Spazio was a magazine conceived, founded, ideated, edited, graphically designed and printed by architect Luigi Walter Moretti (1907-1973) from 1950 to 1953. In the Italian editorial scene, especially in the lively 1950-60s, it was considered an exceptional and original experiment and one of the most important contributions in the field for numerous reasons, so interesting that even The Architectural Review would suggest to its readers in 1950 to place the magazine right next to Domus on their nightstand. Paolo Portoghesi (1931-2021) would recognise Spazio as fundamental in the architectural context of the 20th century, with strong echoes even in present days despite its short-lived dated presence.

It was not meant to last forever, it was not meant to end so abruptly having in plan a few more issues, although one might conclude that this exact condition of brief but ardent existence contributed to the fact Spazio has been seen as a distinctive entity, open and enigmatic at the same time (just like the figure of its creator).1

The ambitious cultural project, short, sharp, radical and dense, had behind it a slow burn of lifetime complex preoccupations of Moretti who managed through Spazio to give form to his ideas of fertile encounters between artistic expressions, to his aspirations of a classical unity of languages. The magazine was his creation and his tool.

Planned as a periodical dedicated to architecture and all types of visual arts — painting, sculpture, decorative and industrial arts, theatre and scenography, dance, cinema, fashion — it showed in the end a very clear centripetal attraction towards three nuclei: abstractism, the history of art and architecture (critically approached) and Italian contemporary architecture, all placed under the same dome of Space. With a careful built-up mélange of images and texts, the publication was a place of experimentation, always surprising in the choices of contributions, juxtapositions, analogies.2 In this Space built by Moretti, which had the power to host invitees from antiquity to contemporaneity, Alberto Burri could very well sit next to Bernardo Cavallino, Gian Lorenzo Bernini next to Giuseppe Capogrossi, Michelangelo Buonarroti next to Piet Mondrian in an eclectic but unitary composition, because according to the author, in every expressive form there could be found similar values and ”secular flows, always identical of that fact that we call art”,3 all subject to abstraction.

Seen from this perspective, Spazio was Luigi Moretti's wunderkammer. In his laboratory of thought, he would turn art and architecture, history and contemporaneity, theory and practice into hybrid complex entities with mingled features, species born out of the process of abstract synthesis, all exhibited in the pages of the magazine. This inter-contamination between different disciplines, media, creative methodologies connected through the “neutral” abstract language— an approach common for the new artistic Avant Garde of the mid 20th century— would very much serve architecture (and art) a rich repository of subjects, references, methods to be absorbed, connected, transfigured and critically applied in practice.4

“I am interested in all the forms of the Avantgarde, as if they were water springs that begin to burst in me […] To me, any form of research takes on an important value, like a life pang: not only as a collector but above all as an architect. I believe that for an architect the painter's drawing is important and vice versa as a mutual investigation of knowledge.”5

This type of discourse would showcase the very clear positioning of the architect as a critic, as an intellectual, as a thinker in search of comprehending the whole cultural context he operates in. But even more than that, Moretti proved how the subjects treated by himself and the valuable contributions he brought into the magazine from extremely important actors in the cultural field were not merely for display in the pages of publication. He let all these references infiltrate into his own way of thinking, into his methodologies and turned them into operative, active agents. Thus, in the epilogue (and simultaneously the apex) of the editorial project marked by the article “Structures and sequences of spaces”, Moretti showed how all the lessons from abstract art, from the history of art, from the history of architecture, from the contemporaneity of art and architecture could abstractly melt into the form of architectural models capable of synthesising all the values captured from the sources. The keys to almost all the problematics and preoccupations, the questions and the researches, the answers and the enigmas of Spazio are to be found in the models cast to depict the internal space of canonical buildings carefully picked out from the historical timeline — negatives turned into solid positives, voids turned into bodies to incarnate Moretti's vision of the world, of architecture. Due to their power of immediate communication, this type of three-dimensional representations could be considered more suggestive than any other visual materials, more eloquent than words.

In the end, Spazio became a (matter of) model.

A Matter of Space

In the worlds built by Luigi Moretti through his magazine, the preoccupation for space filled the pages of all the seven issues, just like the title of the publication suggested, reaching the apotheosis with the seminal article “Structures and sequences of space”A published in 1953 and marking the end of the editorial project. The 13-pages piece, made up of text accompanied by photographies of 13 architectural models depicting a series of interior spaces of representative buildings, constituted a turning point in matters of understanding space, of declaring space as the protagonist of the architectural fact, of spatially interpreting the history of architecture, of building a visual architectural criticism while also showing the surprising declensions that the abstract idiom could take in architectural representation (and many other matters).

