Cold War American Exhibitions of Italian Art and Design (Routledge Research in Art Museums and Exhibitions) [1 ed.] 1032205466, 9781032205465

Citation preview

Cold War American Exhibitions of Italian Art and Design

Enriching the existing scholarship on this important exhibition, Italy at Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today (1950–53), this book shows the dynamic role art, specifically sculpture, played in constructing both Italian and American culture after World War II (WWII). Moving beyond previous studies, this book looks to the archival sources and beyond the history of design for a greater understanding of the stakes of the show. First, the book considers art’s role in this exhibition’s import—prominent mid-century sculptors like Giacomo Manzù, Fausto Melotti, and Lucio Fontana were included. Second, it foregrounds the particular role sculpture was able to play in transcending the boundaries of fine art and craft to showcase innovative formalist aesthetics of modernism without falling in the critiques of modernism playing out on the international stage in terms of state funding for art. Third, the book engages with the larger socio-political use of art as a cultural soft power both within the American and Italian contexts. Fourth, it highlights the important role race and culture of Italians and Italian-Americans played in the installation and success of this exhibition. Lastly, therefore, this study connects an investigation of modernist sculpture, modern design, post-war exhibitions, sociology, and transatlantic politics and economics to highlight the important role sculpture played in post-war Italian and American cultural production. The book will be of interest to scholars working in art history, design history, museum studies, Italian studies, and American studies. Antje Gamble is an art historian of Italian modernist sculpture and trans-Atlantic exhibition practices at mid-century. She is currently an associate professor of art history in the Department of Art and Design at Murray State University in Kentucky, USA.

Routledge Research in Art Museums and Exhibitions

Routledge Research in Art Museums and Exhibitions is a new series focusing on museums, collecting, and exhibitions from an art historical perspective. Proposals for monographs and edited collections on this topic are welcomed. Curatorial Challenges Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Contemporary Curating Edited by Malene Vest Hansen, Anne Folke Henningsen and Anne Gregersen Liberalism, Nationalism and Design Reform in the Habsburg Empire Museums of Design, Industry and the Applied Arts Matthew Rampley, Markian Prokopovych, and Nóra Veszprémi The Venice Biennale and the Asia-Pacific in the Global Art World Stephen Naylor A History of Aboriginal Art in the Art Gallery of New South Wales Vanessa Russ Contemporary Curating, Artistic Reference and Public Reception Reconsidering Inclusion, Transparency and Mediation in Exhibition Making Practice Stéphanie Bertrand Exhibiting Italian Art in the United States from Futurism to Arte Povera ‘Like a Giant Screen’ Raffaele Bedarida Displaying Art in the Early Modern Period Exhibiting Practices and Exhibition Spaces Edited by Pamela Bianchi Cold War American Exhibitions of Italian Art and Design Antje Gamble

For more information about this series, please visit: https://www.routledge.com/Routledge-Research-in-ArtMuseums-and-Exhibitions/book-series/RRAM

Cold War American Exhibitions of Italian Art and Design Antje Gamble

Cover image: The Art Institute Chicago / Art Resource. Used with permission. First published 2024 by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2024 Antje Gamble The right of Antje Gamble to be identified as author of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 9781032205465 (hbk) ISBN: 9781032209166 (pbk) ISBN: 9781003265900 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003265900 Typeset in Sabon by KnowledgeWorks Global Ltd.

Contents

List of Figures About the Author 1 Introduction: Art and Politics in an Exhibition of “Design”

vi viii 1

2 Organizing Italy at Work under the Auspices of the Marshall Plan

19

3 Italian-Americans as Stakeholders in an American Exhibition of Western Culture

38

4 Ceramic Sculpture’s Special Role in Validating Italian Humanist Culture for an American Audience

61

5 Displaying Italian Producers for American Consumers

83

6 Thoughts on the Cultural Impacts of Italy at Work113 Bibliography 123 Index138

Figures

1.1 Italy at Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today. Exhibition Held at the Art Institute of Chicago, March 15, 1951–May 13, 1951. Photo Credit: The Art Institute of Chicago/Art Resource, NY.2 4.1 Italy at Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today, Rome: The Compagnia Nazionale Artigiana, 1950. Np.64 4.2 Installation View of Italy at Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today, March 15, 1951–May 13, 1951, The Art Institute of Chicago/Art Resource, NY73 4.3 Installation View of Italy at Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today, March 15, 1951–May 13, 1951, The Art Institute of Chicago/Art Resource, NY75 5.1 Installation View of Italy at Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today, March 15, 1951–May 13, 1951, The Art Institute of Chicago/Art Resource, NY86 5.2 Brooklyn Museum Archives. Records of the Department of Photography. Italy at Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today, November 30, 1950–January 31, 1951. Installation View [PHO_E1949i017]87 5.3 Brooklyn Museum Archives. Records of the Department of Photography. Italy at Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today, November 30, 1950–January 31, 1951. Installation View: Carlo Mollino Dining Table/Chairs. Installation Shot in Baltimore [PHO_E1949i001]88 5.4 Installation View of Italy at Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today, March 15, 1951–May 13, 1951, The Art Institute of Chicago/Art Resource, NY90 5.5 Installation View of Italy at Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today, March 15, 1951–May 13, 1951, The Art Institute of Chicago/Art Resource, NY91 5.6 Walter Dorwin Teague. “Italian Shopping Trip: Twelve American museums send out a battery of buyers.” Interiors CX, no. 5 (November 1950): 144–4592 5.7 Installation View of Italy at Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today, March 15, 1951–May 13, 1951, The Art Institute of Chicago/Art Resource, NY94

Figures vii 5.8 Installation View of Italy at Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today, March 15, 1951–May 13, 1951, The Art Institute of Chicago/Art Resource, NY94 5.9 Italy at Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today. Exhibition Held at the Art Institute of Chicago, March 15, 1951–May 13, 1951. Photo Credit: The Art Institute of Chicago/Art Resource, NY96 5.10 Italy at Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today, 13–18. Rome: The Compagnia Nazionale Artigiana, 1950. 60–6196 5.11 “Display Ad 55—Abraham & Straus,” The New York Times, December 1, 1950, 13./Macy’s Inc.102 5.12 Haanel Cassidy et al., House & Garden © Condé Nast, December 1950104 5.13 Staff, House & Garden © Condé Nast, December 1950105

About the Author

Antje Gamble is an art historian of Italian modernist sculpture and trans-Atlantic exhibition practices at mid-century. She is currently an associate professor of art history in the Department of Art and Design at Murray State University in Kentucky, USA. From Fascism to the Cold War, her work examines the exhibition, sale, and critical reception of Italian art and design and how it shaped and was shaped by national and international socio-political shifts. Her scholarship has also been included in the recent volumes: Modern in the Making: MoMA and the Modern Experiment, 1929–49 (Bloomsbury Press, 2020), where her chapter explores the role of politics in the 1949 “Twentieth Century Italian Art” exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art, and Postwar Italian Art History Today: Untying “the Knot” (Bloomsbury Press, 2018), where her chapter looks at politicized collection practices of Marino Marini’s sculpture during the early Cold War. She also has recently published another essay on the 1949 MoMA exhibition, in a special issue on the exhibition in Italian Modern Art that shows how #MuseumsAreNotNeutral even in their exhibition design.

1

Introduction Art and Politics in an Exhibition of “Design”

The exhibition Italy at Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today [Figure 1.1] opened at the Brooklyn Museum in New York on Thursday, November 30, 1950, just in time for the Christmas shopping season. The timing was not a coincidence. In his article “Italian Shopping Trip,” published just prior to the first museum openings, the industrial designer and exhibition collaborator, Walter Dorwin Teague, framed the entire show as a kind of shopping spree; one that was undertaken to bring the best of contemporary Italian design to American consumers.1 American capitalist consumers were good democratic citizens and Italy at Work was framed as a way in which these shoppers could do their civic duty. In the article, Teague recounted the story of the exhibition’s creation, focusing on the show’s organizers’ Italian sojourn collecting works for Italy at Work. Teague’s role in the exhibition seems to have been twofold: he was used to creating long-lasting professional connections between US and Italian designers, producers, and manufacturers; and he also served as a voice outside of the museum to speak to everyday American people. One of the ways he accomplished the latter was by presenting this exhibition as a shopping experience and a form of entertainment. “[D]esigned to give the American public the pleasure that comes from seeing objects made in our own time [and] that are at once useful and beautiful or stimulating to the imagination,” spectacle played a central a role in the exhibition.2 Italy at Work came at a time when exhibitions of craft and design in museums were taking off, placing designed and vernacular objects alike into auratic institutional spaces. Italy at Work also served to validate American consumers’ confidence in having ‘good’ aesthetic taste in modern design, connecting the exhibition to clear economic concerns. In so doing, Italy at Work’s organizers sought to best serve their funders’ aims of connecting capitalist productivity to a good and cultured citizenry under democracy, both in the United States and in Italy. As a Marshall Plan sponsored exhibition, the connections between culture, consumerism, and democracy were made abundantly clear in Italy at Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today. Through the various publicity initiatives, echoed in the exhibition’s own didactic texts and the exhibition design itself, organizers positioned Italy at Work as a kind of microcosm of objectives. This coalescing of design, economics, and politics should be understood as part of the so-called ‘Cultural Cold War’.3 Therefore, Italy at Work should not be seen outside of its political, economic, or social reverberations on both sides of the Atlantic. Italy had already been singled out in US policies for the country’s strategic geographical location in post-World War II (WWII) Europe; and its cultural production was identified as key to the success of US Cold War initiatives in the Mediterranean.4 In Italy at Work, this agenda tracks in the use of rhetoric of productivity, work, and freedom. Various

DOI: 10.4324/9781003265900-1

2 Introduction

Figure 1.1 Italy at Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today. Exhibition Held at the Art Institute of Chicago, March 15, 1951–May 13, 1951. Photo Credit: The Art Institute of Chicago/ Art Resource, NY.

strategies—exhibition design, didactic texts, publicity, and other curatorial choices— built a fanciful image of Italian democratic prosperity reflected in Italian material culture. This, of course, was presented as being sparked by US interventionism. Italy at Work became a kind of high-end showroom, where American audiences could access Italian culture through its fine wares; buying material culture as their individual way to support the Marshall Plan efforts to combat the spread of Communism in Europe. Here culture, consumerism, and politics all went hand-in-hand. Italy at Work is an important case study because it not only connects to the new craze of design exhibitions to the Cultural Cold War, but it also both serves as an interdisciplinary reflection of the international reception of contemporary Italian art and design at mid-century and also as the coalescing of post-war ideas about whiteness in the United States. Equating material culture (art, design, and handicraft alike) to a healthy democracy, Italy at Work was not unique in its deep connection to Cold War initiatives within the US Government.5 The exhibition came on the back of the 1947 Handicraft as a fine art, an earlier US State-sponsored initiative to ignite a trans-Atlantic market for Italian material culture. The earlier show set up networks of support from which Italy at Work would benefit. Handicraft as a fine art organizing body, the House of Italian Handicraft, was another Marshall Plan initiative set up to aid in trans-Atlantic trade between the two countries.6 Undoubtedly connected to these pre-existing commercial networks, US department stores like Macy’s, Abraham & Straus, and Marshall Field opened special

Introduction 3 displays and ran advertising campaigns to capitalize on the hype of the Italy at Work show. Though the push to connect American tastes with European material culture was not new, Italy at Work served as a way to give further gravitas to the retail outlets selling European goods. This book Exhibiting Italian Art & Design in Post-War America: Considering the 1950–53 Exhibition “Italy at Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today” investigates the ways in which one exhibition worked within the early years of the Cold War to further American interests while also presenting a compelling reflection of indigenous Italian art and design trends. This interdisciplinary project draws on scholarship from not only art and design histories but also museum studies, economics, sociology, and political science. In so doing, this book seeks to show how exhibitions like Italy at Work served as interlocutors of aesthetic, political, social, and economic interests of producers, organizers, and visitors. These kind of studies are much needed because not only were museums not neutral, but the agency of many of the stakeholders (from exhibitors to external funding bodies) is often overlooked.7 This book strives to eschew exclusively formal readings of design. Rather, Exhibiting Italian Art & Design in Post-War America will consider the place of artists, designers, and crafts people exhibited in Italy at Work, the political aims of organizers within the Cold War paradigm, the motivations of financial stakeholders in Italy and the United States, and the broader impact on the US market for Italian art and design. The Exhibition Italy at Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today was organized in collaboration between Meyric R. Rogers, Curator of Decorative and Industrial Arts at the Art Institute of Chicago (AIC), and the Director of the Brooklyn Museum, Charles Nagel, Jr (Figure 1.1). Their two home institutions were the first two legs of the multi-state tour. As the main locations of the show, with the highest visitor numbers, this book primarily focuses on these two initial installations for its study. Italy at Work displayed over 2,500 individual works and would ultimately travel to twelve American cities between 1950 and 1953.8 The massive scale of this exhibition cannot be overstated. Over half a million visitors experienced the show by the end of its three-year run.9 Without even considering the broader influence of Italy at Work, its visitor numbers are still impressive today.10 Italy at Work was organized at lightning speed on the heels of the also popular 1949 Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) exhibition, Twentieth Century Italian Art.11 Italy at Work was the “true design counterpart of the MoMA show.”12 According to the preliminary report by Rogers in 1949, this nascent exhibition was titled “Italian Contemporary Industrial Arts.”13 That year, Rogers took the first of two scouting trips to Italy with Teague, while Nagel coordinated the operations state-side to bring Italy at Work to fruition. A small staff worked out of Florence to support the curators. This Italy-based group was made up of one Italian, Alberto Antico, and two Americans, Richard Miller and Ramy Alexander—the latter was a representative for the private Italian-American run Handicraft Development Inc. and was one of the two Vice Presidents of the Marshall Plan’s Compagnia Nazionale Artigiana, which were the same organizations that brought the 1947 Handicraft as a Fine Art In Italy exhibition to New York. Together, these men organized studio visits, paperwork, publications, and material exports for Rogers and

4 Introduction a second US-based delegation who traveled to Italy the following year.14 What Rogers made clear at the end of his 1949 Italian trip was that the breadth of the exhibition would be large; he recounted that “it would take about 1200 items to cover adequately the various fields.”15 This would only be exceeded in with the final selections in the following year, with over 2,500 objects making the trip across the Atlantic for the exhibition. Returning to Italy in the spring of 1950, a committee of Americans, including Teague, Rogers, and Ann Strother Kirk Rogers (the curator’s ex-wife), made final exhibition selections before they were exported to New York.16 The group traveled the country with Italian-based organizer Alexander “seeking out the Italian craftsmen in the odd places where they live and work, and selecting the objects to make up this collection.”17 The group made a rushed tour through the peninsula, collecting work as they went. Objects were then shipped to Florence before heading to New York.18 Organizers ended up choosing a truly broad variety of works, including traditional folk art and craft, glassware, interior and industrial arts, textiles, and children’s toys—even two pairs of shoes from the famous designer Salvatore Ferragamo were included.19 With much haste to open the show before the Christmas shopping season of 1950, works were selected, inspected, photographed, and catalogued in rooms of the Uffizi Galleries in Florence, and then boxed up and shipped, making the journey to the United States for the first installation at the Brooklyn Museum.20 A staged photograph of the jury with furniture maker Enrico Bernardi and his work in the store room at the Uffizi opened the catalogue facing the “Special Acknowledgments” section.21 Contemporary Italian material culture was continuously framed in relation to its humanist past, namely the Renaissance, in both deliberate and more casual ways. This kind of primitivism only served to further the success of the exhibition. The timeframe of this exhibition’s creation and execution is staggering from a contemporary perspective, where major exhibitions are sometimes a decade in the making. Not only was the speed in which this exhibition was mounted important, but also the curatorial choices made by the jury should also be highlighted. The choices made by organizers in Italy did reflect a complexity of contemporary production of Italian art, craft, and industrial design. However, this was not fully acknowledged nor articulated by the curators of Italy at Work in the exhibition design nor the didactic texts. Despite the interdisciplinary nature of the exhibition, Italy at Work was decidedly meant to be a non-art exhibition. In part, this was because of the project’s financial support from the US Government. By 1950, the US State support for the arts under the Marshall Plan had already begun to be scrutinized and even vilified in Congress—a side effect of McCarthyism.22 While the previous year’s 1949 Twentieth Century Italian Art exhibition at MoMA, “called attention to the contributions of Italy to the development of contemporary art,” Italy at Work organizers sought to show “the development of contemporary design … [tracing] the effect of all of the main influences and tendencies that are playing a part in the art of our time.”23 Italy at Work was seen as a parallel study of Italian cultural production. Though classically trained artists were included in Italy at Work, the complexities of the collaborative nature of much of Italian art, craft, and industrial design was merely noted in passing in either exhibition. For instance, Rogers explains artists’ inclusion “as representing extremes of individual accomplishment or experimentation.”24 Artists were presented as outliers among the other designers, artisans, and craftspeople rather than a part of a broader interdisciplinary trend in contemporary Italian aesthetic production. This book, therefore, adds to the existing scholarship on the development of

Introduction 5 twentieth-century Italian design and its historiography. Italy at Work crystallized the basic framework for understanding Italian cultural production outside of Italy. Situating “Italy at Work” as Part of the Cultural Cold War Italy at Work highlighted the complexity of post-war Italian culture and its relationship to the Cold War. From the display of everything from children’s toys to a Lambretta scooter, Italy at Work showcased a breadth of production from the peninsula. Organizers claimed this variety was meant to reflect a newly liberated “Italian vitality that … stored itself up during the long, grey fascist interim, waiting for this day of sun again.”25 Yet much of the innovative techniques and formal experiments exhibited in Italy at Work were initially cultivated under the direct and indirect support of the Fascist regime. The perpetuation of Fascist era ideals is not unusual, however. The previous year’s exhibition of modern art at MoMA likewise built upon the Fascist support for the arts.26 This should be of no surprise, since many artists and intellectuals, with some exceptions, stayed in Italy throughout Mussolini’s regime. The framing of Italian design as reinvigorated by American intervention explains, in part, why exhibition texts invited a particular kind of American viewership for Italian design, asking folks to go see the handicrafts as “mystical” objects of a newly liberated, pure culture.27 This perpetuated a divide between ‘high’ and ‘low’ culture through connecting the objects of Italy at Work with a kind of primal European culture, as opposed to the advanced and intellectual American culture. The selection of works played a role in this as much as the exhibition design and didactic texts did likewise. Architectural historian Paolo Scrivano has described this phenomenon as “romanticizing the other.”28 He argues that the large “discrepancy between reality and imagination in the way Italian design culture was presented to the American public” can be understood in these kinds of orientalizing terms.29 Yet, as Scrivano shows, this orientalism was not merely one sided, however, because Italian producers embraced it to cultivate a broader consumer base. It is clear that the framing of Italy at Work worked in similar ways. The wide variety of work presented in the exhibition not only reflected the growing interdisciplinary nature of Italian cultural production but also a desire by the US government to present Italy as proto-modern. As such, Italy at Work made Italy into the symbol of classical humanism of which the United States was the rightful modern inheritor. The Italy at Work exhibition serves as an important indicator of the political stakes that culture played in the trans-Atlantic post-war context. Significantly supported through the Marshall Plan, separating Italy not only from its Fascist past but also the growing support for leftist political parties, some sympathetic to the USSR, was paramount for Italy at Work organizers. It highlighted culture’s connection to the Marshall Plan initiatives, the importance of Italian culture in the international trans-Atlantic context, and the vital place of Cold War politics in the support for culture. In the United States, Italian culture came to embody an idealized and heavily constructed Euro-American humanist culture understood through the lens of whiteness—a connection that US taste makers sought to strengthen. The post-war construction of the United States as inheritor of so-called ‘Western’ culture can be traced through the choice of Italian goods for official state support—the political allure of connecting to Renaissance and Classical Roman traditions to the modern state was anticipated by Benito Mussolini’s idea of the Fascist “Third Rome.”30

6 Introduction Indeed, democracy, culture, and capitalism were presented as indelibly linked to the stability of both countries in the exhibition; the catalogue claimed, “[for] the great health of Italy and our western world, the producer-consumer chain must be completed.”31 Unsurprisingly, the publicity surrounding the exhibition penned by its organizers is almost uncannily reminiscent of historian Victoria de Grazia’s analysis of the functioning of the “Market Empire” during the immediate post-war period.32 Tying standards of living to individual consumption as a way to support democracy, the rhetoric of Italy at Work very clearly supported the ideals of the “Market Empire.” This logic created the idea that through the new trans-Atlantic cultural consumption, Italy could create a robust post-war economy, protecting their capitalist democracy. The US-Italian initiatives were meant to relieving their import debt and reignite “that stream of creative imagination—warm and rich in human values—which has inspired our civilization from its beginnings.”33 The use of ‘our’ here should not be overlooked. Italy served to connect the United States to post-war Europe on a cultural level through consumerism. The United States sought cultural validation in the face of attacks from the USSR and used Italian art and design as a way to do so. As De Grazia notes, the “price [of Marshall Plan support] was to suppress the cornucopias of populist tradition.”34 Italy at Work was a program seeking to bolster American political cachet on the edge of the Iron Curtain. The post-war propaganda about ‘Western’ culture was indelibly linked to the continued constructions of race in the United States and Europe. In the 1950s, the United States was at the end of the so-called Jim Crow era and starting to see actions associated with the Civil Rights movement.35 Not only were Black people fighting for their liberation under US systems of oppression, but other marginalized groups were negotiating the racial politics of post-war America. Italian immigrants and Italian-Americans were in a liminal zone of whiteness. As historian Thomas Gugliermo writes, “not until World War II did many Italians identify openly and mobilize politically as white.”36 The recent film Sorry to Bother You (Significant Productions, 2018) even has a scene where the character Detroit is discussing an Italian-American and the main character Cassius Green’s friend and co-worker Salvator says “Italians ain’t white” only to be ridiculed. Though they had some privileges at mid-century, because Italian immigrants were legally considered white on immigration papers, the complex and ever-shifting ideas about race in the United States affected their lives. This was further complicated by the recent Fascist past of their country of origin. Italy at Work organizers were keen to find support among ItalianAmericans for a variety of reasons. In part, this book will argue, Italy at Work sought to secure the place of Italy as an origin of white ‘Western’ culture. This bolstered both curators’ presentation of the United States (and its museums) as the inheritor of humanist culture and also the place of Italy within the ‘Western’ capitalist democracies in opposition to ‘Eastern’ communism.37 In the decade after WWII, the United States led its newly consolidated allies in Europe through a coalescing vision for international capitalist democracies. Various programs of the Marshall Plan worked to rebuild war-torn countries and combat the encroachment of Soviet Russian Communism further into Western Europe. This new ‘cold’ war took a variety of forms: from the more well-known arms race and competing space programs to the support of American and European arts and culture. Most European countries benefited from these programs in one shape or form.38 In Italy, US programs were fairly extensive, relative to the lower amount of physical destruction on the peninsula. Support for Italy alone added up to almost 11% of all post-war European recovery funds.39

Introduction 7 This large financial support for the country shows that the peninsula held a significant place for the Cultural Cold War. At the same time, Italy was of strategic importance for US foreign policy.40 Yugoslavia had already sided with the Soviets, and Moscow had its eyes set on Italy’s strategic Mediterranean shipping and naval location. The United States saw Italian democracy as possibly fleeting. Therefore, it was imperative for the Marshall Plan that Italy stabilize politically and economically. Italy at Work’s didactic texts clearly followed this political rhetoric, which both honors the major funder of the exhibition and these museums aims to be seen as harbingers of democratic culture. There were also practical checks put in place from Marshall Plan officials on the exhibiting museums. Though the Marshall Plan paid for the jurors’ trips and shipping from Italy to the United States, the operating costs and US-based shipping costs for the twelve exhibition venues were left up to each museum to finance through fundraising. With this, the government initiative worked to foreground the accessibility for American taxpayer to Italy at Work. The exhibition venues could not charge admission because the show was (partially) state-funded. As an exhibition press release explained: The extraordinary “Masterpiece Exhibitions” displayed in the Art Institute customarily require a special entrance fee to meet the exceptional expenses involved. For this “Masterpiece Exhibition,” ITALY AT WORK: HER RENAISSANCE IN DESIGN TODAY, the Art Institute has decided it would not charge the usual special admission fee so that the exhibition could be open to the greatest possible number of visitors. Another purpose of the Art Institute in presenting this exhibition is to stimulate a market for Italian products, thus implementing the economic aims of the Marshall Plan.41 Therefore, these political and economic aims in support of Italian democratic reconstruction were made transparent to visitors too. With these restrictions, shortfalls in the funds needed to put on the exhibition were handled by each venue through donor development. Particularly in exhibition locations with large Italian immigrant populations, Italian-Americans were targeted for fundraising efforts. Italy at Work presented an image of a post-totalitarian Italian cultural ‘renaissance’ as being explicitly ignited by US intervention, which created an important conception: American hero of Italian classical humanism. The importance of post-war Italian culture’s humanist heritage was utilized to rhetorically legitimize American culture.42 By presenting the United States as the savior-come-inheritor of Italy’s humanist heritage, the “sun” in Roger’s description, this strategy fought against the Soviet-propagated image of the United States as “culturally barren, a nation of gum-chewing, Chevy-driving, Dupont-sheathed philistines.”43 Italy at Work helped to solidify America’s claims to cultural, as well as military, supremacy over the Soviet Union. Design History, Art History, and “Italy at Work” This book aims to enrich the existing scholarship on Italy at Work, which has been almost exclusively discussed by design historians. From an art historical perspective, my scholarship has shown that artists not only played a significant role in the exhibition itself but that the contexts for modern design and art were closely connected, both in Italy and the United States. Most scholarship that discusses Italy at Work has focused on how the

8 Introduction show represented a turning point in the development of modern design in Italy. In particular, these studies have highlighted the significant number of traditional craft media in comparison to the relatively small amount of industrial design using modern media. Likewise, much of the discussion has been framed through the American hierarchies of ‘high’ and ‘low’ design and, important to design historians, the later development of an internationally recognizable modern Italian design aesthetic. The present study builds on this foundation and explores how classically trained artists played an important part in the highly collaborative and interdisciplinary Italian context. Artists’ inclusion in Italy at Work also helped give authority to design as well as served the political aims of the Cold War, in connecting the contemporary United States to a humanist past of Italy’s Renaissance. In the field of design history, the first important study of Italy at Work was by design historian Penny Sparke, and it contextualized the show as a point of departure from which modern design came—it is important to note that Sparke is one of the foremost authorities on modern Italian design in the English language. Her 1998 article in the Journal of Design History tackles the peculiarities often discussed within design circles about the 1950–53 show and the show’s perceived idiosyncrasies. Sparke first theorized the inclusion of folk art objects as an important marker of the post-war need for tradition for both the Americans and the Italians.44 Her study is also important because it highlighted the Fascist precedent of a support for craft industries, though even in subsequent studies, she falls short of articulating the Fascist era precedent for the connection between art, craft, and industry showcased in Italy at Work.45 Both of these aspects inform the work in this book. Sparke’s ability to consider the patterns of aesthetics and politics in this exhibition of Italian design informs my own approach. Blind spots like the inclusion of vernacular handicraft in Italy at Work and the illusion that the show had nothing to do with Fascist era precedents were already highlighted in Sparke’s work. This book adds further complexity to these ideas by considering the inclusion of artists and the deeply interdisciplinary nature of the material culture landscape in Italy before and after WWII. The preeminent Italian scholar on this subject is design historian Elena Dellapiana. Her work has provided rich insight to the long history of modern Italian design. Dellapiana and Daniela N. Prina’s contribution to the important volume Made in Italy: Rethinking a Century of Italian Design outlines the interwar connections between art, craft, and industry through the history of the Istituto Superiore Industrie Artistiche (ISIA, or Higher Institute of the Artistic Industries).46 Recently, Dellapiana also published a prescient article that highlights architect, designer, and publisher Gio Ponti’s contribution to the understanding of Italian design in the United States.47 In this study, Dellapiana highlights the important role Ponti’s interdisciplinary approach to design played in the presence of Italian design in the United States—how Ponti theorized the American interest in Italian design and how he shifted the narrative away from what was presented in Italy at Work. It is her research into how post-war interdisciplinarity of design was developed under the Fascist Regime and this legacy informed its success in the post-war period that informs this book the most. Her deep archival research into major institutions and key designers is invaluable in understanding the Italian context for Italy at Work.48 Another significant scholarly contribution to the understanding of the exhibition Italy at Work comes from the recently published book by design historian Catharine Rossi, Crafting Design in Italy: From Post-War to Postmodernism. Rossi’s study situates Italy at Work within the larger context of craft in Italy after WWII.49 In particular, she moves

Introduction 9 beyond Sparke’s and Dellapiana’s assertions that craft faded from importance after the so-called ‘economic miracle’ period. Rather, Rossi showcases the continued focus on craft media and collaborations between craft and industrial design through the postmodern period. The Art and Politics of Exhibiting Italian Design expands on Rossi’s assertions, in part, by bringing artists into the mix. Not only were artisans and architects working in collaboration, inside and outside of industrial contexts, but also classically trained fine artists were adding to the dialogue. This created a rich moment of cultural exchange; the aftereffects can be seen throughout modernist and postmodern art in Italy. In this book, I will not only bring art into design history but also further the investigation of the importance of design influence in art history. In addition to the history of design, this book builds on the recent art historical interest on US exhibitions of Italian art and its trans-Atlantic market. In the last decade, there has been a robust research on a variety of US exhibitions that took place during the Fascist Regime and immediately following the WWII, including my own contributions.50 As Art Historian Raffaele Bedarida has shown, the position of Italian fine art in US markets was used as a marker of American social class.51 This idea should be considered in relation to the desire for other Italian goods, in this case of the success of Italy at Work. In addition to creating a fuller picture of interdisciplinary collaboration of the period, this book will consider the role art played in elevating the value of Italian design and its American consumers as well as thinking through the possible ramifications of these moves in the historiography of modern Italian sculpture and design. This book also builds upon Scrivano’s work and the scholarship by art historian Sharon Hecker to explore the role of consumerist capitalism in the presentation, reception, and legacy of Italy at Work. Scrivano’s most recent book Building Transatlantic Italy articulates the legacy of Fascist culture in the new Cold War cultural programs, with regard to architecture and interior design, and the often inconsistent, even outright failed, effects of American propaganda on Italian producers.52 Hecker’s work on Fontana’s collaboration with industry and commercial markets in Italy highlights the basic economic motivations as well as more ideological ones that artists had when producing art that intersected with craft and industry.53 Related to this, the work of historian Danielle Battisti connects the “ethnic discrimination” that Italian-Americans felt during WWII to the spending habits of the community in the early Cold War period, a moment that Italy at Work capitalized on.54 Her work touches on not only the role of consumerism in the interest in culture but also the racial aspect at play in this consumerism. Adding to the growing scholarship on Italian design and its intersections with art, this book will highlight the deeply interdisciplinary investigations of artists, artisans, architects, and industrial producers included in Italy at Work. In particular, I will highlight how the exhibition promoted one version of new Italian modern artistic investigations through its text, while a more multifaceted one can be seen in the objects themselves. This is significant for two main reasons: experiments in craft media by important contemporary artists were presented as high-design handicrafts, and interdisciplinary practice was connected to Italian modernism’s interest in pressuring disciplinary boundaries during the Fascist regime and afterwards. In addition to those already mentioned, there have been a number of studies looking at the importance of culture within Cold War that were initiatives carried out by the United States. Overwhelmingly, studies of material culture have looked at the export of American abstract painting to Europe under the auspices of the Marshall Plan. Since Serge Guilbaut’s How New York Stole the Idea of Modern Art, scholars have increasingly

10 Introduction looked to elucidate a more dynamic relationship between the United States and its allies during the Cultural Cold War.55 Research has also begun to illustrate how these programs and the individual agency of artists benefiting from government-funded programs was an ever-shifting relationship. It was not simply a top-down hierarchy from US Government to European artists. One important example of this approach is Nancy Janech’s 2007 book Politics and Painting at the Venice Biennale.56 This contribution not only reevaluates Guilbaut’s assertions but also foregrounds the complexities of the Italian context, still steeped in the legacy of Fascism. Janech importantly highlights the agency of both American and European artists in the decades after WWII, rather than presenting them as pawns within a larger political game of chess. In this book, I strive to recognize the individual agency, contextual messiness, and political power that aided in the success of Italy at Work. Other Contexts for a Study of “Italy at Work” In addition to further connecting art, craft, and industry at mid-century, The Art and Politics of Exhibiting Italian Design elaborates the ways in which politics both domestic (in Italy and the United States individually) and international influenced the selection of works, the exhibition’s public reception, and the aesthetic and economic ramifications of which were felt after the close of Italy at Work. While a number of studies have touched on this, since Italy at Work was partially funded by the Marshall Plan, this book makes a critical contribution to the discussion by not only connecting the post-war government funding initiatives to those created under Fascism but also looking at the wider and more complex extra-governmental funding sources.57 In order to travel to twelve venues, the show required extra funds, which were often solicited from local Italian-American communities where possible. This was important for the shows’ broad reach and also in the post-war social politics of the Italian-American experience in the United States. Historian David R. Roediger has shown that Italian-Americans were not considered racially white in the United States at this time; and they still faced hiring, housing, and other forms of discrimination, especially in the wake of WWII.58 This book looks at the reasons both Italians and Italian-Americans were stakeholders in the Italy at Work exhibition, coming together in an effort to rebrand Italy as a capitalist democracy, free of totalitarian and communist leanings. Studies of race are important to contextualizing both the solicitation of support from Italian-Americans as well as the push to connect the Italian Renaissance to US-led capitalist democratic ideals. The work of historians like Jennifer and Thomas Guglielmo—both siblings work on various aspects of the Italian-American experience—has been at the fore of discussing the place-shifting concepts of race played in the lives of Italian-Americans.59 Also the work of Italian historian Stefano Luconi is important to consider. His work sheds light on the political power, or not, Italian-Americans wielded in the United States as well as their racialized status in the United States.60 Informed by these studies, this book considers not just the targeting of Italian-Americans for donor support of the show but also the import of the idea of Italy in the United States. To consider the place of Italians and Italian-Americans in the US, it is also important to understand the broader context of race in the United States at mid-century. Canonical thinkers like James Baldwin shed light on the way in which immigrants were racialized through their entrance into the United States and its unique systems of race.61 Beyond this, Cold War American Exhibitions of Italian Art and Design learns from the

Introduction 11 strategies of Critical Race Theory (CRT), which was first termed by Kimberlé Crenshaw in the late 1980s, to look at the systems of power put in place to oppress certain groups based on race.62 The look at postwar constructions of race connects to the broader understanding of the historical moment at the beginning of the Cold War in which Italy at Work was situated. Work on the so-called “Cultural Cold War” by historians like Jessica GienowHecht and David Ellwood and the journalist Frances Stonor Saunders is central to understanding the aims and effects of US funding of cultural programs.63 The ‘soft power’ of culture was not inconsequential to its financial support under the early Cold War. This puts museums as political agents, especially when being directly funded by the US State like in Italy at Work. Alongside this, historians De Grazia and Lizabeth Cohen further the study of connections between culture, politics, and consumerism.64 In particular, the ideas of empire and mass consumption from these historians, respectively, help to inform the partnerships between department stores and museums for Italy at Work. This book, therefore, investigates the parameters of government funding, the broader implications of it on the exhibition design, and the exhibitions reception by American and Italian audiences alike. Note on Terminology Though the texts of Italy at Work refer to most of the objects being displayed primarily as ‘handicraft’, which was typical for the period, it is also important to note that terminology has shifted somewhat since the 1950s. ‘Design’ is a complicated term in the Italian context because the Italian word disegno is a false friend—disengo means drawing or drafting and has a rich history in Italian art historiography.65 Therefore, the English term ‘design’ is not translated into Italian, rather the English term is appropriated as a stand-alone concept in Italian. Scholarship in Italian calls Italian design: design italiano, using the English language term ‘design’ to differentiate modern design. At mid-century, design was still not a popular term in either context (Italian nor American). While Italy at Work used the now-outmoded term ‘handicraft’, contemporary mid-century Italian texts often used the term arte applicata (Applied Arts) to describe the diverse work that scholars now might term design, craft, and industrial design. The latter is a more archaic term in Italy, the inverse of arte plastica (Plastic Arts) or arte figurative (Figurative Art), which were both used to describe the so-called ‘fine arts’ (painting, sculpture, drawing, and printmaking). There is also a common term for industrial design used, both at the time and still today, arte industriale (industrial art). For the purposes of this book, I will be using the English term design to refer to the broader collections of works exhibited in Italy at Work. I will then utilize context-specific terms for more detailed examples to highlight the variety of objects displayed in the show. Cold War American Exhibitions of Italian Art and Design With the breadth of works in the Italy at Work exhibition, it is no wonder that the show highlighted more dynamic trends in art, design, and industry than were outlined in the exhibition text. The show presented a very significant aspect of modernist art but without fully articulating the complexities of its development or import for contemporary artists or the Italian culture. Rather for exhibition organizers, contemporary sculpture and other works in ceramic served as way to place Italy in a kind of future-past, a modern

12 Introduction democracy but with a deeply traditional humanist culture. Unsurprisingly, the American exhibition simplified the complexities of the Italian context, in part to separate all production from any connection to Fascism, so that it fit the agenda of the Cultural Cold War. At the heart of this book is an often idiosyncratic exhibition of Italian cultural production put on at a tumultuous time in the United States after WWII. The organizers, supporters, and exhibitors each brought with them coded rhetorical and visual languages, which ultimately created Italy at Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today. My project in this book is not only to highlight the contexts that gave meaning to these languages but also complicate the historiographic accounts within the design and art history fields. Chapter 2 of this book will look at the US State funding of the exhibition and the broader political context for the support for culture during the beginnings of the Cold War. Since the term ‘Cultural Cold War’ was coined in the 1960s, the interest in the support for culture by Marshall Plan initiatives has furthered the understanding of the programs that traded material goods and financing to European countries after WWII in exchange for political and economic hegemony with the United States.66 Italy at Work organizers were keenly aware of the official nature of this exhibition, visible in both logistical choices as well as ideological ones. This state funding influenced the language used to describe the included works and their creators. American interventionism was presented as sparking ‘renaissance in design today’, while the Italian producers became symbols good labor. These ideas were informed by still developing ideas of the good democratic citizen under Western capitalism, one who worked without labor union and sought a better standard of living, akin to their Cold War allies. Italian support for the show reflected the import of good relations between the two countries in the uncertain post-war period. Italian state political trends would affect the US State funding. Chapter 3 continues to investigate this exhibition within the context of the Cultural Cold War, specifically its construction of racial and cultural identities in the East/West divide. As might be expected, Italians living in the United States and Italian-Americans were specifically targeted in fundraising efforts to make up US-based exhibition installation budgets. The Italian-American experience had rapidly changed in the previous two decades and, after WWII, they had gained higher social status within the white supremacist society in the United States. As such, many openly participated in actions that reinforced their cultural whiteness. Italian-American patronage of an exhibition of Italy at Work can, at least in part, be seen as a further manifestation of this trend—alongside their increasing rates of college education and suburban living, partially thanks to the GI Bill.67 Not only had organizers worked to locate the exhibition venues in cities with large Italian-American populations, they looked to Italian-Americans for funding of the multivenue exhibition series. Focusing on the detailed records of donor rolls from the Brooklyn installation, this chapter will not only identify important donors, including ItalianAmericans, but also the broader context for Italian-American donors in the United States in the early 1950s. Italian-American participation was not inconsequential, in part because this exhibition was a Cold War initiative that worked to solidify ‘Western’ culture. The United States, as the self-appointed leader in the ‘West’ after WWII, needed to reinforce their legacy of inheritors of a white ‘Western’ culture. Getting support from Italian-Americans legitimized the claim of US hegemony over understandings of ‘Western’ culture.

