Le alterne fortune dell'architettura di Camillo Boito e gli intermittenti orizzonti della critica

Camillo Boito as architecht and his buildings have never enjoyed the critical acclaim. His central role in the debates on nineteenth century Italian architecture - from teaching to protection and conservation of monuments - has never been questioned, while his works, which he wanted few numerous, have always raised puzzlements. A capable Boito’s student, keen observer, Luigi Broggi, watched with dismay as his contemporaries felt alien, incomprehensible the Milanese buildings by his teacher. A natural opposition between generations explains the attacks of the “razionalisti”, ie of the architects who developed the teaching of Antonelli and then of Caselli and more generally the young people who gave life to the many facets of the Art Nouveau, the Italian "floreale". The criticism by Giovannoni is equally understandable. First, he must legitimize the Renaissance as a national style, then a neo-baroque regionalism. Two, he played a prominent role during the Fascism, and he could not see without displeasure the very different freedom, dignity, breadth of information, which had characterized the Liberal Italy, even in those, as Camillo Boito, in a social – political perspective remained explicitly conservative, not concealing even their links with the Ancien Regime élites. Also in the second-postwar period Boito as architect and his works raised mostly criticisms. The general embarrassment in front of the nineteenth century architecture has only slowly exceeded in the following decades allowing a more balanced historical perspective. In front of such a prolonged and resounding failure, however, it is to doubt, remembering the Broggi observation, if the criticism was to explain by the lack of knowledge of the Boito references. He was always up to date with what was happening in European and North America culture - his notes on the magazine “L’Arte Italiana Decorativa e Industriale” demonstrate it enough - and had treasured not only his not numerous trips in East Europe and in Vienna, but also the technical literature, largely but not exclusively German, directed at an international publishing market through the translations into French. Through translations or adaptations (such is the Donghi manual) a limited part was also available in Italian. Obviously the most cultivated professionals - such as Broggi - could easily orientate in this broad framework. For criticisms of the second post-war period, the reasons are unfortunately simpler. In some cases, the literature that helped to explain Boito architectural choices was probably ignored, or become inaccessible for the poor language skills. On the other hand it was difficult to find a relationship between the writing and the buildings. The meaning of terms such as “novelty” or “creativity”were radically changed in a century. It was also hard to accept Boito self-criticism, which he used as a necessary counterweight to the confidence in his convictions, to give an active role to his readers (and his students) and make they attentive, but not necessarily consenting to his arguments