But how did Luigi Moretti look at Space before pouring it into the mould?

The interior space is defined according to its limits, which in Moretti's view are the “integument on which are condensed and legible the facts and energies that consent to it and whose existence the space generates”. It is approached not as an amorphous substance, but a concrete presence per se, with its own body, its own autonomy regardless of the shape/figure and corporeality of the material that comprised it, having thus its own attributes.6

“There is, however, one expressive aspect that summarises with such notable latitude the fact of architecture […] — the internal and empty space of architecture. In fact, it is sufficient to observe that several expressive terms — chiaroscuro, plasticity, density of material, construction — are formal or intellectual aspects of material in its concrete physicality that is put into play in architecture and form a group of a certain homogeneity that is strongly representative in its complexity. At this point it should be noted that the void/the empty interior spaces of an architecture are exactly counterposed to this group as a mirror image, symmetrical and negative, like a true negative matrix which is, as such, capable of resuming both itself and its opposite terms. Especially in cases where it is the principal reason, or the actual reason, for the existence of the fabric as it is for most internal spaceー can be defined as the richest seed, mirror, or symbol of the entire architectural reality.”7

Luigi Moretti is interested in drawing the attention towards the flow of space, the sequences of the internal volumes composing a building, the compressions and dilatations between the different parts, the addition and the compenetration between volumes, and the interface between space and structure.8 Surpassing the canonical type of analysis (rhythmical series, A B B A type), he looks carefully also into the liminal spaces between the volumes, into the junctions, the interstices. In his approach, new elements/moments suddenly gain unexpected importance: the moments of pressure (doorways), opposition (walls) and liberations (apertures) of space,9 provoking outbursts, dilatations, tensions and an overall charge. The threshold/the transitory condition can possess almost the same strength as a central space in this gradual unfolding of sequences, just like the model of Villa Rotonda suggests.

The idea of succession of volumes implies approaching space as a procession. So let us immerse for a bit in one of his expressive descriptions of the internal space at Basilica di San Pietro, to better understand Moretti's flow of thoughts:

“Five doors open in the front of St. Peter's, in the fortress bastions held among formidable columns (an ideal echo of Michelangelo's pronaos). By the thickness of the wall – masses out of which they are carved – the incumbency of the megalithic cylinders of the columns constitute the stretti, the first spaces of pressure in the sequence of volumes of St. Peter's. By these doors one is freed into the great atrium, open and luminous, seemingly providing sudden and quiet breath but almost as quickly — its front wall cutting transversally — oppose one decisively like a warning barrier. To the instinctive sense of longitudinal flight the long transverse wall adds a sense of dispersal, increasing the tension around the freedom that we know awaits us beyond. Finally three passages opening in the barrier provide the last constriction and difficulty. Suddenly, unexpectedly, the rhombus of the immense nave erupts, its volume dilated beyond its already exceptional limit premised and considered by the counterpoint of the atrium and the passages. The basilica is traversed in a continuous perspectival crescendo until one crosses the empyrean of the cupola . There, the sense of human scale is lost in the symmetry, dimension, and glorious and evanescent luminosity of the spaces. The sequence of volumes is conducted with maximum emotion, concentrated among the accesses to the basilica and the atrium, to the contemplation of the abstract space of the central system.”

By magnifying the effect of the intermediary elements, of the junctions, Moretti underlines the system of naked relationships between the different parts/sequences composing the whole and the complex of differences between these parts composing the structure of the form. And there we reach another important aspect in the discourse: apart from the matter of “sequence”, the vital principle in defining the morettian spatial conception and representation is “structure” (just like the title of the article announces) and “system”. It is worth mentioning one definition used by Moretti which discloses his ”structuralist” approach: “A work of architecture is a general structure formed by a sum of different structures put together in a system”.10 Looking at his project from this perspective, Spazio (as a magazine) is a system, space is a system, the models are a system, all to be read together.