Introduction 13 Chapter 4 delves into the substance of the exhibition of a wide variety of individual objects. Beyond the sheer volume of things for audiences to consider, from plates to typewriters, Italy at Work reflected indigenous Italian design’s interdisciplinary nature. The context of Italian modern design showed rich connections between craft, industrial design, architecture, and art, all of which was presented together as a reflection of a newly inspired Italian creativity. However, much of the richness of Italian modern design had been developed under Fascism. Even some of the works included in the exhibition were likely produced before wars end. The erasure of any Fascist influence on the development of works in Italy at Work served the aims of the Marshall Plan funded show. Italy was presented as a capitalist democracy and part of the ‘West’, whose creativity had been reignited after Fascism by US intervention. In addition to creating a blind spot of Fascist influence in design, Italy at Work worked to modernize the American taste for design. With the variety, from straw children’s toys to sleek scooters, the exhibition provided Italian design as a template for appreciating more modernist design aesthetics. The ‘romantic’ and vernacular aspects of some of the objects were meant to be more familiar, like a stepping stone to more streamlined modernist aesthetics.68 At the same time, the inclusion of artists in an exhibition of design lent the exhibition the cultural cache of fine art. This furthered the purpose of Italy at Work in presenting the United States as inheritor of ‘Western’ humanist culture. Artists represented the high culture of the Renaissance, referenced in the exhibition’s very title, renewed by US intervention. In the context of the Cultural Cold War, it is clear the import of seeing American capitalist democracy as the key actor in continuing this rich cultural tradition. Chapter 5 looks at the way in which the exhibition design focused on the economic ideals of this Marshall Plan exhibition and how cognate works were sold at nearby department stores. With the exhibition focusing on economic stimulus and ideal standards of living, it should be no surprise that the exhibition design diverged from the prevailing installation styles of art museum installations at mid-century. Though some spaces reflected the new ‘white cube’ style that was being championed in museums like MoMA, many of the installations were more akin to department store displays. Various types of works were situated together in visually pleasing displays; these also often created important juxtapositions between the work by artists and those by artisans or industrial designers. The showroom-style installation helped the visitors see the works as both cultural goods and also consumer goods. With the catalogue detailing how this show was a direct economic stimulus and that visitors would want to buy these new designed goods, ironically none of the works were for sale at the exhibitions. The logistics of a three-year-long exhibition calendar spread over twelve institutions, coupled with the fact that many of the included works were unique one-of-a-kind objects, meant that the exhibited works could not be sold at each venue. Organizers therefore worked with local department stores at each exhibition stop. There, museum visitors would be able to purchase similar items for their own homes. Like other exhibitions of design at the US museums, Italy at Work partnered with retailers to outsource the sale of designed goods. Chapter 6 will briefly look at how Italy at Work represented larger tenets in Italian art and design as well as the shift toward the “Made in Italy” retail brand. The interdisciplinary experiments of Italian artists, championed in this show, continued throughout the Cold War period. Yet the work was still often segregated from other works, even within

14 Introduction one artist’s own oeuvre. At the same time, later developments in post-war art reflected these experiments and furthered the breakdown of high/low distinctions. Design trends and aesthetics were also greatly influenced by Italy at Work. Though, as hoped, the popularity of more streamlined modernist aesthetics took over the Italian design landscape, the connection to craft and the vernacular is still present in the international “Made in Italy” brand. The presentation of nationalistic authenticity and connection between Italy and their English-speaking consumers can be traced back to Italy at Work. Cold War American Exhibitions of Italian Art and Design: “Italy at Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today” closes by showing the longer effects of this US-sponsored exhibition of Italian design at mid-century. Notes 1 Walter Dorwin Teague. “Italian Shopping Trip: Twelve American museums send out a battery of buyers.” Interiors CX, no. 5 (November 1950): 144–45, 94–201. 2 Rogers. “Introduction.” In Italy At Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today. Rome: The Compagnia Nazionale Artigiana, 1950. 18. 3 For example, see The Cultural Cold War in Western Europe, 1945–1960. Edited by Giles ScottSmith and Hans Krabbendam, The Intelligence Series. London: Frank Cass Publishers, 2003. 4 David W. Ellwood. “The Propaganda of the Marshall Plan in Italy in a Cold War Context.” Chap. 12 In The Cultural Cold War in Western Europe, 1945–1960, edited by Giles ScottSmith and Hans Krabbendam. The Intelligence Series, 225–36. London: Frank Cass Publishers, 2003. 230. 5 Meg Jacobs. “The Politics of Plenty in the Twentieth-Century United States.” Chap. 11 In The Politics of Consumption. Material Culture and Citizenship in Europe and America, edited by Martin Daunton and Matthew Hilton. Oxford: Berg, 2001. 223–39. 6 Carlo Ludovico Ragghianti. Handicraft as a Fine Art in Italy. New York: House of Italian Handicraft, 1947. 7 Here, I will highlight the recent movement, and accompanying hashtag #MuseumsAreNotNeutral, created by cultural organizers LaTanya S. Autry and Mike Murawski in August of 2017 “to refuse the myth of neutrality that many museum professionals and others put forward.” See “Museums Are Not Neutral,” Artstuffmatters, https://artstuffmatters.wordpress.com/museums-are-not-neutral/ (accessed July 12, 2019). 8 The twelve museums that participated in displaying versions of Italy at Work were: Brooklyn Museum (Nov. 30, 1951–Jan. 31, 1951); Art Institute of Chicago (March 15, 1951–May 13, 1951); De Young Memorial Museum, San Francisco (June 19, 1951–July 31, 1951); Portland Art Museum (Sept. 5, 1951–Oct. 21, 1951); Minneapolis Institute of Art (Nov. 27, 1951–Jan. 6, 1952); Museum of Fine Arts of Houston (Feb. 13, 1952–March 27, 1952); St. Louis City Art Museum (May 4, 1952–July 6, 1952); Toledo Museum of Art (Sept. 7, 1952–Oct. 22, 1952); Albright Art Gallery, Buffalo, NY (Nov. 27, 1952–Jan. 8, 1953); Detroit Institute of Art (Feb. 12, 1953–March 27, 1953); Baltimore Museum of Art (May 1, 1953–Aug. 15, 1953); and the Rhode Island School of Design in Providence (Sept. 22, 1953–Nov. 15, 1953). 9 “Brooklyn Museum - 120,167 AIC - 164,261 De Young Memorial Museum SF, CA - more than 85,000 Portland Art Museum - 20,244 Minneapolis Institute of Art - 9,000 Museum of Fine Arts of Huston - 32,270 St. Louis City Art Museum - 50,113 Toledo Museum of Art 15,926 Albright Art Gallery, NYC - 1540 DIA - 12,500 Baltimore Museum of Arts - 15,000 RISDI - 15,000 TOTAL: 554,481.” Patricia T. Galle, “Memo: List of attendance numbers at each museum,” Feb. 18, 1953, AIC Archives 305-0003.2, Buffalo, NY 10 For (a flawed) comparison, MoMA’s 2010 total visitor numbers—their largest at the time— were 3.09 million. See, Erica Orden. “MoMA Attendance Hits Record High.” The Wall Street Journal, June 29 2010. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527487039641045753353 01840480246 [Accessed Dec. 1, 2020] 11 For the latest research on the 1949 Twentieth Century Italian Art exhibition at MoMA see the special issue on the show in Italian Modern Art; (eds.) Raffaele Bedarida, Silvia Bignami, and Davide Colombo (eds.), Methodologies of Exchange: MoMA’s “Twentieth-Century Italian Art”

Introduction 15 (1949), monographic issue of Italian Modern Art, 3 (January 2020), https://www.italianmodernart.org/journal/issues/methodologies-of-exchange-momas-twentieth-century-italian-art-1949/ 12 Raffaele Bedarida. Exhibiting Italian Art in the United States from Futurism to Arte Povera: “Like a Giant Screen.” New York: Routledge, 2022. 94. 13 Meyric R. Rogers. “Italian Contemporary Industrial Arts” Report on a survey made in Italy, June 2–July 5, 1949, 1949, in Records of the Office of the Director (Charles Nagel, 1946–55). Exhibitions: Italy at Work, (1) CN 1949-50, Brooklyn Museum Archives, Brooklyn, 1. 14 For examples, see correspondences between Charles Nagel and CNA officials in the Brooklyn Museum archives. See: Alberto Antico. “Letter to Charles Nagel,” 1950, in Records of the Office of the Director (Charles Nagel, 1946–55). Exhibitions: Italy at Work, (1) CN 49-45 Dir 1949-50, Brooklyn Museum Archives, Brooklyn; and Richard Miller. “Letter to Charles Nagel,” Aug. 5, 1950, in Records of the Office of the Director (Charles Nagel, 1946–55). Exhibitions: Italy at Work, (1) CN49-45 Dir 1949–50, Brooklyn Museum Archives, Brooklyn. 15 Rogers. “Italian Contemporary Industrial Arts.” 2–4. 16 Rogers. “Article for February Bulletin,” undated (1950?), in AIC Archives, 305-0003.4, Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago, 3. Rogers and Kirk Rogers had divorced in 1947/48. It is not completely clear why she accompanied the organizers from official accounts, though her friendship with Wallis Simpson, Duchess of Windsor, may have been a reason. One newspaper report says “Mrs. Rogers … acted as recorder for this expedition, and members of the selection committee” and that “Mrs. Rogers, herself museum trained, formerly was a member of the Art Institute’s decorative arts department. She was assistant in charge of ceramics and silver.” (Agnes Lynch. “Curator Tours Italy Seeking Revitalized Art.” Chicago Daily Tribute, Apr. 8, 1951, S_A3). Teague said that he and Rogers brought their wives because the “added feminine charm and the feminine viewpoint” (Teague. “Italian Shopping Trip.”145). When the show was at AIC, Kirk Rogers participated in a number of official events as Rogers’ wife (“Making of Art Institute Show to Be Told Guild.” Chicago Daily Tribune, Feb. 18, 1951, N_A9; “About People.” Minneapolis Morning Tribune, Mon., Dec. 3, 1951, np.). For more on Ann Strother Kirk Rogers, see her papers at the Harvard Library archives https://hollisarchives.lib. harvard.edu/repositories/8/resources/6067 and Justin Glen, The Washingtons: A Family History, California: Savas Publishing, 2015. 441. 17 Teague. “Forward.” In Italy at Work. 9. 18 “About People.” Minneapolis Morning Tribune, Mon., Dec. 3, 1951, np. 19 “Gallery Installation List.” 1950, in AIC Archives: Department of Decorative Arts Exhibition Records 1951–53, Italy at Work: 305-0003.2, Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago. 20 Claudio Alhaique. Relazione sull’attività della Compagnia Nazionale Artigiana. Roma: Arti Grafiche A. Chicca, 1951. 31. 21 Italy at Work. 9. 22 Helen M Franc. “The Early Years of the International Program and Council.” In The Museum of Modern Art at Mid-Century: At Home and Abroad, edited by John Elderfield, New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 1994. 115–116. 23 Rogers. “The Arts and Crafts in Italy Today.” In Italy At Work. 22. 24 Rogers. “Notes on the Exhibition.” In Italy At Work. 31. 25 Teague quoted in Press Release: ENORMOUS EXHIBITION SHOWING ITALY’S RENAISSANCE IN INDUSTRIAL AND DECORATIVE ARTS OPENS AT BROOKLYN MUSEUM NOVEMBER 29th–TOURS U.S. COAST-TO-COAST FOR THREE YEARS, November 29, 1950, in Records of the Department of Public Information. Press releases, 1947–1952, 10-12/1950, 100–6, Brooklyn Museum Archives, Brooklyn. 26 Bedarida. “Operation Renaissance: Italian Art at MoMA, 1940–1949.” Oxford Art Journal 35, no. 2 (2012): 147–69; Davide Colombo. “1949: Twentieth-Century Italian Art al MoMA di New York.” In /New York New York/Arte Italiana: La riscoperta dell’America, edited by Francesco Tedeschi, Francesca Pola and Federica Boragina, 102–09. Milan: Electa, 2017; and Antje Gamble. “Exhibiting Italian Modernism After World War II at MoMA in “Twentieth-Century Italian Art’,” in Raffaele  Bedarida, Silvia Bignami, and Davide Colombo (eds.), Methodologies of Exchange: MoMA’s “Twentieth-Century Italian Art” (1949),  monographic issue of  Italian Modern Art, 3 (January 2020),  https://www. italianmodernart.org/journal/articles/exhibiting-italian-modernism-after-world-war-ii-atmoma-in-twentieth-century-italian-art/.

16 Introduction 27 “It is the natural outcome of a certain sense of mystic forces ever at work behind and within the obvious face of nature. This mysticism, in counterpoint to the Italian sensuous appreciation of nature, is one of the main sources of her artistic strength in its most complex as well as its simplest expressions.” Rogers. “The Arts and Crafts in Italy Today.” In Italy At Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today. Rome: The Compagnia Nazionale Artigiana, 1950. 22. 28 Paolo Scrivano. “Romanticizing the Other? Views of Italian Industrial Design in Postwar America.” In The Italian Legacy in Washington DC: Architecture, Design, Art and Culture. Edited by Luca Molinari and Andrea Canepari. Milan: Skira, 2007. 156–61. 29 Scrivano. “Romanticizing the Other?” 156 and 60. 30 For more on the Fascist idea of the “Third Rome,” see Aristotle Kallis. “The ‘Third Rome’ of Fascism: Demolitions and the Search for a New Urban Syntax.” The Journal of Modern History 84, no. 1 (March 2012): 40–79; and Ann Thomas Wilkins. “Augustus, Mussolini, and the Parallel Imagery of Empire.” In Donatello Among the Blackshirts: History and Modernity in the Visual Culture of Fascist Italy. Edited by Claudia Lazzaro and Roger J. Crum. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 2005. 53–65. 31 Rogers. “Introduction.” Italy at Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today. Rome: The Compagnia Nazionale Artigiana, 1950. 18. 32 Victoria De Grazia. Irresistible Empire: America’s Advance Through Twentieth-Century Europe. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2005. There are a number of points in De Grazia’s book elucidates that are applicable to the present study. Her study of both interwar and postwar connections between the United States and Europe will inform this book. 33 Rogers. “Introduction.” 18. 34 De Grazia. Irresistible Empire. 338. 35 For a comprehensive recent study, see; Bruce J. Dierenfield. The Civil Rights Movement : The Black Freedom Struggle in America. New York: Routledge, 2021. 36 Thomas A. Guglielmo. “‘No Color Barrier’ Italians, Race, and Power in the United States.” In Are Italians White? How Race Is Made in America, edited by Jennifer Guglielmo and Salvatore Salerno, 26–43. New York: Routledge, 2003. 31. 37 Cold War discussions were often focused on who fit in the “West” and how communism “the East” sought to destroy “the West.” For example, see Elliot R. Goodman. “East vs. West in Communist Ideology.” Journal of International Affairs 15, no. 2 (1961): 95–107. 38 Michael J. Hogan. The Marshall Plan: America, Britain, and the Reconstruction of Western Europe, 1947–1952. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. 39 Scrivano. “Romanticizing the Other?” 157. 40 David R. Roediger, Working Towards Whiteness: How America’s Immigrants Became White. New York: Basic Books, 2005. 220. 41 “For Immediate Release: ‘Italy at Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today’ Tremendous Exhibition of Contemporary Italian Crafts to be Shown at the Art Institute March 15 through May 13.” In Art Institute of Chicago. Chicago, 1951. 42 For a comparative example, see Gamble. “Buying Marino Marini: The American Market for Italian Art after WWII.” In Postwar Italian Art History Today: Untying “the Knot,” edited by Sharon Hecker and Marin Sullivan, London: Bloomsbury, 2018. 155–72. 43 Teague quoted in Press Release: ENORMOUS EXHIBITION; and Frances Stonor Saunders. The Cultural Cold War. The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters. New York: The New Press, 1999.19. 44 Penny Sparke. “The Straw Donkey: Tourist Kitsch or Proto-Design? Craft and design in Italy, 1945–1960.” Journal of Design History 11, no. 1 (1998): 59–69. 45 She begins to make these connections in her later overview of modern Italian design, but ultimately concludes that the mobilization of industry did not “find its fullest expression” until after WWII, a conclusion that my project challenges. Sparke. “A modern identity for a new nation: design in Italy since 1860.” In The Cambridge Companion to Modern Italian Culture, edited by Zygmunt G Barański and Rebecca J. West, 265–81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. 272. 46 Elena Dellapiana and Daniela N. Prina. “Craft, Industry and Art: ISIA (1922-1943) and the Roots of Italian Design.” In Made in Italy: Rethinking a Century of Italian Design, edited by Grace Lees-Maffei and Kjetil Fallan, 109–25. London: Bloomsbury, 2014. She also has written and co-written a number of important surveys in Italian on related subjects. See: Dellapiana.

Introduction 17 Il design della ceramic I Italia 1850-2000, Milan: Electa 2010; and Fiorella Bulegato & Dellapiana. Il design degli architetti italiani 1920-2000, Milan: Electa 2014. 47 Dellapiana. “Italy Creates. Gio Ponti, America and the Shaping of the Italian Design Images / Italia crea. Gio Ponti, América y la configuración del la imagen del diseño italiano.” Res Mobilis. Revista internacional de investigación en mobiliario y objetos decorativos 7, no. 8 (2018): 19–48. 48 Her forthcoming essay on Italy at Work with Jonathan Mekinda is also a valuable contribution. Dellapiana and Jonathan Mekinda. “Feeling at Home: Exhibiting Design, Blurring Fascism.” In Curating Fascism: Exhibitions and Memory from the Fall of Mussolini to Today, edited by Sharon Hecker and Raffaele Bedarida, 129–42. London: Bloombury Visual Arts, 2022. 49 Catherine Rossi. Crafting Design in Italy: From Post-War to Postmodernism. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2015. 50 For example: Bedarida. Exhibiting Italian Art in the United States from Futurism to Arte Povera: “Like a Giant Screen”. New York: Routledge, 2022; Bedarida, Silvia Bignami, and Davide Colombo (eds.),  Methodologies of Exchange: MoMA’s “Twentieth-Century Italian Art” (1949), monographic issue of Italian Modern Art, 3 (January 2020). https://www.italianmodernart.org/journal/issues/methodologies-of-exchange-momas-twentieth-century-italianart-1949/; Nancy Jachec. Politics and painting at the Venice Biennale 1948-64: Italy and the Idea of Europe. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2007; /New York New York/ Arte Italiana: La riscoperta dell’America, edited by Francesco Tedeschi, Francesca Pola and Federica Boragina. Milan: Electa, 2017. 51 Bedarida. “Viviano, Brin e la conquista di Hollywood.” In /New York New York/ Arte Italiana: La riscoperta dell’America, edited by Francesco Tedeschi, Francesca Pola and Federica Boragina, 117–26. Milan: Electa, 2017. A similar argument has been made in Gamble. “Buying Marino Marini: The American Market for Italian Art after WWII.” 52 Scrivano. Building Transatlantic Italy: Architectural Dialogues with Postwar America. Studies in Architecture. Edited by Eamonn Canniffe Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2013. 53 Sharon Hecker. “‘Servant of Two Masters’: Lucio Fontana’s Sculptures in Milan’s Cinema Arlecchino (1948).” Oxford Art Journal 35, no. 3 (2012): 337–61; 54 Danielle Battisti. “Italian Americans, Consumerism, and the Cold War in Transnational Perspective.” In Making Italian America: Consumer Culture and the Production of Ethnic Identities, edited by Simone Cinotto, 148–62. New York: Fordham University Press, 2014. 148. Also see, Rosalind Pepall. “‘Good Design is Good Business’: Promoting Postwar Italian Design in America.” In Il modo Vitaliano. Italian Design and the Avant-garde in the 20th Century, edited by Giampiero Bosoni and Guy Cogeval, 69–79. Montreal: The Montreal Museum of Fine Arts, 2007. 55 For an overview of the literature on this subject, see Robert Burstow. “The Limits of Modernist Art as a ‘Weapon of the Cold War’: Reassessing the Unknown Patron of the Monument to the Unknown Political Prisoner.” Oxford Art Journal 20, no. 1 (1997): 68–70. 56 Nancy Jachec. Politics and painting at the Venice Biennale 1948-64: Italy and the Idea of Europe. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2007. 57 There are a number of historical studies that will be considered in this book. Just a few are listed here: Duggan, Christopher. “Italy in the Cold War Years and the Legacy of Fascism.” Chap. 1 In Italy in the Cold War. Politics, Culture and Society 1948–58, edited by Christopher Duggan and Christopher Wagstaff, 1–24. Oxford & Washington, D.C.: Berg Publishers Limited, 1995; David W. Ellwood. “The 1948 elections in Italy: a cold war propaganda battle.” Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television 13, no. 1 (1993): 19–33; Chiarella Esposito. America’s Feeble Weapon: Funding the Marshall Plan in France and Italy, 1948–1950. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1994; Emilio Gentile. La Grande Italia. The Myth of the Nation in the 20th Century. Translated by Suzanne Dingee and Jennifer Pudney. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2009. La grande Italia: Asceca e declino del mito della nazione nel ventesimo secolo, Arnoldo Mondadori Editore, Milan. 1997; and Henry Stuart Hughes. The United States and Italy. 3rd ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1979. 58 David R. Roediger, Working Towards Whiteness: How America’s Immigrants Became White. New York: Basic Books, 2005. 59 See: Are Italians White? How Race Is Made in America, edited by Jennifer Guglielmo and Salvatore Salerno. New York: Routledge, 2003; and Thomas A. Guglielmo. White on Arrival.

18 Introduction Italians, Race, Color, and Power in Chicago, 1890–1945. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2003. 60 See: Stefano Luconi. “Black dagoes? Italian immigrants’ racial status in the United States: an ecological view.” Journal of Transatlantic Studies 14, no. 2 (2016): 188–99; and Luconi. “The Bumpy Road Toward Political Incorporation, 1920-1984.” In The Routledge History of Italian Americans, edited by William J. Connell and Stanislao G. Pugliese, 319–36. New York: Routledge, 2018. 61 James Baldwin. “On Being White … and Other Lies (1984).” In The Cross of Redemption. Uncollected Writings, edited by Randall Kenan, 135–8. New York: Pantheon Books, 2010. 62 Kimberlé Crenshaw. “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics.” University of Chicago Legal Forum 1989 (1989): 139–67. 63 David W. Ellwood, “The Propaganda of the Marshall Plan in Italy in a Cold War Context.” Chap. 12 In The Cultural Cold War in Western Europe, 1945–1960, edited by Giles ScottSmith and Hans Krabbendam. The Intelligence Series, 225–36. London: Frank Cass Publishers, 2003; Jessica C.E. Gienow-Hecht, “Culture and the Cold War in Europe.” Chap. 19 In The Cambridge History of the Cold War, Volume 1, edited by Melvyn P. Leffler and Odd Arne Westad, 398–419. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010; and Frances Stonor Saunders. The Cultural Cold War. The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters. New York: The New Press, 1999. 64 LizabethCohen. A Consumers’ Republic: The Politics of Mass Consumption in Postwar America. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003; and Victoria De Grazia. “Visualizing the Marshall Plan: The Pleasures of American Consumer Democracy or the Pains of ‘the Greatest Structural Adjustment Program in History’?”. Chap. 2 In Images of the Marshall Plan in Europe. Films, Photographs, Exhibits, Posters, edited by Günter Bischof and Dieter Stiefel, 25–37. Innsbruck: Studienverlag Ges.m.b.H., 2009. 65 However, even this history is more complicated. See: Marta Ajmar. “Mechanical Disegno,” RIHA Journal 0084, (27 March 2014). URN: urn:nbn:de:101:1-2014062622755. https:// www.riha-journal.org/articles/2014/2014-jan-mar/special-issue-art-design-history/ajmarmechanical-disegno [Accessed 10 December 2020] 66 Christopher Lasch. “The Cultural Cold War: A Short History of The Congress for Cultural Freedom.” In A New Past: Dissenting Essays in American History, edited by Barton J. Bernstein, 322–59. New York: Pantheon Books, 1968. 67 Nell Irvin Painter. The History of White People. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2010. 365–68. 68 Michelangelo Sabatino. Pride in Modesty. Modernist Architecture and the Vernacular Tradition in Italy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010; and Scrivano. “Romanticizing the Other.”

2

Organizing Italy at Work under the Auspices of the Marshall Plan

Italy at Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today was the second of two exhibitions of Italian design that were funded by the US Government after WWII. These exhibitions were part of a much larger international set of programs produced under the auspices of the Marshall Plan—funded through Economic Recovery Program (ERP) and the Economic Cooperation Administration (ECA). Though many European countries received Marshall Plan funds to support recovery after WWII, the support for Italian design was singular in this history. Italy at Work was an early project of what scholars term the “Cultural Cold War.” The term itself was seemingly coined by American historian Christopher Lasch in his description of the organization called Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF).1 It was used to describe the phenomenon of using aspects of culture and academe to solidify support. The idea of a Cultural Cold War has become a useful framework in order to understand how “soft power” was being used by State actors at the time.2 Italy at Work is indeed a prime example of the Cultural Cold War, not only in its funding structure but also in the choice of Italian design to champion in US markets. In the trade-friendly environment created by Marshall Plan programs, Italian-made products, from sculpture to textiles to movies to scooters, flooded US markets. This was sparked by Italy at Work. The US financial support of Italian design was reinforced by the Cold War idea that “cultural freedom [… was] one of the distinguishing features of Western Society.”3 Italian art and design played a key role in bolstering the United States as inheritor of the ‘Western’ humanist tradition. Material culture had tangible power during the Cold War. In the case of Italy at Work, it was used to both convince taxpayers to continue their support for the ever-expanding Marshall Plan programs and solidify a hegemonic ‘Western’ culture.4 Italy at Work texts are full of coded language that reflected the exhibition organizers’ Cultural Cold War ideals. For example, in a pamphlet soliciting donor support for the AIC installation, five items were outlined as the “purpose” for the exhibition where items 4 and 5 read: 4. To stimulate a market for these products of Italian craftsmanship, thus implementing the aims of the Marshall Plan. 5. To further international understanding and friendship by emphasizing the strongest of human bonds—the unity of the creative spirit.5 Connecting a shared “creative spirit” and creating a market for “Italian craftsmanship” were two sides of the same Cold War coin. This is, in part, why the major exhibition of

DOI: 10.4324/9781003265900-2

20 Organizing Italy at Work Italian production in the United States were focused on design rather than other cultural production, namely fine art. Though artists played a key role in these design exhibitions, art was culturally suspect during the Cold War. The funding of indigenous Italian design was not a neutral choice for US Government support. As this chapter will show, Italy’s strategic location on the Mediterranean was one part of the country’s appeal for US State support. Also, importantly, Italy’s connection to the long European humanist tradition was mobilized to rationalize a hegemonic idea of US-led ‘Western’ culture against the ‘Eastern’ Communists in the USSR. Since the Cultural Cold War focused on the “soft power” of literature, film, art, and design, the cultural production on both sides of the Atlantic was deployed in state-funded programs to create ideological connections that supported the US-led coalition at the onset of the Cold War.6 Italian design was a particularly alluring subject to support because it was perceived as connecting modernism and a ‘Western’ humanist past. Within the Cultural Cold War, the continued myth of a unified ‘Western’ culture was central; and the Italian cultural production in Italy at Work allowed Americans to quite literally possess, though capitalist consumption, an artifact of the latest product of this ‘Western’ tradition. This chapter will outline the funding structures and key players that brought about the Italy at Work exhibition as well as the larger political stakes of state support for a cultural exhibition. Italy and the Cultural Cold War US support for Italy included everything from financial and military aid to “economists, army and navy men, and agricultural specialists.”7 One focus of their efforts was the support of the cultural production of the peninsula. In particular, they focused on bolstering existing artisan industries. This choice to specifically fund artisan industries was in part led by Italian cultural elites living both in Italy and the United States who influenced policymakers. To facilitate the work needed on the ground in Italy, the ECA opened the Compagnia Nazionale Artigiana (National Artisan Company, CNA) when the temporary X Commission became a permanent fixture in post-war Italian-American relations.8 American financial intervention helped to bring on a robust Italian consumer market that led to this solidifying of a unified post-Fascist image of Italian culture. American interest in Italy’s new post-Fascist culture grew in the months after armistice, but the United States was not going to waste their time supporting a country unless the national values fit with their own aspirations for the region. This was evident from the 1947 visit of Italian Prime Minister, Alcide De Gasperi to the United States. His public comments from this visit were indicative of the still developing relationship between the two former combatants. De Gasperi proclaimed a wish “to convince the American authorities that [Italian] economic necessities and the need to normalize political life … should be dealt with as a single problem.”9 It is clear that he understood the necessity for economic stability not only to shield against a resurgence of Fascism but also against more leftist ideals gaining power of the Italian state. These were also the concerns of the US policymakers who decided when and how much to financially support Italy’s postwar recovery. De Gasperi was the head of the Democrazia Cristiana (Christian Democrats or DC) party. The DC was the major Italian post-war conservative party and the only party that had the numbers to challenge the large leftist parties. De Gasperi’s anti-Communist sentiments paralleled ideas concerning European security going back to the very eve of WWII.

Organizing Italy at Work  21 His comments in the United States made it quite clear that without American financial support, Italy would fall to the USSR coalition.10 Using this to his advantage, De Gasperi focused on the perceived Communist threat in Italy to incentivize US intervention. In his comments, De Gasperi was sending a warning to the US Government that “political life” would not align with the American ideals unless the material needs of Italy were met. He also made it clear that, without the Americans’ support for economic security in Italy, De Gasperi and his DC party would not support US Cold War initiatives.11 Most American elites agreed with De Gapseri’s ideas that economic prosperity would support political stability, though there were various ideas on how to go about securing it. One American group suggested that another way to normalize both economic and political life globally was through the creation of a united Europe—somewhat surprising since the League of Nations had shown to be ineffective to this effect. In The New York Times, calling for a safeguard to the “Threat of WWIII,” a group of “81 Prominent Americans” signed a petition claiming that, [o]nly by a policy of economic union can Europe hope to repair rapidly the devastations of the war and pave the way to future mass-prosperity by massproduction. A prosperous Europe would become our best market, increasing international trade and American wealth. Politically and economically a divided Europe would constitute a permanent threat and a heavy burden—a United Europe would be a pillar of peace and a source of world-wide prosperity. After the untold sufferings of this war, most Europeans favor the idea of a United States of Europe. But the peoples of a prostrate Europe feel too weak to start such a gigantic task without the moral encouragement and support that only the United States of America can provide.12 As they argued, the United States needed to provide an ideological compass for European peace and prosperity. Taxpayer funds from the United States would therefore be used for publicity on both sides of the Atlantic, with a goal of European economic and, most importantly, political normalcy.13 Importantly, many of these proposals for European stability centered US financial support and political leadership. The connection between economics and political stability was not new after WWII, but the kind of programs that the United States engaged in during this period foregrounded capitalism as the only way to bring economic, and in turn political, stability. Beyond her influential work on the ‘Market Empire’, Victoria de Grazia has also theorized the kind of American support for the Cultural Cold War and further US political initiatives to export an American version of capitalist democracy abroad at this time. In an article focused on the use of film in this Marshall Plan propaganda missions, she writes that the direct influence of any propaganda was not monolithic.14 Yet they did have effects, especially on the framing of conversations around capitalism and democracy. De Grazia posits that “the key phrase for speaking of the ERP’s goals should be ‘high standard of living’ rather than ‘mass consumption’.”15 This rhetorical focus quelled still extant fears from the Great Depression while building an image of an ideal state of productivity. US support could be seen as “reviving capital goods manufacturing,” rather than “spending on ‘welfare’ measures.”16 Particular struggles were seen in Marshall Plan initiatives in Italy because, in part, the low wages of Italian workers and its “export-oriented … industry which had revived quickly with the reprise of international trade, thus reducing unemployment.”17 However, by the mid-1950s, their low home market consumption

22 Organizing Italy at Work depressed production because of competition with other European exporters who had since reestablished production. Italy at Work came at this earlier moment when Italy saw low or no tariffs for international trade. Its themes align with De Grazia’s characterization of Marshall Plan ideals. By supporting Italian artisans, the exhibition would support Italian designers to be able to rebuild through their own productivity and attain this ideal standard of living themselves. Visitors to the exhibition were told the stakes of the show in the didactic texts. In the introductory chapter of the Italy at Work catalogue, Rogers wrote that No visitor to Italy within the last two or three years can have failed to be impressed by two things, first by the extent of the war’s destruction and second by the extraordinary rapidity with which it is being repaired.18 This was followed a few paragraphs latter by a note that “the world of today is too dependent on those things that mechanization and a high degree of organization can supply.”19 Though “Italian individualism” was strong, they still did not have the “capital resources” needed.20 US funding, like the work of Italy at Work, would therefore help the productive Italian artisan-worker to get themselves a higher standard of living. The following page made this assertion plain: No recent visitor to Italy can overlook the immediate effectiveness of the aid given by the Marshall Plan…. Ways must not be found to make this temporary aid permanently effective in creating an autonomous economy. To this end Italian individualism must be used positively and creatively.21 Italy at Work not only highlighted the US-led revitalization of Italian productivity and creativity but also was meant to be a part of a permanent solution to Italian market (and political) instability. This also offered the population “abundance,” in terms of standards of living, but at the price of the suppression of “the cornucopias of populist tradition[s].”22 The presence of Italian industrial goods like the Lambretta scooter and Olivetti portable typewriter seem somewhat paradoxical in this show that stated that “the world of today is too dependent on those things that mechanization and a high degree of organization alone can supply.”23 Yet they clearly signaled to American viewers that Italy was already on its way to reaching their levels of a modern standard of living. At the same time, they were used to exoticize Italy and Italians in a tone familiar from nineteenthcentury visitors on the Grand Tour. The “motor scooters and motorcycles” made “the average Italian street a nerve wrecking experience” were at least “pleasing to look at when at rest,” according to the catalogue.24 Italians were good at design, and perhaps manufacturing, but are still not advanced enough to consider issues of safety. A need for US paternalism was continuously coded in this exhibition, not only to maintain a hierarchy among the two trans-Atlantic allies but to remind US taxpayers that Italy’s economic needs was connected to a moral need to modernize. As De Grazia outlines in her book, these early Cold War set of programs tried “to bind western Europe to its own concept of consumer democracy and by warring to overturn the Soviet block’s state socialism.”25 Exhibitions like Italy at Work showcased the material offerings of this new consumer abundance under democracy. The catalogue text says as much: “the great health of Italy and our western world, the producer-consumer

