GIOVANNI LISTA, WHAT IS FUTURISM? BY FLEUR THAURY

Recension par Fleur Thaury

February 28, 2016

Published shortly after the work that brings together the entire corpus of texts from the Futurist movement[i], What is Futurism? by G. Lista appears as the analytical complement to this collection. Indeed, the three propositions (collection of manifestos, essays and dictionary of futurists) are as many tools to propose an in-depth understanding of the avant-garde movement with exceptional longevity (1909-1944). The sum of G. Lista's years of research, this ambitious essay proposes a panoramic vision of the Italian Futurist movement from its origins to its heirs.

The text is dense and takes up many analyses that the author has conducted previously[ii], highlighting, from the introduction, the specificity of Futurism as a revolutionary artistic, ideological and anthropological project. The work is organized in a synchronic and diachronic manner, mixing the chronology of the movement with thematic analyses (such as on manifestos pp. 109-112) and with excursuses within entire sub-chapters (such as "from word-librism to the book-object" pp. 704-725). We find in a complexified manner the three great paradigms that G. Lista had already proposed as allowing a non-fixed periodization of Futurism[iii]: "the art of the dynamic," "the machine as model" and "the myth of flight."

1. Foundation of Futurism and birth of the avant-garde

The first three chapters describe the birth of the Futurist movement, providing contextual elements to reveal the specificity of the movement.

In "Italy at the Beginning of the Century" (pp. 19-53), G. Lista shows that Futurism fits into the history of Italy, nuancing the thesis of a "direct filiation between French culture and Italian Futurism" (p. 25). Futurism appears in a context of partial failure of the Italian Risorgimento which, while achieving political unity, does not build a strong national and cultural identity. The question of the renewal of Italian culture at the end of the 19th century arises in a context of industrialization and progressive modernization of Italy, which nevertheless remains behind compared to other European powers.

In the following chapter, "An Ideology of Renewal" (pp. 54-98), G. Lista highlights the founding and central role of Filippo Tommaso Marinetti in the creation of the movement. Strong with a cosmopolitan education, considerable fortune and good knowledge of the Parisian artistic-literary world, he founded the journal Poesia in 1905, which promoted a new poetic model. It is from this moment that he conceived an artistic movement on the model of revolutionary syndicalism and theories of direct action. Futurism was officially born on February 20, 1909 with the publication in Le Figaro of the manifesto "Foundation and Manifesto of Futurism" whose long genesis is taken up step by step by the author. This manifesto defends a model of "art-action" that commits to a tabula rasa of the past and its avatars. Chapter III "Anthropogony, plurality and activism" (pp. 99-138), describes the progressive expansion of the movement which develops in all artistic fields (painting, music...) and which promotes a nationalist and revolutionary political ideology.

2. "An art of dynamism"

Chapter IV, "An Art of Dynamism" (pp. 139-551), describes what Giovanni Lista conceives as the "very first phase of Futurism" (p. 141), that is, the orientation of the movement's artistic research according to the paradigm of dynamism, which will be progressively theorized, particularly in painting. It is during this first phase that a notional network is elaborated to designate modernity and transposable into the different arts: "universal vibration," "force-lines," "interpenetration," "simultaneity," "states of mind," "synthesis," "innate complementarism"... . In parallel, the Futurists broaden their field of research with the integration of sculpture, photography, work on noise, architecture, theater, dance, reflections on mores and women, fashion and cinema. The paradigm of dynamism is embodied in literature by the words-in-freedom which promote a revolution of language. In this chapter, G. Lista evokes the links between the Futurist avant-garde and Parisian artists, going so far as to speak of a "cubo-futurism" (p. 202). He shows that it is during this period that a good part of the critical reception of the movement is constituted, which partly explains the eclipse of the movement, compared to other avant-gardes (p. 241; p. 266). The author also highlights the dynamics that animate the group: between integration of new members and conflicts, notably due to Boccioni who establishes a Futurist orthodoxy. It is thus that the Futurists approach then separate, and sometimes find again, the cérébristes, the cubists, orphism under the leadership of Apollinaire, Félix Del Marle, the Lacerba group. These evolutions are ratified by violent polemics which ensure the publicity and promotion of the movement. The period of "dynamism" marks the transition from the destructive phase to the constructive phase of Futurism, notably around the manifesto Futurist Reconstruction of the Universe by Balla and Depero in 1915. This period is also marked by war, actively wished for by Marinetti. G. Lista distinguishes in this regard the "excessive bellicism" of Marinetti from the "patriotism" of others (p. 542). Despite dissensions on this subject within the movement, the Futurists very early engaged in nationalist and interventionist propaganda. The conflict leads to a transformation of the movement insofar as many adherents die on the battlefield like Boccioni or Sant'Elia, or abandon the movement like Severini, Carrà and Soffici.

