Ricerc@Sapienza

The dialectic between the principles of autonomy and heteronomy is a kind of “transcendental law” that governs the entire history of art. Both concepts are in fact connatural to the work of art, especially when considered in their antipolar relationship (Anceschi, 1936). The concept of heteronomy has often been identified with the set of conditionings deriving from the functional programs; if we consider that the specificity of architecture consists in “being for” something else (Gregotti, 1969), we must therefore admit that architecture is, by its nature, always compromised with reality; for this reason, there are also those who doubt that it belongs to the category of art: what space would remain, in fact, for creativity in a heteronomous discipline?
The purpose of the paper is to show that this question is badly placed: creativity, in architecture as in other arts, must in fact always be related to reality, since it is from this tension that the spark of invention starts. Therefore, it makes no sense to complain about a heteronomous condition for architecture, nor to respond by claiming a pure condition of autonomy. In reality, heteronomy and autonomy are both necessary, and are two concepts closer than one thinks.
Thus, assuming that architecture is “by necessity” a heteronomous art (that is, dependent on climatic, programmatic, economic factors, etc.), we will investigate the meaning of this statement, with particular reference to Italian architectural culture.
Furthermore, not only the architecture that follows a system of rules imposed from the outside will be called “heteronomous”, but also the architecture that follows a system of internal rules. This statement leads us to rethink the very concept of “autonomy”, since what else is it but a law (“nomos”) established by the subject itself? We will therefore try to demonstrate that “autonomy”, if considered as a system of creative self-regulation established by the architect himself, can be considered a sort of extreme degree of “heteronomy”. Something that occurs when the project turns to be “demonstrative”.
In conclusion, we will try to show, through a series of examples, that this way of being constantly suspended between reality (heteronomy) and ideality (autonomy), represents an important distinctive trait of Italian architectural culture, both in modern and contemporary times.