Organizing Italy at Work  23 chain must be completed.” The show reignited “that stream of creative imagination— warm and rich in human values—which has inspired our civilization from its beginnings.”27 The use of ‘our’ here should again not be overlooked. Italy served as a way to connect the United States to Europe on a cultural level. The United States sought cultural validation in the face of attacks from the USSR and used Italian art and design as a way to do so.28 The US-Italian partnership strengthened the ‘West’ against the ‘East’ and its unproductive and consumer poor bolshevism. The US-led post-war productivity ‘rebirth’ in Italy had clear political aims. The exhibition’s connection to the cultural aspects of the new Cold War went beyond the material ambitions of the Marshall Plan. For Italy at Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today, this ‘renaissance’ was reflected in the individuality of each artist or artisan, akin to a genius ‘renaissance man’. Modeling how viewers would find individuality in the works of the exhibition, an aesthetic and material ‘variety’ was represented as ‘the instinctive craving of the Italian craftsmen’. For Rogers, individuality could also be seen through the imprecise nature of multiples, each one individual, varied, like the artist who had created it.29 The catalogue was launched with the sentences: “[t]he Italian is an individualist. Hence this exhibition.”30 The “individualist” theme pervades the exhibition texts to represent the reborn creative spirit after Fascism as well as the new democratic citizen participating in capitalist production. The connection between Italy’s humanist tradition in the Renaissance and the contemporary ‘individual’ spirit aligns clearly with other US ideals. In his critical history of the period, historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. discussed how the US shift from the New Deal to the Marshall Plan was brought about by the “unconditional rejection of totalitarianism and a reassertion of the ultimate integrity of the individual.”31 He traced this individualist idea back to the Renaissance.32 The focus on the individuality of each artisan in Italy at Work was not a neutral framework. The individual was part of a, importantly non-collectivist, community under the various capitalist democracies on the side of the United States in the Cold War. It should be no surprise that Schlesinger clearly understood the stakes of Marshall Plan culture because he served in the Office of Strategic Services (OSS)—the precursor to the CIA—starting in 1943.33 Like Italy at Work, a number of comparable networks of Cultural Cold War power have been tracked by contemporary historians. Oliver Schmidt has argued that powerful foundations like the Rockefeller Foundation and Ford Foundation—similar to the way art institutions like AIC or Brooklyn also functioned—used their already established cultural capital for 26

combating the appeal of communist ideology among intellectuals, creating networks of institutions working toward … West European integration, or “Atlantic solidarity,” and supporting individuals contributing to a “transatlantic society.”34 The most effective among these Cultural Cold War programs that sought to achieve this was the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF), which was a covert arm of the newly forming Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).35 The CCF had a dual function: as “a domestic propaganda campaign designed to persuade American public opinion of the need for a more united Europe” and “to arrange discreet American financial assistance for the European supporters of such a federalist initiatives as the Council of Europe, the Schuman Plan and the European Army.”36 In fact, the Italian delegation to the 1950 meeting of CCF in Berlin received clandestine funds, through private bank accounts, from the US

24 Organizing Italy at Work government for their anti-Communist mission.37 Cultural elites were often among the ranks of CCF in order to bring credence to their programs; art world collaborators included the American art critic Clement Greenberg.38 As art historian Francis Frascina has shown, the actions of the US government (overt and covert) reflected “insecurities about [American] national identity and cultural values.… As the United States being perceived as brash, consumerist, without deep cultural traditions” seen in Europe.39 The CCF set up intellectuals in a kind of Foucauldian bind where academic freedom existed but was self-censored in the pursuit of the ‘freedom’ under the Cultural Cold War.40 The broader context of seemingly disparate cultural leadership working in both covert and overt ways to support Cold War ideas sheds further light on the broader implications of Italy at Work as a state-sponsored exhibition. With Italy at Work setting up Italian individualism as successfully responding to the ravages of war, in opposition to failed collectivism (i.e., Communism), the exhibition was used to shore up various ideas about cultural ‘freedom’ in the new Cold War landscape. Teague explicitly singled out Communist collectivity’s failure to create good handicrafts and, therefore, inferring a failure to bring a high standard of living to democratic Italy. In his Interiors magazine article about Italy at Work, he echoed similar comments in the exhibition catalogue, writing “in one community only [… we saw] a pall of conformity resting on the craftsmen, and we learned later that this group had been organized as an adjunct of the Communist party: here again politics was operating as a blight on individualism.”41 This created an opposition between Italian individualism and Communism, simultaneously making the attribute of good design that of democratic capitalism. As a Brooklyn Museum press release explicitly articulated, Italians were “individualistic freeloving people … [an] example of democracy.”42 Individuality represented not merely a material quality of Italian handicraft but an ideological one. The Individualist Italian artisan was a good democratic citizen. With this in mind, it sets up the works exhibited in Italy at Work as physical manifestations of both the “Market Empire” and also the success of the United States to solidify capitalist democracies in Europe. The design goods served as a visual reminder of the power of ‘freedom’ to subjugate ‘communist’ ideas in a population. Importantly, the intended audiences for this propaganda was both American consumer-taxpayers as much as it was Italians. Italy at the End of WWII The year 1948 marked a watershed moment in Italy-US relations in the early Cold War. In part, it was the culmination of American intervention in war-time Italy. Mussolini’s deposition from the premiership and the establishment of the Saló Republic in 1943 sparked civil war.43 Initially, popular celebrations championing the end of Fascism with Mussolini’s fall from favor in Rome, reflected the Italians’ war fatigue. Yet without a clear path forward for the monarchy or their new formerly-Fascist Prime Minister Marshal Badoglio, these popular demonstrations found a violent response from Italian authorities.44 This period of uncertainty led to a civil war (1943–1945) with a secret armistice between Italy and the Allies in 1943. As historian Christopher Duggan outlines, by the time an armistice was signed on 3 September, the Germans had poured reinforcements into the peninsula [and occupied Rome].… This left Italy divided. The king and his government fled Rome to escape the Nazis, and set up residence

Organizing Italy at Work  25 in Brindisi: an act easily constructed as cowardice, which sealed the fate of the monarchy in 1946.45 The new Italian leadership failed to understand that Nazi Germany would not relent after armistice. Instead, Hitler made it clear that he controlled the Italian peninsula after Mussolini’s deposition. The Germans liberated Mussolini from prison and subsequently installed him at the head of the puppet government in the north—the Republic of Salò, which was named for their base city on Lake Garda. Returning to the brutality of the early Fascist Black Shirts, the Republic of Salò hired troops of criminals as a private police force. Yet the Salò violence paled in comparison to that of the German forces who controlled the Northern regions.46 Though most histories focus on the Italian partisan resistance, many Italians, either still loyal to Mussolini or disloyal to the Allied alliance, fought for the German intelligence. This contingent of German supporters included a number of prominent cultural elites. For example, in Milan, major gallerists and art collectors turned over Jewish and partisan artists and architects to the Germans.47 Not only had a huge number of artists, designers, and architects benefited under the Fascist regime’s exhibition and patronage systems, but some continued their support for the Axis powers after Mussolini’s fall.48 With a strong German presence, even south of Rome, the slow-moving Allied forces found more fighting than they had anticipated. This delay in Allied liberation fostered a movement that would become “very important for Italy’s political future.”49 As historian Paul Ginsborg described, “there are innumerable testimonies to a new spirit being born among certain, as yet restricted, minorities of the Italian population.”50 This sense of a new post-Fascist Italian spirit, one that had been brewing ever sense the Pact of Steel (1939), exploded to the fore of a reunified sense of Italian culture after Fascism. After the end of the war, a “new order in Italy would be built upon the ‘values of the Resistance’: democracy, freedom, honesty, accountability, openness, and modernity.”51 However, this anointing of the Partisan ideal contrasted starkly with the realities of postwar justice. The majority of the Fascist perpetrators of atrocities, both members of the Republic of Salò and regular citizens who had supported the German occupation, received amnesty, while many actual Partisans were prosecuted in huge numbers, often for petty crimes.52 In this sense, the idea of the hero partisan outweighed the reality in the service of a new sense of Italian culture. The heroics of the resistance fighters vividly came to life in the first of the Neorealist films, Roberto Rossellini’s Roma città aperta [Rome Open City] in 1945.53 The film hit US shores in 1948, after being brought to the United States by an America G.I. (as a film reel in a duffle bag) who had purchased the US rights from Rossellini for $20,000.54 In the United States, the firm Mayer-Burstyn purchased it and worked to get the film past US censorship panels.55 This film vividly illustrated Italy’s new collective, if fabricated, memory. As historian Filippo Focardi describes, [t]he key features of this [new public memory] narrative were a portrayal of the Italians as “victims” of Fascism and of a war desired by Mussolini, a re-dimensioning of Italian responsibilities in the Axis war, the blame for which was laid entirely upon the Duce and the former German ally, and, finally a glorification of the role played by the Italian people in the struggle against Nazi Germany and its fascist allies after the armistice.56

26 Organizing Italy at Work Films like Rome Open City separated Italy from the history of Fascism, WWII, and German Nazism. For international audiences, especially in the United States, Rossellini’s films became international icons of the Italian resistance, of the so-called “Second Risorgimento.”57 As film historian Peter Bondanella describes, Rome Open City “so completely reflected the moral and psychological atmosphere of the moment [in which] it was created.”58 Its very production seemed to mimic the clandestine activities of the partisans. Rossellini sourced film from the black market and production started almost immediately after the Allies took Rome from the Germans.59 This film was simultaneously a document of destruction and regeneration. These two aspects will be keenly reflected in the artwork on display in Italy at Work. Though there is a large scholarly dialogue about how and to what effect “realism” plays a role in this film, the first in Rossellini’s “War Trilogy” (Rome Open City, 1945; Paisan, 1946; Germany Year Zero, 1948), the narrative still offers an illustration of some of the mess that was Italy in the final years of WWII.60 As Bondanella puts it, Rossellini captured forever the tension and the tragedy of Italian experiences during the German occupation of Rome and the beginnings of the partisan struggle against the Nazi occupiers.… While he fuses Catholic and Communist elements of the Resistance into a coherent storyline, he never avoids the hints of tension between the two groups who will oppose each other when the struggle against the Nazis has ended.61 Though there were casualties, as many as 100,000 partisans, this film captured the sense that despite this the “sacrifices of the Resistance were not made in vain [because they] did much to salvage Italy’s tarnished image and give the Italians new faith in themselves.”62 Like the destroyed cultural heritage sites, their sacrifice would be operative in serving to represent a new Italian culture both at home and abroad. The reconstruction of Italian culture and the Italian state was at stake and these issues never left the minds of all parties involved. Germans, Italians, Americans, and the British all had different visions of what Italy might look like after the war. As the Allies begun to take hold of the peninsula, the British felt a kind of ownership over the country since “the Mediterranean was traditionally a strategic aim of the British.”63 The legacy of the Grand Tour history undoubtedly informed British interest in Italy—tourism was still strong until WWII.64 However, the shift to the post-war period of peace would move Italy’s alliance from the British to the Americans, in part because of the distrust of the British support for the Italian monarchy.65 With the new anti-monarchical Prime Minister, Ivone Bonomi, replacing Churchill-backed Pietro Badoglio, the end to the Italian monarchy was firmly settled with the 1946 referendum that changed Italy from a monarchy to a republic— though in a somewhat narrow victory of 12.7 to 10.7 million.66 The Italians turned to the United States for support and leadership as a democratically. Two years after abolishing the monarchy, Italy held democratic elections in 1948, which reflected the shifting political landscape of the new Republic. De Gasperi’s 1947 plea, that opened this chapter, coincided with the American realization that the PCI (Partito Comunista Italiano or Italian Communist Party) had a good chance of gaining the Premiership in the upcoming elections. If the PCI won, the United States thought, the balance in Europe would have shifted—the Italian PCI was not a Soviet puppet, however, like some other communist parties in Europe.67 The fear Americans had was that since

Organizing Italy at Work  27 Yugoslavia had already sided with the Soviets, Moscow had its eyes set on Italy’s strategic Mediterranean shipping and naval location. Historian David Ellwood recounts that “American experts in ‘counter-insurgency’ [have] looked back 10 years later on the Italian campaign of 1948 as opening a new era of ‘psychological warfare’.”68 For the Americans, Italy needed to be protected from a PCI premiership by any means necessary. Yet “no overall propaganda strategy existed: anything to stop the left was allowed.”69 The idea that American foreign policy had “no overall propaganda strategy” lines up with the erratic economic support and the inconsistent archival record. Since there was no unified strategy, the United States kept adding new initiatives to their mission to keep Italy on their side in the Cold War. In the end, De Gasperi and his conservative DC party won the premiership. Italy at Work fit into this shotgun style propaganda strategy that continued even after the DC win in the 1948 elections. Italy’s historic instability made US intervention necessary in the eyes of policymakers like Secretary of State Cordell Hull.70 According to the Hullian doctrine, “Italy should become a stable but independent member of the European community” with an eventual “transition from autarchy to an open world economy.”71 With the threat of continued instability, Italy had seen a rapid influx of American monies and propaganda meant to sway the victory toward De Gasperi’s DC party.72 Though there are still debates as to the efficacy of these initiatives.73 The United States additionally expressed a desire to continue economic recovery support following the elections, no matter the result.74 Yet despite outward assurances, it was clear to many that if the DC lost so too would have Italy.75 In a sense, Italy at Work would likely not have found funding if the PCI had won the premiership. Though informal discussions about this kind of exhibition were circulated as early as 1945, The Metropolitan Museum being the first proposed venue, the organization of Italy at Work did not really commence until after the DC victory in 1948.76 The timing was unlikely a coincidence. Marshall Plan Funding and “Italy at Work” In the Spring of 1948—the election was in April—Italy received US$25 million in loans and another US$133 million in “direct grant” monies with over US$555 million committed for the rest of 1948 and 1949.77 Under the ERP, the ECA authorized 152 projects by the end of 1949 with over 350 American personnel throughout Europe. Their activities included bringing foreign managers to tour American factories and sending cutting-edge equipment to Europe.78 Though there is little documentation of specific projects, an ECA report outlined their broad goals. The Italian recommendations were: 1. Establishment of Boards, Committees, or Offices under government sponsorship, with all-industry or part-government, part-industry membership, to promote exports. 2. Preferential treatment to dollar exporters in obtaining raw materials, machinery, and labor, or import licenses. 3. Assistance in export financing by such means as export credit guarantee schemes. 4. Incentives to exporters in one or more of the following forms: (a) permitting retention in part of the proceeds of sales to dollar areas to be used for the most part for specified purposes related to further development of the export business in question; (b) granting allowances for dollar expenditures in export promotion; (c) giving preferences in obtaining dollar exchange. 5. Promotion of market research and publicity.79

28 Organizing Italy at Work These four ECA parameters would be reflected in the US support of indigenous Italian culture in Italy at Work. At the end of WWII, one of Italy’s central exports was cultural goods, with a significant number of these citizens involved in artisan industries. As a 1949 US Government report outlined, the total industrial workforce (including industries such as: textiles, metallurgy, mining, construction, etc.) numbered 2,932,600 in 1948, while the smaller artisan companies employed 1,300,700.80 Though the artisan workforce had recovered at 97.7% of its pre-war level (1938), it is unclear if Fascist state-support for these industries had been factored in nor was it clear if this was adjusted for inflation. By 1949, when this report was created, artisan production amounted to almost one-third of the industrial workforce. No directly corresponding data as to gross output for these industries were provided in this report; however, the sub-category of “handicrafts” made US$600,000 in 1948–49, when the total Gross National Product was estimated at almost eleven billion.81 That would be only about .005% GNP for over one million workers in artisan industries. These numbers are important because they show the real impact of artisan industries (from ceramics to leather goods) on the Italian economy at the time Italy at Work was being developed. Though ECA funds also went to larger industrial sectors, the artisan industries were some of the most important for the US funding program because of their political significance. These artisan industries were the focus of a later 1956 study—after the close of the exhibition.82 It stated that small artisan firms had hired almost a million workers with financing from the “Artisan Trader’s Credit Fund” between 1951 and 1952. The international market for Italian design sparked by Italy at Work had some role in this increase (details of this will be explored in the final chapter of this book). Likewise, as a 1952 study from the Mutual Security Agency shows, direct support of industrial modernization by the “[i]ntensification of credit assistance to handicraft, through the Handicraft Fund [that] improved in organization and increased from 500 to 5,500 million Lire,” as one of its nine major post-war fiscal balancing solutions.83 From the large amount of Marshall Plan monies spent in Italy, the support for artisan industries had both material and political import. Exhibitions like Italy at Work were part of this larger US propaganda program that supported art and culture on both sides of the Atlantic for various (divergent even) motives and audiences. Italy was singled out by the US State Department to support their domestic cultural institutions. In a correspondence between Brooklyn Museum curator Charles Nagel and local officials and community leaders, he made it clear that this particular project was supported by both governments ideologically.84 However, negotiations about the funding of the exhibition were ongoing. Italy at Work organizers wanted broader financial support, but US Government officials were strict in that ECA funding could only be spend inside of US soil. A memorandum from Nagel’s assistant, Thelma B. Bedell, even shows that the organizers initially tried to get funding directly from a judiciary arm of the US government, through judge Joseph P. Marcelle, but to no avail.85 This meant that there was financial support to send curators and jurors to Italy as well as import some 2,500 objects for the show, but the funds needed to support the physical installations were tasks to each museum to fund.86 This was no small funding gap. The Italy-based arm of the ECA, the CNA was funded through the US ExportImport Bank under the auspices of the ERP starting in 1947.87 With a cultural and

Organizing Italy at Work  29 economic agenda, CNA produced international traveling exhibitions of Italian art, craft, and industrial products, distributed modern machinery provided by the United States to Italian artisans, and functioned as an export manager for Italian producers, with a particular focus on cultivating and serving American buyers.88 A wide variety of artists, artisans, and industrial firms in Italy participated in the activities organized by the CNA.89 These exhibitions focused attention on the artisan traditions in Italy, while at the same time supporting fine art that incorporated materials traditionally associated with the craft. Here, it might be helpful to note that researching the CNA can be difficult, beyond the typical reasons (lost archives, etc.). There is another organization, which also relates to artisan production and uses the same acronym. The Confederazione Nazionale Artigianato (National Artisan Confederation or Trade Union, also known as CNA) is a type of trade-union that continues to operate today. By 1946, the organization founded in 1925 by the Fascists, ENPO (Ente nazionale per le piccole industrie or National Corporation for Small Industries) had been reestablished as the Confederazione Nazionale Artigianato.90 It is unlikely that the acronym similarities were mere coincidence. Though there is no clear evidence in the archives, it is reasonable to assume that it was fortuitous for the ECA to name its organization to mimic one already operating in the country and in the same field. Beyond this, the left-leaning nature of the Confederazione and its increased connection to the PCI, despite its historical connections to Fascism, would likely have influenced the United States to choose a copy-cat name for their own pro-capitalist organization.91 Early in the Marshall Plan’s development, a focus on supporting small industry and artisan production in Italy was made evident in the United States through large public newspapers.92 In fact, there was a mutual desire, both American and Italian, to support these industries. Italian leaders likewise supported ECA funding of artisan production. As the head of the Confederazione generale dell’industria italiana (General Confederation of Italian Industry), the most important industrialists’ association in Italy, Angelo Costa, saw that small firms and traditional artisan techniques were the key to Italy’s economic future because they had been for centuries.93 Likewise, the Italian Ministry of Industry reinforced the importance of funding small artisan industry by connecting artisan production with a kind of Italianità (Italianness). Artisan production responds to the unique qualities of our people: these qualities are an individualistic spirit and an elevated creative capacity. For its further development, however, it has urgently occurred to the state by the end of 1947 to support legislation for artisan credit. This credit would intervene in a country like ours, poor in natural resources and rich in ingenious manpower: by exploiting manpower to the full, twice as much as now, in order to implement a new productive directive, by reenforcing creative organs with all the technical and economic assistance possible and by strengthening the mercantile apparatus for the most effective distribution of artisan-produced commodities at home and abroad.94 Therefore, artisan production was necessary to satisfy the Italian “spirit” and the attendant labor resources were ready and willing so long as the necessary capital came through.

30 Organizing Italy at Work Italianità is a term that was most explicitly used under the Fascist Regime to describe an ideal Italian civilization. As historian and theorist Emilio Gentile wrote, this Fascist rhetoric originated as an artistic ideal. The “myth of Italianism” was seen as a necessity of a radical process of moral, cultural, and political regeneration meant to give birth to a “new Italian.” Long before the birth of fascism, Futurism urged the necessity of overcoming the barriers between culture and politics by means of a symbiosis between culture and life, a symbiosis designed to reawaken the intellectual and moral energies of the Italians, to endow them with a new sense of Italianness and spur them to the conquest of new preeminences. Artists and intellectuals were to abandon the privileged isles of aristocratic individualism and immerse themselves in the impetuous flux of modern life in order to become the artificers, the spiritual guides of the New Italy.95 Therefore, as with the curatorial selections for Italy at Work, the framework for the Italian-based focus on artisan production (or design more broadly speaking) was still tied to their not-very-distant Fascist past. Turning back to the CNA and its funding structure, in total, it received financial backing of US$4,625,000 from the US Export-Import Bank with ECA moneys.96 Their agreement with the Export-Import Bank guaranteed that exports from Italy were to be duty free, with the primary export focus on ceramics and glasswork.97 However, these funds were not given interest-free, nor did they preclude all import fees in reality. The monies were loaned interest-free only until 1953, with a repayment guarantee of 1960.98 As the Italy at Work exhibition archives show, items shipped to the United States for the exhibition had to return to Italy to be duty free. If individuals or institutions wanted to purchase the exhibition objects in Italy at Work they would have to pay the requisite duty fees.99 In addition to these funds, the CNA received raw materials and new equipment from the United States that were to be brought into the country to further support these focus artisan industries.100 Most importantly, a supply of new ceramic furnaces from the United States helped to modernize Italian ceramic production that was still dependent upon antiquated hand-made furnaces, allowing work to be created with more controlled and consistent firing. These supports likely helped along what “the Italian handicraft industries have succeeded in building themselves up and returning to their former vitality.”101 In addition to managing and distributing funds and materials, the CNA also organized exhibitions of Italian design in Europe and the United States. Their first American exhibition was held in 1947. Titled Handicraft as a fine art in Italy, it featured artists and artisans. Promotion and exhibition organizing came from the American arm of the CNA, known as the House of Italian Handicraft (HIH), based in New York—it seems the shell company CNA was able to use ECA funds on US soil in this roundabout way.102 A large Italian expatriate coalition helped organize this exhibition including the organization CADMA (Commissione Assistenza Distribuzione Materiali Artigianato or Artisan Materials Distribution Assistance Commission), headed by theorist and art critic Carlo Ludovico Ragghianti, in collaboration with the vocal anti-Fascist immigrant Max Ascoli. Ascoli was the founder of the Handicrafts Development Incorporated, an earlier-developed private organization to help artists and artisans in Italy.103 Ascoli likely had a significant impact on the funding choices made in the earlier years of the Marshall Plan—his particular support for Italy at Work will be discussed in detail in the following chapter.

Organizing Italy at Work  31 As CNA’s first American exhibition, Handicraft as a fine art in Italy became an ideological template for subsequent exhibitions. Works of Italian production were represented to viewers as evidence of an American social victory, following the military victories of the previous years. The exhibition’s catalogue described Italian contemporary art production as the direct result of American economic and cultural stimuli by the Marshall Plan. In addition, the exhibition sought to strengthen American popular support of European economic and cultural recovery efforts. According to the exhibition catalogue, Handicraft as a fine art in Italy strove to “perfect the quality of the Italian handicrafts by means of collaboration between artists and craftsmen [...as it] is hoped that the American public may accord a favorable reception of this work, planned and carried out especially on its behalf.”104 The ideals of the centrality of American interventionism and the concurrent consumer demand would become a central tenet for future CNA exhibitions in the United States. Though the show’s title suggested an exhibition of art-aspiring handicraft, the works included were almost exclusively created by already well-known Italian fine art sculptors and painters. Therefore, the misleading title hints at the second major template for US-sponsored exhibitions of Italian handicraft: the idea that by fostering the collaboration among artists and artisans, the Americans could enrich the old-fashioned traditional handicraft in both Italy and the United States. Handicraft as a Fine Art in Italy included the most prominent painters and sculptors of time, including Pietro Consagra (1920–2005), Agenore Fabbri (1911–98), Lucio Fontana (1988–1968), Renato Guttuso (1911–87), Carlo Levi (1902–75), Marino Marini (1901–80), Fausto Melotti (1901–86) Giorgio Morandi (1890–1964), and Aligi Sassu (1912–2000) and the designer and architect Ettore Sottsass (1917–2000).105 Each of the participating producers was given a full page spread in the exhibition catalogue; this included a headshot of the artist, a short biography that emphasized the importance of the artist in existing fine art collections, and an image of one of their works. However, in the lavishly illustrated catalogue, little evidence was given for the claimed collaboration with artisans introduced in the catalogue’s “Preface.” This should not be surprising since the pre-existing Italian artist-artisan collaboration had been coopted for a new political agenda. In order to reinforce this rhetoric, the exhibition de-historicized a number of works in order to fit the exhibition framing as new American-led productions. Most importantly, this process of stripping the works of their historical meaning reveals the early workings of the commodification of Italian culture. Italy at Work was the next step in this political program to shore up the Italian economy and, correspondingly, its new capitalist democracy. The US State support for these cultural industries clearly lined up with their earliest initiatives into the Cultural Cold War. Not long after Handicraft as a fine art in Italy, CNA began work on Italy at Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today. Organizers brought together disparate works of contemporary Italian cultural production. The huge exhibition, even by contemporary standards, was produced in just about a year. In 1949, Rogers took an initial scouting trip to Italy, while Nagel coordinated the operations State-side to bring Italy at Work to fruition. In Italy, a small staff at CNA worked out of Florence, made up of Americans Richard Miller and Ramy Alexander and an Italian, Alberto Antico—Alexander was also a representative for Ascoli’s Handicraft Development Inc. This Italian-based team helped organize studio visits, paperwork, publications, and material for export for Rogers’ initial trip to Italy.106

32 Organizing Italy at Work At this stage, the still nascent exhibition was titled “Italian Contemporary Industrial Arts”; so sometime by the end of that year, the new, more politicized, title was in place.107 There was still some debate in 1949 as to the scope of the project, the members of the Jury, and funding. During the initial trip, Rogers met with a number of important architects including Fabrizio Clerici, Ernesto Rogers (no relation) and Enrico Peressutti, both of BBPR, and Gio Ponti—only Ponti would design a major work for Italy at Work in the end. Rogers also met with a number of artists and artisans. Among them, sculptor Fausto Melotti was singled out; Rogers described his ceramic work as “special production” in the field notes.108 Returning to Italy in the spring of 1950, the larger American jury, including Rogers and designer Walter Dorwin Teague, made “its selections in a tour of over three thousand miles.”109 Roger’s ex-wife, Anne Strother Kirk (later Cooke), “acted as recorder for this expedition, and members of the selection committee” while the group “visited more than 300 separate sources.”110 The group met up with Ramy Alexander and traveled the country, “seeking out the Italian craftsmen in the odd places where they live and work, and selecting the objects to make up this collection.”111 In one of the opening images in the catalogue, the collaborators can be seen receiving one of the exhibition’s works in Florence. With some haste, works worth over 40 million Lire were selected and made the journey to the United States for exhibition after being inspected, photographed, and catalogued in the rooms of the Uffizi Galleries.112 In addition to US State support, the Italian government also financially supported the show. While final decisions about what would be included in the exhibition, in Florence, the Italian State was purchasing the to-beexhibited works from the producers before their export to New York. Italy spent over US$64,000 at the time.113 This investment, however, was meant to be temporary for the exhibition period only. In 1953, HIH was strategizing how to “reimburse” the Italian State. The sale of these items would be used to pay back the Italians and also any extra profits would “be distributed to charitable institutions … acceptable to the Italian Government” like those “charitable institutions [that were] Italian in nature as, for example, Italian Boys’ Town, etc.”114 Museum records do not show if or how much the Italian Government was reimbursed. What seems to have taken place is that some unsold works were ultimately donated to US institutions by the Italian Government.115 Through direct funding as well as indirect political influence, the exhibition Italy at Work: Her Renaissance in Design reflected the ideals of the Cultural Cold War. It set up Italy as a good capitalist democracy of productive and creative ‘individuals’ that valued US paternalism. At the same time, the rhetoric of the show connects it with the longer trend of the US “Market Empire” and its impact on European ideas about standards of living, consumerism, and democracy. Italy at Work was truly a microcosm of political and cultural agendas in the immediate post-WWII period. Notes 1 Christopher Lasch. “The Cultural Cold War: A Short History of The Congress for Cultural Freedom.” In A New Past: Dissenting Essays in American History, edited by Barton J. Bernstein, 322–59. New York: Pantheon Books, 1968. 2 “...soft power resources [are] cultural attraction, ideology, and international institutions…” Joseph S. Nye. Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power. New York: Basic Books, 1990. 188. 3 Lasch, “The Cultural Cold War.” 323.

Organizing Italy at Work  33 4 There is much to unpack here that does not fit in this volume in terms of the construction of “Western” culture. Of course it is centered around the ideas outlined by Said in his canonical essay on Orientalism. Edward Said, Orientalism. New York: Vintage, 1978. 5 “Italy at Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today,” 1951, in AIC Archives: Department of Decorative Arts Exhibition Records 1951–53, Art Institute of Chicago. 6 Victoria De Grazia. “Visualizing the Marshall Plan: The Pleasures of American Consumer Democracy or the Pains of ‘the Greatest Structural Adjustment Program in History’?” in Images of the Marshall Plan in Europe. Films, Photographs, Exhibits, Posters, edited by Günter Bischof and Dieter Stiefel, 25–37. Innsbruck: Studienverlag Ges.m.b.H., 2009. 25. 7 “And after the war’s end this rediscovery of Italy steadily gathered momentum. Rome and the islands of the Bay of Naples became head-quarters for an influential wing of the culture avant-garde. The postwar American programs of economic and military aid sent to the peninsula hundreds of United States citizens—economists, army and navy men, and agricultural specialists. The American motion picture industry experimented with making films in this land of low wages and reliable sunshine, and in their turn Italian pictures enjoyed a high prestige in the United States. Similarly, Italian luxury products found eager American buyers. Above all, the years after 1947 brought to Italy a flood of tourists that reached its height in the mass pilgrimages to Rome during the Holy Year of 1950.” Henry Stuart Hughes. The United States and Italy. 3rd ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1979. 13. 8 Relazione della X Commissione Permenente. Ministero dell’industria. Roma: Camera dei Deputati, 1949. 9 Antonio Vasori. “De Gasperi, Nenni, Sforza and their Role in Post-War Italian Foreign Policy.” In Power in Europe? Great Britain, France, Italy and Germany in a Postwar World, 1945–1950. Edited by Josef Becker and Franz Knipping. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1986. 99. 10 “The Diplomatic struggle of post-war [WWI] Europe was embittered by ideological conflicts cutting across national frontiers, which in magnitude and fanaticism bore a striking resemblance to the religious wars of the seventeenth century. The new ideologies of Fascism and Communism, which tended to fill the emotional void left by the decline of organized religion, soon manifested the dynamic drive and all-inclusive character of earlier religious movements. Both doctrines owed their origins to the teachings of Karl Marx, which affected Mussolini in the editorial offices of the Socialist news paper Avanti! no less than Lenin in his Siberian prison.” Vera Micheles Dean. Europe in Retreat. New York: Alfred A Knopf, 1939. 86–7. 11 Vasori. ““De Gasperi, Nenni, Sforza and their Role.” 99. “Italy Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation Treaty.” Office of Trade Agreements Negotiations and Compliance, no. 1 12 UST 131; TIAS 4685., http://tcc.export.gov/Trade_Agreements/All_Trade_Agreements/ exp_005443.asp. [Accessed: May 20, 2015] 12 “OUR BACKING ASKED FOR U.S. OF EUROPE: 81 Prominent Americans Sign Petition for Union.” New York Times, Apr. 18 1947, 12. Emphasis original in title text. 13 As historian Max Beloff summarized, the “use of [US] aid to induce acceptance of and compliance with the plan [was] uppermost.” Max Beloff. The United States and the Unity of Europe. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institute, 1963. 17. 14 Victoria de Grazia. “Visualizing the Marshall Plan: The Pleasures of American Consumer Democracy or the Pains of ‘the Greatest Structural Adjustment Program in History’?” Chap. 2 In Images of the Marshall Plan in Europe. Films, Photographs, Exhibits, Posters, edited by Günter Bischof and Dieter Stiefel, 25–37. Innsbruck: Studienverlag Ges.m.b.H., 2009. 25–26. 15 De Grazia. “Visualizing the Marshall Plan.” 26. 16 De Grazia. “Visualizing the Marshall Plan.” 27. 17 De Grazia. “Visualizing the Marshall Plan.” 29. 18 Rogers. “Introduction.” In Italy At Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today, 13–18. Rome: The Compagnia Nazionale Artigiana, 1950. 13 19 Rogers. “Introduction.” In Italy At Work. 13. 20 Rogers. “Introduction” 13. 21 Rogers. “Introduction” 14. 22 De Grazia, Irresistible Empire. 338. 23 Rogers. “Introduction.” 13. 24 Italy at Work. 49.

34 Organizing Italy at Work 5 De Grazia. Irresistible Empire. 5. 2 26 Rogers. “Introduction.” 18. 27 Rogers. “Introduction.” 18. 28 Gamble. “Buying Marino Marini,” pp. 155–72. 29 Rogers. “The Arts and Crafts in Italy Today.” In Italy at Work 21. 30 Roger. “Introduction.” 13. 31 Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. The Vital Center: The Politics of Freedom. Cambridge, Mass.: The Riverside Press, 1962 (1949). xxiii. 32 Schlesinger. The Vital Center. 166–69. 33 Robert Schlesinger. “Arthur Schlesinger Jr.’s Not-So-Secret Career as a Spy.” U.S. News & World Report (Aug. 20, 2008). https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2008/08/20/arthurschlesinger-jrs-not-so-secret-career-as-a-spy [accessed Jul. 20, 2022] 34 Oliver Schmidt. “Small Atlantic World: U.S. Philanthropy and the Expanding International Exchange of Scholars after 1945.” Chap. 6 In Culture and International History, edited by Jessica C.E. Gienow-Hecht and Frank Schumacher, 115–34. New York: Berghahn Books, 2003. 121. 35 Thomas W. Braden. “I’m glad the CIA is ‘immoral’.” The Saturday Evening Post, May 20, 1967, 10–14. For context, see: Alexander Bloom. Prodigal sons: the New York intellectuals & their world. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986. 267; and W. Scott Lucas. “Revealing the Parameters of Opinion: An Interview with Frances Stonor Saunders.” Chap. 2 In The Cultural Cold War in Western Europe, 1945–1960, edited by Giles Scott-Smith and Hans Krabbendam. The Intelligence Series, 15–40. London: Frank Cass Publishers, 2003. 16–23. 36 Hugh Wilford. “Calling the Tune? The CIA, The British Left, and the Cold War, 1945–1960.” Chap. 3 In The Cultural Cold War in Western Europe, 1945–1960, edited by Giles Scott-Smith and Hans Krabbendam. The Intelligence Series, 41–50. London: Frank Cass Publishers, 2003. 46. 37 Frances Stonor Saunders. The Cultural Cold War. The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters. New York: The New Press, 1999. 76–107. 38 Francis Frascina. “Institutions, Culture, and America’s ‘Cold War Years’: The Making of Greenberg’s ‘Modernist Painting’.” Oxford Art Journal 26, no. 1 (2003): 76. 39 Frascina. Ibid. 88. 40 Christopher Lasch. “The Cultural Cold War: A Short History of The Congress for Cultural Freedom.” In A New Past: Dissenting Essays in American History, edited by Barton J. Bernstein, 322–59. New York: Pantheon Books, 1968. 137. 41 Teague, “Italian Shopping Trip,” 199. 42 Isadora Bennett and Richard Pleasant, “‘Italy at Work — Her Renaissance in Design Today’ Largest Museum Show Ever Brought to This Country to Tour United States 3 Years Opens at Brooklyn Museum November 29th.” Brooklyn: Brooklyn Museum, 1950. pp. 2. 43 Paul Ginsborg. A History of Contemporary Italy. Society and Politics 1943–1988. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003. 12. 44 Ginsborg. A History of Contemporary Italy. 12 45 Christopher Duggan. A Concise History of Italy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. 240. 46 Ginsborg. A History of Contemporary Italy. 55. 47 See: Bruno B. Zevi. “Letter to Alfred H. Barr, Jr.,” Feb. 17, 1947, Alfred H. Barr, Jr. Papers. Owned by Museum of Modern Art, New York; microfilmed by Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution. MF3153. 48 In the past few decades, a large number of studies of Fascist era art and design have shed light on the complex relationship between material culture producers and the regime. For example, see: Ruth Ben-Ghiat. Fascist Modernities: Italy, 1922–1945. Berkley: University of California Press, 2001; Francesca Billiani. Fascist Modernism in Italy: Arts and Regimes. New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2021; Emily Braun. Mario Sironi and Italian Modernism. Art and Politics under Fascism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000; Post Zang Tumb Tuuum: Art, Life Politics, Italia 1918–1943, edited by G. Celant, Milan: Fondazione Prada 2018; Claudia Salaris. La Quadriennale. Storia della rassegna d’arte italiana dagli anni Trenta a oggi = History of the Exhibition of Italian Art from the Thirties to Today. Translated by Felicity Lutz. Fondazione La Quadriennale di Roma. Venice: Marsilio Editori, 2004; The Thirties: the arts

Organizing Italy at Work  35 in Italy beyond fascism. Translated by Stephen Tobin and Lara Fantoni. Edited by Antonello Negri, Silvia Bignami, Paolo Rusconi and Giorgio Zanchetti Florence: Giunti, 2012. 49 Duggan. A Concise History of Italy. 241. 50 Ginsborg. A History of Contemporary Italy. 14 51 Duggan. A Concise History of Italy. 244. 52 Duggan. “Italy in the Cold War Years and the Legacy of Fascism.” In Italy in the Cold War. Politics, Culture and Society 1948–58, edited by Christopher Duggan and Christopher Wagstaff, 1–24. Oxford & Washington D.C.: Berg Publishers Limited, 1995. 4 and Filippo Focardi. “Reshaping the Past: Collective Memory and the Second World War in Italy, 1945–55.” In The Postwar Challenge. Cultural, Social, and Political Change in Western Europe, 1945–58, edited by Dominik Geppert, 41–63. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. 57. 53 It was also one of the very first films shown on Italian television. See: David Forgacs. “Rossellini’s Pictorial Histories.” Film Quarterly 64, no. 3 (2011): p. 31. 54 Tino Ballo. The Foreign Film Renaissance on American Screens, 1946–1973. Wisconsin Film Studies. Edited by Patrick McGilligan Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 2010. 40–41. 55 Ballo. The Foreign Film Renaissance on American Screens. 41–42. 56 Filippo Focardi. “Reshaping the Past: Collective Memory and the Second World War in Italy, 1945–55.” In The Postwar Challenge. Cultural, Social, and Political Change in Western Europe, 1945–58, edited by Dominik Geppert, 41–63. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. p. 41. 57 Focardi. Ibid. 44. 58 Peter Bondanella. A History of Italian Cinema. New York: The Continuum International Publishing Group, 2009. p. 67. 59 Bondanella. Ibid. 67. 60 See: Sergio J. Pacifici. “Notes towards a Definition of Neorealism.” Yale French Studies, no. 17 (1956): 44–53; Peter Brunette. “Rossellini and Cinematic Realism.” Cinema Journal 25, no. 1 (1985): 24–49; Millicent Marcus. “Pina’s Pregnancy, Traumatic Realism, and the After-Life of Open City.” Italica 85, no. 4 (2008): 426–38. 61 Bondanella,. A History of Italian Cinema. 67. 62 Duggan. A Concise History of Italy. 70. 63 Ginsborg. A History of Contemporary Italy. 39. 64 Ben-Ghiat and Stephanie Malia Hom. “Introduction.” In Italian Mobilities, edited by Ruth Ben-Ghiat and Stephanie Malia Hom, 1–19. New York: Routledge, 2016. 9. 65 John Lamberton Harper. America and the Reconstruction of Italy, 1945–1948. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986. 12. 66 Duggan. A Concise History of Italy. 243–48. 67 Alessandro Brogi. Confronting America: The Cold War Between the United States and the Communists in France and Italy. The New Cold War History. Edited by Odd Arne Westad Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2011. 24. 68 David Ellwood. “The 1948 elections in Italy: a cold war propaganda battle.” Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television 13, no. 1 (1993): 21. 69 Ellwood. “The 1948 elections in Italy.” 21. Also see: David F. Rudgers. “The Origins of Covert Action.” Journal of Contemporary History 35, no. 2 (Apr., 2000): 256. 70 John Lamberton Harper. America and the Reconstruction of Italy, 1945–1948. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986. 7–8. 71 Harper. America and the Reconstruction of Italy. 8. 72 Ellwood. “The Propaganda of the Marshall Plan in Italy in a Cold War Context.” 232; and W. Scott Lucas. “Beyond Freedom, Beyond Control: Approaches to Culture and the State-Private Networks in the Cold War.” In The Cultural Cold War in Western Europe, 1945–1960. Edited by Giles Scott-Smith and Hans Krabbendam, The Intelligence Series. London: Frank Cass Publishers, 2003. 58. 73 Ellwood, “Italian modernisation and the propaganda of the Marshall Plan.” Chap. 2 In The Art of Persuasion. Political Communication in Italy From 1945 to the 1990s, edited by Luciano Cheles and Lucio Sponza, 23–48. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 2001. 25. 74 Vasori. “De Gasperi, Nenni, Sforza and their Role in Post-War Italian Foreign Policy.” 106.