In Chapter V "A Planetary Avant-garde" (pp. 552-610), G. Lista proposes a separate analysis of the internationalization of Futurism which becomes "the global model of a profound renewal" (p. 552). He explains both its prototype function and the specificities of its reappropriation by different cultures: in Europe, Russia, Turkey, Egypt, Latin America and Central America, as well as in China, Japan and the United States (pp. 561-603). The process of internationalization of Futurism is not, according to him, the result of "cultural imperialism," nor of an "expansionist vocation" but rather of an "apostolate" (p. 552), founded on a universalist ideology inherited from the Risorgimento. The complete description of the different places influenced by Futurism serves as an argument for G. Lista's thesis formulated thus: "Futurism represents a worldwide phenomenon well before the birth of technological mass media in the world of networks and planetary communication that we know today" (p. 605). Moreover, he insists several times on Futurism's instigator role: "[...] all these movements owe their very birth to the rise of Futurism" (p. 598) or again, "[...] Futurism is indeed the engine of new ideas" (p. 599) while taking two methodological precautions: on the one hand, the reception of Futurism was facilitated by a "favorable soil" (p. 607) and on the other hand, this reception was done in a "dialectical" way (p. 608), creating a global network. It would be necessary to insist on this point, and nuance Futurism's precursor role in the constitution of an international field of art[iv].

Chapter VI, "Revolution and Utopia" (pp. 611-658) highlights Marinetti's political engagement, from the constitution of the Futurist political party in 1918 until 1922, a year that G. Lista considers as the year of Marinettian political disengagement. For him, the Manifesto of the Italian Futurist Political Party of 1918 sanctions the end "of a revolutionary project betting on the social impact of art itself" (p. 612) where the artist "no longer appears charged with a social function" (p. 614). However, he shows that, in practice, this project of direct political action does not totally ratify the mythology of art-action. The Futurist political party is influenced by Marinetti's contradictory ideology, which G. Lista exposes with finesse and precision (notably in his commentary on Futurist Democracy. Political Dynamism, pp. 623-627). The failure in the November 1919 elections where the Futurists present themselves on the list of the Fasci di combattimento, alongside Mussolini and the Arditi, Mussolini's rightward turn in opposition to Marinetti's anti-clerical and anti-monarchist aspirations, does not however completely end the Futurists' engagement who rally to D'Annunzio's capture of Fiume and attempt various rapprochements with anarchists, socialists, and Marxists. For G. Lista, it is the publication of Gli indomabili and The Drum of Fire in 1922 that ratifies the withdrawal of the Futurists, and more particularly of Marinetti, from the political scene. However, with Mussolini's accession to power, Marinetti envisages the possibility of "an institutional role for Futurism as the art of the new Italy governed by Mussolini" (p. 654).

3. "The machine as model, or the twenties"

Marinetti's engagement with fascism leads to the distancing or even the split of certain Futurists. The machine paradigm exposed in Chapter VII "The Machine as Model, or the Twenties" (pp. 659-770) is, according to G. Lista, the one that dominates the creation and theoretical debates of the Futurists of the twenties. Whether in mechanical ballets, or in promoting the book-object which reconciles motlibrist aesthetics and mechanical art, the Futurists propose several interpretations of the relationship to the machine and industrial materials. In parallel, leaving aside his violent methods of cultural agitation, Marinetti deploys a cultural operator know-how by organizing exhibitions and competitions. The Post-war marks the "turn of Futurism towards the 'applied arts'" (p. 726) with the opening of the Casa d'Arte and the development of an aesthetics of the ephemeral and the everyday. In this sense, advertising becomes a privileged tool of reflection and a support for artistic creation. This is accompanied by a modification of the structure of the movement according to a capillarization of the Italian territory. G. Lista concludes this chapter with the identification of a "lifestyle" (p. 761) Futurist showing that it is an anthropological project founded on the will to join art and life.

4. "The myth of flight, or the thirties"