A Matter of Model

Transferred from word to image, these conceptions found representation in three-dimensional plaster-cast architectural models. Putting in motion a ground-breaking iconographical apparatus (for that time) which could materialise the interplay between positive - negative/the vessel - the contained, Moretti turned the void into a corporeal solid with its specific qualities and gave material concretisation to the unbuilt by an inversion of form into readable space. The plaster would be poured into the mould and when it would have taken its configuration the cast was to be removed. The integument was detached, and the body of space was exposed. Shaped and substantiated, the void would turn into matter and come into presence to show the introverted complex nature of architecture. In this frame, the model was seen as an incarnation of the experience both physical and intellectual of an edifice and just like August Schmarsow (1853-1936), one of the first historians who declared space as the protagonist of the architectural discourse, underlining architecture's vital role as as Raumgestalterin — creatress of of space, alluded in his own studies, “the entire spatial construct appeared like a body outside of ourselves in general space”.11

Anatomising the models, they can be regarded as entities in themselves, displayed for contemplation and analysis, with a power of their own, with an expressive plastic vitality which granted them a sort of autonomy. But beyond the aesthetic qualities, there were many strong fundaments justifying the choice of representation and conceptualisation, as well as a consistent series of references synthesised in the three-dimensional image. Without suggesting an exhaustive decryption of layers that composed the body of space envisioned by Luigi Moretti, some interpretations will be unveiled during this research, proposing a few ways of seeing.

In this endeavour one could identify both the idea of a model and the model of an idea.

In “Structures and sequences of space”, the three-dimensional representations were supposed to exceed the level of mere miniature reproductions of grande architecture and to defy any ad litteram quotations. The method used by Moretti was meant to do the transition from visual reproduction/survey to ideational visualisation possible through a process of re-elaboration and critical interpretation of the information offered by a building, by architecture in general.

The objects kept an affinity with their original matrix, but once filtered by abstraction, they were up and ready for interpretation and manipulation. They had to assume a transfigurative capacity in order to not only reveal what a single specific edifice is at first sight, but also to activate cognitive mechanisms and trigger spatial consciousness, thus transcending the state of artefact and becoming cognitive models. In this sense, building the discourse centred on space by making use of abstract means proved to be the proper choice for a number of reasons.

Abstraction is both the method and the goal. By turning to abstraction, eliminating the formal features of architecture, refusing explicit citations to historical architecture, bringing the information to its essence and turning space into a white nude mass, the attention was redistributed and drawn to aspects which would thus come to the surface.

For Moretti, this method was a way of disclosing the system of spatial pure interrelations present in a building, of revealing the “algorithmic and enclosed nature of things”.12 Interpreting the stereometric interiors and their modulations, he aimed at identifying the sequences of spaces though their differences and at highlighting the junctions/intermediary spaces between volumes in order to better understand the way they enter in composition with one another. Poured in plaster, one could see better what Moretti means through dilatations, compressions, tensions in space (which otherwise may have seemed empirical notions in writing) because the accumulation of matter/plaster gives them concreteness and communicates their meaning directly.

This implied that the making of model, which had mainly been an a priori fact in architecture until that time, would become a critical interpretative act that belonged to the present and that would serve for understanding something preexistent. In this way, the architectures of both the past and the present could be actively analysed, conceptualised and represented as objective operative facts that could serve not only for comprehending the history of architecture, but the current practice of architecture itself. In other words, model-making was seen as history-building and spatial consciousness-triggering.

A Matter of History

“This has been clear for centuries: from Romans to Romanics, from Gothics to Brunelleschi, from Bramante to Guarini, the conquest and resolution of interior space coincided with the conquest and history of architecture itself.”13

Luigi Moretti elaborated his theoretical and visual description of spaces that were carefully chosen to thoroughly illustrate his vision: smoothly sliding from Hadrian's time to modernity, approaching on the way Palladian geometries, Michelangiolesque gestures, Guarino Guarini's ecstatic forms, Mies Van der Rohe's clarity, he managed to underline the permanency of certain architectural parameters that could be found in either of these examples and that could serve as a general method for scrutinising architecture, not according to styles, to -isms, but to spatial evolution. Just as Bruno Zevi (with whom Moretti shared the affinity for space) put it, the history of architecture is above all the history of spatial conceptions14 . In order to represent this conception, the critical representation through drawing and model came in hand.