36 Organizing Italy at Work 75 Ronald L. Filippelli, American Labor and Postwar Italy: 1943–1953; a Study of Cold War Politics. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1989. 129. 76 See: Gertrude Dinsmore, “Memo: Revisions for Page 5 of Meyric Rogers’ Handbook for the Exhibition “Italy at Work”—Made by Mrs. Dinsmore House of Italian Handicrafts,” undated, in Records of the Office of the Director, Italy at Work 6: CN5051, Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, NY; and Rogers, Letter to Charles Nagel, Jr., Oct. 21, 1949, in Records of the Office of the Director, Italy at Work 1: CN4945, Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, NY. 77 Italy, Country Study, European Recovery Program. Economic Cooperation Administration. Washington, D.C.: United States Government Print Office, 1949. 5. 78 Country Data Book: All Participating Countries. Economic Cooperation Administration. Washington D.C.: United States, 1950. 3–5. 79 Country Data Book. 14–15. 80 Italy, Country Study, European Recovery Program. Economic Cooperation Administration. Washington, D.C.: United States Government Print Office, 1949. 63. 81 Italy, Country Study. 71 & 9. 82 Ten years of Italian democracy, 1946–1956. Presidency of the Council of Ministers, Information Office, Documentation Centre. Rome: Centro di documentazione, 1956. 178. 83 The development of Italy’s economic system within the framework of European recovery and cooperation. Mutual Security Agency. Rome: Comitato interministeriale per la ricostruzione, 1952. 35. 84 Charles Nagel. Letter to Ambassador James Clemete Dunn, July 7, 1950, in Records of the Office of the Director (Charles Nagel, 1946–55). Exhibitions: Italy at Work, 1 CN4945 Dir 1949–50, Brooklyn Museum Archives, Brooklyn. 85 Thelma S. Bedell. Memo to Charles Nagel, Aug. 30 1950, in Records of the Office of the Director (Charles Nagel, 1946–55). Exhibitions: Italy at Work, 1 CN49-45 Dir 1949–50, Brooklyn Museum Archives, Brooklyn. There must have been similar campaigns at the other institutions, but there were no other budget records in the main archive of the show at the Art Institute of Chicago. 86 Alexander Ramy, “Letter to Meyric Rogers,” Dec. 12, 1949, in Records of the Office of the Director, Italy at Work 1: CN5051, Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, NY 87 Relazione della X Commissione Permenente. Ministero dell’industria. Roma: Camera dei Deputati, 1949. 6. 88 There is little archival evidence left regarding this organization, so the information provided here is mainly derived from an institutional publication from 1949 outlining its prior two years of activities. Claudio Alhaique. Relazione sull’attività della Compagnia Nazionale Artigiana. Roma: Arti Grafiche A. Chicca, 1951. 29–39. 89 In the documents pertaining to CNA that I have been able to uncover, there is a huge lack of details about who participated on the ground in Italy. There are no lists of specific companies or artisans who received materials or funds in any of the documents. 90 Marco De Nicolò. Storia della Confederazione Nazionale dell’Artigianato. 2 vols. Vol. 1, Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino, 2016. 16. 91 “Fu soprattuto dopo il 1948 che i rapporti tra CNA e Pci si infittirono progressivamente.” De Nicolò. Storia della Confederazione Nazionale dell’Artigianato. 128. 92 “Sees Italy Making Steady Comeback.” New York Times, Dec. 24, 1946, 25; “Recovery in Italy by 1952 Forecast.” New York Times, Nov. 25, 1948, 55. 93 Ellwood. “The Propaganda of the Marshall Plan in Italy in a Cold War Context.” 230. 94 “Il lavoro artigiano risponde alle qualità peculiari del nostro poplo, che ha spirito individualista ed elevata capacità creativa; ma, per il suo sviluppo, occorreva che lo Stato, emanate fino dal 1947 le favorevoli disposizioni legislative per il credito all’artigianato, intervenisse, in un Paese come il nostro povero di materie prime e ricco di manodopera ingegnosissima, con mezzi più adeguati a valorizzare questa ricchezza, ad imprimerle un nuovo indirizzo produttivo, a rafforzare gli organismi creati per la tutela e l’assistenza tecnica ed economica ed a potenziare l’apparato mercantile per la maggiore diffusione dei consumi interni ed esterni della produzione artigianale.” Alhaique. Relazione sull’attività della Compagnia Nazionale Artigiana. 5. Note: all translations are the author’s unless otherwise noted. 95 Emilio Gentile. “The Conquest of Modernity: From Modernist Nationalism to Fascism.” Modernism/Modernity 1, no. 3 (1994): 59.

Organizing Italy at Work  37 96 Alhaique Relazione sull’attività della Compagnia Nazionale Artigiana. 6. 97 Alhaique. Relazione. 6 & 12. 98 Alhaique. Relazione. 10. 99 House of Italian Handicrafts, Inc., “Memorandum on ‘Italy at Work’,” May 26, 1953, in Records of the Office of the Director, Italy at Work: CN5253, Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, NY. 1. 100 Alhaique. Relazione. 12–22. To date, the author has been unable to find any archival evidence as to the quantity of these materials that were distributed or who specifically received them. 101 Ten years of Italian democracy. 179. 102 Carlo Ludovico Ragghianti. Handicraft as a Fine Art in Italy. New York: House of Italian Handicraft, 1947. 103 Nicoletta Comar. “Carlo Sbisà: Catalogo Generale Dell’Opera Pittorica.” Doctoral Dissertation, Università degli Studi di Trieste, 2009. 23. 104 Ragghianti, Handicraft as a Fine Art in Italy. New York: House of Italian Handicraft, 1947. np. It is unclear if the works of the catalogue came to the United States for an exhibition. For example, the catalogue for Melotti’s work lists Handicraft as a fine art in Italy as a publication and not an exhibition credit. Regardless the catalogue seems to have been widely distributed and was quickly followed, in three years, by another large-scale CNA exhibition. 105 Handicraft as a fine art in Italy exhibited the following artists and artisans: Afro, Nirko Basaldella, Enrico Bordoni, Luigi Broggini, Massimo Campigli, Pietro Cascella, Felice Casorati, Sandro Cherchi, Fabrizio Clerici, Pietro Consagra, Filippo de Pisis, Agenore Fabbri, Lucio Fontana, Piero Fornasetti, Renato Gregorini, Lorenzo Guerrini, Renato Guttuso, Leoncillo Leonardi, Carlo Levi, Paola Levi Montalcini, Marino Marini, Fausto Melotti, Giovanni Michelucci. Giorgio Morandi, Adriana Pincherle, Anita Pittoni, Armando Pizzinato, Emanuele Rambaldi, Giuseppe Santomaso, Aligi Sassu, Carlo Sbisa, Maria Signorelli, Ettore Sot-Sas Jr. [sic.], Enrico Steiner, Nino Ernesto Strada, Giulio Tracato, and Gianni Vagnetti. See: Carlo Ludovico Ragghianti. Handicraft as a Fine Art in Italy. New York: House of Italian Handicraft, 1947. 106 For examples see correspondences between Charles Nagel and CNA officials at the Brooklyn Museum. See: Alberto Antico. Letter to Charles Nagel, 1950, in Records of the Office of the Director (Charles Nagel, 1946-55). Exhibitions: Italy at Work, (1) CN 49-45 Dir 1949–50, Brooklyn Museum Archives, Brooklyn; and Richard Miller. Letter to Charles Nagel, Aug. 5, 1950, in Records of the Office of the Director (Charles Nagel, 1946–55). Exhibitions: Italy at Work, (1) CN49-45 Dir 1949–50, Brooklyn Museum Archives, Brooklyn. 107 Rogers, “Italian Contemporary Industrial Arts” Report on a survey made in Italy, June 2–July 5, 1949, 1949, in Records of the Office of the Director (Charles Nagel, 1946–55). Exhibitions: Italy at Work, (1) CN 1949-50, Brooklyn Museum Archives, Brooklyn, 1. 108 Rogers, “Italian Contemporary Industrial Arts.” 2–4. 109 Rogers, Article for February Bulletin, undated (1950?), in AIC Archives, 305-0003.4, Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago, 3. 110 Agnes Lynch. “Curator Tours Italy Seeking Revitalized Art.” Chicago Daily Tribute (1923-1963), 1951, S_A3. Anne Strother Kirk had actually divorced Rogers in 1947 but was referred as “Mrs. Rogers” in publicity. See: “Biography” Anne Kirk Cooke Papers, 1860–2004; MC 643. Schlesinger Library, Radcliffe Institute, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. https://id.lib.harvard.edu/ead/sch01301/catalog Accessed July 20, 2022. 111 Teague, “Forward.” In Italy at Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today. Edited by The Art Institute of Chicago. Rome: The Compagnia Nazionale Artigiana, 1950. 9. 112 Alhaique. Relazione sull’attività della Compagnia Nazionale Artigiana. 31. 113 House of Italian Handicrafts, Inc., “Memorandum on ‘Italy at Work’,” 1. 114 House of Italian Handicrafts, Inc., “Memorandum on ‘Italy at Work’,” 1. 115 For example, Fausto Melotti’s Angel Gabriel from the Annunciation group exhibited in Italy at Work entered the Brooklyn Museum’s collection as a “Gift of the Italian Government, 54.65.7.” https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/opencollection/objects/68568

3

Italian-Americans as Stakeholders in an American Exhibition of Western Culture

Italian-Americans played a key role in the success of the exhibition in practical and ideological ways. Since ECA funding ended at the US border, Italy at work required a large network of private patrons to carry out the twelve shows in the United States. Another parameter set on Nagel and Rogers was that the exhibition would have no entrance fee as to be most widely accessible to the American public. This would allow the exhibition to “attract the greatest possible number of visitors” and bring in “every school child [to] visit the exhibition at least once,” so that “the youth of the city will recognize the validity of Italian culture today.”1 The public service aspect of the show was central to the political aims of the exhibition. The geopolitical context for the funding of this show was not obfuscated in the public messaging for the show—this was in contrast to other exhibitions that received funding under the Marshall Plan.2 As one AIC press release clearly outlined, one “purpose of the Art Institute in presenting this exhibition is to stimulate a market for Italian products, thus implementing the economic aims of the Marshall Plan.”3 Since Italy at Work had international and local implications, it is important to understand the social context for an Italian design show in 1950s United States.4 Just months before the first opening, the Brooklyn and their partner museums began organizing to find other sources of funding to cover costs of installation and shipping in the US: from their endowments, habitual donors, or new donors. To delve into the individual funding of twelve institutions is too large a task for this study. Therefore, this chapter will focus on the first installment of Ital at Work at the Brooklyn Museum because of the comprehensive nature of the records. Also, by focusing on one of the two organizing museums, I will also highlight how the Italian-American community was motivated to support this exhibition and what significance this might have had for both the individual donors and the US State agenda. The end of the Second World War saw a major shift in how Italian-Americans identified as both racially white and ‘American’. This coincided with the broader participation in higher education and home ownership, though they still faced discrimination.5 When they were specifically solicited for this major donor campaign, their shifting social status was likely considered. Italy at Work allowed Italian-Americans to not only support the post-war reconstruction of the country of their (near and far) ancestors but also show their participation in American high culture. At the same time, mobilizing Italian-Americans served as a way to strengthen US Cold War propaganda. Just like Italy at Work served to justify Marshall Plan funding in Europe and, as will be seen in the following chapters, sell modern design aesthetics to the American consumers, the exhibition also became a further symbol of US cultural hegemony over the ‘West’. The idea of a racially white ‘West’ in opposition to the DOI: 10.4324/9781003265900-3

Italian-Americans as Stakeholders 39 liminally or non-white ‘East’ was not new in the 1950s but was connected to the shift in the way Americans thought about race. Marginalized groups in the United States were already, after WWII, rejecting “ethnic identity in favor of a more radical racial identity.”6 This had political ramifications for discussions of civil rights as well as for discussions about the market-based economy that the United States championed in its Marshall Plan efforts.7 Italy at Work served as a way to show the general American public a previously marginalized group were valuable within the US systems. However, since Italian-Americans’ proximity to whiteness was already established, it did not require a reckoning with the abject discrimination of Black Americans—the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s was one outcome of the continued racial stratification in the United States. The choice of Italian design for a major American exhibition and labeling it as a ‘renaissance’ also connected the current US efforts with a perceived history of “patronage of the arts [going] hand in hand with official power.”8 Unlike in Europe, US museums were almost all privately organized and funded. Yet, as artist Eva Cockcroft wrote, US museums after WWII reinvigorated this nexus of official power. When MoMA’s pushed to characterize Abstract Expressionism as “existentialist-individualist[s],” these Cultural Cold War ideals of freedom underscored capitalist democracies.9 AIC and Brooklyn did the same. Italian modern design as American-inspired ‘renaissance’ not only made the direct connection to Italy’s humanist past but also to the leading role the United States sought to play in the post-WWII ‘West’ and its coding as racially white. When Italian-Americans supported Italy at Work through donations, they declared their support of the varied aspects of the US Cold War agenda—economic, political, cultural, and racial. Issues of race, ethnicity, and class effected Italian-Americans in the decades before Italy at Work. Therefore, the pressure for Italian-Americans to be perceived as white Americans should not be overlooked when considering not only the existence of the show but also its solicitation of Italian-American donors. Their position within the racialized American culture meant that they were both legally white but also held in a liminal relationship to whiteness and its social power. Since, “‘white’ was both a category into which they were most often placed, and also a consciousness they both adopted and rejected,” Italian-Americans were sometimes still not considered fully ‘American’ in 1950.10 As beneficiaries of the white supremacist hierarchies as well as victims of prejudice and racist systems of oppression, Italian-Americans actively worked to better their place in the white supremacist US society in the twentieth century.11 Italian-Americans had already been solicited to support the US Cold War agenda before the exhibition. Their actions were seen as a way to secure their own position as Americans and as part of the white ‘West’. Two years before Italy at Work, there was a massive letter writing campaign to support US-backed Italian politicians in the 1948 elections. Historian Danielle Battisti details how Italian-Americans wrote to Italians encouraging them to embrace a democratic government, follow American economic models, and adopt the culture of mass consumption that American policymakers believed would foster economic growth and international peace. These beliefs became central to American domestic and foreign policies during the Cold War.12 It is clear that Italian-Americans understood the stakes of Italy staying in alliance with the United States, not only for geopolitics but also for their own place as Americans. This

40  Italian-Americans as Stakeholders belief would have compounded the importance of using Italian design to reflect Italy’s new US-backed capitalist democracy in a show like Italy at Work. In supporting the exhibition, Italian-American’s could similarly secure their place within American culture during the Cold War, all while showcasing their cultural heritage. This chapter will start to unpack this sociological web as well as consider the importance of Italy at Work in these activities at mid-century. Italians in America or Italian-Americans Italian immigrants to the United States in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries experienced a variety of important cultural and economic shifts that affected the way they fit into American society. As historian Nell Painter shows, European immigrants saw various waves of classifications of ‘white’ since the Civil War.13 Most important for the present discussion is the shift from the late-nineteenth-century attitudes toward non-Anglican European immigrants to new ideas about race in the interwar period. In the former, championed by scholars like economist William Ripley, Italians were part of the three “Races of Europe”; they were the Mediterraneans: “short, dolichocephalic (i.e. long-headed), and dark.”14 This was considered the lowest of the European races, and though legally “white” in official paperwork (like the census), Italian-Americans were not considered fully white Americans—it is important to note that these formations of race did not even concern itself with Black people because they were seen as so far outside the scholarly considerations of human races. Understood at this time, “Southern Italians had descended from the mongrelized slaves of the Roman empire. Because the American nation, like ancient Greece and Rome, grew out of blond Nordic genius, mongrelization would ruin the United States as surely as it ruined the ancients.”15 Therefore, Italians (especially those from the South of Rome) were not presented as connected to the humanist tradition that was later important to Cold War propaganda. Later interwar ideas about race, eschewing the idea of different European races and looking globally, were put forth by scholars like anthropologists Ruth Fulton Benedict and Gene Weltfish. This shift, which may seem more familiar to contemporary readers today, argued that there was only one European race, the “Caucasian” race. The other two races were “the Mongoloid race” and “the Negroid race.”16 This helped ItalianAmericans within the white supremacist structures of American society, but they were still considered an “in-between-color skin”—not fully white but part of a liminal race that also included South and Eastern Europe, “Southeast Asia, Siberia, or Mongolia” and “northern, Saharan, southern, or eastern Africa.”17 The phenomenon of immigration and the impact of WWI, shaded the way both new immigrants from Italy and also established Italian-Americans saw themselves both as Americans and as Italians. In part, the act of immigration itself helped to nationalize, so to speak, Italian immigrants as Italian rather than Milanese, Napoletani, or Calabresi (for example).18 Also, there was a further coalescing of a national conception of their Italian identity that was accelerated for immigrants to the United States with the invention of the Fascist regime. Before the 1920s, immigrants from Italy often spoke various languages, had different food traditions, and diverse customs.19 Yet upon entry to the United States, they were all considered Italians; Italians that were not fully white or American. On top of this, new immigrants and second-generation Italian-Americans grappled with the particularities of racial identity in the United States as well as imported constructions of national identity from Italy, like the preconceptions about the Mezzogiorno

Italian-Americans as Stakeholders 41 described below. Italian-Americans also did experience racialized violence and discrimination in the United States, particularly between the two world wars. As historian Jennifer Guglielmo outlines, Italians were both the racialized other, codified in immigration curbs in the 1920s, and also “quite unequivocally ‘white’—they had access to citizenship; could vote, own land, and serve on juries; and were not barred from marrying other Europeans.”21 Historian Thomas Guglielmo proposes one way to account for this; in his estimation, Italians were securely racially white, but their ‘color’ was not white. His distinction of “race/color” outlines how Italians were legally part of the white race and, unlike African Americans, had access to basic constitutional rights.22 Regardless of the metrics, Italians in the United States experienced race in a variety of ways, depending on the context and by which metrics whiteness was being measured. This was especially true before WWII, when the landscape of whiteness was particularly mutable. As Painter shows, by 1939, 20

two racial systems—one for the races of Europe and the “alien” races, one for the black/white dichotomy—were beginning to collide, and [Paul] Robeson’s generous list of American roots began an ever so slow and bumpy process of substitution of a multiple for a singular—the America—national identity.23 In the United States, race and full acceptance in society were indelibly linked and changed together, especially rapidly in the mid-twentieth century. This complex and often shifting place Italian-Americans held within mainstream American culture is illustrated in scholar and memoirist Louise DeSalvo’s examination of her grandmother’s naturalization papers.24 Libera Maria Calabrese was recorded as “color White; complexion Dark.”25 This distinction both reflected her status as legally white, a requirement for US naturalization until 1952, and also reflected the othering of Italians as culturally non-white.26 As DeSalvo emphasizes, this description as “complexion Dark” could not have been a physical or biological observation made by the official completing the form, because “as in her photograph, my grandmother was most certainly fair.”27 She was legally recognized as “dark” because she was “from the South of Italy, a peasant.”28 The coding of her visibly fair complexion as ‘dark’ was meant to signal her otherness as an Italian in America; she was not fully American. These seeming paradoxes can be explained further by the intersectionality of oppressive systems in the United States that developed in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.29 Issues of class, race, religion, and citizenship were all factors in the experience of Italian-Americans. As historian Noel Ignatiev shows for the similar, if earlier, assimilation of Irish Americans into white culture, it was not a change in “biology, but the result of choices made”; rather, “to enter the white race was a strategy to secure an advantage in a competitive society.”30 European immigrants who were legally white but faced continued racial discrimination had to actively work to assimilate into the dominant white culture in the United States. Like Italian-Americans in the 1940s and 1950s, these minority European immigrant groups participated in various ways to show their whiteness—like donating to museum exhibition campaigns as a way to signal their participating in the dominant culture. By the 1950s, Italian-Americans were following this model by “openly identifying and making demands as whites.”31 Additionally, systems of oppression pre-existing in Italy made their way to the United States with Italian immigrants. As was illustrated in the story above, there were preexisting prejudices within Italy, particularly between North and South, which carried

42  Italian-Americans as Stakeholders over to the immigrant experiences in the United States. The Mezzogiorno, referring to the South of Italy, saw an uptick in emigration to the United States of southern Italians around the turn of the twentieth century, at the same time both anthropologists and popular writers distinguishing that “northern Italians descended from superior Aryan stock [and] southerners were primarily of inferior African blood.”32 Their proximity to whiteness allowed them legal and social protections, but their proximity to blackness also brought discrimination, especially if their families were from south of Rome. This was further varied based on which American cities Italians settled and, likely, was the reason Italian-American politicians had the most success in places like New York.33 Especially before WWII, like Italian-Americans, Jewish Americans faced the similar anti-immigration discrimination—both also faced religious discrimination as minorities in that way too. Both groups actively worked to become (culturally) white after the war. This shift in the racialized identities of European immigrants like Jewish and ItalianAmericans after the WWII was made even more stark because of how things like the GI Bill were administered.34 As anthropologist Karen Brodkin describes: such programs reinforced white/nonwhite racial distinctions even as intrawhite racialization was falling out of fashion. This other side of the coin, that white men of northwest European ancestry and white men of southeastern European ancestry were treated equally in theory and in practice with regard to the benefits they received, was part of the larger postwar whitening of Jews and other eastern and southern Europeans.35 These systems of racism further lessoned the distinctions of race among Europeans and reinforced the white/black binary at the beginning of the Cold War. For Italian-Americans, the immediate post-war period saw a fuller assimilation into the dominant white American culture. Prominent Black thinkers of the time noticed this shift acutely and identified that the phenomenon was particular, in many respects, to the American context. As James Baldwin described in the 1980s, “It bears terrifying witness to what happened to everyone who got here, and paid the price of the ticket. The price was to become ‘white’. No one was white before he/she came to America.”36 Immigrants from Europe were stripped of practices, customs, and language, in parts, then in whole, as they were made white within the US racial system. This had intensified, especially on the East coast of the United States, with the invasion of Ethiopia by the Fascists in 1935.37 A growing number of instances of racial violence between Italian-Americans and their Black neighbors in the 1940s as well as violence between Italian-Americans and Irish Americans and Polish Americans all reflected Italian-Americans’ active role in making themselves white.38 The social status of Italians in the United States was also connected to a cultural construction of so-called ‘Western’ culture. As Edward Said outlined in his canonical text on Orientalism, the separation of Orient and Occident, like constructions of race, simplified the complexities of culture in order to create a hierarchical other.39 The ‘West’ or Occident was as constructed a concept as was the ‘East’ or Orient. Neither were neutral but rather fabricated from the perspective of Europeans to gain various forms of power (colonial, religious, etc.). Said’s critiques of an Eurocentric understanding of history helps to unpack why certain historical precedents were celebrated while others were not in ideas of ‘Western’ culture. The Ancient Greek states, the Etruscan states, the Roman Empire, and Ancient Egypt are part of the ‘Western’ art/historical patrimony,

Italian-Americans as Stakeholders 43 while the pre-Christian Germanic people, Roma, and North African Imazighen (called Berbers) are not—the seemingly arbitrary labeling of southern Italians as non-Nordic and therefore non-Roman makes more sense in an orientalist context. Therefore, it was not just their physical position in Europe or on the Mediterranean that situated Italians within white ‘Western’ culture. The US system needed to keep Italians as officially white because of the history of the Italian peninsula being designated as part of the ‘Western’ culture. As will be discussed in the next chapter, Italy at Work relied on the cultural cachet of Italian culture being historical holders of the ‘Western’ humanist tradition. American thinkers agreed: As Eliot Lord argued in the early twentieth century, “The far-reaching ancestry of the natives of South and Central Italy runs back to the dawn of the earliest Greek civilization in the peninsula and to the Etruscan, driving bronze chariots and glittering in artful gold when the Angles, Saxons and Juttes, and all of the wild men of Northern Europe were muffling their nakedness in the skins of wild beasts.”40 Therefore, even if Italians had been close to Blackness in the US racial hierarchy, their cultural patrimony could not allow them to be wholly without access to whiteness. Exhibitions like Italy at Work not only allowed Italian-Americans to participate in white American culture—supporting elite museum exhibitions with their prosperous earnings—but also provided the US State a way to further segregate the white ‘West’ from the non-white ‘East’. While Italy at Work had “NO OLD MASTERS” and primarily exhibited everyday items, it successfully highlight Italy’s rich cultural patrimony.41 The early press releases asking for public donations tied the support for the exhibition with the standard of living of the American ideal of domestic bliss. Italian culture being solidly within the ‘Western’ cannon, which was rescued by the Americans after the floundering Italian cultural production under Fascism: It is the hope of the American Museums, the E.C.A. and the Italian and American Governments that such consumer demand will develop in the United States from the showing of these fine artifects [sic.] that the Italian workman will be permanently helped to economic security.42 The sustainability of the continued production of artifacts of the Italian humanist tradition were on the line; ‘Western’ culture’s patrimony was at stake. Beyond issues of nostalgia or personal pride, this humanist heritage was a linchpin of Italian-Americans’ status as white in the United States.43 Italian-Americans and Fascism In addition to the issues of identity at play within the Italian-American community, the broader push to recuperate Italy from its recent Fascist past was undoubtedly at play when Italy at Work organizers solicited monetary support for the exhibition. For the broader American public, it served as a way to show the support of the Italian State at the start of the Cold War. For Italian-Americans, specifically, it served as a way to show their support for the US State and its version of capitalist democracy after the end of the

44  Italian-Americans as Stakeholders Fascist Regime. Since the “price [of Marshall Plan support] was to suppress the cornucopias of populist tradition[s],” Italy at Work showed Italian-Americans one of their paths toward acceptance as white Americans.44 Like the exhibition, the image of Italy (and Italians and Italian-Americans) must be scrubbed of connections to both Fascism and Communism. The general support of Fascism by Italian-Americans (as well as Americans more generally) before the outbreak of war is important to understand the actions of both exhibition organizers and donors in support for Italy at Work. Until Fascist Italy’s invasion of Ethiopia (1935) and the signing of the Pact of Steel (1939), Dictator Benito Mussolini was fairly popular among the white American elites. They perceived Mussolini as a stabilizing force in the chaotic, anarchistic, and backwards country of Italy. For example, just a year after his election to the premiership, the foreign news correspondent Anne O’Hare McCormick, who later won a Pulitzer Prize in 1937, wrote about Mussolini’s successful rise to power as a reaction to “dyspeptic Europe.”45 Though O’Hare McCormick highlighted the brashness of Mussolini’s personality and that he declared himself dictator, she also said that it could have been worse: It must be remembered that in that crisis, when the Government acknowledged its incapacity to function, when anarchy was held down only by Mussolini’s army, the Fascisti could have done anything they chose with the country. Everybody admits that the Government was to be had for the taking. Mussolini could as easily have led to power the Socialists or the Communists as his battalions of fighting nationalists and patriots. He had under absolute control of the best young manhood of Italy, an armed force of half a million unpaid volunteers, mobilized by his magnetism, dedicated and disciplined to his will.46 In a sense, Mussolini might be a dictator but at least he is not a communist. This foreshadows the ease at which Italy at Work eschews Italy’s Fascist past as a means to prevent a communist future. Furthermore, O’Hara McCormick’s presentation of Mussolini outlined his progressiveness. She wrote that after a year Italy did not become the “safe haven the Conservatives hoped for or the despotic hell the Radicals predicted.” Rather, she heralded “here at last is a Government that has transformed a people.”47 This out-and-out praise of the Fascist dictatorship is, perhaps, surprising to readers today. However, even his less enthusiastic supporters at the time would concede that Mussolini was better than the Liberal government he replaced and a possible Communist one he stopped from ascending. A year later, even when critiquing the rise of dictatorships across Europe and West Asia and just months before Giacomo Matteotti was assassinated at the behest of Mussolini, O’Hara McCormick again praised Mussolini’s successes in modernizing Italy. After railing against censorship and other violence under Turkish President Mustapha Kemal, she wrote frankly that “Italy is, of course, the triumphant example of [a] popular and successful dictatorship.”48 Mussolini’s dictatorship was different because he took “an enfeebled and divided kingdom into one of the most potential and prospering powers in Europe.” The sense given is that Italy was better under Fascism. Fascism was able to “harmonize the relations between capital and labor”; so “the people may not be freer than they were under a weaker and more representative Government, but they are certainly freer from trouble.”49 Even after a decade of Fascism, Mussolini’s widespread appeal sustained. Foreign correspondent, the Jewish German-Swiss writer Emil Ludwig’s

Italian-Americans as Stakeholders 45 interviewed the dictator, saying “I found you [Mussolini] more popular in the United States than anywhere else.”50 Mussolini had taken on a celebrity status in the United States. In Italy, American tourists even clapped and cheered when they saw him at their hotel.51 As historian Giorgio Bertellini writes, Mussolini’s popularity in the United States used “film stardom as a key instrument of public opinion management.”52 Proof of this is easy to find; Mussolini was described as looking “like a movie star” in the Birmingham Age-Herald.53 Mussolini’s connection to Hollywood was an important aspect of popular American culture’s “growing fascination for authoritative popular and political actors.”54 In The New York Times, there were a number of pieces that gave eager readers insights into the man behind the dictatorship. One that claims Mussolini is “Quite Humanly Fond of Red Roses, Horseback Riding, Violin Playing and Gay Cravats.”55 The New York Times writer Diana Rice even reassured readers that “stories of Italy’s frowning dictator … has been overworked.” Other profiles of the dictator espoused similar reflections of the dictator as a “much more interesting and complex character.”56 All these add to the star quality of the dictator and his dictatorship for the American public. Mussolini’s position as a publicity star coincided with that of “another foreign film star: Rudolph Valentino,” who died young in 1926.57 Both Valentino and Mussolini found fame in the United States because of “scores of individuals operating on both sides of the Atlantic,” who had been trained during WWI as propagandists.58 Bertellini explains that “Americans, paradoxically, found celebrities’ antidemocratic and antiegalitarian authority comforting — a way to provide order in chaotic times.”59 Mussolini’s place as a totalitarian dictator did not play as negative to much of the American public before the start of WWII—remember the term ‘totalitarian’ was invented to describe Mussolini.60 In addition to editorials, The New York Times also published a letter to the editor that highlighted the most enthusiastic of Mussolini’s supporters in the United States. Journalist Harrison Reeves wrote that the American’s should “HIRE MUSSOLINI!”61 Importantly, he wrote that bringing fascism to the United States would help with “another democracy in agony,” which had already been failed by “American Fascists, like Owen D. Young and Walter Lippmann” who were “addicted to upperclass manners.”62 Not only does this highlight the populace pull of Mussolini to American audiences, but it also draws in particular prominent figures in the American capitalist democracy for further scrutiny. By identifying elites as both the problem to the “democracy in agony” and also as America’s fascism is telling. The same year as this letter to the editor, Emil Ludwig wrote up another interview with Il Duce.63 In it, Mussolini emphasized his personal struggles that made him a “revolutionary” and that he was against what we might call now ‘fake news’ because “the big industrialists and the banks that pay the newspapers” control what was printed.64 So Reeve’s call for Mussolini to combat the work of people like Lippmann makes a lot of sense, since Lippmann’s book Public Order calls for control of information—the broad appeal of antisemitism at this time was also at play in attacks on Lippmann.65 By considering just one of the newspapers of record, The New York Times, it is clear that though there were critics, Mussolini’s Fascist Regime received much positive press in the United States and, therefore, those in power were, at least, neutral to the dictatorship. Though the sentiment was generally positive toward Fascist Italy, the Italian-American reception of Mussolini’s dictatorship was complicated.66 Since Italians held a provisional space in the US white supremacist society, many were both drawn to a connection to Italy

46  Italian-Americans as Stakeholders and had hesitancy to enthusiastically support the regime. This complexity was evident in the Italian-language publications in the United States. As historian Stanislao Pugliese points out, Italian-language newspapers offered three basic perspectives on Fascism for Italian-Americans: the enthusiastic embrace and support of what appeared as a new, activist, and vital regime; a passionate opposition born from the militant anarchist and socialist Italian American communities; and a passive, yet skeptical acceptance.67 Of course, Italian-Americans were also reading American English-language newspapers, which made their frame of reference even more dynamic. Like with their other American counterparts, Italian-Americans found Mussolini’s populism appealing. “Fascism developed into an ‘ideology of compensation’” that bolstered support among Italian-Americans because of their economic and social insecurities.68 Mussolini and Fascist political philosopher Giovanni Gentile foregrounded the “ideology of compensation” to further this idea that Fascism was particularly focused on rising the place of the poorest Italians, and in turn Italian-Americans. 69 As Emilio Gentile discussed, though historians have often focused on Fascist Italy’s anti-Americanism, there was a large number of pro-Americanism books published during Fascism and the United States played a key role in both referencing modernity and also in the Fascist’s plans for the Italian-American population.70 Mussolini had a positive view of “the American public spirit, at least until 1937.”71 His warm interviews with American journalists for The New York Times also attest to this, as does the continued participation in American exhibitions and expositions.72 This connected to “both the fascist state and powerful Italian-American community organizations [who] worked tirelessly throughout these years to build a more unified Italy and Italian diaspora.”73 There was also a set of Italian intellectuals in exile in the United States that were strong opponents to Fascism. Of the Italian intellectuals who had immigrated to United States were two subsets: Jewish and not. Most who left before the racial laws of 1938 were not of Jewish origin; while after, they were predominantly Jewish.74 These Italians in America—some of whom returned to Italy after the fall of Fascism and some who became American citizens—held important faculty positions at institutions like Harvard University (George La Piana and Renato Poggioli) and the University of Chicago (Giuseppe Antonio Borgese) as well as worked on top secret programs like the Manhattan Project (Enrico Fermi, Emilio Segrè, and Bruno Rossi).75 In fact, the enactment of the racial laws cooled Italian-American support for the Fascist Regime.76 However, it was not because they were concerned about the fate of Jews in general. Instead, because of the immigrant situation in the United States, Jewish Americans and Italian-Americans were linked in America’s racialized society. They were among the two largest immigrant populations in the United States during the interwar period and often lived in the same or neighboring communities.77 Historian Stefano Luconi shows that Italian-Americans were “afraid that they would bear the brunt of Jewish Americans’ backlash at the members of the ‘Little Italies’ in the United States.”78 The Italian-American population was not, however, free of antisemitism. A number of publications continued to peddle antisemitic ideas. This was, in part, because the two populations had often been pitted against one another in the United States for housing, jobs, and political power.79 The complex position of racialized immigrants in the United States,