In Chapter VIII, "The Myth of Flight, or the Thirties" (pp. 771-891), G. Lista shows that in the thirties the relations between fascism and Futurism are complex. Marinetti receives honors and promotes the fascist regime abroad where he is appreciated. It should be emphasized that what the author identifies as an "opening to European modernity" (p. 778) which would go against the "return to order" tendencies advocated by fascism is, in part, an initiative of Mussolini himself who makes Marinetti his ambassador abroad[v]. He defends in this chapter a thesis according to which "Marinetti is increasingly relegated to a marginal role, despite the fact that all Futurists invoke his tutelary presence [...]" (p. 773), making "Mino Somenzi [...] the true animator of thirties Futurism" (p. 862)[vi]. The thirties are marked by the flight paradigm and by aeropainting split into several currents: the first seeks to render the "physical vision" (p. 786) of flight when the second attaches itself to its psychic and spiritual dimension. In parallel, the Futurists invest the mediums of photography and cinema with new funds. Always, in an optics of everyday art, they propose a reflection on sport and cuisine, staging a particular vision of the body. Giovanni Lista takes care to show the "radical opposition" (p. 829) between the fascist vision of the body and the Futurist vision of the body by insisting on the playful aspect of the latter, while nuancing this opposition insofar as certain artists, like Thayaht, promote an aesthetics of the perfect and sporty body close to the fascist vision. Finally, the author identifies the last paradigm of Futurist research as plurimaterialism. To conclude this chapter, G. Lista proposes a reflection on the relations between fascism and Futurism based on W. Benjamin's analyses. Indeed, the Futurist movement engaged following Marinetti in an art of war and propaganda in the context of the conquest of Ethiopia wanted by Mussolini. He also proposes an interesting thesis to examine the last manifestos of the thirties by analyzing the primacy of the theoretical gesture over works as "a means of escaping from reality" (p. 887).

In the concluding chapter, "Heritage and Developments" (pp. 892 – 932), G. Lista shows how, despite a relative occultation after the end of fascism, the Futurist movement is a source of inspiration and a model for numerous artists. It is through the resumption of themes, techniques, concepts, that a filiation is established between the contributions of Futurism and recent creations.

5. Critical conclusion

This very documented, detailed and complete work offers many clear and argued clarifications. Concerning, for example, the distinction between Marinetti's positions and other Futurist artists, G. Lista offers a plural vision of this movement[vii]. Moreover, he engages in extremely precise recontextualization work which allows a new reading of works and writings[viii]. On this point the revelation of intertextuality as the foundation of Futurist theoretical writings is interesting. Moreover, and overall, the analyses of works are precise and highlight the relationships between individuality and collectivity within the movement[ix]. Finally, the triad, essays, collection, dictionary, is conceived as a useful university work tool.

However, this book suffers from three major problems.

First, and this is less a problem than a regret, the lack of critical apparatus within the framework of a book that presents itself as a university sum, leads to a defect of clarity and precision. On the one hand, in certain places, the text is too elliptical, at the risk of being schematic, notably concerning the distinction with Russian Futurism (p. 573). Similarly, the lack of reference for quotations leads to a certain confusion. Thus when G. Lista analyzes the use of the term "Futurism" as equivalent to "avant-garde," not as "a confusion, but rather [as] the acute consciousness that Futurism, as a vision of the world, embodies the essence of all avant-garde" (p. 604), he cites, to support his point, a formula of Apollinaire going in this direction, which is either a misunderstanding[x], or refers to a period of rapprochement between Apollinaire and the Futurists that is quite circumstantial. On the other hand, G. Lista takes position in ongoing debates within the framework of research on Futurism, without naming them and without allowing the reader to refer to them, as, for example, on Apollinaire's 1913 manifesto (pp. 407-414)[xi].

Second, this book always hesitates between two postures: that of the art historian who proposes a history of the Futurist movement and that of the essayist who engages a reflection around the problematic "what is Futurism?" However, this leads to the superposition between two types of periodizations: a stylistic periodization with the method of the art historian (type the argumentation in favor of a cubo-futurism [p. 265 and sqq.] to a more definitional periodization [type those pre-futurism[xii], post-futurism, p. 612]. However, speaking of "post-futurism" does not seem relevant insofar as the movement is still active.

The mixing of periodizations seems to lead to the third problem. That, linked to the order of the essay, in which G. Lista attempts to provide an essentializing definition of Futurism whose argumentation fails to be convincing. However, to do this, he identifies the movement with the concept of "avant-garde" and that of "revolution," implying a circular argumentation[xiii]. Moreover, this engenders certain interpretative conclusions that are not very satisfying on the Futurism of the twenties and thirties. As much as in the details, G. Lista is precise and convincing, as much, certain conclusions on a "post-futurism," on a denaturation of the movement seem to be proposed according to the criterion of the avant-garde, thought on the model of the first Futurism and which takes a meliorative connotation in comparison to the fascist period. Certainly Futurism is denatured in the sense of a metamorphosis in the face of its original nature, but this does not engage a denaturation in the sense of abandoning a revolutionary project or a political disengagement. On the contrary, it seems that the adaptation of artistic and political action to the cultural domain, notably in the thirties, engages a redefinition of political action[xiv]: to say it schematically, Futurism, through its cultural action, asserts itself on the political level[xv].

By allowing an in-depth knowledge of Futurism and by making available complementary work and research tools, Giovanni Lista engages in a polyphonic reflection on the Italian movement.

