A NECESSARILY SYNERGY  Interview with Mauro Cozzi (I.S.I.A., University of Florence) Many people have been wondering about the reasons of success of Italian design in the world. Recently, Andrea Branzi found possible reasons in the constant organisational, economic and political obstacles he has always had to overcome. Perhaps it would be more fair to say that the main reason of Italian contribution is the crucial role that territorial contexts have played for the economic development... The theory expressed by Branzi, nearly per aspera ad astra ("through difficulties to praise the sky / success"), isn't new at all. Thirty years ago Paolo Fossati in his Design in Italy 1945-1972 insisted on this idea. I think we can't blame either of them, neither many other historians who have perfectly highlighted the political, economic and organisational difficulties of Italian planning. However, I'd like to underline the burden of a commonplace (commonplaces aren't necessarily false): the fact that Italy is the country of art and artists and the credit – for some reasons even an "enterprising" credit – nineteenth and twentieth century managed to get for these ideas on an international level. I'm not just thinking of high level displays, but especially of the great number of minor workers. For instance, we can think of the alabaster busts by Rodolfo Valentino, made in Volterra in the Twenties, or of the esteem of our cabinet-makers in North Europe or America. So the added value to Art has by now been a resource for Italy for a long time. Also an economic resource. This fact hasn't always been completely understood because there have been separate evaluations – for instance between historians of art and of economics. Also politicians and directors in the course of years have considered the swarming activity of artistic handicrafts first nearly as episodes of folklore, then as vanishing values to protect or as a bit anachronistic corporations to content. Definitely they haven't considered them as phenomena liable of great and actual development. This was also – we have to admit it – for the refractoriness of the workers not to associate in wide and planned actions of updating, training, promotion and so on. In the course from artistic industry to design a conscious planning has been missing. In "the Beautiful Country of Hundred Bell Towers" there hasn't been a Werkbund; there have been (and partly there still are) productive districts which have played this role more or less luckily but without giving rise to a real and shared national policy in this field. We might start talking about training, for instance about the recent reform law of Academies, Conservatories, and – what a coincidence! – of ISIA... in order to confirm the dullness which persists boldly. But, for the country's sake, let's drop it! In Tuscany, perhaps more than elsewhere, a strong link between tradition and innovation seems to be crucial... Besides "Tuscanity" seems to be an important added value to spend in some fully developed markets – like United States or North Europe, just to consider the best known examples. On the other hand, the view of the production in Tuscany too many times has seemed to be unable to exploit such an opportunity in the course of years... Concerning the past (and present) adventure of Tuscany, I think I understood some things while I was doing research for my book Industry of Art and also working at the Regional Network for Formal Innovation (Rete Regionale per l'Innovazione Formale, RRIF). It's a bit annoying for me to insist on Tuscany again. I think its activity has represented and still represents an example model for many Italian regions both for good and bad aspects. Tuscany – and "Tuscanies" – is a resourceful place we can't use neither link to phenomena typical of our time – even though they are clear, very clear – from cultural products to farm holidays, from immigration to self-produced design to a professional training (also for university) which can be worth of its name. You have talked about the Regional Network for Formal Innovation project. Can you explain us its contents briefly? To testify the good intentions of RRIF shortly, I'd ask you to publish its manifesto which, moreover, in a short time will be on line, on Regione Toscana web site. On the top of this, I'd only like to reaffirm that there's an absolute need for technological and formal innovation, where innovation means "process"; besides, it has to be an institutional process based on an agreement which tries to go beyond the corporate interests, the inactivity of bureaucracy, the six-monthly replacement of political "moods". I understand it's a naive wish, a kind of "Bells Country", but we have to believe in it if we want to produce ideas. Yes, that's it, we might think of RRIF as of a "shared factory of ideas". And I'd also like to underline that the work group which has been working at the RRIF "cause" for about five years is a resource. We should be so good to manage not to freeze it and not to keep it working on the feasibility project (the one printed by Regione which, I want to underline it, is available for everyone: you just need to ask for it) and to make it go on in actions managed skilfully in this or that field. And these actions should come from "the lowest level", like someone has already written, according to the project demand which, implicitly or explicitly, comes from firms and operators. Through your work at ISIA, with other colleagues, you've got in touch with different production worlds in Tuscany and you've been promoting the topics of formal innovation: from Volterra alabaster, to the ceramics of Sesto Fiorentino, Montelupo and Impruneta, to Firenzuola grey-stone... Can you tell us about any peculiarity of these production actions? You're asking me about the different enterprises where I've been involved with ISIA and other colleagues and about their peculiarities. I might answer saying there's no peculiarity. That is, taking case by case there are so many, too many to be told here efficaciously. I can tell you such enterprises tried to conform to the RRIF methods and to its typical ingredients: innovation and tradition, patience in the research and in the reconstruction of the single stories, flexibility of organising and planning thought, care for the local resources but also for Europe and, from the drawing to the redrawing of products and, eventually, care of the market, a sort of self-restriction in introducing projects only where they're needed. When they were working at the net, these enterprises helped to get it ready and test it. But since RRIF is a "net", it's open and can be modified at any time. It's not necessary to share all the moves. It can be applied part by part and set according to each case, from the organisation to the goals. On the other hand, it's necessary to share the spirit of co-operation, always considering the opportunities which can come out of an enlarged view, which goes beyond the country and local point of view. To explain the vagueness of this chatting, I'll give you only two images. The first is the Plan for the Decoration of a Dish which has a clear mark of Ponti and was made in 1932. It comes from the Egisto Fantechi Manufactory and is part of the collection of "Archives of Sesto Chinaware" , a wonderful enterprise which started independently a few years ago but which is perfectly tuned with the spirit of RRIF. And the second is the Sound Column, a tinkling fountain made of grey-stone and bronze. It was made in 1999 on the project by Lorenza Anconetani (a third-year student at ISIA) for Firenzuola manufacturers as a part of an enterprise in that area and with that material. The enterprise provides different types of participation and approaches: from the creation of an ambitious abacus of the historical forms and of the tools of stone to the contemporary project, from the dialogue with other producing areas to new technologies, and to the relationship we are trying to build with the net of the Mugello territorial museums. The peculiarity – if we can call it so – of this and other enterprises "linked" to RRIF is the awareness it must go on to have of itself and of the co-operation of different contributions in one only purpose, that is quality and the revival of stone and its project. In an era and a society which tends to be (schizophrenically) specialised and divided in so many different parts, we need a direction. We might call the RRIF "synergy", co-ordination, i.e. "political action", at least until we will be convinced that the work we've started can be appreciated by firms.

Text by: Giuseppe Lotti I. II. III. IV. V. VI. in cooperation with: Elena Granchi Sonia Morini TOP