Italian-Americans as Stakeholders 47 as well as the heavily Catholic Italian-American populace, affected the way ItalianAmericans saw themselves in relation to the Fascist Regime and toward Italy before and after WWII.80 The most prominent anti-Fascist and Jewish Italian intellectual to move to the United States under Fascism is Max Ascoli.81 First coming to the United States in 1931 as a Rockefeller Foundation grant recipient, Ascoli went on to teach across the country at America’s top universities: Yale, Columbia, Chicago, North Carolina, and Harvard.82 Ascoli was also a direct contributor to Italy at Work to the sum of $5,000.83 Not only did he personally help fund the Brooklyn installation, but, as discussed in the previous chapter, the organization he helped create and lead CADMA supported the US-based arm of the CNA, the House of Italian Handicraft (HIH). Ascoli was also at the center of a large network of Italians in America with external connections to anti-Fascist networks in the United Kingdom, France (before 1940), and Switzerland.84 This network connected intellectuals working in academia with those active in politics, particularly connected through the Mazzini Society.85 During the period of Italian Fascism, Ascoli not only was a prominent figure in the American anti-Fascist movement but also coordinated with anti-Fascist collaborators on both sides of the Atlantic to build knowledge and solidarity. As we see the rise of neofascism today in both Europe and North America, these can serve as lessons for contemporary organizers. Outside of these intellectual circles, it is likely that many everyday Italian-Americans did not know the extent of Fascist Italy’s violence and totalitarianism, though “there were Italian-Americans who fully understood and supported Fascist ideology.”86 Therefore, most were drawn to both Mussolini’s populism and a more general sense of Italian nationalism. Fascism was presented across a variety of news and entertainment outlets as rising Italy into a world leader, a powerful imperial power, and connecting modern Italy to a glorious Roman past. Art and visual culture played an integral role in this—an important note when considering support for Italy at Work. Rome was one of the birthplaces of ‘Western’ humanism. This did not really change after war’s end. The blame quickly shifted from Fascist to Nazi, even in the years of Italy’s civil war. Reports from the Italian front, which had seen brutal retaliation by German occupying forces, were how happy Italians were that Americans were there to liberate them from “the much hated German soldiers.”87 The supporters of Italy at Work would have been operating within this context. One where both formerly pro-Fascists and anti-Fascists worked side by side for the goals of a “new’ Italian culture. Bringing into the fold much of Fascist myth-making, which relied on the ideology of the third Rome, the inheritor of the greatness of the Ancient Romans and Renaissance men, with the heroics of the anti-Fascist partisans fighting against the Fascists in WWII, Italian-Americans were primed to engage with the rhetoric of Italy at Work. Funding the Brooklyn Museum Installation of “Italy at Work” Organizing the twelve exhibitions of Italy at Work was a herculean effort, which came together surprisingly quickly, even by today’s standards. The organizing museums were still in negotiations with the ECA about funding in 1949.88 As already discussed, the individual museums were responsible for funding the US shipping and installation of the shows, either through their existing operating budgets or through donor fundraising. Brooklyn was the first stop because of proximity to shipping ports and because of the significant Italian-American population in New York. In 1950, the preliminary budget

48  Italian-Americans as Stakeholders for the Brooklyn installation was set at $25,000, though the final costs came in at just over $15,000.89 In one letter to a potential donor, Nagel says that similar shows “had as much as $40,000 expended on them.”90 The budget line items do not match one-to-one between the two lists, but it seems that some of the installation, reception, and publicity costs were significantly lower than anticipated. It is possible that the museum decided to cover some of the costs from their regular operating budget, since various line items on the suggested budget cannot be found on the final summary—like for the publication and contingent transportation and insurance. It is equally possible that the budget was modified to match the donations acquired in their fundraising efforts; the archives are not explicit on this count. Regardless, over $14,000 was raised to fund the Brooklyn installment, with an additional $1,800 coming in from catalogue sales.91 To put this in perspective, in 2022 dollars, this equals almost $170,000.92 The Brooklyn Museum started their development campaign by reaching out to their existing donor rolls, then moved beyond these connections to develop connections with Italian-Americans across New York. The efforts to gain new donors were multifaceted. For example, they put on a special performance of Luigi Pirandello’s Right you are! (If You Think You Are) [Così è (se vi pare)] in the summer of 1950, put out press releases to reach the general public, coordinated with the Italian Consul General (Aldo M. Mazio) to solicit donations from Italian-Americans, spoke on Italian-American radio (in Italian for La Voce dell’America), and even received lists of names from local judges.93 These were similar tactics as those the US Government took to sell other aspects of the Marshall Plan to the American taxpayer.94 The earliest supporters of Italy at Work’s Brooklyn installation were Annie Jean Van Sinderen, Robert E. Blum, Mary Childs Draper, Antonio Sabia, John Salterini, Franco Scalamandré, and Ralph Lazarus.95 It is clear that Nagel and his team solicited support from their regular donors too, while also cultivating a broader collection of ItalianAmerican donors. Both with $1,000 donations, Annie Jean Van Sinderen (cited as Mrs. Adrian Van Sinderen in the donor rolls) and Robert E. Blum were regular donors to the Brooklyn Museum. Blum was the son of a major Brooklyn Museum donor and former Museum President Edward C. Blum and was the Vice President of the Abraham & Straus (A&S) department store.96 The elder Blum’s widow, Florence Abraham Blum, daughter of A&S founder Abraham Abraham, also donated to the exhibition (cited as Mrs. Edward C. Blum, $100 donation).97 Ralph Lazarus was also connected to A&S as chairman of the Federated Department Stores—he was Ohio-based.98 Abraham & Straus will be discussed further in Chapter 5 because they held a concurrent “Italy at Work” sales display in their store. Another local philanthropist, Annie Jean Van Sinderen was the daughter of low-cost housing developer Alfred Tredway White, whom she inherited some $15 million dollars upon his death; she was married to a broker and philanthropist Adrian Van Sinderen.99 Mr. Van Sinderen was the President of the Brooklyn Institute of Arts and Sciences—he had actually accepted a major donation from E.C. Blum for the new design lab a few years earlier in 1948.100 Both Annie Jean and Adrian Van Sinderen were co-hosts for the Brooklyn opening of Italy at Work, which welcomed “approximately 200 persons” to the show on Wednesday November 29, 1950.101 Of the other early donors, some of whom were likely regular donors to the Brooklyn Museum’s programming, Mary Childs Draper was the first woman to become President of the Brooklyn Bureau of Charities, chairwoman of the family service committee of the Brooklyn Bureau of Charities, and early Planned Parenthood leader ($500 donation).102 John Salterini was an Italian immigrant who produced wrought iron and metal furniture

Italian-Americans as Stakeholders 49 and interior design objects ($100 donation); and Franco Scalamandré was also an Italian immigrant and textile designer ($250 donation).103 Salterini and Scalamandré were also prominent first-generation Italian-Americans, who had found success as designers in the United States. For some donors, the interest in Italy at Work was also likely connected to their profession in the related design fields. The museum team also contacted prominent locals directly for their support. A letter Nagel wrote to executive editor of The Brooklyn Eagle newspaper, Edwin  B.  Wilson, asking for support shows further strategies for soliciting donor contributions. Though Wilson did not donate, the letter to him outlines the justification for non-Italian Americans to support the show: All Americans have been canvassed repeatedly for worth-while causes and the Italian-Americans have given much to Italy in particular since the war. However, this exhibition is a serious effort to help put the splendid Italian craftsman back on their economic feet by creating among the millions of Americans who will see this show, a demand for their wonderful products—which has in the past been more enjoyed by the craftsmen of France and Scandinavia.104 This gives further insight into the various ways in which funding was solicited for the one installment for Italy at Work in Brooklyn. A standardized call, stipulating a needed budget of $20,000 for museum installation, was used at both the Brooklyn and AIC openings.105 To target specific, prominent Italian-Americans, Nagel and his office at the Brooklyn Museum drafted a fundraising letter, which Consul General Mazio committed to send to “a list of influential Italians.”106 In his cover letter to be used by Consul General, the curator wrote “it is hard to indoctrinate people into the significance of this exhibition, as most people seem to have very little conception of the nature of the effort being made.”107 Beyond his choice of language (“indoctrinate”), Nagel’s signal to the scope (over 2,000 individual objects) and import (a government-funded exhibition) shows the efforts the US institutions made in order to bring the show to their institution. It was an expensive undertaking; and by June 1950, they had only raised $3,000 of the $25,000 projected budget.108 The aforementioned form letter outlined both the cultural and political import of the show: This is not just another art exhibition, although, as an art exhibition, it will be superlative. It will demonstrate the undying creative ability of Italy, and will also show Americans what can be accomplished under the Marshall Plan by a wellwilled country. Most important of all is the economic factor. Every American interested in the reconstruction of Italy had been called upon for funds to repair churches and homes, and to provide the necessities of living. Here, however, is an opportunity to make Italian products so attractive to American consumers (as those of France have been in the past) that increased and lasting employment throughout Italy may result.109 Different than the language included in the later press releases and catalogue, this letter makes more explicit the role of Americans in rebuilding and sustaining the economy in Italy through cultural consumption. The organizers made it clear the import of this

50  Italian-Americans as Stakeholders show both home and abroad. It further explains why the Marshall Plan funds could not also support the exhibition installations in the United States; “the expenditure of ECA funds stops in Europe.” The letter also details how the exhibition objects were shipped to the United States—on a US Naval supply vessel.110 The letter closed with a plea for support because “the way the exhibit is presented in New York will profoundly affect its success throughout the country.”111 To quote iconic line, “If I can make it there, I’ll make it anywhere. It’s up to you, New York, New York,” Italy at Work had to ‘make it’ in Brooklyn.112 With over $10,000 more to finance after the first donations came in, the organizers got to work finding more funding from Italian-Americans by using established networks of Italian expatriates, Roman Catholic communities, and established patrons of the arts. Brooklyn organizers received a list of sixteen possible donors from Judge Henry L. Ughetta (who did not himself donate), three of whom donated in the end: first-generation Italian-American Judge Leonard E. Ruisi ($100 donation); Carlo Agro ($50 donation); and first-generation Italian-American businessman and owner of both the B. Turecamo Construction Company and the Turecamo Coastal and Harbor Towing Corporation, Bartholdi (Barney) Turecamo ($50 donation).113 Nagel’s team also had a “Committee of 100 leading Italian-Americans of Greater New York,” coordinated by Rev. Thomas Edmund Molloy, the Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, and Cardinal Francis Joseph Spellman, the sixth Archbishop of New York—both of whom were not Italian-American but of Irish Catholic heritage.114 It is clear that Roman Catholic clergy were tapped for outreach in the Italian-American community through their religious connections. In the end, fifty-six individual donors and twenty-four institutional donors would raise the needed funds. Like those discussed above, some were prominent figures in the Brooklyn philanthropic circles: Grace Baer Bachrach (cited as Mrs. Clarence G. Bachrach in the donor rolls), a trustee of the Jewish Hospital of Brooklyn ($25 donation); Alice Campbell Good (cited as Mrs. William H. Good in the donor rolls), a member of Board of Higher Education and trustee of the New York State Theodore Roosevelt Memorial ($250 donation); Elizabeth A. Goodman, a Roman Catholic who worked for a variety of charities, including the Anthonian Hall, a Catholic organization that supported blind women ($25 donation); and Cornelia Blankley Jadwin (cited as Mrs. Palmer H. Jadwin in the donor rolls), a YWCA committee member volunteer ($10 donation).115 Also, there were a number of lawyers (Sidney W. Davidson, $250 donation; Joseph F. Ruggieri, $100 donation; Joseph Sessa, $50 donation; William Dean Embree, $10 donation; Vincent H. Bono, $10 donation; Magistrate D. Joseph DeAndrea, $10 donation), and doctors (Dr. Joseph A. Caravella, $10 donation). Others were connected to the US Government, including Josephine Ludlow Voorhees (née Palmer, cited as Mrs. Tracy S. Voorhees), who was the wife of the US Under Secretary of the Army ($100 donation); and Thomas J. Watson, head of IBM, who was close friends with a number of presidents: Dwight D. Eisenhower, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Harry S. Truman ($250 donation).116 Well-connected Italian-Americans were also represented in the donor rolls. Natalie P. Cregin ($10 donation), who was born in Sicily and whose brother was the New York Supreme Court Justice Ferdinand Pecora—Pecora had a failed run against New York’s second Italian-American Mayor Vincent Richard Impellitteri.117 There was also Vito F. Lanza, who was a lawyer and current President of the Board of Education and, at some point between 1939 and 1958, was appointed a Knight of Holy Sepulcher “for his community and charitable service” ($25 donation).118 Angelo Paino, another first-generation

Italian-Americans as Stakeholders 51 Italian-American, was the President of the Cranford Company, Inc. and was a Catholic Cavaliere and a Knight of St. Gregory ($100 donation); Charles Pisano, whose wife (née Josephine E. Catalano) was later the President of the Italian Welfare League ($25 donation); and first-generation Italian-American Paolino Gerli, who was President of the International Silk Association ($500 donation).119 There were even notorious Italian-Americans, like first-generation immigrant Joseph Profaci ($200 donation). Profaci was the reported head of the Italian-American mob, whose official business was an olive oil importing business.120 The Italy at Work donors also included prominent art collectors like Sam A. Lewisohn ($100 donation), who had just published a book on collecting in 1948—Painters and personality: a collector’s view of modern art.121 Others were already well-known collectors of Italian art and culture more specifically. Gladys Evelyn James (cited as Mrs. Darwin R. James Jr. in the donor rolls with a $250 donation) had held an “Italian Exhibition for Charity” a decade earlier, showcasing “a collection of Italian family heirlooms” to raise money for “needy Italian families in the care of the Brooklyn Bureau of Charities.”122 Interestingly, her husband was the President of the John Underwood & Co., which produced typewriters and accessories—connecting the couple to both design and Italy.123 In addition to individual donors, the Brooklyn Museum received donations from twentyfour companies and/or institutions. Among the institutional supporters, there were generally either design institutions or Italian-American institutions. The Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America (ACWA, $175 donation). Two of the founders of ACWA were Sicilian-born Italian-Americans Joseph Catalanotti and August Bellanca.124 Bellanca was still a prominent member in ACWA when the organization donated to Italy at Work and was a founding member of the Mazzini Society, an anti-Fascist group in the United States.125 Similarly, the Italian Publishers Representatives, Inc. ($100 donation) were, perhaps, obvious supporters of Italy at Work, as they had been lobbying for American participation in Italian markets. The director of the Italian Publishers Representatives, Inc. was Leo. J. Wollemborg, a first-generation Jewish Italian-American, who left Italy at the enactment of the Racial Laws. He argued in 1948 that Italians welcomed the ERP initiatives but were being hindered by American businessmen’s lack of local knowledge.126 Lastly, the Italian Coat Contractors ($25 donation) and the Italian-American Professional and Business Men’s Association ($660 donation) represented various interests in Italy at Work. The majority of the donating organizations had close ties to the Italian-American community of New York, and particularly the Brooklyn borough. This included three Italian restaurants: Fra-Mar Restaurant at 2302 Avenue U ($10 donation), Garguilo’s Restaurant still today at its West 15th Street location ($10 donation), and Vesuvio Restaurant at 163 West 48th Street ($20 donation). There were a number of associations dedicated to Italian history that donated. The Italian Historical Society of America, which had only been founded in 1949 by John N. LaCorte who was a US-born Italian-raised ItalianAmerican, whose parents had returned to Sicily from the United States when he was a child ($100 donation). The Morgagni Society of Brooklyn, “founded as an organization to foster the professional, intellectual and economic development of the ItaloAmerican physicians who were struggling to establish themselves in a less than congenial and welcoming environment for the descendants of new immigrants to this country,” also donated ($100 donation).127 There were a large number of teacher and other educational donors: Italian Teachers Association ($50 donation), Public School Teachers 67 (eight teachers, unspecified in the donor rolls, $100 donation), PTA of Public School 4 ($100 donation), PTA of Public School 42 ($100 donation), and PTA of Public School

52  Italian-Americans as Stakeholders 77 ($100 donation). Three individual public schools also donated: Public School 67 ($152 donation), Public School 133 ($150 donation), Public School 157 ($200 donation). The first two were located in Brooklyn and the third in Harlem—located just west of the Italian Harlem neighborhood. The last and probably most important donor to discuss is Max Ascoli. As introduced above, he was a central figure in the anti-Fascist circles in the United States; and, as discussed in the previous chapter, he was a founding member of CADMA and founded the Handicrafts Development Incorporated (HDI). It is not surprising that he was integral to the success of this exhibition. Donating a third of to the total funds raised, his $5,000 donation was the largest of any individual donor. In a phone correspondence between Richard Pleasant and Nagel regarding working with Bob Edwards from INCOM, the newsreel company producing the film for distribution in Italy, Pleasant suggests that the film could highlight, 2. Italian-American school kids from Brooklyn. Notice the marked section in the Max Ascoli Speech. 3. Ascoli himself. He is a very distinguished guy and was the original spark, immediately after the war, for this whole development.128 Ascoli was well known in Italy because of his public anti-Fascist writings at the start of Mussolini’s dictatorship and his subsequent imprisonment, before leaving for the United States in 1931.129 Once in the United States, he was a co-founder of the Mazzini Society, working alongside Joseph Catalanotti and August Bellanca of ACWA. Ascoli’s place within the worlds of both design and politics was allied with the support of Italian design in the United States. With “strong ties to the Roosevelt administration, [Ascoli] was integral to the development of both the ideological justification and the philanthropic vehicle that triggered the Americans mass consumption of Italian design.”130 Like the stated aims of Italy at Work, he was invested in a post-Fascist Italian democracy, a robust economic and political revitalization of Italy, and the modernization of commercial design in Italy. His second wife, Marion Rosenwald Stern, was the daughter of chief executive officer of Sears, Roebuck and Company, Julius Rosenwald.131 Rosenwald Stern’s inheritance allowed Ascoli’s “financial commitment to his liberal ideology would, from this point forward, be able to match his verbal commitment.”132 This gave Ascoli the financial freedom to found both the Mazzini Society and later the HDI in 1945. The connection also brought him into the American retail networks, ones that were clearly represented in the support for Italy at Work. As design historian and curator Wava Carpenter shows, it was Ascoli’s assessment that “the Italian handicraft industry swiftly emerged as the best candidate for accomplishing these far-reaching goals.”133 This led the way to his founding of HDI, whose founding documents read very similarly to the later 1949 government book about the ERP program in Italy.134 The HDI mission, according to Carpenter, was most fully elaborated in Ascoli’s 1947 book The Power of Freedom. This book called for American participation on the world stage, beyond “power and resources,” to lead like “philosopher-kings” the world to “freedom, rights, the worth of the human person, [and] national independence.”135 He felt that the US capitalist democracy served as a model of a labor system that connects work to freedom.136 Securing international outposts of capitalist democracies was important, in Ascoli’s estimation, to combat both the resurgence of fascism and the threat of communism.

Italian-Americans as Stakeholders 53 His 1946 article in The Journal of Politics warned of these threats in Italy specifically. In it, he outlined that, unlike the German or Japanese cases, “the Allies recognized the existence of an Italian nation and of an Italian government, but thought that the political and administrative retraining of the Italians was none of their business.”137 Written before the broad US campaigns to suppress the PSI and PCI vote for the 1948 elections, he rightly pointed out that the power of the anti-Fascist resistance had already waned by 1946. Rather than signaling the ‘fascist parentheses’, Ascoli blamed the Allies for being “impatient with those anti-Fascist leaders,” who were “utterly devoid of political experience.”138 This is important to note because “Ascoli’s postwar plans for his native country astutely assumed an Italo-American alliance.”139 Organizations like HDI, then CADMA, allowed Ascoli to take direct actions to connect American politics to Italian politics, which he felt would bring a capitalist democracy to Italy. Ascoli’s role in funding the Brooklyn Museum installment of Italy at Work and also in building the ideological foundation for the show cannot be overstated. Through direct donation and his work with HDI, CADMA, HIH, and CNA; all were material supports for the success of Italy at Work and correspondingly the new republic of Italy. Through his ideas about capitalist democracy, he undoubtedly helped shape the aims of Italy at Work. It is likely the idea for the shows Marshall Plan support was influenced by Ascoli’s calls. At the opening of the invite-only opening reception for the show, Ascoli spoke, after and introduction by “Ambassador Tarchiani (representing the Hon. Alcide De Gasperi, President of the Council of Ministers of the Italian Republic, and head of the Honorary Committee of the Exhibition).”140 In the press release about the event, Ascoli was described as: Italian-born American philanthropist who, with Mrs. Ascoli, shortly after the war, with private funds, set up CADMA, a non-profit organization which fostered the beginnings of the crafts movement and was subsequently expanded into the C.N.A. (Compagnia Nazionale Artigiana) through which official U.S. aid from the ExportImport Bank was channeled.141 He was presented as the main instigator of Italy at Work. As such, he was put on the honorary committee for the exhibition, alongside figures like Italian President Alcide De Gasperi, US Assistant Secretary of Commerce Cornelius Vanderbilt Whitney, US Ambassador to Italy James Clement Dunn, and Chief of the ECA Mission to Italy M. Leon Dayton.142 Whether a major influential donor like Max Ascoli or a smaller donor like James Spagnoli ($100 donation), Italy at Work offered Italian-Americans, often first-generation, a way to support both the country of their birth and their current state of residence.143 Organizers of Italy at Work tasked Italian-Americans with making the Brooklyn Museum installment a success. It is likely that similar tactics were carried out at the other exhibiting institutions.144 Regardless, as Nagel made clear, if the Brooklyn show was a success, so would the rest. In fact, over 120,000 people visited the exhibition at the Brooklyn Museum during its inaugural installation.145 This not only started the buzz that followed the exhibition to Chicago and beyond, but on the import of Italian design in the United States for the next decade. As the US Government used Italy at Work to highlight the American leadership of the white ‘West’, Italian-Americans took the show as a way to both connect to their Italian

54  Italian-Americans as Stakeholders heritage and also exert their white identity within the American culture. These two were connected. If Italian-Americans were not white members of the hegemonic ‘Western’ culture, then their cultural patrimony could be suspect. Since the United States wanted to be not only the arbiter of ‘Western’ culture in the Cold War, they needed to shore up both their role as instigators of democratic cultural renewal as well as inheritors of Italy’s great humanist past. Notes 1 This pamphlet published by AIC details their solicitation for donations. “Italy at Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today,” 1951, in AIC Archives: Department of Decorative Arts Exhibition Records 1951–53, 305-0003.4, Chicago: Art Institute of Chicago. 2 For a discussion of the 1949 Italian exhibition at MoMA, which had a small early injection of Marshall Plan funds, see: Gamble. “Exhibiting Italian Democracy in the 1949 ‘Twentieth Century Italian Art’.” In Modern in the Making: MoMA and the Modern Experiment, 1929–1949, edited by Sandra Zalman and Austin Porter, 215–29. London: Bloomsbury Press, 2020. 215–29. 3 ‘For Immediate Release: “Italy at Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today” Tremendous Exhibition of Contemporary Italian Crafts to be Shown at the Art Institute March 15 through May 13.’ In Art Institute of Chicago. Chicago, IL, 1951. [Emphasis original.] 4 I want to thank sociologist Dr. Diane Sabenacio Nititham and cultural historian Dr. Sue Shon for their thoughtful feedback around issues of race and ethnicity for this chapter. 5 Nell Irvin Painter. The History of White People. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2010. 368–77. 6 Michael Omi, and Howard Winant. Racial Formation in the United States From the 1960s to the 1990s. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 1994. 20. 7 Omi and Winant. Racial Formation. 25. 8 Eva Cockcroft. “Abstract Expressionism, Weapon of the Cold War.” In Pollock and After: The Critical Debate, edited by Francis Frascina, 125–33. New York: Harper & Row, 1985. 125. 9 Cockcroft. “Abstract Expressionism, Weapon of the Cold War.” 126. This text was originally published in 1974 in Artforum. 10 Jennifer Guglielmo. “Introduction: White Lies, Dark Truths.” In Are Italians White? How Race Is Made in America, edited by Jennifer Guglielmo and Salvatore Salerno, 1–14. New York: Routledge, 2003. 3. 11 Their efforts were often critiqued by American thinkers, especially African Americans. “W.E.B. Du Bois, Bernardo Vega, James Baldwin, Malcom X, Ann Petry, Ana Castillo, Piri Thomas, and other influential writers and activists have also commented on the complicated and contradictory ways Italians have adopted and challenged the practices of white supremacy.” Jennifer Guglielmo. “Introduction: White Lies, Dark Truths.” In Are Italians White? How Race Is Made in America, edited by Jennifer Guglielmo and Salvatore Salerno, 1–14. New York: Routledge, 2003. 1–2. 12 Danielle Battisti, “Italian Americans, Consumerism, and the Cold War in Transnational Perspective.” In Making Italian America: Consumer Culture and the Production of Ethnic Identities, ed. Simone Cinotto, (New York: Fordham University Press, 2014). pp. 148. 13 Painter. The History of White People. 202. 14 Painter. The History of White People. 216. 15 Painter. The History of White People. 304. 16 Painter. The History of White People. 338. 17 Painter. The History of White People. 338. 18 Stanislao G. Pugliese, “Fascism and Anti-Fascism in Italian America.” In The Routledge History of Italian Americans, edited by William J. Connell and Stanislao G. Pugliese, 349–69. New York: Routledge, 2018. 350. 19 Thomas A. Guglielmo. White on Arrival. Italians, Race, Color, and Power in Chicago, 1890-1945. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2003. 115. 20 Guglielmo. “Introduction: White Lies, Dark Truths.” 3–9.

Italian-Americans as Stakeholders 55 1 Guglielmo. “Introduction: White Lies, Dark Truths.” 11. 2 22 Guglielmo. White on Arrival. 8. 23 Painter. The History of White People. 358. 24 Louise DeSalvo. “Color: White/Complexion: Dark.” Chap. Ch. 1 In Are Italians White? How Race Is Made in America, edited by Jennifer Guglielmo and Salvatore Salerno, 17–28. New York: Routledge, 2003. 25. 25 DeSalvo. “Color: White/Complexion: Dark.” 25. 26 The naturalization procedure data is recounted in DeSalvo. “Color: White/Complexion: Dark.” 22. 27 DeSalvo. “Color: White/Complexion: Dark.” 26. 28 DeSalvo. “Color: White/Complexion: Dark.” 27. 29 The term “intersectionality” was coined in 1989 by Kimberlé Crenshaw. See: Kimberlé Crenshaw. “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics.” University of Chicago Legal Forum 1989 (1989): 139–67. 30 Noel Ignatiev. How the Irish Became White. New York: Routledge, 1995. 2. 31 Guglielmo. White on Arrival. 169. 32 Thomas A. Guglielmo. “‘No Color Barrier’ Italians, Race, and Power in the Untied States.” In Are Italians White? How Race Is Made in America, edited by Jennifer Guglielmo and Salvatore Salerno, 26–43. New York: Routledge, 2003. 33. 33 Stefano Luconi. “Black dagoes? Italian immigrants’ racial status in the United States: an ecological view.” Journal of Transatlantic Studies 14, no. 2 (2016): 188; and Luconi. “The Bumpy Road Toward Political Incorporation.” 326. 34 Karen Brodkin. How Jews Became White Folks and What That Says about Race in America. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1999. 39–50. 35 Brodkin. How Jews Became White Folks. 50. 36 James Baldwin. “On Being White…and Other Lies (1984).” In The Cross of Redemption. Uncollected Writings, edited by Randall Kenan, 135–8. New York: Pantheon Books, 2010. 136. 37 Luconi. “Black dagoes? Italian immigrants’ racial status in the United States: an ecological view.” 190–91. Guglielmo’s research of Chicago’s Italian Americans showed that the war “increased Italians’ awareness of the color line and ‘their’ whiteness.” Guglielmo. White on Arrival. 128. 38 Luconi. “Black dagoes? Italian immigrants’ racial status in the United States: an ecological view.” 191; and Gerald Meyer. “When Frank Sinatra Came to Italian Harlem. The 1945 ‘Race Riot’ at Benhamin Franklin High School.” In Are Italians White? How Race Is Made in America, edited by Jennifer Guglielmo and Salvatore Salerno, 161–76. New York: Routledge, 2003. 67. 39 Edward W. Said. “Orientalism.” The Georgia Review 31, no. 1 (Spring 1977): 166. 40 Guglielmo. “No Color Barrier” 40. Quote from Eliot Lord, The Italian in America. New York: B.F. Buck, 1905, 20. 41 “ITALY AT WORK” EXHIBITION OF CONTEMPORARY DECORATIVE AND INDUSTRIAL ARTS FROM ITALY TO TOUR U.S. FOR TWO YEARS OPENING AT BROOKLYN MUSEUM NOVEMBER 22, 1950, in Records of the Office of the Director, Italy at Work 4: CN49-45, Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, NY 42 “ITALY AT WORK” EXHIBITION OF CONTEMPORARY DECORATIVE AND INDUSTRIAL ARTS FROM ITALY TO TOUR U.S. FOR TWO YEARS OPENING AT BROOKLYN MUSEUM NOVEMBER 22, 1950, in Records of the Office of the Director, Italy at Work 4: CN49-45, Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, NY 43 Italian-Americans did see a push back on their status in the United States during the 1960s, when they were often relegated as a symbol of evil through the lens of Mafia culture. Richard Gambio. Blood of my Blood. The Dilemma of the Italian-American. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1974. 279. 44 De Grazia. Irresistible Empire. 338. 45 Anne O’Hare McCormick. “The Swashbuckling Mussolini: Latest Heir of the Caesars Has Conquered. Because His Countrymen Understand Arrogance.” New York Times, Jul. 22, 1923, BR1. 46 O’Hare McCormick. “The Swashbuckling Mussolini.” 18.

56  Italian-Americans as Stakeholders 7 O’Hare McCormick. “The Swashbuckling Mussolini.” 18. 4 48 O’Hare McCormick. “The People’s Own Dictators: Like Receivers in Bankruptcy They Are an Expedient for Liquidating Distressed Democracies.” New York Times, Apr. 13, 1924, 14. 49 O’Hare McCormick. “The People’s Own Dictators.” 50 Emil Ludwig. “Mussolini Looks at the World: Il Duce Expounds to Emil Ludwig His Political Doctrines, Talks of Socialism, Capitalism, Fascism and Communism, and Delivers a Critique Upon Three Dictators of Other Epochs.” New York Times, Jul. 17, 1932, 15. 51 “Tourists Hail Mussolini: Cheering Americans Surround Premier in Rome Hotel Lobby.” New York Times, Jul. 27, 1925, 7. 52 Giorgio Bertellini. The Divo and the Duce. Promoting Film Stardom and Political Leadership in 1920s America. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2019. 228. 53 Bertellini. “When Americans loved Benito Mussolini—and what it tells us about Donald Trump’s rise: The appeal of celebrity authority in tumultuous times.” The Washington Post, Feb. 28, 2019. Accessed Jun.17, 2022. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/02/28/ when-americans-loved-benito-mussolini/ 54 Bertellini. The Divo and the Duce. 227. 55 Diana Rice. “The Foibles of the Austere Mussolini: Cheerfully the Italian Premier Pauses Amid Affairs of State to Confess That He is Quite Humanly Fond of Red Roses, Horseback Riding, Violin Playing and Gay Cravats.” New York Times, Mar. 25, 1928, 85. 56 Ludwig. “The Mussolini Behind the Iron Mask: Emil Ludwig Finds Him a Man of Nuances, Not Extremes, Who Controls His Nerves by Hard and Relentless Work.” New York Times, May 19, 1929, 2. 57 Bertellini. “When Americans loved Benito Mussolini.” 58 Bertellini. “When Americans loved Benito Mussolini.” 59 Bertellini. “When Americans loved Benito Mussolini.” 60 For broader context on the term totalitarian, see Bruno Bongiovanni and John Rugman. “Totalitarianism: the Word and the Thing.” Journal of Modern European History / Zeitschrift für moderne europäische Geschichte / Revue d’histoire européenne contemporaine 3, no. 1 (2005): 5. 61 Harrison Reeves. “‘HIRE MUSSOLINI!’ This Is Suggested for a National Slogan Over Here.” New York Times, Jun. 29, 1932, 20. 62 Reeves. “HIRE MUSSOLINI!” 63 Ludwig. “Mussolini Looks at the World.” 1. 64 Ludwig. “Mussolini Looks at the World.” 65 Many thanks to my colleague Dr. Olga Koulisis for elaborating the importance of Lippmann. 66 For some reports from the New York Times about the 1935 invasion of Ethiopia, see: The Associated Press. “HOSPITAL REPORTED HIT. Special Cable to THE NEW YORK TIMES.” New York Times, Oct. 4, 1935, 1; ______________. “Text of Mussolini’s Speech Threatening War in East Africa.” New York Times, May 26, 1935, 22; Frederick T. Birchall. “Ethiopia New Seems Headed for Doom. The League Remains Inactive as Italy Takes Up the White Man’s Burden in Africa’s Last Native-Ruled Land.” New York Times, Feb. 17, 1935, E4; “ITALY CHALLENGED ON BULLET DENIAL. Wireless to THE NEW YORK TIMES.” New York Times, Oct. 22, 1935, 14; “Italy Exhibits Chemical War. Wireless to THE NEW YORK TIMES.” New York Times May 19, 1935, 26; Clarence K. Streit. “League Awaits Showdown. Mussolini Is Expected to Force the Council to Take Grave Decisions on Ethiopia.” New York Times, Jun. 9, 1935, E5. 67 Stanislao G. Pugliese, “Fascism and Anti-Fascism in Italian America.” In The Routledge History of Italian Americans, edited by William J. Connell and Stanislao G. Pugliese, 349–69. New York: Routledge, 2018. 350. 68 Pugliese, “Fascism and Anti-Fascism in Italian America.” 352. 69 Pugliese, “Fascism and Anti-Fascism in Italian America.” 352–53. Gentile published the Manifesto degli intellettuali fascisti [Manifesto of Fascist Intellectuals] in 1935, underwritten by “writers, philosophers, artists and scientists,” that showed that the Regime held wide support among the Italian intelligentsia. Emilio Gentile. “Italy 1918-1943.” In POST ZANG TUMB TUUUM: ART LIFE POLITICS: ITALIA 1918–1943, edited by Germano Celant, 46–51. Milan: Fondazione Prada, 2018. 49. 70 Gentile. “Impending Modernity.” 7–8.