“The history of architecture should be taught with a modern critical mindset: it should serve to create better architects, not just specialised art historians. The study of history creates a critical consciousness at its usefulness can be tested at the drawing [and the modelling] board sometimes better than in the library.”15

The three-dimensional object depicting the interior space would assume the great capacity of absorbing and concentrating a consistent series of approaches. The model — a tool used at that time mainly by the practising architect, not by the historian/theoretician — would serve as a practical instrument for constructing a new way of critically looking at history and as a fundamental device for knowledge and reflexion on the architecture of the past and of the present.

At the same time, it would have a common ground of encounters to be produced on multiple levels: between history and contemporaneity, between architecture and art, between history of architecture and history of art, between history of architecture and the practice of architecture, between theory and practice. This type of instrumentalisation of representation through models (and drawings) contributed to the sphere of “operative history” and ”visual operative criticism” extremely relevant for the architectural culture at that time of the 1950s-1960s in Italy, to which Bruno Zevi (1918-2000) had the main merit, along with Luigi Moretti.16 One of the goals of these experimentations was to create an architectural-historical culture based on spatial interpretation that could prove itself a foundation and a stimulus for design, without resorting to any type of citation, only picking from the past architecture what is valid, alive, operative and contemporary.

A graphic metalanguage and the metahistorical discourse thus took shape, showing great potentiality and power of germination. The methodologies created through these endeavours provided thought-provoking lessons which are still effective and up for numerous surprising applications due to their analytical and synthetical nature.

A Matter of Cast

The matters of (architectural) space have obviously undergone innumerable attempts of conceptualisation and representation. In this dense mass of projects that aimed at translating the void in an image/object, there are some radical acts that stand out due to their expressive power and Luigi Moretti's Spazio is undoubtedly one of those. His choice to assign consistency to the immaterial, to solidify and congeal the unbuilt and to treat space as cast was opposed to the more common view of space as a “hollow sculptured mass” as Henri Focillon (1881-1943) put it.17 He created his own method of experimenting with architecture models transfigured in original artistic objects, outlining a thought-provoking complementarity between spatiality and objectness.

Moreover, in the spirit of abstract synthesis that he was so much in favour of, he managed to situate his project on the junction between art and architecture, showcasing how different architecture and art world could co-exist together in the same composition on abstract field.

It might be then interesting to see what the same method would offer when applied from the other side, from art to architecture, as Rachel Whiteread has done with her casts. The association between the works of Luigi Moretti and Rachel Whiteread (maybe obvious, maybe not) does not necessarily imply a direct relation of influence, but a feeling of belonging to the same representational field and the use of similar creative processes, with different techniques, outcomes, intentions etc. Exposing her take on the casts and the reversion of the gaze upon negative-positive, Rachel Whiteread metaphorically describes her methodology as “mummifying the air in the room”. Blurring the lines between architecture and art through projects like Ghost, House, Apartment (and many others) and conceiving artworks at an architectural scale, a process which is the exact opposite of Moretti's who small-scaled grande architecture into artistic objects/models, she does not hold back from large spatial gestures and thus magnifies the effect of turning the interior inside out. The corporeal representation weighs heavily and gains expressive power. While Moretti worked with exemplary pieces of extraordinary architecture, Rachel Whiteread deconsecrated the casting method and took it into the mundane, into the domestic and the apparently insignificant spaces of everyday life. Although working with different subjects and scales of interest, there are many resemblances between the two, such as the interest for sequences, for transitional and interstitial spaces. In Whiteread's work this is underlined in her series of rooms (in Apartment and House) and Moretti's already canonical Sequences of Spaces.

The casts, in both of the discussed hypostases, hide and reveal in their mass an unimaginable amount of meanings and values, traceable also in the affinities and the differentiations between these architectural-artistic inquiries and the many others endeavours which have approached the vacuum as a concrete entity. In these experiments, it is somehow paradoxical that in spite of the space becoming an enclosed corporeal presence which does not allow the eye to pierce through it, this process of congealing and (apparent) concealing actually is a way of bringing to the surface internal configurations which are not normally perceptible, palpable. The invisible void becomes an impenetrable solid which makes visible unexpected aspects and discloses the essence of the architectural fact — a search which architects have always been in. 

In the end, these matters of thought, space, model and cast are as old as time, as universal, as simple and as complex as the Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu put it in Tao Te Ching:

“Thirty spokes meet in the hub,
but the empty space between them
is the essence of the wheel.
Pots are formed from clay,
but the empty space within it
is the essence of the pot.
Walls with windows and doors
form the house,
but the empty space within it
is the essence of the home.”