the prototype of a work of art whose reception is consummated by a collectivity in a state of distraction4 ” (Benjamin, 2006, p.39). The exponents of Superstudio, on the contrary, wanted architecture to become something closer to what Benjamin saw in Dadaism, with a shock effect (Impuls), a movement (Bewegung) in the mind of the viewer. Moreover, Toraldo di Francia added that the radical avant-garde intended to trasform “the compositional techniques of Dada to new use and engage in cultural nomadism by intermixing disciplines and favoring ambiguity over unity of language” (Toraldo Di Francia, 2019).