Italian-Americans as Stakeholders 57 1 Gentile. “Impending Modernity.” 17. 7 72 See: Raffaele Bedarida. “Export / Import: The Promotion of Contemporary Italian Art in the United States, 1935-1969.” PhD diss., Graduate Center, City University of New York, 2016. 73 Guglielmo. White On Arrival. 128. 74 Renato Camurri. “Idee in movimento: l’esilio degli intellettuali italiani negli Stati Uniti (1930-1945).” Memoria e ricerca, no. 31 (May-Aug. 2009): 49. Fascist Italy passed racial laws modeled on Nazi German precedents. See: Giovanni Codovini and Dino Renato Nardelli. Le leggi razziali in Italia. Foligno: Editoriale Umbra, 2002; and Michele Sarfatti. “Characteristics and Objectives of the Anti-Jewish Racial Laws in Fascist Italy, 1938-1943.” Translated by Antony Shugaar. In Jews in Italy under Fascist and Nazi Rule, 1922–1945, edited by Joshua D. Zimmerman, 71–80. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. 75 Camurri. “Idee in movimento: l’esilio degli intellettuali italiani negli Stati Uniti (1930-1945).” 49–53. 76 Stefano Luconi. “‘The Venom of Racial Intolerance’: Italian Americans and Jews in the United States in the Aftermath of Fascist Racial Laws.” Revue française d’études américaines, no. 107 (Mar. 2006): 108. 77 Luconi. “The Venom of Racial Intolerance.” 107. 78 Luconi. “The Venom of Racial Intolerance.” 109. 79 Luconi. “The Venom of Racial Intolerance.” 111. 80 Italian-Americans who had Jewish ancestry often were quiet with regard to antisemitism in their communities and in Italy. New York City Mayor Fiorello La Guardia was a prime example of this. Luconi. “The Venom of Racial Intolerance.” 112. 81 Ascoli was a central figure in American anti-Fascism and held a position in the so-called “university in exile” at the New School for Social Research in New York. See: Camurri. “Idee in movimento: l’esilio degli intellettuali italiani negli Stati Uniti (1930-1945).” 55–56. 82 Camurri. “Idee in movimento: l’esilio degli intellettuali italiani negli Stati Uniti (1930-1945).” 54–55. 83 “Statement of Receipts and Disbursements,” March 20, 1951, in Records of the Office of the Director (Charles Nagel, 1946–55). Exhibitions: Italy at Work, CN 50–51 Budget & Donors, Brooklyn Museum Archives, Brooklyn. 2. 84 Camurri. “Idee in movimento: l’esilio degli intellettuali italiani negli Stati Uniti (1930-1945).” 57–58. 85 Camurri. “Idee in movimento: l’esilio degli intellettuali italiani negli Stati Uniti (1930-1945).” 58–59. 86 Pugliese, “Fascism and Anti-Fascism in Italian America.” 353. 87 Richard Gambino. “A World War II ‘Italian’ Diary of an Italian-American G.I.” Italian Americana 29, no. 2 (Summer 2011): 202. 88 Rogers, “Letter to Charles Nagel, Jr.,” Oct. 21, 1949, 1. 89 On the suggested budget, there is a pencil annotation that subtracted $1,000, but the publicity used the round number of twenty-five. “Suggested Budget for Exhibition ‘Italy at Work—Her Renaissance in Design Today’,” undated 1950, in Records of the Office of the Director, Italy at Work 3: CN5051, Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, NY; and “Italy At Work: Statement of Receipts and Disbursements,” undated, in Records of the Office of the Director, Italy at Work 3: CN5051, Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, NY. 1. 90 Charles Nagel Jr., “Letter to Harry Lucia,” Mar. 6, 1950, in Records of the Office of the Director, Italy at Work 1: CN4945, Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, NY. 91 “Italy At Work: Statement of Receipts and Disbursements.” 92 “$14,000 in 1950 → 2022 | Inflation Calculator.” Official Inflation Data, Alioth Finance, https://www.officialdata.org/us/inflation/1950?amount=14000. [Accessed: Jul. 6 2022]. 93 Thelma S. Bedell, “Letter to Joseph P. Marcelle,” Aug. 22, 1950, in Records of the Office of the Director, Italy at Work 3: CN4945, Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, NY. 1.; “Italy at Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today.” press release. Brooklyn Museum Archives. Records of the Department of Public Information. Press releases, 1947–1952. 07-09/1950, 071, Jul. 9, 1950; and Rogers, and M. Maestro, “Script for Radio Interview,” Aug. 17, 1950, in AIC Archives: Department of Decorative Arts Exhibition Records 1951-53, AIC Archives 305-0003.3.4, Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago, IL

58  Italian-Americans as Stakeholders 94 George M. Fujii. “Selling the Marshall Plan in the United States.” In Images of the Marshall Plan in Europe. Films, Photographs, Exhibits, Posters, edited by Günter Bischof and Dieter Stiefel, 39–57. Innsbruck: Studienverlag Ges.m.b.H., 2009. 40. 95 Nagel, “Memo to Joseph P. Marcelle “Sponsors to date for the Brooklyn showing of ‘Italy at Work - Her Renaissance in Design Today’,” Jul. 24, 1950, in Records of the Office of the Director, Italy at Work 3: CN4945, Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, NY. 1. 96 The first century of ABRAHAM & STRAUS recording its 100-year love affair with its community, 1965, in Abraham & Straus collection 1865-1995, Folder ARC.223, F.3, Center for Brooklyn History, 19–20. 97 “E.C. BLUM IS DEAD; HEAD OF A. & S., 83: Board Chairman of Brooklyn Department Store a Leader in Borough’s Cultural Life Received Service Medal Honored by Brooklyn Institute.” New York Times, Nov. 22, 1946, 22; and “Mrs. Taliaferro Is Married To Ethelbert Warfield on L.I.” New York Times, Nov. 12, 1967, 89. Taliaferro is historically a Tuscanname, though Eugene Sinclair Taliaferro was from Houston, TX. See: “E.S. TALIAFERRO, INDUSTRIAL AIDE: Retired Adviser on Foreign Operations Dies at 68.” New York Times, Aug. 5, 1963, 23. 98 Wolfgang Saxon. “Ralph Lazarus, 74, Ex-Head of Federated Stores.” New York Times, Jun. 20, 1988, D11. 99 “Alfred T. White, Brooklyn Philanthropist, Leaves $15,000,000 Estate to Daughter.” New York Times, Feb. 20, 1921, E1. 100 “BROOKLYN MUSEUM GETS A $50,000 GIFT: Laboratory of Industrial Design to Be Established With Fund Given by Department Store IN MEMORY OF E. C. BLUM Adrian Van Sinderen Accepts Contribution at Ceremonies From Walter Rothschild.” New York Times, Apr. 2, 1948, 25. 101 Isadora Bennet and Richard Pleasant, “LARGEST MUSEUM SHOW EVER BROUGHT TO U.S. HAS NATIONAL PREMIERE AT BROOKLYN MUSEUM FORMAL INAUGURATION WEDNESDAY EVENING (NOV. 29) WITH ITALIAN AMBASSADOR PRESENT,” Nov. 29, 1950, in Records of the Department of Public Information, Press releases, 1947 –1952. 10-12/1950, 095-8., Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, NY. 1. 102 “BIG WELFARE GROUP HEADED BY WOMAN: Mrs. Draper First of Her Sex to Become’President of Brooklyn Bureau of Charities SERVED AGENCY 25 YEARS She Emphasizes the Need for Preventive Work by Private Philanthropic Units Founded by Seth Low Need for Private Welfare Work.” New York Times, Oct. 19, 1937, 19. 103 See: “BUILDERS ACQUIRE BROOKLYN PARCELS: Plan Early Completion of 25 Dwellings on Four Corner Plots on Avenue U.” New York Times, Sept. 20, 1946, 63; Alastair Duncan. “Art Deco Lighting.” The Journal of Decorative and Propaganda Arts 1, no. Spring (1986): 20–31; and Suzanne Slesin. “Franco Scalamandre, 89, Leader In Making of Decorative Textiles.” New York Times, Mar 4, 1988, B9. 104 Charles Nagel, Jr., “Letter to Edwin B. Wilson,” not dated 1950, in Records of the Office of the Director, Italy at Work 1: CN4945, Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, NY. 105 “‘Italy at Work’ / Exhibition of Contemporary Decorative and Industrial Arts from Italy.” Nov. 29 1950, in Records of the Office of the Director, Italy at Work 4: CN 50–51, Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, NY. 2; and “Italy At Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today,” 1951, in Art Institute of Chicago, 305-0003.4, AIC Archives: Department of Decorative Arts Exhibition Records 1951-53, Chicago. 106 Nagel, “Letter to Aldo M. Mazio,” Jun. 29, 1950, in Records of the Office of the Director, Italy at Work 3: CN4945, Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, NY. 1. 107 Nagel, “Letter to Aldo M. Mazio,” 2–3. 108 Nagel, “Letter to Aldo M. Mazio,” 1. 109 Nagel, “Letter to Aldo M. Mazio,” 2. 110 Nagel, “Letter to Aldo M. Mazio,” 2. 111 Nagel, “Letter to Aldo M. Mazio,” 3. 112 The song was written in 1977 for Martin Scorsese film New York, New York; written for Liza Minelli but popularized by Frank Sinatra. See: Michael Wilson. “How De Niro Gave Us Sinatra’s ‘New York, New York,’ Our 7 P.M. Anthem.” New York Times, May 2, 2020, 1. 113 “Bartholdi Turecamo, 78, A Builder of Highways.” New York Times, Dec. 30, 1963, 21; “LEONARD E. RUISI OF FAMILY COURT: Appointee of 4 Mayors, Who Took Bench in ‘46, Is Dead.” New York Times, Apr. 16, 1973, 40.

Italian-Americans as Stakeholders 59 114 “Questions - re Italian Show,” not dated, in Records of the Office of the Director, Italy at Work 1: CN5051, Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, NY. 1. 115 “Elizabeth Goodman Dies at 76; Aided Many Brooklyn Charities.” New York Times, Sept. 7, 1967, 45; “Mary Childs Draper, Early Birth-Control Advocate.” New York Times, Nov. 23, 1976, 29; “MRS. GOOD IS HONORED: Brooklyn National Committeewoman Guest at Democratic.” New York Times, Jul. 13, 1948, 7; “MRS. BACHRACH, CIVIC LEADER, DIES: Was Honored as Brooklyn’s First Lady of Philanthropy.” New York Times, Jun. 19, 1962, 25; and “PARTIES TO BE HELD FOR Y.W.C.A. DRIVE: Mrs. Palmer Jadwin Will Give Teas Tomorrow and on Wednesday in Brooklyn. REPORTS WILL BE MADE Luncheon on Friday and Closing Dinner on Nov. 23 Are Also Part of Campaign.” New York Times, Nov. 15, 1936, D2. 116 “Thomas J. Watson Sr. Is Dead; I.B.M. Board Chairman Was 82: ‘World’s Greatest Salesman’ Built 629 Million Company –Coined ‘THINK’ Slogan Thomas J. Watson Sr. Is Dead; I.B.M. Board Chairman Was 82 Optimistic in Outlook Slogan Always in Sight Industrial ‘Family’ Concept Was Friend of Presidents President Pays Tribute.” New York Times, Jun. 20, 1956, 1, 31; and “Tracy S. Voorhees Dead at 84; Was Assistant Army Secretary: Worked for Surgeon General President of Hospital.” New York Times, Sept. 26, 1974, 32. 117 “Ex-Justice Ferdinand Pecora, 89, Dead.” New York Times, Dec. 8, 1971, 40. 118 “VITO F. LANZA, 75, OF SCHOOL BOARD. Former Vice President Who was Lawyer 54 Years Dies.” New York Times, Sept. 3, 1971, 30. 119 “ANGELO PAINO IS DEAD: Head of Cranford Building Company Here Was 71.” New York Times, Oct. 14, 1959, 43; “SILK CONGRESS MEETS HERE NEXT OCTOBER.” New York Times, Feb. 15, 1950, 43; and “Titian Ball on Oct. 24 To Aid Italian League.” New York Times, Aug. 6, 1964, 19. 120 “Profaci Dies of Cancer; Led Feuding Brooklyn Mob.” New York Times, Jun. 8, 1962, 32. 121 Aline B. Loucheim. “SAM LEWISOHN AND HIS LEGACY TO ART: As Man and as Collector He Gave Enthusiasm And Understanding Lover of Art Coining a Phrase Courageous Buys Private and Public Taste Last Visit.” New York Times, Mar. 25, 1951, 85. 122 “Italian Exhibition for Charity.” New York Times, May 19, 1937, 20. 123 “D. R. JAMES JR., 54, A MANUFACTURER: President of John Underwood Concern Dies – Made Typing Ribbons and Carbon Paper.” New York Times, Jun. 19, 1955, 92. 124 “J. CATALANOTTI, 59, A FIGURE IN LABOR: Associate of Sidney Hillman in Clothing Workers’ Union Dies–Was Vice President.” New York Times, Jul. 16, 1946, 23. 125 “August Bellanca Is Dead at 89; Helped Found Clothing Union.” New York Times, Nov. 14, 1969, 51; “MRS. BELLANCA, 52, LABOR LEADER, DIES: Only Woman Vice President of Amalgamated Clothing Held City, State, Federal Posts Vice President Since 1918 Resigned from State Council.” New York Times, Aug. 17, 1946, 13; and Diane C. Vecchio. “Bellanca, Augusto (1880–1969).” In The Italian American Experience: An Encyclopedia, edited by Salvatore J. LaGumina, Frank J. Cavaioli, Salvatore Primeggia and Joseph A. Varacalli, 58. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 2000. 58. 126 “ITALY ENCOURAGES U.S. INVESTMENTS: Returning Publishers’ Official Found Effective Cooperation Despite ‘Plenty of Red Tape’.” New York Times, Oct. 25, 1948, 36. 127 “The John N. LaCorte Story”  Italian Historical Society of America, https://www.italianhistorical.org/john_n_lacorte.html [Accessed Jul. 11, 2021]; and “About” The Morgagni Medical Society of New York, https://www.morgagnimedicalsociety.com/ [Accessed Jul. 11, 2021] 128 “Summary of Phone Call Between Charles Nagel and Richard Pleasant,” Dec. 1, 1950, in Records of the Office of the Director, Italy at Work 6: CN5051, Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, NY. 129 Salvatore J. LaGumina “Ascoli, Max (1898–1978).” In The Italian American Experience: An Encyclopedia, edited by Salvatore J. LaGumina, Frank J. Cavaioli, Salvatore Primeggia and Joseph A. Varacalli, 40–41. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 2000. 40. 130 Wava Carpenter. “Designing Freedom and Prosperity: The Emergence of Italian Design in Postwar America.” Master Thesis, Cooper-Hewitt, National Design Museum, Smithsonian Institution; and Parsons The New School for Design, 2006. 2. 131 Carpenter. “Designing Freedom and Prosperity.” 12; and LaGumina “Ascoli, Max (1898– 1978).” In The Italian American Experience. 40. 132 Carpenter. “Designing Freedom and Prosperity.” 12. 133 Carpenter. “Designing Freedom and Prosperity.” 37.

60  Italian-Americans as Stakeholders 134 Carpenter. “Designing Freedom and Prosperity.” 38. For the US government report, see Italy, country study, European recovery program. Economic Cooperation Administration. Washington, D.C.: United States Government Print Office, 1949. 135 Max Ascoli. The Power of Freedom. New York: Farrar, Straus and Company, 1949. x–xi. 136 Carpenter. “Designing Freedom and Prosperity.” 28. 137 Ascoli. “Political Reconstruction in Italy.” The Journal of Politics 8, no. 3 (1946): 320. 138 Ascoli. “Political Reconstruction in Italy.” 323–24. 139 Carpenter. “Designing Freedom and Prosperity.” 32. 140 Bennet and Pleasant, “LARGEST MUSEUM SHOW EVER BROUGHT TO U.S. HAS NATIONAL PREMIERE AT BROOKLYN MUSEUM FORMAL INAUGURATION WEDNESDAY EVENING (NOV. 29) WITH ITALIAN AMBASSADOR PRESENT,” Nov. 29, 1950, 1. 141 Bennet and Pleasant, “LARGEST MUSEUM SHOW.” 1. 142 Bennet and Pleasant, “LARGEST MUSEUM SHOW.” 2. 143 There were no James Spagnoli’s in the public record, other than a 66 year old man in New Jersey in the 1940 census. US Census Bureau, 1940 Census, National Archives; using 1940census.archives.gov, New Jersey » Essex County » Belleville View ED 7–24 , 8. [Accessed July 12, 2022] 144 Italy At Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today, 1951,” in Art Institute of Chicago, 305-0003.4, AIC Archives: Department of Decorative Arts Exhibition Records 1951-53, Box 3, Italy at Work: Press Releases & Bulletin, 305-0003.4. Chicago. 145 “Attendance Italy at Work Exhibition,” 1950, in Records of the Office of the Director, Italy at Work 2: CN5051, Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, NY.

4

Ceramic Sculpture’s Special Role in Validating Italian Humanist Culture for an American Audience

From ceramic sculpture to traditional folk craft, from textiles to industrial design, the peculiarity of the wide variety of some 2,500 objects reflected both the multifaceted ideas about modern design in Italy that had roots in the interwar period and also the desire to legitimize modern design in the post-war United States. The inclusion of artists in Italy at Work, in particular, has been little studied. Yet, the inclusion of artists played an important role in validating the broader collection of Italian design in the show. Work by artists allowed an exhibition of design to reflect a high brow connection to Italy’s humanist tradition. At the same time, by working in media like ceramics and mosaics, Italian artists pushed against the disciplinary boundaries that had constrained fine art in the modern period. Architects and artisans were likewise eager to collaborate and engage with aesthetics across these disciplinary boundaries. The often interdisciplinary nature of modern Italian design was central to its interest from US curators and collectors, because artists brought the high culture cachet and the kind of modernist aesthetics that reflected this Cold War ideal. In so doing, American architects and designers were able to justify modernist aesthetics because they were presented as a continuation of the humanist tradition of high art. American interest in Italian art and design was as multifaceted as the design style itself. In particular, it was Italian design’s particular form of primitivist modernism that was attractive to American organizers. This allowed for a connection between a humanist past and a modernist future. It also helped an Italy at Work exhibition goal, which was to educate American consumers on ‘good’ modernist design. A press release laid this out saying that the primary interest of the Sponsoring Museums is educational, to give Americans their first comprehensive view of a new cultural renaissance burgeoning in an old civilization, they also hope that those items will arouse a consumer demand for similar objects.1 US-based cultural leaders were keenly interested in convincing the masses of the merits of modernist design.2 Italy at Work had an important place in mitigating the more abstract modernist aesthetics, popular in elite American design circles, with the craft aesthetics popular among Americans more broadly. Along these same lines, MoMA Director René D’Harnoncourt as an HDI board member “provided a powerful link between Modernism, handicraft and Italian design”; and he advocated for the supremacy of “individualism in art” that can be seen in Italy at Work.3 Therefore, Italian artists had DOI: 10.4324/9781003265900-4

62  Ceramic Sculpture’s Special Role an important place in the aesthetic styles of mid-century design, which both Italian and American critics saw as a modernizing force for consumer tastes in the United States. As already introduced, included artists were also important to the political aims of the exhibition organizers. Including artists gave the objects of design a cultural cachet that Italian designers in the United States did not yet hold in the post-war marketplace. As art historians like Raffaele Bedarida has already shown, Italian art held an important place within the American social landscape, especially after WWII.4 Likewise, my scholarship elsewhere has shown that collecting of Italian fine art served as a way to construct a connection between American elite and “a long humanist tradition connecting American cultural habits to those of the Renaissance and ancient Rome.”5 Even before this exhibition, Italian art already had a well-understood status in the United States. The connection between design and art (as a holder of high culture) in Italy at Work was, at least in part, a reaction to the Soviet characterization of the United States as being without history or culture; and Europe played a central role in this Cold War debate. As historian Jessica Gienow-Hecht outlines, Early on, the soviets mounted the most powerful argument in the battle for the minds of men and women: liking progress and modernity both to their history and to the future, the Soviets claimed that they looked back on a great cultural past. They said the Americans had not produced any high culture. Building on a massive propaganda crusade, American strategists worked hard to rebut this argument.… Both Soviet and American policymakers realized that to “win the minds of men” in Europe, they needed to appeal more to their cultural than to their political identity.6 The rhetoric of a ‘renaissance in design’ used in the exhibition title and throughout the catalogue is not a neutral reference to Italy’s past. It served to remind American viewers and Italian producers alike that they had a shared cultural past, a rich one that had a future on the side of the Americans during the burgeoning Cold War. Ultimately, the United States was framed as the inheritor of Italy’s rich humanist tradition. Therefore, the inclusion of artists in Italy at Work served various roles for the exhibition organizers: it legitimized modernist aesthetics in design, it added a cultural cache to American design consumers, and it bolstered support for the claims of democratic cultural supremacy. As part of a larger effort to legitimize American culture in the face of Soviet attacks during the early Cold War, Italian design was similarly important to consider because of its cultural cachet in the United States. By bringing together art, craft, architecture, and industrial design, exhibition organizers for Italy at Work were able to frame specific attributes of Italian culture that served these Cultural Cold War interests (individualist and modern). The inclusion of work by artists, in particular, allowed for the cultural cachet of high art to connect design and Modernism for American audiences. Eschewing some of the political difficulties of presenting a government-funded exhibition fine art, Italy at Work’s focus on design that happens to include artists was clever.7 The inclusion of craft also connected Italy to a rich humanist history. Industrial design, from companies like Innocenti and Olivetti, and art reflected the country’s rich future, seemingly made possible by US intervention. Art connected these two poles—primitive and modern. Therefore, the multiple genres of objects in Italy at Work all helped to reinforce the various Cold War initiatives behind the state support for the American show. This chapter will outline the role of artists

Ceramic Sculpture’s Special Role 63 within the American Cultural Cold War project for Italy at Work, as well as introduce the importance place artists already held in the development of Italian design before the exhibition’s production. Where Italian Artist Fit Into “Italy at Work” While American exhibition organizers had various reasons to include Italian artists in a design exhibition, their inclusion also allied with the current trends of art and design in Italy. However, when the Italy at Work catalogue claimed that the organizers selected items “with acute and sympathetic understanding,” the exhibition omitted a discussion of much of the work’s indigenous context in Italy.8 The seamless inclusion of artists’ work, alongside works by artisans, architects, and engineers, spoke to an on-going environment of experimentation among art, craft, and industry in twentieth-century Italy. Though the interdisciplinary nature of Italian cultural production was showcased in Italy at Work, the indigenous interdisciplinary exploration Italian artists, craftspeople, and architects at the time in Italy was not sparked by American intervention. Though akin to those at the more well-known German Bauhaus, the various nexus points in the interdisciplinary Italian aesthetic landscape has just begun to be researched in the past decade or so. Most important to remember, however, is that bringing Italian art, design, craft, industry, and architecture together was based on the practices of the exhibition participants in Italy that pre-dated the show. Though Italy at Work brought a new spin on these connections, the American exhibition organizers were building on a rich set of intersections already present on the ground. A number of important Italian modern artists were showcased in the Italy at Work exhibition: Afro (1912–76), Pietro Cascella (1921–2008), Anna Maria Cesarini Sforza (1921–2017), Pietro Consagra (1920–2005), Agenore Fabbri (1911–98), Lucio Fontana (1899–1968), Leoncillo Leonardi (called Leoncillo, 1915–68), Giacomo Manzù (1908–91), Fausto Melotti (1901–86), and Aligi Sassu (1912–2000).9 Each of these artists had already been experimenting with craft media and interdisciplinary collaborations before the fall of the Fascist regime—half of whom were already established mid-career artists by the time Italy at Work first opened in 1950. Artists’ inclusion in the show was significant enough to be highlighted in the exhibition catalogue and in promotional materials as a feature of the exhibition. This made the raised status of modernist design very clear to the American public. By highlighting the artistic production, the exhibition organizers heightened the cultural power of the exhibition and made modernism within design more palatable to American audiences. Singled out among the included artists was Lucio Fontana. Fontana would later become most well known internationally for his so-called slash paintings, which, at first glance, appear totally disassociated with his work in ceramics and other craft media. In the decade before this show during WWII (1940–47), his stay in his home country of Argentina saw the publication of the Manifesto Blanco, which was his “first theoretical declaration on ‘spatial art’.”10 As Sharon Hecker has astutely pointed out, though these appear separate upon a surface encounter, Fontana’s interwar experimentation with craft and other media actually lead to the more seemingly austere slash paintings of the 1950s and 60s.11 Often his interest in these media helped him to undermine the supremacy of the art historical canon of sculpture as well as the modernist focus on medium specificity. Tellingly, Hecker recounts that “when Fontana discovered mosaic in 1940, he confided to ceramicist Tullio d’Albisola that it was a ‘whorish and fascinating’ medium, suggesting

64  Ceramic Sculpture’s Special Role

Figure 4.1 Italy at Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today, Rome: The Compagnia Nazionale Artigiana, 1950. Np.

something cheaply attractive, giving sensual pleasure, put seductively on display.”12 Fontana’s interest in these aspects of the medium was built on a modernist trend in Italian sculpture to disrupt the seriousness of monumental sculpture. Though the artist’s mosaic works were not included in the show, his ceramic work was similarly playful. A pair of decorated vases by Lucio Fontana was included, depicting a kind of mythical battle scene that was typical of many of his works at the time [Figure 4.1]. As with many of his contemporaries, he started with a standard vessel base and applied the decoration to its surface, leaving the main form of the vase unadulterated. Yet, the decorative program does not mimic more traditional ceramic vessels. Rather, their energetic figures float and move around the vase’s circumference, jumping off the surface. Adding to the energy, the slip was applied in a painterly, emotive way, one that is almost childlike. With a rough materiality, both in the physicality of the modeled figures and in the visible brush strokes used to apply the slip, Fontana created a work that engaged with modernist primitivism in two ways: first, in the classical references (the vase’s shape and subject); and second, in the unratified handling of media. Hecker suggests that in this kind of material handling, “Fontana takes [Gaston] Bachelard’s phenomenological reading beyond the charged relationship between the artist’s hand and material fleshiness.”13 The works are a complex set of references from Italian history and present. The historically established shape and subject matter of these vases seems inharmonious with the handling of the figures in clay. However, Fontana’s work was often particularly interested in these seemingly incongruous moments. As art historian Anthony White explains, continuously going against the flow of developments in modern art, Fontana was preoccupied with the out-of-date, the anachronistic, and the outmoded, and often

Ceramic Sculpture’s Special Role 65 reverted to styles and genres of a recently past. He did this not to wallow in nostalgia but to foreground how earlier, unfulfilled dreams of modernity encountered both in the utopian ambitions of early-twentieth-century artistic innovation and in certain forms of kitsch are betrayed by the continual sameness of the new.14 The vases in Italy at Work functioned similarly to his work at the Cinema Arlecchino, which (reminiscent of White’s description) Hecker writes, “almost [mimic] classical art, at each turn the classical motif is altered and decoratively abstracted.”15 Fontana’s work reflected the connection to a great humanist Italian past, the modernist aesthetics of the art world at mid-century, and the popular craft tradition. Fontana did this with a critical eye to all three legacies. Italy at Work further complicated this already rich work through its installation design, which will be discussed in the next chapter. Despite the inclusion of artistic production, the early organizational materials articulated that Italy at Work be an exhibition exclusive of any art. To this end, Teague wrote: The fine arts were ruled as beyond our scope, although sometimes it was hard to say that a specific ceramic piece, for instance, was not fine art; however, if it was ceramic and not bronze or marble, we considered it admissible.16 Presenting this exhibition as not fine art served to separate the Italy at Work exhibition from the previous year’s show at MoMA, which had just closed in September 1949.17 Twentieth Century Italian Art had also been in the service of Marshall Plan ideals, but it did not tout its support like Italy at Work.18 The reasons for MoMA’s professed autonomy from the US Government were two-fold: it showcased modernist and avant-garde works of art, whose government financial support had started to be criticized in the US Congress; and the exhibition’s organizers wished to separate politics, especially Fascism, from the progressive aesthetics of Italian art of the last four decades.19 State support for fine art was seen as controversial for the government by 1950. During the organization of Italy at Work, MoMA officials were consulted in order to explicitly distinguish this exhibition from their show for these reasons.20 Along these same lines, art was seen outside the realm of a clear economic stimulus for the Marshall Plan initiatives that would be acceptable to the American taxpayer. For the American exhibition organizers, cultural production that was connected to traditional craft industries was looked to as exemplar, as discussed in Chapter 2. This was, of course, a rhetorical distinction to quell the political sentiments at the time. Art, craft, and industrial design were all used in Italy at Work to bolster the Cultural Cold War. Akin to the way the Marshall Plan organizers utilized film to “labor for a better standard of living, to demobilize ideologically, and to conceive of the new society as steps toward an order that was doubly secure, both militarily and materially,” designed objects, therefore, were both a ‘safe’ cultural production connected to economic stability and also directly connected to the US Cold War ideals of building the market for home goods that were needed for the rising standard of living both in the United States and Italy.21 The genres of design within Italy at Work were not only presented as attractive consumer goods but even set up as rivals to fine art, which served to both distance the show from the more politically volatile art field and also to highlight the importance of Italian democratic creativity. With a focus on consumerism, there are moments in the catalogue where art’s role was specifically downplayed. For example, Walter Dorwin Teague described an inlaid chest of drawers, illustrated on the previous page in the catalogue, writing “you see the remarkable intarsia of Enrico Bernardi, with its tiny compositions

66  Ceramic Sculpture’s Special Role that [Giorgio] de Chirico or Jean Hugo can scarcely surpass…”—that work would ultimately enter into the AIC collection after the exhibition’s tour.22 This small comment by Teague could also be read as an overturning of the artistic hierarchies that had recently absorbed American cultural critics, exemplified in texts like Clement Greenberg’s 1939 essay “Avant-Garde and Kitsch.”23 Teague seemed to be suggesting a role reversal, the exhibition and its texts pushed to almost throw out the distinction entirely. It is not inconsequential that the subtitle of the exhibition conjures images of a particular idea of a ‘Renaissance man’, able to carve a sculpture, turn a table leg, and then design a war machine like Leonardo. Italy at Work presented a Renaissance-like artist-artisan-engineer, inspired by high cultural thinking, but able to make beautiful things that you want to buy for your house. Some of the best examples of blurring the lines between high and low in Italy at Work are the inclusion of more vernacular types of design. As Penny Sparke discusses, the seeming outlying inclusion of straw children’s toys in Italy at Work highlighted the connection between these craft goods and the “role for ‘primitivism’ within contemporary visual culture which was visible in much international avant-garde art at the time, especially in the ceramic work of Pablo Picasso ….”24 Modernist aesthetics were not antecedents to more traditional aspects of craft, rather their use of primitivism connected craft to a larger modern aesthetic discourse. More recently, design historian Catherine Rossi goes one step further, arguing that “in Italy at Work, craft’s authenticity and individualism are conflated with politically motivated praise for freedom of expression.”25 This aligns with how architectural historian Michelangelo Sabatino has described shifts in architectural styles, starting in the 1930s. It can be seen in “Leonello Venturi’s expression ‘pride in modesty’ (‘orgoglio della modesta’), borrowed and used extensively by architect Giuseppe Pagano during the 1930s, captured the subversive essence of this synthesis.”26 Sabatino further argues that “by reinventing tradition, Italian architects, during and after fascism, constructed a hybrid modernity that was at odds with avantgarde radicalism and its insistence on the ‘eclipse of history’.”27 The works selected for Italy at Work clearly reflect this engagement with tradition and modernity, an aspect that organizers were keen to utilize in their efforts to sell modern design aesthetics to the American public. The conflict between interdisciplinary production and heralding of artistic hierarchies created a complex web of meaning in Italy at Work. Yet, at the center, Italian artists bridged the gaps between the traditional craft stylings, the vernacular aesthetics popular in the United States, and the high modernist design aesthetics reflected in the industrial design included in the show. As “criticisms of Modernism intensified, Italian design entered the American market, where its variety of expressions found enthusiasts in both highbrow and middlebrow circles.”28 It posed the question that if American audiences could appreciate modern Italian design, why not modernist design being created in the United States. Precedent for Italian Interdisciplinary Experiments in Art, Craft, and Industry Italian artists, artisans, and architects were working to revolutionize aesthetics through interdisciplinary approaches before WWII. In addition to artists collaborating with artisans and appropriating materials and ideas from the craft tradition, artists and architects were working in traditional craft schools and industrial firms to revolutionize education and production. Though Italy at Work showcased much of this collaboration, it was

Ceramic Sculpture’s Special Role 67 overwhelmingly presented in the exhibition’s publicity incorrectly, as a post-Fascist phenomenon rather than a pre-existing strategy that had a long history in twentieth-century Italy. This Cold War idea defined the show as exhibiting “only the explosive forces generated by the release from these [Fascist] controls [that] will account for the energy” displayed in the exhibition.29 Therefore, the logic of Italy at Work positioned the liberation of Italy by the Americans as the spark that ignited this vibrancy and “individually” in Italian design. Following the Italian context for the intersections of art, craft, and industry on display in Italy at Work will not only highlight the reality of many of the objects in the show but also allows a historiographic study in to the split between Fascist and post-Fascist as well as art and design. Early collaborative experiments in design began even before the avant-garde experiments of the Italian Futurists—both architects and artists were thinking about these issues before WWI. As design historian Elena Dellapiana articulates, the theorizing of the decorative arts in Italy can be traced back to the turn of the century architect and theorist Camillo Boito.30 Boito’s ideas about decorative and industrial arts were akin to other European modernist ideas of design at the time that focused on issues of ‘hygiene’ and how that connected to ornament.31 Publications about design also began to pop up in Italy at the turn of the century. In particular, the publication by Guido Marangoni of the Enciclopedia delle moderne arti decorative (1925–27) elucidated the seriousness of the discourse in Italian design circles.32 Correspondingly, discrete programs in architecture began in Italian universities (1922 at Monza, which will be discussed below) that highlighted the parallel developments of these related subjects as serious fields of study.33 In the 1920s and 30s, architects were engaged with both “industry-industry” (industrial design) and design (designed objects that were connected to the artisan tradition and to the arts).34 Ignored in Italy at Work because of the connection to Fascism, this interwar context in Italy saw the genesis of much of the ideas and techniques displayed in the show. The web of interconnected contemporary producers in this interwar period set the groundwork for the artists highlighted in Italy at Work. Below, I will discuss a non-exclusive set of precedents for the work included in Italy at Work and introduce the pre-existing connections between Italian art and design. Not only was his work included in Italy at Work, but Gio Ponti’s wide reach directly affected the variety of objects displayed in the show—in part because he was a consultant on Italy at Work and in part because of his influence on the Italian design landscape. Concurrent to the American show, at the Milan Triennale of 1953, Ponti explicitly outlined the importance of interdisciplinary approaches to ceramics, in this case, that set Italian ceramics apart from those made elsewhere in Europe. Ponti wrote in the Preface to the catalogue for the ceramics portion of the triennial that “schools of art, artisan production and industrial design completed the panorama of our modern ceramics” in Italy.35 His emphasis on breaking down the hierarchies between ‘Art’ and ‘design’ were central to his work even before this 1953 exposition.36 Almost each step of Ponti’s early career anticipated the kinds of objects in the postWWII exhibition. As the late Italian art critic and historian Germano Celant wrote, Moving in a universe that called for design “from the spoon to the city,” hence not specialized or compartmentalized, Ponti was able to range widely, revealing a vein of poetry that was embodied in several products[… and] … he never had to deny the “artistic” aspect of his work ….37

68  Ceramic Sculpture’s Special Role Not only did he work to design everything from buildings to chairs, he was a leader in the publishing field, which often focused on these interdisciplinary modes of working. The Milanese architect, designer, and publisher Gio Ponti (1891–1979) was a central figure in the interdisciplinary approaches to design in Italy. Ponti came from a wellconnected family already working within the field in textile design and electricity—Milan was the first Italian city to be electrified.38 After WWI, a major turning point in Ponti’s career came with his hiring at the historic Richard-Ginori factory at Doccia, just outside of Florence. This appointment came just a year after he graduated with an architecture degree and began his own architecture firm with Lino Fiocchi and Emilio Lancia.39 The same year as his appointment, Ponti was praised for his ceramic work, with a room dedicated to his work in the 1923 International Exhibition of Decorative Arts in Monza—this important design exhibition will be discussed further below and in the next chapter.40 Ponti held this position from 1923 until 1930. As the artistic director at Richard-Ginori, Ponti incorporated modernist aesthetics, akin to the art deco style; at the same time, he modernized the production systems, using his architectural training as a guide. Ponti’s ceramic style was clearly informed by current trends in Europe, of which he incorporated along with Italic iconography to make it relevant to the Italian context.41 By 1925, his works were winning international awards. Ponti became a model for the industrial and aesthetic modernization within similar firms in Italy; this cannot be overstated. His leadership showed other firms that high design could go hand in hand with economic prosperity.42 This experience at Richard-Ginori and his influence through publications translated to his directorship of the 1933 Triennale in Milan—the first edition in the modern city after being transformed from the Biennale di Monza. In addition to his work at Richard-Ginori and a Milan-based ceramics factory S. Cristoforo, partnering with retailers like La Rinascente (Italian department store founded in 1865), Ponti founded two of the most important interdisciplinary magazines of the period: Domus in 1928, which is still in existence; and Lo Stile in 1941, which ran monthly for 6 years.43 These magazines highlighted advances in modern architecture, interior design, industrial design, craft, art, and much more. They became important spaces for Ponti and his contemporaries to theorize modernist and avant-garde aesthetics, as well as understand and shape the interdisciplinary approaches of contemporary producers. Ponti was not only making real changes in various disciplines, but he was also framing the stakes of these shifts under Fascism and after.44 Italians, just like their Italian-American counterparts, celebrated Fascism as a kind of national pride that had been lacking since the country’s inception. In both these periods, Fascist and Cold War, Ponti’s ideas were connected to nationalism as much as design aesthetics. By the time of Italy at Work, Ponti was vocally seeking to modernize Italian design both in terms of mass production and aesthetics.45 Artists had a key role to play in Ponti’s ideas about the modernization of Italy’s design legacy. Importantly, he wrote that “painters and sculptors” played a central role in making Italian ceramics that had “poetic value.”46 Ponti even organized a publication in 1954 with Daria Guarnati, called Espressione di Gio Ponti [Expression of Gio Ponti] that highlighted his ideas about design.47 Importantly, this volume illustrated the wide array of works that Ponti produced and collaborated on with other artists, architects, companies, and artisans. An introductory text was accompanied by a lavish set of images (some in color) that were juxtaposed with adages like “not decoration but allegory,” “only expression, not architecture,” or “allusion, not decoration.”48 Detail photographs of his contribution to Italy at Work were also included in the text in the section titled “Intermezzo”—the titles of each section

Ceramic Sculpture’s Special Role 69 are not explained in the text, so meanings can only be inferred.49 What is clear from this publication is that Ponti was dedicated to Modernism, but one that was not adherent to medium specificity or rarified forms. Rather the interdisciplinary nature of his work and the work that he championed reflected European modernist primitivism. Another important precedent to consider is the avant-garde ideology of integrating art and life, which was mobilized in Italy to modernize art, craft, and manufacturing. As art historian Ara H. Merjian outlines, Futurist artists like Giacomo Balla (1871–1958) registered a “sublimation of aesthetics into the practice of everyday life.”50 Penned by Balla and fellow Futurist Fortunato Depero in 1915, “The Futurist Reconstruction of the Universe” reflected the Futurist ideals that would become central to the interwar version of the movement. The manifesto called for the “transformation of everything from architecture and toys, to clothing and furniture.”51 Like the later, Italy at Work exhibition, this manifesto compresses the hierarchies within design itself, setting architecture at the same import as children’s playthings. Balla “intended an architecture of everyday objects as one his primary contributions to the Futurist project.”52 Framed as a revolutionary act, bringing art into every aspect of life was meant to have real effects on people’s lives. Unlike architect Antonio Sant’ Elia’s large-scale imaginings of Futurist cities, Balla was focused on “more quotidian concerns.”53 Merjian quite rightly asserts that the importance of Futurist understandings of art and craft impacted the later Italian design trends, if largely overlooked. Another important contribution to consider in the context of Italy at Work was the connection between art, design, and technology by the Futurists. Art historian Irina D. Costache writes that Futurism took the lessons about the applied arts learned from the Arts and Crafts movement and Art Nouveau (one could also add the Liberty style in Italy), and connect these practices to the import of technology within the modern world.54 Like Ponti’s work to modernize the Richard-Ginori factory, the Futurists were not merely looking to revitalize historical media and style (though they did do this too) but also to complicate what design would come to mean for the twentieth century. Many artists and artisans in Italy at Work had either direct or indirect engagement with Futurism and its ideals. Artist like Fausto Melotti participated the Futurists interwar activities. For example, Melotti had worked in Depero’s Casa d’Arte Futurista in their shared home city of Rovereto. Like Balla’s home in Rome, Depero constructed his home as an ideal Futurist gesamtkunstwerk in the Alpine foothills. At his “House of Futurist Art,” Depero installed his textile works and stage designs alongside other Futurist paintings, sculptures, and furniture. Like other Futurist installations, performances also played a key role in enlivening the work as to physically enact Futurism in life. “Their works—from ties and chairs to paintings and sculptures—were conceived to interact dynamically with the space of the viewer, heightening the symbiotic fusion of the object with both the spectator and the environment.”55 For example, Depero worked with Melotti, Carlo Belli (critic/theorist), Gino Pollini (architect), and the Futurist painter and poet, Roberto Iras Baldessari (1894–1965) to organize a “Futurist vigil/veglia futurista” at the Casa in 1923.56 Performances like this were meant to showcase the integration of the arts to create a Futurist experience. This is just one example of Italy at Work artists and artisans working directly with Futurists. It is perhaps the intersection of modernist sculpture and Futurism that best describes Melotti’s ceramic production from this period. Though discussed in detail in the next section of this chapter, Melotti’s all-too-delicate bowls and vases are not really functional. Similar to the way many Futurists designed objects were created to “resembl[e] sculptures

70  Ceramic Sculpture’s Special Role more than chairs … [transforming] the inertia of the object into a dynamic presence.”57 The variety of aesthetics among the ceramic works produced by artists in Italy at Work showed a rich engagement with both the history of the medium and Futurist experiments. Even before Futurism’s splash onto the international art scene, Italian sculptors were undermining the European modernist push toward medium specificity. At the turn of the century, sculptors, in particular, showed that the disciplinary bounds were not fixed within Italian modernism. The important archetype was Medardo Rosso (1858–1928), who pressured sculptural presence and monumentality.58 He experimented with bronze casting, wax casting, and photographing his sculpture, while his contemporaries continued to send out clay and plaster maquettes to bronze casting studios to be produced— though his earlier works were cast in the more traditional manner. As Hecker shows, Rosso’s development of his own foundry actives allowed him to be “a highly experimental craftsman,” who had a “very personal engagement in the production of his serial sculptures.”59 Though Rosso’s experimentation fits into the contemporary modernist debates about ‘truth’ in sculpture, his particular mode of working and interest in multiples (in both sculpture and photography) were precedents for the later experiments by artists in Italy at Work. As with the artist multiples seen in Pop Art, half a century later, the connection between the sculptural multiple and designed object multiple (read: commercial) were never that far apart. Combined with Rosso’s interest in non-canonical sculptural media, namely wax, his contribution shows the already complex references mid-century artists were building upon. Another aspect of sculptural precedents to Italy at Work is sculptural anti-monumentality. In the first half of the twentieth century, interdisciplinary investigations within sculpture were connected to the general trend to explore media and monumentality. After the rise of Fascism, especially in the late years of the regime, many sculptors were also pushing against the use of sculpture for propaganda, which was already central to the history of European sculpture in the form of the public monument. These intersecting interests were anticipated by Rosso and, later on, sculptor Arturo Martini. Martini became the pre-eminent sculptor in 1930s Italy. His work was highly prized during the Fascist period; he was highlighted, alongside Adolfo Wildt, as the top contemporary Fascist sculptors in Francesco Sapori’s 1932 book L’Arte e il Duce [Art and the Duce].60 Martini’s work was often praised both for its modernist primitivism and the innovative formal qualities, including using historically significant media like terracotta. Like Martini’s studio work, his pedagogy was also interdisciplinary. While teaching in a ceramics program focused on the traditional Mallorca ceramic style in Monza, Martini engaged students in interdisciplinary experiments. In the industrial city of Monza, just outside of Milan, traditional craft sectors and “artistic tradition of Italian classicism” still flourished, as Milan had become the modern icon of progress.61 Just after WWI, the municipalities of Milan and Monza organized to establish the school for decorative arts that would be a precursor to Italy’s modern design programs. The same year Benito Mussolini established his dictatorship in Italy (1922), the Università d’Arte Decorativa (University of the Decorative Arts or UAD) was inaugurated at the Villa Reale in Monza. In addition to this new design school, the villa became the location of the Biennale di Monza, which would showcase modern craft and design. Though it later moved to Milan to become a triennial event, the exhibition reflected the modern interdisciplinary experimentation in the region even before Martini’s tenure. According to architect and critic Agnoldomenico Pica, the Monza exhibition found a space where “the expressions «decorative arts», «artisan», began to be discussed. Decorative art, why not decoration?