[i] Giovanni Lista, Futurism. Texts and Manifestos [1909-1944], Ceyzérieu, Champ Vallon, coll. "Les classiques", 2015. This publication should be put in parallel with the ambitious project of the "Nuovi archivi del futurismo" directed by Enrico Crispolti, at De Luca Editore, and of which the volume on manifestos, directed by Matteo D'Ambrosio, is to be published.

[ii] We can cite Giovanni Lista, Futurism: Creation and Avant-garde, Paris, Éditions L'Amateur, 2001 or Futurism, a Radical Avant-garde, Paris, Gallimard, coll. "Découvertes", 2008. As well as his works on Futurist theater, cinema and photography.

[iii] See the chapters of Giovanni Lista, Futurism, Paris, Terrail, 2001.

[iv] See on this subject, Béatrice Joyeux-Prunel who shows that, from the middle of the 19th century, the art market internationalizes and indicates that internationalization is a strategy of artistic groups to access greater visibility in their own countries, in "No one is a prophet in his own country" or avant-garde logic. The internationalization of avant-garde Parisian painting, 1855-1914, doctoral thesis in history, under the direction of Christophe Charle, Paris, University of Paris I, 2005.

[v] See by the political audiences granted to Marinetti described by Jean-Philippe Bareil in "'Futurismo' [1932-1933], 'Sant'Elia' [1933-1934], 'Artecrazia' [1934-1939]. A Futurist journal in fascist Italy. Text from the Habilitation to direct research, under the direction of François Livi, 2010, pp. 293-297.

[vi] Similarly, Jean-Philippe Bareil shows that Marinetti still holds his troops in "Mino Somenzi, journalist and cultural organizer", op. cit. pp. 75-150.

[vii] For example, on the two conceptions of synthesis, G. Lista distinguishes Marinetti's "vitalist line" and the "ars combinatoria" model among the cérébristes [pp. 461-462].

[viii] We will cite as paradigmatic examples, the dating of Severini's letter and his notes on cubism [pp. 243-244] and the rapprochement between the Piedmontese refrain and Apollinaire's "Merda/rosa" from the manifesto L'Antitradition futuriste. Manifesto-synthesis [p. 412] Good recontextualization as meaning of "religion of the future", notably on questions of intertextuality and resumption by Marientti and the Futurists of themes, phrases, ideas. [p. 555]

[ix] See for example pp. 156-157.

[x] The reference not being precise, the reader can see there the truncated quotation of a letter to Léonide Massine, from May 1917, where Apollinaire says: "I had thought, one day, that the term futurism would be the most appropriate to new researches of whatever order they were. Marinetti's excessive advertising prevented this from being accepted here." Apollinaire then describes the Futurist researches on movement by indicating a filiation with cubism and concludes on an analysis of the status of "school" of Futurism and on the "lack" of "a movement vast enough to absorb all modern tendencies", in Ornella Volta Satie/Cocteau. The misunderstandings of an understanding, Pantin, Le Castor Astral, 1993, pp.139-140. In this framework it is either a misunderstanding, because Apollinaire, recants in 1917, or an anachronism, because Giovanni Lista, uses it to support arguments from the year 1913.

[xi] Giovanni Lista takes position in the debate on the interpretation of the "Futurism" of Apollinaire's manifesto engaged: Michel Décaudin speaks of an ironic distancing from the movement [in "Apollinaire and Marinetti", in Mélanges de littérature française moderne offered to Garnet Rees, Paris, Minard, 1980, p. 112] while Barbara Meazzi sees there the sign of an opening to the Futurists [in "L'Antitradition futuriste – A chronological clarification" in Que Vlo-Ve ?, series 4, no. 16, September-December 2001, pp. 97-100.]. It seems to us that G. Lista, does not insist enough on the ironic and playful aspect of the manifesto, and this seems linked to the debate context that it would have been judicious to mention in this framework.

[xii] "The true date of birth of Futurism is actually February 1905" with the publication of the journal Poesia [p. 71].

[xiii] Notably the recourse to the accumulation of Futurism's characteristics seem to be the sign of this circularity. ["Futurism is..."; "to be Futurist is..."].

[xiv] I take up here the hypothesis formulated by Jean-Philippe Bareil in "'Futurismo' [1932-1933], 'Sant'Elia' [1933-1934], 'Artecrazia' [1934-1939]. A Futurist journal in fascist Italy. Text from the Habilitation to direct research under the direction of François Livi, 2010. p. 20, which he formulates thus: "One can then wonder if the second Futurism, more than it abandoned them, did not in reality redefine the means of its political action through its cultural action".

[xv] Ruth Ben-Ghiat speaks of culture as "the sphere of substitution action", in La cultura fascista, Bologna, Società editrice il Mulino, coll. "Biblioteca storica", 2000, p. 52.