Ceramic Sculpture’s Special Role 71 But why decoration—truly and solely—and not painting or sculpture?”62 Significant questioning of traditional boundaries of artistic media was taking place from the 1920s onward, breaking down the distinctions between decorative arts (arte decorativa), tradition crafts (artigianato), and fine art (arte plastica or arte visive or arte figurativo). By 1926, UAD had been renamed the Istituto Superiore Industrie Artistiche (Higher Institute of the Artistic Industries or ISIA).63 Martini’s tenure at ISIA was only 1929–32.64 Yet in this short time, Martini strove to create a deeper dialogue between the arts, rather than just simply apply modernist principles to the craft industry. He worked to expand his students’ formal experimentation, in terms of surface design, form, and volumes, through an opening of his studio practice. As did his contemporary counterparts at the Bauhaus, Martini opened his personal studio to students and collaborated with them on more experimental practices outside of the formal classroom. In this studio, he was not only making sculpture in media traditionally connected with craft, like terracotta, but also encouraging his students to make connections between the traditional styles in which they had trained and the modern sculptural sensibilities in terms of volumes, style, and even subject matter. At this time, Martini was already well known in Milanese art circles for his sculptural prowess, having exhibited with the Valori Plastici and with Margherita Sarfatti’s Novecento group, though he did not remain allied with either of those groups for long.65 He would exhibit both in the Third International Exhibition of Decorative Arts at Monza in 1927 and then in the 1928 Venice Biennale with the group of Novecento artists from the Il Milione gallery in Milan. A few years later, Martini would win the most important prize for sculpture in Fascist Italy, first place at the Quadriennale exhibition in Rome (1931).66 Not only did Martini work across disciplinary boundaries, teaching students of traditional craft to do more than endlessly copy their predecessors, but he also set the stage for a deep reconsideration of both sculptural practice and Modernism at the end of WWII. As art historian Emily Braun clarifies, his use of the vernacular “implicated his work in the Fascist propaganda of Italianità at the same time that his often-irreverent volgare subtly evaded totalitarian ideologies and classicizing ideals.”67 Yet, artists like Martini experienced the Regime’s shift toward conservative aesthetics leading up to the war. In a partial response, Martini published the treatise La Scultura lingua morta [Sculpture: Dead Language] in 1945. This poetic text, published just two years before the sculptor’s own untimely death, was a denunciation of his own sculptural practice. La Scultura lingua morta was, at least in part, an attack on modernist sculpture use as monument to Fascism. Regardless, Martini’s La Scultura lingua morta had a profound impact on sculptors and designers across Italy—it was republished in 1948, coinciding with the retrospective at the Venice Biennale to commemorate the recently passed artist.68 Martini had ostensibly marked the ‘death’ of sculpture to its debasement as statuary, presumably under the Fascist dictatorship.69 For many critics in Italy, post-war contemporary sculptors had revitalized sculpture since the fall of Fascism.70 American critics, curators, and collectors agreed, even if “Martini suffered the fate of several other modernists who were subsequently neglected … because of their affiliation with Fascism.”71 In the US, Italian sculpture and Italian cultural production more broadly had been cleansed of totalitarianism as soon as Mussolini was deposed. Both Ponti’s and Martini’s interdisciplinary groundwork can be seen in the kind of choices found at the Milan Triennale. This triennial exhibition had become a center for national and international experiments in architecture and design—it still is today—and

72  Ceramic Sculpture’s Special Role showcased these interdisciplinary experiments with art, craft, and industry. These developments grew in import during the Fascist period (1922–43) and were often politically and financially supported by the Regime. As part of a larger Fascist campaign to have “mass manifestations of the Italian arts,” the Triennale received a new venue in Milan designed by architect Giovanni Muzio in 1933.72 Artist collaborations were present within modern Italian design from the beginning, particularly within the Triennale. In 1942, Ponti wrote about the significance of artists’ role in the Triennale because of their “strengthening in this essential sector [industry] … elements of an international expansion of culture and prestige, ultimately exporting production and labor.”73 It is no coincidence that a number of the artists in Italy at Work exhibited at the interwar and post-WWII Triennali: Fabbri, Fontana, Melotti, and Sassu among them. The final precedent that I will highlight is the work of artists in small private artisan workshops. One of the most important was the ceramic workshop of Tullio Mazzotti (1899–1971, often called ‘Tullio d’Albisola’) in the Ligurian city of Albisola. Mazzotti had started his sculptural experiments in ceramics in the 1920s as part of the Futurist group—it would be hard to overstate the interconnected nature of all these precedents to the work exhibited in Italy at Work.74 Though catering to avant-garde artists before and after WWII, the workshop was one of a group of ceramics producers in the region. Mazzotti’s father had opened the ceramics company in 1903, which housed the son’s experiments from the 1920s onward. Like Ponti at Richard-Ginori and Martini at ISIA, Mazzotti sought to “give an electric energy to the utilitarian production in the sector of everyday objects.”75 Throughout the interwar period, artists like Fabbri, Fontana, Martini, and Sassu traveled to the seaside town to engage in experimental ceramic production.76 These experiments continued after the fall of Fascism and certainly reverberated throughout the larger production of ceramic sculpture after WWII. Other important centers for the interdisciplinary experimentation dotted the Italian peninsula. Another significant space for this kind of study was the workshop at the Villa Giulia in Rome, run by the “painter, mosaicist, ceramicist, dilettante architect, inventor, and poet” Enrico Galassi (1907–80).77 As WWII ended, Galassi’s studio was welcoming artists to experiment with tradition craft media from mosaics to ceramics. Established artists like Carlo Carrà (1881–1966), Giorgio de Chirico (1888–1978), and his brother Alberto Savinio (1891–1952) frequented the studio at the Renaissance villa in between 1944 and 1949.78 There, Consagra, Leoncillo, and their younger contemporaries worked alongside the established modernists (like Carrà and the De Chirico brothers) to create works in polychrome ceramic, as well as in materials like marble, wood, pietre dure, metal, and textiles. Galassi’s own studio production is also included in Italy at Work— the work of pietre dure was possibly designed or at least inspired by De Chirico or Savinio [Figure 4.2]. Likewise, ceramic works by the painters Pietro Consagra and Afro that were created at Galassi’s studio were exhibited in Italy at Work.79 As an American exhibition, explicitly focused on presenting a post-totalitarian, democratic Italy; artists, artisans, architects, and industrial producers utilized this reframing of production to rebuild an image of a new Italy. As Hecker argues using the photo of Fontana rising from the rubble of his bombed studio, Italy at Work allowed Italian producers to showcase their long-time experiments as emphatically anti-Fascist, with the American seal of approval.80 The works in Italy at Work reflected the rich, interdisciplinary tradition of the arts (particularly: art, craft, industry, and architecture). Additionally, by considering the original contexts for much of this design, it is clear that even some of the more seemingly traditional work was engaged with ideas of modernity and

Ceramic Sculpture’s Special Role 73

Figure 4.2 Installation View of Italy at Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today, March 15, 1951–May 13, 1951, The Art Institute of Chicago/Art Resource, NY

industrialization, including an interest in new technologies available through broader access to things like electricity. Artist-Ceramists as Design Innovators at “Italy at Work” Though the central role of artists in this post-war Italian design boom has been little studied, it is important to understand it in Italy at Work’s Cold War context. Undoubtedly, the choice of working in media like ceramics and terracotta also played some role in the disregard of ceramic sculpture. As art historian and theorist James Elkins has argued, “there are superficial and deep reasons for the exclusion of ceramics” in art history.81 Recently, this sentiment was evident in the reactions to the 2019 Met Breuer exhibition that highlighted Fontana’s ceramic work.82 Ceramics are still both inside and outside the stratified art work, at least within the European tradition.83 Despite this, at the time, Italian artists working in ceramics were praised at home and abroad. However, as with Italy at Work, their ceramic work was often separated and isolated as different from their more ‘serious’ art production—many of the artists included in this exhibition have separate ‘ceramics’ catalogue raisonnés that distance that work from their more ‘serious’ art practice.84 As I have tried to show in this chapter, these hierarchies between art and craft were blurred. Especially at mid-century, Italian artists and particularly Italian sculptors were using media like ceramics to investigate sculptural anti-monumentality, tactility, fragility, the artist’s hand, etc. Italy at Work was one of a few places in the United States where these were shown before the twenty-first century.85 Turning back to the works in Italy at Work, the variety of objects by artists ranged from ceramic sculptures, to bowls, to ceramic plaques, to mosaics. Each engaged with

74  Ceramic Sculpture’s Special Role their medium in different ways. Still yet, the works by artists often varied significantly from the work of artisans or industrial producers. Just looking at one artist, Fausto Melotti’s works included in this exhibition ranged from picture frames to bowls to figurines.86 His slips varied in texture and tone, highlighting the formal shifts of the clay in order to enhance the movements and shapes made in clay. Rather than being merely decorative, the color slips emphasize the formal elements of each object. For example, with Melotti’s cup, ca. 1948, the dark brown slip drips over the edge to accentuate the curve of the footed-cup. As if actively dripping down the side of the vessel, the slip seems to have sloshed out from the interior, in the same color. This reinforces the actual form, the convex shape of the cup exterior. Even the white slip below has an appearance of cascading over to cover the faintly legible markings beneath it. In the Italy at Work catalogue, there was a confused recognition of Melotti’s engagement with formalism within the medium of ceramics: “peculiar abstract qualities resulting from the construction of forms out of sheets of clay rather than by molding or mass modeling.”87 Like his contemporaries, Melotti’s focus on ceramics in particular was part intellectual and part practical—the material was cheaper than traditional sculptural media and it was more popular in the recovering Italian market.88 By the second half of 1950, he would begin signing his letters with the abbreviation “So. Ce. Mel,” for Società Ceramica Melotti.89 Melotti would have at least a dozen ceramic stamps in circulation that identified his work in the ceramic medium by 1960.90 This too reflects the constant ebb and flow of artist and artisan framing within his practice. However, it is clear that though he often made traditional genres of ceramics (bowls, plates, etc.), none of those were functional nor traditional in style or form. They were, in a sense, bowl as sculpture. These examples not only highlight the import for curators Rogers and Nagel to include works by artists, but also why curators, critics, and collectors in Italy had been interested in these experiments. There were countless interactions between art, craft, and industrial production throughout Italy at Work that could be used to articulate the importance of artists within Italian design, both formal and contextual. Within a room devoted to works of Christian imagery, a number of ceramic works by artists were juxtaposed with works of similar subject but differing form within a small space. On the far wall, a polychrome ceramic plaque by ceramicist Ugo Lurcerini and a mosaic by ceramicist Giuseppe Macedonio flanked a polychrome ceramic figure group by ceramicist Marcello Fantoni. In the far left corner, a small pedestal held the artist Lucio Fontana’s Transfiguration [Figure 5.1]. On the opposite wall, visitors would come upon sculptor Fausto Melotti’s Annunciation pair. By comparing these set of works, related by theme, the ways in which artists engaged with the ceramic media both in relationship and opposition to more traditional ceramicists will be shown. Melotti’s Annunciation, 1948–49, depicts the Christian scene with the Virgin Mary and the Angel Gabriel as two separate ceramic figurines [Figure 4.3]. Highlighted in a photograph in the exhibition catalogue (at the top of the display), this work is formally similar to a figurative pair of his included in Ponti’s dining room display. The clay used for the drapery was applied as sheets of clay that reads in oscillation between abstract planes and figurative drapery. At the same time, the uniform thinness suggests a reading of commercial production. Rather than an illusory image of clothing, Melotti created an assemblage of forms. Likewise, the monochromatic slip highlights the abstract formal qualities of the object, in dialogue with to his non-figurative vessels and frames. As in other sculptural works of the period, namely his Teatrini [Little Theater] series inspired by Martini’s own series by that name, here Melotti used figurative personifications

Ceramic Sculpture’s Special Role 75

Figure 4.3 Installation View of Italy at Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today, March 15, 1951–May 13, 1951, The Art Institute of Chicago/Art Resource, NY

to experiment with his ideas about modern sculpture. Mary and Angel Gabriel, both semi-divine in the Catholic tradition, illustrate the sculptural interaction between the modeling and the modulation: mother (nature/disorder) and God (rule/order).91 Narratively, the figures here are legible as a pair, in one of the canonical Annunciation poses. Comprising two separate figures, however, Melotti kept each realm separate (earthly and divine). Yet as a pair, they create a dynamic interaction of the two realms, which culminates with the word of God impregnating the woman and creating God on earth. The Orpheus and Eurydice pairing included in Ponti’s dining room installation too references a kind of metamorphosis (earthly and divine). For Melotti’s practice, like with his friend and contemporary Fontana, these kinds of stories of transformation word/body, spirit/ body were often metaphors for his sculptural practice of bringing idea to physical form. The abstract sculptural qualities of the ceramic sculpture were often explicitly contrasted with works of craft and industrial design. For example, a set of ceramic candlesticks by Victor Cerrato, which represented more traditional Italian ceramics, were displayed just below Melotti’s Annunciation pair. As utilitarian objects, candlestick holders, the details of Cerrato’s figures were clearly made from molds for uniformity. Also, the decorative objects served to present ethnographic models, a representative look into regional Sardinian costume—even if the artist was from Turin and not Sardinia. Likewise, the glazing of the figurines designates different aspects of the clothing and regional Sardinian attributes. In contrast, Melotti’s monochromatic slip sets his Annunciation apart in their abstractness; his works in ceramics were concerned with the aesthetics of

76  Ceramic Sculpture’s Special Role high art even in the media of the artisan. This juxtaposition for Italy at Work organizers was a way to highlight the modernity of Italian design for American audiences and consumers that was still connected to the traditional craft that they already prized. This happened through subject matter (primitivism) and material (ceramics, mosaics, etc.). The Exotic Italian Artisan The exhibition texts invited a particular kind of viewership of Italian design, asking Americans to go see the handicrafts as “mystical” objects of a newly liberated, pure culture.92 “[D]esigned to give the American public the pleasure that comes from seeing objects made in our own time [and] that are at once useful and beautiful or stimulating to the imagination,” spectacle played an important role in the exhibition.93 One viewer exclaimed that the exhibition contained “the most amazing things I’ve ever seen!”94 The catalogue presented this project to the public as a tourist “expedition” of sorts. Viewers would learn about “an astonishing variety of destinations” for “an unforgettable experience.”95 Architectural historian Paolo Scrivano has described this phenomenon as “romanticizing the other.” He argues that the large “discrepancy between reality and imagination in the way Italian design culture was presented to the American public” can be understood in these kinds of Orientalizing terms.96 The agency of Italian design companies has been downplayed; design companies and individual artists and producers alike played an active role in cultivating an American consumer base for their products in this way. When considering Italy at Work, the economic considerations of the producers should not be seen as antithetical or unrelated to those of the exhibition organizers. The American-led consumerism and cultural appropriation were not merely forced on Italian producers. Moreover, these producers were in the market, so to speak, for consumers. Therefore, though the language of the exhibition text was exaggerated, it cannot be seen to fully misrepresenting the aims and ideas of the artists, artisans, architects, and companies included in the show. This further complicates the narrative of American cultural dominance and reveals their reliance of Italian-led ideas about design and cultural commerce. As has already been shown, political and economic power were at the heart of the main aims of this exhibition. The first aim was the “broadening of [American] cultural experience” through the “pleasure that comes from seeing objects.”97 Exhibition organizers relied on visitors understanding the import of Italy within the Cultural Cold War to at least some extent. It was meant to help their own national perception as both arbiters of culture and as the international judge of standards of living. Just as the lines between art and craft had begun to be blurred, so too the lines between modernist autonomy and “Tourist Kitsch” were blurred.98 In Italy at Work’s move to develop “the great health of Italy and our western world, the producer-consumer chain must be completed.”99 Through the output sparked by this exhibition, its organizers claimed, Italy could create a robust post-war economy relieving their import debt and reignite “that stream of creative imagination—warm and rich in human values—which has inspired our civilization from its beginnings.”100 Not only did this cultural consumerism fit the aims of the Marshall Plan, but it would have longlasting effects in the creation of the “Made in Italy” brand.101 In Italy at Work, Italian individually could be found in the “counter-balance to the lifeless monotony of purely mechanical production.”102 Individuality, as already discussed in Chapter 2, was a political stance. It represented the ideal citizen creator in a

Ceramic Sculpture’s Special Role 77 capitalist democracy. Artists in Italy at Work, therefore, furthered this idea because they were bringing new life to older craft traditions. Even today, this idea of uniqueness and individuality has lasted as a way to define Italian art and design.103 For example, at the country’s 150th anniversary, the Palazzo delle Esposizioni in Rome held an exhibition called Unicità d’Italia. Made in Italy e identità nazionale (Italian Uniqueness: Made in Italy and National Identity). Like Italy at Work, politics, economics, and art all came together to present an image of Italy that is uncannily similar to the one presented in the American mid-century exhibition. Notes 1 Isadora Bennett and Richard Pleasant. “ITALY AT WORK—HER RENAISSANCE IN DESIGN TODAY” Nov. 29, 1950. Brooklyn Museum Archives. Records of the Department of Public Information. Press releases, 1947–52. 10-12/1950, 095-8. 2 Wava Carpenter. “Designing Freedom and Prosperity: The Emergence of Italian Design in Postwar America.” Master Thesis, Cooper-Hewitt, National Design Museum, Smithsonian Institution; and Parsons The New School for Design, 2006. 3 Carpenter. “Designing Freedom and Prosperity.” 61 & 84. Carpenter also discussed how other interests in so-called “primitivist” aesthetics from Africa, the indigenous Americas, the Pacific, and India had a role too. See pages 85–91. 4 Raffaele Bedarida. “Viviano, Brin e la conquista di Hollywood.” In /New York New York/ Arte Italiana: La riscoperta dell’America, edited by Francesco Tedeschi, Francesca Pola, and Federica Boragina, 117–26. Milan: Electa, 2017. 5 Antje Gamble. “Buying Marino Marini: The American Market for Italian Art after WWII.” In Postwar Italian Art History Today: Untying ‘the Knot’, edited by Sharon Hecker and Marin Sullivan, 155–72. London: Bloomsbury, 2018. 160. 6 Jessica C.E. Gienow-Hecht. “Culture and the Cold War in Europe.” Chap. 19 In The Cambridge History of the Cold War, Volume 1, edited by Melvyn P. Leffler and Odd Arne Westad, 398–419. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. 401. 7 The 1949 Twentieth Century of Italian Art at MoMA had obfuscated their early government support because of growing political opposition to taxpayer supported exhibitions of art; see Gamble. “Exhibiting Italian Democracy in the 1949 ‘Twentieth Century Italian Art’ at the Museum of Modern Art,” in Modern in the Making: MoMA and the Modern Experiment, 1929–1949, Eds. Sandra Zalman and Austin Porter. London: Bloomsbury Press. 2020. 215–229. 8 Teague. “Forward.” In Italy at Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today. Edited by The Art Institute of Chicago. Rome: The Compagnia Nazionale Artigiana, 1950. 9–11. 9 Other artists were also likely represented. However, they were not named as makers in the catalogue or supporting archival documents,—for example, designs by either Giorgio di Chirico or Alberto Savinio were possibly shown in a work on ceramic from the Galassi Studio. Also, it is important to note that even labeling some of these figures as artists, version artisans or craftspeople, could be seen as controversial in itself. 10 Sharon Hecker. “‘Servant of Two Masters’: Lucio Fontana’s Sculptures in Milan’s Cinema Arlecchino (1948).” Oxford Art Journal 35, no. 3 (2012): 340. For more info on precedents, see Andrea Giunta. “The War Years: Fontana in Argentina.” In Lucio Fontana. On the Threshold, edited by Iria Candela, 41–49. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2019. 11 This was also the intention of the 2019 show at the Met Breuer. See Iria Candela. “Fontana’s Odyssey.” In Lucio Fontana: On the Threshold, edited by Iria Candela, 15–27. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2019. 12 Hecker. “Servant of Two Masters.” 349. 13 Hecker. Ibid. 358. 14 Anthony White. Lucio Fontana: Between Utopia and Kitsch. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2011. 19. 15 Hecker. “Servant of Two Masters.” 356. 16 Teague. “Italian Shopping Trip.” 145. 17 Alfred H. Barr Jr. and James Thrall Soby. Twentieth Century Italian Art. New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 1949.

78  Ceramic Sculpture’s Special Role 18 In comparison to Italy at Work, the funding for the MoMA show was miniscule. However, MoMA did get state support for Twentieth Century Italian Art from the Office of International Information and Cultural Relations (OIC) early on in the exhibition creation process. See: Monroe Wheeler. “Memo to Alfred Barr and James Thrall Soby,” April 17, 1946, Alfred H. Barr, Jr. Papers. Museum of Modern Art, New York; microfilmed by the Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution. MF3153; Wheeler. “Letter to Charles Rufus Morey,” February 24, 1947, Alfred H. Barr, Jr. Papers. MF3153; and Paul Hyde Booner. “Letter to Monroe Wheeler,” October 8, 1947, Alfred H. Barr, Jr. Papers. MF3153. 19 Gamble. “Exhibiting Italian Democracy in the 1949 Twentieth Century Italian Art.” In Modern in the Making: MoMA and the Modern Experiment, 1929–1949, edited by Sandra Zalman and Austin Porter, 215–29. London: Bloomsbury Press, 2020. 217–18. 20 Rogers, “Italian Contemporary Industrial Arts” Report on a survey made in Italy, June 2–July 5, 1949, in Records of the Office of the Director (Charles Nagel, 1946-55). Exhibitions: Italy at Work, (1) CN 1949-50, Brooklyn Museum Archives, Brooklyn. 21 Quoted text from De Grazia. “Visualizing the Marshall Plan: The Pleasures of American Consumer Democracy or the Pains of ‘the Greatest Structural Adjustment Program in History’?” Chap. 2 In Images of the Marshall Plan in Europe. Films, Photographs, Exhibits, Posters, edited by Günter Bischof and Dieter Stiefel, 25–37. Innsbruck: Studienverlag Ges.m.b.H., 2009. 34. 22 Teague. “Forward.” 9. The AIC website says the work by Bernardi was a “Gift of the Italian Government [for educational purposes]” and was acquired in 1954, based on the accession date “1954.180.” See: “Enrico Bernardi, Chest of Drawers.” Art Institute of Chicago, https:// www.artic.edu/artworks/80330/chest-of-drawers. [Accessed June 11, 2021]. 23 Clement Greenberg. “Avant-Garde and Kitsch (1939).” In Art and Culture. Critical Essays, 3–21. Boston: Beacon Press, 1989. 24 Sparke. “The Straw Donkey: Tourist Kitsch or Proto-Design? Craft and design in Italy, 1945-1960.” Journal of Design History 11, no. 1 (1998): 61. 25 Catherine Rossi. Crafting Design in Italy: From Post-War to Postmodernism. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2015. 22. 26 Michelangelo Sabatino. Pride in Modesty. Modernist Architecture and the Vernacular Tradition in Italy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010. 4. 27 Sabatino. Pride in Modesty. 9. 28 Carpenter. “Designing Freedom and Prosperity.” 126. 29 Rogers. “Introduction.” Italy at Work. 13. 30 Dellapiana. “I designer architetti.” In Il Design degli Architetti Italiani, edited by Fiorella Bullegato and Elena Dellapiana, 8–31. Milan: Electa, 2014. 9. 31 Comparisons could be made to similar theories in Europe and the United States, like British Arts and Crafts, the Deutscher Werkbund, or American Prairie School. For an overview, see: “Section 2: Design Reform, 1820-1910” in The Design History Reader. eds. Grace Lees-Maffei and Rebecca Houze, New York: Bloomsbury, 2010. 53–86. 32 Dellapiana. “I designer architetti.” 10. 33 For comparison, one of the oldest Italian art institution is the Accademia di Belle Arti di Firenze, which can be traced back to the foundation of the first school of drawing in Florence (pre-dating the modern Italian State). This was established by the artist and historian Giorgio Vasari in 1563. “Cenni storici” Accademia di Belle Arti di Firenze, https://www.accademia. firenze.it/it/services/istituto. [Accessed June 11, 2021]. 34 Dellapiana. “I designer architetti.” 15. 35 “Accanto a questi noveriamo altri Maestri, altri artisti, ed artiste. Temperamenti in sviluppo; scuole d’arte e produzioni artigiane ed industriali completano il panorama della nostra ceramica moderna.” Gio Ponti. “Prefazione.” In Ceramica alla 9a Triennale di Milano, edited by Zetti e Spreafico, 5–8. Milano: Editorale Domus, 1953. 8. 36 For example, see: Ponti. “L’Affermazione delle industrie femminili italiane.” In Gio Ponti e il «Corriere della Sera» 1930-1963, edited by Luca Molinari and Cecilia Rostagni, 277–83. Milan: Fondazione Corriere della Sera, 2011 [1939]. 37 Germano Celant. “Gio Ponti 2011.” Translated by Richard Sadleir. In Espressioni di Gio Ponti, edited by Germano Celant, 12–13. Milan: Triennale Electa, 2011. 12. Note: the quoted text is not cited in the volume, but the assertion is that it is from Ponti.

Ceramic Sculpture’s Special Role 79 38 Laura Falconi. Gio Ponti: Interiors, Objects, Drawings, 1920-1976. Milan: Electa, 2010. 21–27. 39 Paolo Portoghesi. “Gio Ponti’s Ceramics.” Translated by Richard Sadleir. In Espressioni di Gio Ponti, edited by Germano Celant, 18–22. Milan: Triennale Electa, 2011. 18. Ponti had already been in contact with family-friend Guido Semeza, who was the Richard-Ginori administrative advisor. Falconi. Gio Ponti. 24. 40 Portoghesi. “Gio Ponti’s Ceramics.” 18. 41 Portoghesi. “Gio Ponti’s Ceramics.” 19–22. 42 Dario Matteoni. “Gio Ponti, a Suspended Modernity.” Translated by Emily Ligniti and Carol Lee Rathman. In Gio Ponti il fascino della ceramica/fascination for ceramics, edited by Dario Matteoni, 19–31. Milan: Silvana Editorale S.p.A., 2011. 21–23. 43 Gian Carlo Bojani. “Gio Pointi - cenni biografici.” In Gio Pointi. ceramica e architettura, edited by Gian Carlo Bojani, Claudio Piersanti, and Rita Rava, 7. Florence: Centro Di della Edifici srl, 1987. 7. 44 Many of the early editorials in Domus, for example, were written by Ponti himself, either signing his own name or using a pseudonym. Luigi Spinelli. “Art in the Home/L’arte della casa.” Translated by Mary Consonni, Bradley Baker Dick, and Luisa Gugliemotti. In Domus 1929-1939, edited by Charlotte Fiell and Peter Fiell, 8–11. Köln: Taschen GmbH, 2006. 8. 45 Enzo Frateili. ““Lo Stile nella produzione” di Ponti.” In Gio Ponti. L’arte si innamora dell’industria, edited by Ugo La Pietra, XXIII–XXVI. Milan: Rizzoli, 2009. XXIII. 46 “Già nella disposizione della stessa sezione una serie di spazi isolati era dedicata a quegli artisti che si possono classificare fra i maestri d’oggi della ceramica italiana moderna per valori d’arte e dottrina ceramica e per valori poetici.… Dopo questi Maestri esclusivamente ceramisti che impoveriamo per primi per questa ragione, viene lo stuolo valoroso di quegli scultori e pittori che (prima ancora del clamoroso episodio picassiano) hanno celebrato le nozze fra ceramica ed artisti.” Gio Ponti. “Prefazione.” In Ceramica alla 9a Triennale di Milano. Edited by Zetti e Spreafico. Vol. 4. Milano: Editorale Domus, 1953 (1951). 8. 47 Gio Ponti. Espressione di Gio Ponti. Milan: Guarnati, 1954. It was reprinted in facsimile and with English and French translations in 2001 by Germano Celant for the Triennale. Espressioni di Gio Ponti, 8–9. Milan: Triennale Electa, 2011. An exhibition was later organized with the Boston Museum that traveled to UCLA in the 1960s. Angelica Ponzio. “The Denver Art Museum: Gio Ponti’s [American] ‘Dream come True’.” Docomomo US (2020). Published electronically September 21, 2020. https://docomomo-us.org/news/the-denver-art-museum1966-72-gio-ponti-s-american-dream-come-true. [Accessed June 11, 2021]; and Lisa Ponti. Gio Ponti: The Complete Works. London: Thames and Hudson, 1990, 288. 48 Aria d’Italia. “Expression of Gio Ponti (1954).” Translated by Richard Sadleir. In Espressioni di Gio Ponti, Vol. 2, edited by Germano Celant, 8–9. Milan: Triennale Electa, 2011. 48, 88, and 84. 49 Aria d’Italia. “Expression of Gio Ponti (1954).” 54–55 and 59. The sections of illustrations are separated into nine chapters: 1 Accademia, 2 Evocazione Mediterranea, 3 Inermezzo, 4 Epsiodo, 5 Ideario, 6 Macchine, 7 Classicismo, 8 Esperienze, 9 Opere in Corso. These are vaguely chronological, but not strictly so. 50 Ara H. Merjian. “A Future by Design: Giacomo Balla and the Domestication of Transcendence.” Oxford Art Journal 35, no. 2 (2012): 127. 51 Merjian. “A Future by Design.” 126. 52 Merjian. “A Future by Design.” 130. 53 Merjian. “A Future by Design.” 130. 54 Irina D. Costache. “Italian Futurism and the Decorative Arts.” The Journal of Decorative and Propaganda Arts 20 (1994): 184. 55 Costache. “Italian Futurism and the Decorative Arts.” 185. 56 Celant. Fausto Melotti. Naples: Madre Museo d’Arte Contemporanea Donnaregina, 2011. 40–41. Three of the men were related: Melotti and Belli were cousins; and Pollini was married to Melotti’s sister. 57 Costache. “Italian Futurism and the Decorative Arts.” 190. 58 For more on Rosso, see Hecker. A Monument’s Moment: Medardo Rosso and the International Origins of Modern Sculpture. University of California Press, 2017.

80  Ceramic Sculpture’s Special Role 59 Hecker. “Technical Experiments and Serial Sculpture.” In Medardo Rosso: Experiments in Light and Form, edited by Sharon Hecker and Tamara H. Schenkenberg, 30–37. St. Louis, MO: Pulitzer Arts Foundation, 2017. 30 and 34. 60 Francesco Sapori. L’ Arte e il Duce. Milano: A. Mondadori, 1932. 176. 61 Elena Dellapiana and Daniela N. Prina. “Craft, Industry and Art: ISIA (1922-1943) and the Roots of Italian Design.” In Made in Italy: Rethinking a Century of Italian Design, edited by Grace Lees-Maffei and Kjetil Fallan, 109–25. London: Bloomsbury, 2014. 110. 62 Agnoldomenico Pica. Storia della Triennale di Milano 1918-1957. Milan: Edizioni del Milione, 1957. 21. 63 Dellapiana and Prina. “Craft, Industry and Art.” 113. 64 Elena Pontiggia. “Martini a Milano.” In Arturo Martini. Edited by Claudia Gian Ferrari, Elena Pontiggia, and Livia Velani. Milan: Skira, 2006. 28–29. 65 Pontiggia. “Martini a Milano.” 66 The Rome Quadriennale, under the directorship of Cipriano Efisio Oppo, was more formally progressive than the Venice Biennale, under Antonio Maraini, at this point in the Fascist era. See: Maria Vittoria Marini Clarelli. “Arturo Martini a Roma dalla Secessione alla Quadriennale.” In Arturo Martini, edited by Claudia Gian Ferrari, Elena Pontiggia, and Livia Velani, 47–61. Milan: Skira, 2006. 57; Lo Duca. Arturo Martini. Arte Moderna Italiana. Edited by Giovanni Scheiwiller, Vol. 23, Milano: Ulrico Hoepli, 1933. 12; and Francesca Romana Morelli. “Oppo ‘grande arbito degli artisti d’Italia’?” In Cipriano Efisio Oppo Un legislatore per l’arte: Scritti di critica e di politica dell’arte 1915-1943. Edited by Francesca Romana Morelli, Esposizione Nazionale Quadriennale d’Arte di Roma. Rome: Edizioni De Luca, 2000. 2. 67 Emily Braun. “Bodies From the Crypt and Other Tales of Italian Sculpture Between the World Wars.” In Chaos & Classicism: Art in France, Italy, and Germany, 1918-1936, edited by Kenneth E. Silver, 144–57. New York: Guggenheim Museum, 2010. 146. 68 Arturo Martini. La Scultura Lingua Morta. Verona: Editiones Officinae Bodoni, 1948 (1945). 69 Penelope Curtis. “Modernism & Monumentality/Modernismo & Monumentalità,” Scultura Lingua Morta: Sculpture From Fascist Italy (Scultura nell’Italia Fascista), Leeds: Henry Moore Institute, 2003. 29. 70 See Lamberto Vitali. “Contemporary Sculptors: VII-Marino Marini.” Trans: Bernard Wall, Horizon 17–18, no. 105 (1948): 203–07; and Luciano Caramel. “La scommessa di Martini.” In La Scultura lingua viva. Arturo Martini e il rinnovamento della scultura in Italia nella seconda metà del Novecento, edited by Luciano Caramel. Milan: Edizioni Gabriele Mazzotta, 2002. 11. 71 Emily Braun. “Bodies from the Crypt.” 146. 72 The still standing building was an epic building task. It was built in just 2 years and Mussolini himself visited to see its progress in October 1932. Francesco Sapori. L’ Arte e il Duce. Milano: A. Mondadori, 1932. 179. 73 Ponti. “La prossima Triennale e l’attrezzatura artistica italiana (1942).” In Gio Ponti e il «Corriere della Sera» 1930-1963, edited by Luca Molinari and Cecilia Rostagni, 336–42. Milan: Fondazione Corriere della Sera, 2011. 336. 74 Futurism continued as a strong movement throughout the interwar period and is often called “second wave” Futurism. At this time, it found strong support by Mussolini, not least because of his friendship with founder F.T. Marinetti. See Susan Thompson. “Futurism, Fascist, and Mino Somenzi’s Journals of the 1930s: Futurismo, Sant-Elia, and Artecrazia.” Translated by Stephen Sartarelli and Marguerite Shore. In Italian Futurism, 1909-1944: Reconstructing the Universe, edited by Vivien Greene, 256–58. New York: Guggenheim Museum Publications, 2014. 75 Fabrizia Buzio Negri. “Aria, acqua, terra, fuoco. Ad Albisola, la scintilla dell’arte tra Déco e Futurismo.” In Albisola futurista - La grande stagione degli Anni Venti e Trenta, edited by Fabrizia Buzio Negri and Riccardo Zelatore, 13–19. Gallarate: Edizioni Civica Galleria d’Arte Moderna, 2003. 14. 76 See Flavio Arensi. “Domani vado ad Albissola a fare ceramica.” In Picasso, Fontana, Sassu: Arte ceramica da Albissola a Vallauris, edited by Dario Cimorelli, 13–17. Milan: Dilvana Editoriale Spa, 2003. 13; Franco Sborgi. “Presenza in Liguria di Arturo Martini.” In La scultura a Genova e in Liguria. IL Novecento Volume III, edited by Franco Sborgi, 56–64. Campomorone: Industrie Grafiche Editoriali F.lli Pagano S.p.A., 1989. 63; and Marin Sullivan. “Materializing

Ceramic Sculpture’s Special Role 81 Modernism in Postwar Italy: Fausto Melotti, Gio Ponti, and the 1961 Esposizione Internazionale del Lavoro.” Art History 39, no. 4 (September 2016): 726. 77 Alberto Giorgio Cassani. “Celebrazioni per il 250° anniversario della fondazione dell’Accademia di Belle Arti di Carrara.” News release, Apr. 5, 2019. 78 Cassani. “Enrico Galassi L’artista “fuorilegge”.” La Piê LXXXI, no. 1 (Jan.-Feb. 2012): 28. 79 Tombstone List for Italy at Work, in AIC Archives: Department of Decorative Arts Exhibition Records 1951-53, AIC Archives 305-0003.2, Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago 17. These were located in Gallery # 54 of the AIC show. Like many of the works in Italy at Work by artists, there are not adequate records or photographs to identify these works in contemporary catalogue raisonnes—it is also a possibility that these works are either lost. 80 Hecker. “‘Servant of Two Masters’,” 340–44. 81 This quote was taken from a transcription of a revised paper, originally given at the 2002 National Council on Education for the Ceramic Arts  Conference, that Elkins posted on Academia.edu. James Elkins. “Two Ways of Looking at Ceramics (2002),” 2002, NCECA Annual Conference, Kansas City Art Institute, Kansas City, Missouri. Transcript available at: https://www.academia.edu/3248608/Two_Ways_of_Looking_at_Ceramics. [Accessed June 11, 2021]. 82 Carlos Basualdo, Yve-Alain Bois, Iria Candela, Valentina Castellani, Ara Merjian. “Panel: Lucio Fontana at The Met Breuer: Understanding the Artist’s Relevance Today.” Casa Italiana Zerilli-Marimò, February 13, 2019. 83 Melotti’s cousin, the theorist and critic Carlo Belli wrote in 1968 that Melotti and Fontana had been under-appreciated because they were simply ahead of their time. Carlo Belli. Fausto Melotti sculture e disegni 1962-1967. Roma: Galleria “Il Segno,” 1968. 1. 84 For example, some of the ceramic sculptures are in Celant’s catalogue raisonne of Melotti, while the remaining works in ceramic are in Fausto Melotti: L’opera in ceramica. Eds. Antonella Commellato and Marta Melotti. Milan: Skira, 2003. 85 Since 2000, there have been a number of shows that highlight Italian art ceramics. Important among them are the 2013 “Return to Earth” at the Nasher Art Center in Dallas and the 2019 “Lucio Fontana: On the Threshold” at The Met Breurer in New York. 86 Since the catalogue of Melotti’s ceramics does not note which works were presented in Italy at Work, I have made educated guesses as to which works were presented. These selections are based on the brief descriptions in the exhibition lists at the AIC archives. See: Gallery Installation List. 1950, in AIC Archives: Department of Decorative Arts Exhibition Records 1951-53, Italy at Work: 305-0003.2, Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago. 87 Rogers. Italy at Work. 31. 88 See: Marin Sullivan. “Lucio Fontana and Fausto Melotti: Divergent but Parallel.” In Return to Earth: Ceramic Sculpture of Fontana, Melotti, Miró, Noguchi, and Picasso 1943-1963, edited by Jed Morse, 10–31. Dallas: Nasher Sculpture Center, 2013. 89 Fausto Melotti. Letter to Carlo Belli, August 20, 1950, in Archivio del ‘900, R. 44/c.198 V15, Museo di Arte Moderna e Contemporanea di Trento e Rovereto, Rovereto. 90 “Marchi.” In Fausto Melotti. L’opera in ceramica. Edited by Antonella Commellato and Marta Melotti. Milan: Skira, 2003. 445. 91 Art historian Abraham Hammacher suggested that Melotti “rejected modeling because it was the direct expression of the fingers.” A. M. Hammacher. Fausto Melotti. Translated by James Brockway. London: Marlborough, 1973. 22. 92 “It is the natural outcome of a certain sense of mystic forces ever at work behind and within the obvious face of nature. This mysticism, in counterpoint to the Italian sensuous appreciation of nature, is one of the main sources of her artistic strength in its most complex as well as its simplest expressions.” Rogers. “The Arts and Crafts in Italy Today.” In Italy at Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today. Rome: The Compagnia Nazionale Artigiana, 1950. 22. 93 Rogers. “Introduction.” In Italy at Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today. Rome: The Compagnia Nazionale Artigiana, 1950. 18. 94 Judith Cass. “Recorded at Random.” Chicago Daily Tribune, March 28, 1951, A1. 95 Teague. “Italian Shopping Trip.” 195 and 145. 96 Paolo Scrivano. “Romanticizing the Other? Views of Italian Industrial Design in Postwar America.” In The Italian Legacy in Washington DC: Architecture, Design, Art and Culture. Edited by Luca Molinari and Andrea Canepari. Milan: Skira, 2007. 156 and 60.

82  Ceramic Sculpture’s Special Role 97 Rogers. “Introduction.” In Italy at Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today. Rome: The Compagnia Nazionale Artigiana, 1950, 18. 98 Penny Sparke. “The Straw Donkey: Tourist Kitsch or Proto-Design? Craft and Design in Italy, 1945-1960.” Journal of Design History 11, no. 1 (1998): 59–69. 99 Rogers. “Introduction.” 18. 100 Rogers. “Introduction.” 18. 101 Erica Corbellini. “‘Made in’: dalla denominazione di origine alla costruzione di un immaginario.” In La scommessa del Made in Italy e il futuro della moda italiana. Edited by Erica Corbellini and Stefania Saviolo. Milan: RCS Libri, 2004. 39. 102 Rogers. “The Arts and Crafts in Italy Today.” 21. 103 See: Guido Maria Razzano. “The Roots of the Italian Uniqueness Exhibition.” In Italian Uniqueness: The Making of a National Identity. 1961/2011. Edited by Enrico Morteo and Alessandra Maria Sette. Venice: Marsilio, 2011. 20–23.

5

Displaying Italian Producers for American Consumers

Various aspects of the exhibition, from the installation design to the catalogue layout, were designed to present Italian design as both aspirational and also accessible. Italy at Work was purportedly meant to be part of the Marshall Plan economic stimulus, supporting Italian designers. Yet, the objects in Italy at Work were not actually for sale at each institution. The logistics of selling the exact objects in Italy at Work would have been far too complicated—both because the show was traveling to twelve locations over three years and also because many of the included works were unique objects rather than multiples or mass produced items. However, similar items were for sale at partnering spaces; and the connection between these two types of places—museum and retail—is at the heart of this chapter. The museum became a surrogate department store and the department store became a symbolic museum. Despite not selling the works in the show, the necessity of consumerism to the project of the Cultural Cold War was ever present in the exhibition installation to connect it with its new symbolic position as department store. Museum galleries became symbolic showrooms. It was in these galleries-come-showrooms that not-so-subtly connected the cultural cache of the museum with the economic stimulus efforts of the Marshall Plan. Since the importance of framing Italy and its cultural production on the side of capitalist democracies in the blossoming Cold War was at the heart of the original creation and funding of the exhibition, it was important that the show not undermine this focus. The exhibition of Italy’s cultural production had to be directly connected with the image of the nation as capitalist, which was conflated with American ideals about democracy. As historian Lizabeth Cohen articulates, in the post-war period “the consumer satisfying personal material wants actually served the national interest.”1 The “purchaser as citizen,” Cohen describes, was able to connect their capitalist consumption with their civic duty, particularly after the end of WWII. This idea was even codified in the new Italian constitution, which said that it is the duty of the Republic to remove all economic and social obstacles that, by limiting the freedom and equality of citizens, prevent the full development of the individual and the participation of all works in the political, economic, and social organization of the country.2 The rhetoric of the Cold War pervaded every aspect of Italy at Work, because it was being implemented by various parties in order to secure connections to the United States and the ‘West’. The focus on standard of living, economic access, and cultural production were all at play in the exhibition and its design. DOI: 10.4324/9781003265900-5

84  Displaying Italian Producers for American Consumers Intertwined with the need to represent, to both Americans and Italians alike, that Italy was a productive and creative capitalist democracy was the desire to shift American consumer taste toward more modernist design aesthetics. Italian cultural production was advertised to the American public in the Italy at Work exhibition as a way for Americans to refine their own tastes. Organizers were keen to modernize American consumer taste for design. Since a key to Cold War propaganda was the perceived freedom of consumer choice, exemplified in “the ‘kitchen’ debate between Vice President Richard Nixon and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev at the American Exhibition in Moscow in 1959,” it was important that a shift in taste was perceived by the American public as a shift in their personal taste.3 It could not be perceived as an effort by the government to choose tastes. Italy at Work was part of the shifting “Market Empire” in its position as an advertisement campaign; and this exhibition was also not alone in this endeavor. Italy at Work was part of a number of high-profile American exhibitions of design that sprang up in the first decade after WWII. The growing interest museums had in the field of design corresponded with the beginnings of the professionalization of the field of design, a desire to catch up to Europe in terms of modern design aesthetics, and to reflect America’s leading role as a capitalist democracy.4 The same month that Italy at Work opened in Brooklyn, MoMA’s Good Design exhibition opened in Manhattan, curated by their newly-appointed Director of the Department of Industrial Design Edgar J. Kaufmann, Jr.5 MoMA’s aims were similarly focused on raising the tastes of the American public through the “collaboration between art and commerce.”6 In the end, both sets of curators intended in selling modern design aesthetics, ideologically and commercially, to the American public in order to make the American design market competitive against their European counterparts. With the combination of vernacular design, modern primitivists styles, and more sleek modernist aesthetics, the objects in Italy at Work were a way to move the public toward more abstract, streamlined, and machinelike design aesthetics that were preferred by the cultural elite. Just as including artists brought cultural cache to the show, including the more traditional and primitivists aesthetics were meant to remind American audiences of the vernacular and traditional styles they were more amenable to, setting them up as a stepping stone to modernism. The mix of art, craft, and industry not only reflected the Italian design landscape but also the kind of messaging exhibition organizers wanted to give to the American public about modern design. Focusing on design production was also connected to the post-war housing boom in the United States.7 Since a strong domestic economy would strengthen the recovery from both the war and the Depression, shows like Italy at Work functioned to entice Americans to greater capitalist consumption.8 Like other design shows at the time, it sought to enliven US sales for the new modern design that producers had invested in but that was not yet popular among the general American public. Through its version of modernism, Italy at Work helped as part of this kind of advertising campaign that gave the value modernist design aesthetics within the space of well-known art museums. The Italy at Work exhibition used similar language as shows like Good Design to keep the perception of American consumer’s ‘freedom’ of choice, while still connecting modern design with democracy and capitalist consumption. The exhibition did not explicitly say ‘this show is to convince you to buy Italian design’ but rather used terminology like ‘introduce’ to convey their intent: Not only the largest, but one of the most significant exhibitions ever brought to the U.S., it has the expressed purpose of introducing the American people to the

Displaying Italian Producers for American Consumers 85 spiritual and artistic resurgence achieved during five short years of peace and democratic freedoms by a nation which had been under a totalitarian yoke for decades.9 This gave museum visitors the sense democratic agency, via individualistic ‘freedom’. Rather than getting a sense of governmental paternalism, this state-sponsored show was discussed as a neutral presentation of Italian-made goods. In as much, American consumers would be ‘introduced’ to more modern design aesthetics, which US designers and cultural elites just happened to prefer. The catalogue couches this in the rhetoric of consumer ‘pleasure’ and ‘beauty’: Primarily of course [the exhibition] is designed to give the American public the pleasure that comes from seeing objects made in our own time that are at once useful and beautiful or stimulating to the imagination. This means the broadening of our cultural experience—the main purpose of all our institutions and museums of art. Since pleasure in such things is always heightened by the possibility of possession, the stimulation of this exhibition should be all the greater in that practically all the exhibits or their equivalents are not only within the reach of the average buying public but will be so available.10 The museum visitor-come-consumer would gain pleasure, not only from the objects themselves but also the desire to own them. Aesthetics and consumption go hand in hand for an American “purchaser as citizen.”11 Since both American and Italian democracies would be strengthened through the stable capitalist economy, the spark of the American market was meant to boost the Italian economy and result in a rise in standard of living. In order to spark this Italian economic boom, organizers’ logic was focused on the education of the American consumer public. The Cold War propaganda around capitalist economic models at the time became part of a larger shift in Italian propaganda as well, one that saw the transition from Italianità to “Made in Italy.” While the exhibition masqueraded as a marketplace, the objects were not for immediate sale at the museums. Instead, for the most part, similar mass-produced objects were made for sale through established retail outlets. Some merchandise was for sale at HIH, in New York. However, it was the partnership with local department stores that gave Americans access to Italian design for their own homes. The largest market impact came from these private American retail outlets who held Italy at Work inspired special displays within their stores. These were a combination of coordinated displays in department stores near exhibition venues as well as later copies that capitalized on the success of the exhibition and its retail impact. In this way, the show could spark immediate economic stimulus without having to sell works in the show. Though the archives do not contain any museum–retailer partnership agreements, there were organized collaborations set up to provide immediate consumer access to Italian-made goods. This was a way for American consumers to buy similar products to those displayed in the museum without having to wait for the tour to finish or commission new works from Italian produces. In a press release for the 1950 Brooklyn opening, a number of these retail outlets were already organized: Some of the items are already on sale here, and more are being imported by such leading stores as Lord and Taylor and Gimbel Bros. in Manhattan; Abraham and Straus, Brooklyn; Stix, Baer and Fuller, St. Louis; Marshall Field, Chicago; The

86  Displaying Italian Producers for American Consumers Halle Bros., Cleveland; McCurdy’s, Rochester; The Wm. Hengerer Co., Buffalo; Jackson’s, Oakland; Meier and Frank, Portland, etc.12 Therefore, from the exhibition to the sales floor, Italy at Work sold Italian culture, as a way to reinforce the idea of the superiority of capitalist democracy over Soviet Communism. The exhibition design worked to visually articulate these themes for museum visitors. The displays styles were eclectic; some were akin to other exhibitions of modern art, while other sections looked more like department store shelves and window displays. Walking through this dynamic space, looking at the wide variety of objects, the exhibition visitors modeled good citizenship through what could be described as window shopping. This chapter will first consider how the exhibition design made the museum into a showroom and then show how the department store displays supported their desire to be seen as a museum-like cultural authority. Displaying Art, Craft, and Industry in the Exhibition “Showrooms” At this mid-century moment, the standards for exhibition design were in flux in the United States. More traditional salon style installations with colored or wall-papered walls were going out of fashion within leading US museums, while the so-called ‘white cube’ style was taking hold in places like MoMA.13 Some Italy at Work exhibition displays did have aspects of this white cube style exhibition design [Figure 5.1], but they

Figure 5.1 Installation View of Italy at Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today, March 15, 1951–May 13, 1951, The Art Institute of Chicago/Art Resource, NY

Displaying Italian Producers for American Consumers 87 were also often installed more akin to retail outlets than museum galleries [Figures 5.2 and 5.3]. Not unique to Italy at Work, the presentation of design as somewhere between consumer good and aesthetic object was typical for design exhibitions of the time. By presenting the works in this way, curators were able to frame the collection of works as both culturally significant aesthetic objects and as consumer goods. In addition to the inclusion of artists adding cultural cache, the objects were presented as having strong cultural import because of their place within the museum institution. Parts of the exhibition had a quotidian nature to some displays, reminding viewers of their latest trip to their local department store. Italy at Work balanced between high and low both in the selection of work and also in its presentation in the museum space. Both the Art Institute of Chicago and the Brooklyn Museum were already leaders in exhibiting modern design by 1950. AIC had an applied arts department since the turn of the century—the museum’s first woman curator, Bessie Bennett, became the head of that department in 1914.14 Brooklyn had a similarly long tradition. In fact, they had also just received a huge endowment for a design laboratory from Abraham & Strauss and Federated Department Stores in 1948, in honor of former store president and philanthropist Edward C. Blum.15 Other prominent US museums like the Metropolitan Museum of Art and MoMA had also begun to put a focus on exhibitions of defining modern design after WWII as well.

Figure 5.2 Brooklyn Museum Archives. Records of the Department of Photography. Italy at Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today, November 30, 1950–January 31, 1951. Installation View [PHO_E1949i017]

88  Displaying Italian Producers for American Consumers

Figure 5.3  Brooklyn Museum Archives. Records of the Department of Photography. Italy at Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today, November 30, 1950–January 31, 1951. Installation View: Carlo Mollino Dining Table/Chairs. Installation Shot in Baltimore [PHO_E1949i001]

As already noted, there were a number of design exhibitions that happened at the same time as Italy at Work. Considering these in comparison highlights how this hybrid exhibition design style was not unique to the Brooklyn or Chicago installations, but rather a trend in exhibitions of design in the United States. Like Italy at Work, these contemporary exhibitions made the museum into a showroom. Though not similarly funded directly by the government like Italy at Work, these contemporary design exhibitions had similar ideals of educating the American public about modern design in the hopes of boosting the sales of modernist designers. Importantly, two of these contemporary exhibitions had direct connections to Edgar J. Kaufmann, Jr., whose father owned and ran a Philadelphia department store that bore their name. Kaufmann, Sr. “believed that the department store could play a progressive role in the cultural life of the community while conducting good business.”16 Correspondingly, his son started working with museums to create partnerships between the retailer and cultural institution to “eliminate the lag time between theory and application, a condition heretofore tending to discourage public interest in good design.”17 Starting in the 1920s, these partnerships became more formal after WWII. In 1949, an exhibition organized by Alexander Girard titled An Exhibition For Modern Living opened at the Detroit Institute of the Arts (DIA).18 This show was coordinated with significant financial backing by the Detroit-based department store J. L. Hudson

Displaying Italian Producers for American Consumers 89 Company (known as “Hudson’s”) and was equally as large as Italy at Work with over 3,000 objects—note that Italy at Work would come to the DIA 4 years later in 1953.19 For Modern Living had a who’s who of important designers, architects, and museum curators on their advisory committee, Kaufmann, Jr., included. Like Italy at Work, the connection between art and design was highlighted in this earlier show. In For Modern Living, the inclusion of art had a different meaning for organizers; the design allowed for a return to a time when art was connected to life.20 The DIA exhibition also connected design and democracy. An excerpt of Walt Whitman’s poem “Song of the Broad-Ax” followed the introduction by DIA Director E.P. Richardson that connected the shapes of axes to democracy.21 This connection between design and American democracy was made in implicit and explicit ways throughout the catalogue.22 This connection was presented as something connected to a vernacular American tradition of “a new beauty that reflected a democratic, industrial way of life,” as Kaufmann, Jr. described.23 Similarly, MoMA’s 1950 Good Design exhibition is a particularly apt example for this study because it ran concurrent to Italy at Work. Not only did the MoMA show have a similar motive of modernizing American tastes, but its mixing of aesthetics with commercial appeal is comparable to Italy at Work.24 The MoMA exhibition of Good Design was the culmination of a series of exhibitions for “great national home furnishings wholesale markets” at Chicago’s Merchandise Mart, which was MoMA’s partner in this endeavor. The first Chicago show was juried by Kaufmann Jr. and Italy at Work co-curator Meyric R. Rogers. Alongside Rogers and Kaufmann, architect and DIA curator of Form Modern Living Alexander Girard rounded out the team for the first installment of MoMA’s Good Design.25 The second Chicago show was juried by Kaufmann, Serge Chermayeff, Director of the Institute of Design at the Illinois Institute of Technology, and Berthold Strauss, a Philadelphia textile manufacturer. In 1950, the third show at MoMA, in New York, was a combination of these selections, with works available at nearby retailers. Yet, with around 250 objects, Good Design was significantly smaller than the other shows.26 It also did not have the overtones of good citizenry and democracy as the others had. Rather the press releases and accompanying catalogue texts were pragmatic, describing what was included in the exhibition and how it was organized. Considering their various points of overlap, it should be unsurprising that these three exhibition designs had similarities in style. For all three, there were a mix of more white cube style installations and other spaces set up more as department store type displays; and all had sample rooms set up for a full picture, like a Gesamtkunstwerk [total work of art]. However, the main organization of the shows were still typological. Their similarities in exhibition design can likely be attributed to both the common personalities organizing them as well as to a broader desire to differentiate exhibitions of design from those of art. Italy at Work was part of this series of post-war exhibitions bringing new design aesthetics to American consumers. The museum settings acted as an authorizing body for the department stores and other retailers that would carry the objects for sale. Though individual museums installed their Italy at Work shows to their own specifications—in part because the sizes of each space were often vastly different— it is likely that institutions followed the parameters set up in the Brooklyn and AIC shows. Most displays were typological, there were also a small number of thematic displays. In these, a mix of objects often mimicked department store windows. Outside of this, there were five “Special Interiors” designed by major architects. The commissioned interiors were commissioned to highlight the work of prominent figures in the field with the inclusion of a cohesive spatial installation.

90  Displaying Italian Producers for American Consumers In comparison to the other contemporary design exhibitions, the Italy at Work catalogue articulated the organizational choices mostly clearly. Curators articulated that the foundation of the installation was to “call attention to the salient characteristics of each section through the work of representative designers and craftsmen.”27 These typological sections included: furniture, ceramics, glass, metalwork and enamel, hard stone (pietra dura) and mosaic, costume jewelry and accessories, textiles and embroideries, strawwork, toys, and industrial design. Some of these sections comprised of multiple rooms, while smaller groups only required one or two.28 Within these sections, various exhibition design styles were present, from more ‘white cube’ style rooms showing design as art to styles that resembled department store displays—it is important to note too that the more traditional salon style displays were not as prevalent. Some thematic rooms presented items in different ways, presenting the work as more aesthetic in a ‘white cube’ style room and more commercial in the other. For example, textiles were displayed in diverse ways. They were hung loose, hung flat in frames, or draped over exhibition objects, pedestals, and furniture [Figure 5.4]. In a similar room of textiles, both two vases by Lucio Fontana and a necklace and earrings by Berengo-Gardin in Venice were used as sort of props [Figure 5.5].29 This highlights the way in which an aesthetic presentation of objects of the same type was disrupted by vignettes that mimicked department store displays. For this display, Fontana’s battle scene vases were used to display textile samples. The large vases, described in the previous chapter, almost stand in as busts holding up the patterned drapery on which they sit; their shapes mimic the wire form at the center of the display. This display choice created a few possible readings of these objects. On

Figure 5.4 Installation View of Italy at Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today, March 15, 1951–May 13, 1951, The Art Institute of Chicago/Art Resource, NY

Displaying Italian Producers for American Consumers 91

Figure 5.5 Installation View of Italy at Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today, March 15, 1951–May 13, 1951, The Art Institute of Chicago/Art Resource, NY

the one hand, it lessened the import of the vases as unique objects. In this sense, they served as props to create visual interest in a display of textile samples. On the other hand, this installation choice showed the clear connection being made between art object and consumer object; the vases hold up the fabric on display in this room. They stood as decorative end caps to the display, framing the fabric samples with fine art ceramics. The vases reminded the viewer that this cultural production was part of the great humanist tradition, which the United States was now the inheritor. This pair of decorated vases by Lucio Fontana were playful in their engagement with art and craft [Figure 4.1]. Therefore, it makes sense that these vases were chosen to be featured in Teague’s November 1950 Interiors article. In the large opening photograph [Figure 5.6], Fontana was shown dressed in a plain sweater, squatting down to admire the large vase that would be shipped to the United States for Italy at Work. The caption reads “In a whitewashed cell at Albisola, on the Italian Rivera, Lucio Fontana works his sophistication into ceramics with a texture as rough as the bare walls around him.”30 The photo showed him surrounded by other ceramic vessels and plaques, creating a sense of stillness in the image’s visual symmetry. Not only were the ceramic work of the artist being highlighted, but this image presented a very different Fontana than the one represented in other public images of the artist from the post-war period. Here, he sits pensively, where most other photographs of the artist show him actively creating in some way. In contrast, in the later 1966 series of photographs from Ugo Mulas, Fontana is presented as actively creating. While the Interiors photograph shows Fontana as inactive, surrounded by completed works, Mulas’s

92  Displaying Italian Producers for American Consumers

Figure 5.6 Walter Dorwin Teague. “Italian Shopping Trip: Twelve American Museums Send Out a Battery of Buyers.” Interiors CX, no. 5 (November 1950): 144–45

Displaying Italian Producers for American Consumers 93 presentation of Fontana is as a playful trickster and active creator. The photo to represent Fontana in Italy at Work, rather, shows Fontana as the softly serious Italian artist/artisan admiring the work of his hands. What this shows is the packaging of the image of the artist as artisan for the buying public. This artist is humble, pensive, and, most importantly, productive. For Italy at Work, Fontana made these works and was ready to present them to American audiences. Furthermore, the placement of his vases in the exhibition as props to display textiles, disrupts both the idyllic image of the artisan in his rustic studio and also the image of a dynamic modernist artist. On the surface, Fontana’s work was presented in the show as primarily just another set of consumer objects. They were props to enhance the beauty of the textile. The tactile quality of the vases, their primitiveness, further served as a contrast to the smooth sleek, shiny, and modern designs of the fabric they anchor. However, their primitivist aesthetics likely functioned to connect the humanist tradition to the modern design being shown in the exhibition. Again and again throughout Italy at Work, these moments of contrast art/design, aesthetic/commercial, traditional/modern manifested. In another kind of display, the installation of glass at the Brooklyn Museum was displayed on large glass shelves as if behind a retail counter [Figure 5.2]. The use of glass shelves put the display outside the typical art lexicon of the period. Since the included glassware were high-end unique objects, rather than mass-produced ones, an image of this kind of retail display is easily conjured. It is clear that the visual connections between retail spaces and the exhibition space were varied: from multi-media installations, to more austere presentations to sculptural work. Another way commercial display types were used are in presenting more everyday designed objects. For example, tableware and glassware sets were laid out similarly to familiar retail displays. They looked like a ready to purchase set that would be found at a department store. At the AIC opening, elite visitors did just this [Figure 5.7]. They picked up tableware to admire it as they would in a department store—though the general public would not have been permitted to touch the objects in this way. These various retail-type displays solidified the way viewers were meant to engage with these works within art museums. Italy at Work gave authority to design and to capitalist consumerism. One of the most well-represented types of objects in Italy at Work was ceramic work. This, at least in part, likely reflected the initiatives of the ECA and the government in Italy. While most object types had one or two focus room, ceramics had three large rooms focused on works of the medium.31 As was discussed in the previous chapters, the ceramic industry was particularly important for Marshall Plan initiatives. The primacy of ceramics in Italy at Work is just one way to see how agenda of the Cultural Cold War was mapped onto various aspects of this exhibition. Within these ceramic rooms, there were also thematic displays. One of the rooms highlighted objects depicting Christian themes, including ones that could be used for Catholic liturgical purposes [Figures 5.1 and 5.8]. Though Catholicism was still a marker of difference in the United States, setting Italians and others like the Irish against the majority Protestant populous. Historian of religion Robert Ellwood showed that in the 1950s, in particular, the broader Cold War impacted the “Catholic versus Protestant, ‘high’ versus ‘low’ culture, mainstream versus underground, liberal versus evangelical.”32 However, in the early 1950s when Italy at Work was touring the country, the public anti-Communist stance was being championed by key American Catholics—Joseph McCarthy himself identified as Catholic.33 The thematic display in Italy at Work was meant to allow viewers to provide “ample evidence that both the intellectual and emotional, the rational

94  Displaying Italian Producers for American Consumers

Figure 5.7 Installation View of Italy at Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today, March 15, 1951–May 13, 1951, The Art Institute of Chicago/Art Resource, NY

Figure 5.8 Installation View of Italy at Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today, March 15, 1951–May 13, 1951, The Art Institute of Chicago/Art Resource, NY

Displaying Italian Producers for American Consumers 95 and extra-rational currents in contemporary art are strongly reflected in Italian design today.”34 Though interconnecting web of meanings, accessible on different levels to viewers based on their knowledge and biases, this room would allow them to make any of the following readings: seeing modern designs as a continuation of more traditional ones, connecting Italy and modern design with anti-Communism, equating modern design with Christian values, seeing capitalist consumption as a Christian activity. Though the reviews of the show do not single this aspect out, it would have been possible that any or all of these readings were valid for contemporary viewers at the time. As discussed in previous chapters, the effects of the early McCarthy era can also be seen in the complex negotiation of arts inclusion in Italy at Work. As Catherine Rossi describes, organizers, particularly Teague, were concerned about the works looking too art-like and that they had “difficulty in deciding when a ceramic work was craft and not art, considering an object ‘admissible’ if it was made from clay and not bronze or marble.” 35 This, undoubtedly, was influenced by the position of state patronage of the arts at the time. Most modernism was labeled as Communist by leading intellectuals, regardless of individual artists’ political affiliation or allegiances—in 1956 Alfred Barr wrote against what he saw as state censorship against art under the wave of McCarthyism.36 Though the rhetorical use of high art also played a key positive role in Italy at Work, organizers had to be careful to make the installation of the work read as design made of capitalist consumers. By showing Italian artists as also Catholic, the American public could see them as both modern and anticommunist. The last type of installation design was the five “Special Interiors.” They were created by prominent Italian architects to “cover the principal aspects and kinds of decorations” in contemporary design, meaning common private and public spaces that utilize design.37 The five rooms included “a dining room by Gio Ponti, a living-dining room for a modest house by Carlo Mollino, a terrace room by Luigi Cosenza, a private chapel by Roberto Menghi, and a foyer for a marionette theater by Fabrizio Clerici.”38 These were important sites of display that set the stage for the rest of the exhibition; the AIC show opened with two of the special rooms: Clerici’s Foyer and Ponti’s Dining Room [Figures 1.1 and 5.9]. Each room was filled with works designed by the architect himself (almost all exhibitors were men), as well as other works by artisans, designers, and artists; some of whom were also represented elsewhere in the exhibition.39 As already elaborated in the previous chapter, Ponti was one of the most important figures in Italian architecture and design at mid-century and his dining room installation fittingly included a wide variety of artists, designers, and industrial producers.40 Ponti’s room was a reflection of this mode of working, with a long list of contributors for everything from wall coverings to the plates. The catalogue underscored Ponti’s own interest in this collaborative effort [Figure 5.10]. As Ponti recounted, “I have deliberately sought to make an ‘exhibition piece’ to demonstrate with every item various possibilities of Italian imagination and artistic production in the numerous fields.”41 This not only pointed to his knowledge of the broader Italian collaboration between disciplines, but also signaled his important place in actively cultivating this mode of interdisciplinary working among his contemporaries. Ponti’s “Special Interior” was a microcosm for the kinds of objects shown at Italy at Work. It was a cross section of the types of professionals involved in design work in Italy: artist, artisans, architects, and industrial procedures. The “Special Interiors” also served to help American consumers see what these individual designed objects looked like within a space. It took them from the realm of both the museum and the department store into viewers’ homes—these tactics are used at

96  Displaying Italian Producers for American Consumers

Figure 5.9 Italy at Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today. Exhibition Held at the Art Institute of Chicago, March 15, 1951–May 13, 1951. Photo Credit: The Art Institute of Chicago/ Art Resource, NY

Figure 5.10 Italy at Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today, 13–18. Rome: The Compagnia Nazionale Artigiana, 1950. 60–61

Displaying Italian Producers for American Consumers 97 retailers still today; think about the inspiration rooms set up at Ikea. As retailers had also begun to do before WWII, these sample room displays served as a stand in for the stylist, as they were called, who were a kind of mix of interior designer and personal shopper.42 In Italy at Work, completed rooms with a mix of useful and decorative objects were packaged for American (visual) consumption. Once they were inspired at the museum, they could go to nearby retailers and buy a variety of similar works. Selling Italy’s Work For Italy at Work, the museums’ gallery space became a kind of high-end department store room that showcased Italian cultural production as the wares of a new US-lead capitalist democracy. To this effect, as not to rarefy the works as untouchable art, closed display cases were explicitly avoided when possible.43 Rather, as publicity photos show, the works were laid out as if the viewer could call an attendant to lift the work and bring it to the sales counter. The image at the AIC preview illustrates how effective this installation choice was [Figure 5.7]. As might be inferred, the shift in the public perception of department stores as tastemakers akin to museums was concurrent to Italy at Work. The impact that Kaufman had on early design exhibitions like Italy at Work highlights these ideas. He explicitly made these connections between museum and department store. In fact, Kaufmann’s father’s store ran an ad, already in 1925, that said “No modern organization is in a better position to observe this artistic evolution than a large department store.”44 The museum and the department store were connected under the American capitalist ideals. This became a broader trend in the decades since these postwar exhibitions. Artists and museum professionals, Jen Hutton and Sarah Nasby, have more recently described this phenomenon as the “store/museum,” where: By vetting objects currently in circulation, museums reappraised vernacular culture as art objects that could be acquired by the average consumer (and with them, their “auras”). In turn, these exhibitions recognized the museum visitor as a consumer with purchasing power, educating them on what they could buy and how they could participate in current cultural (and economic) growth.45 A symbiotic relationship between the partnering institutions, museum and store, would make both institutions continuously relevant in the shifting political and cultural landscape. This was well understood at the time and was reflected in Kaufmann’s initial request to work with MoMA in 1940: Through the cooperation of sponsoring department stores and manufacturers, the Museum has been able to eliminate the lag time between theory and application, a condition heretofore tending to discourage public interest in good design.46 The partnerships between museums and retailers connected designer’s desire for a more educated public to convince consumers of the validity of their work. In anticipation for the Italy at Work show, co-organizer Walter Dorwin Teague’s aforementioned article “Italian Shopping Trip” highlights this “store/museum” model.47 The show was sold as a way to buy Italy’s almost mythical culture. While cultivating a new American consumer of contemporary Italian culture, Italy at Work set Italy as intrinsically connected to the past. The exhibition catalogue text similarly asked Americans to

98  Displaying Italian Producers for American Consumers go see these handicrafts as ‘mystical’ objects of a newly liberated, pure Italic culture. This culture that Americans could purchase was framed, as Scrivano described, in orientalizing terms.48 The catalogue read: It is the natural outcome of a certain sense of mystic forces ever at work behind and within the obvious face of nature. This mysticism, in counterpoint to the Italian sensuous appreciation of nature, is one of the main sources of her artistic strength in its most complex as well as its simplest expressions.49 The mysticism of Italian design was “natural” and gendered feminine. This, of course, was a political stance as much as a marketing tactic, in part reflecting that liminal space Italians occupied in terms of US conceptions of race, described in Chapter 3. Spectacle also played an important role in the exhibition. Visitors to the exhibition repeated similar claims; one viewer exclaimed that the exhibition contained “the most amazing things I’ve ever seen!”50 Teague’s framing of the show as a tourist “expedition,” in particular, set up viewers to expect to experience “an astonishing variety of destinations” for “an unforgettable experience.”51 These descriptions were meant to conjure images of tourists shopping at exotic bazars in faraway lands. Therefore, the museums were not just department stores but more archaic markets of Italy’s glorious humanist past. Teague’s article does a lot of heavy lifting in terms of situating Italy as still the exotic location reminiscent of the Grand Tour ideals.52 Teague’s article also made explicit the place of the museum as a retail location. Though it was not in reality a place to purchase Italian design, it was a kind of space of window shopping that would be carried out elsewhere. Unlike Italy at Work, the collaboration between MoMA and the Merchandise Mart and between the DIA and the J.L. Hudson Company were at the center of the two projects.53 However, there was a clear collaboration between exhibiting museums and local department stores. In addition to precedents, like For Modern Living’s partnership with Hudson’s, the other important precedent is the work of the House of Italian Handicraft. As introduced in Chapter 2, the HIH was the American arm of CNA. Until Italy at Work, they predominantly held exhibitions of sponsored Italian producers. This shifted during Italy at Work when HIH came to import goods; taxes were exempt because of their Marshall Plan funding, unlike the good selling at the department stores.54 Importantly, HIH saw tax-free imports, in part, because they specialized in high-quality goods rather than massproduced ones.55 When HIH put on Handicraft as a fine art in Italy in 1947, the focus on artists’ contribution to design was even stronger than in Italy at Work, while the focus on capitalism was less apparent. Like the later show, the 1947 Handicraft as a fine art show’s focus was on education, showing the American public the new experiments on ‘handicraft’ in Italy that was coming up to speed with “foreign, and especially American, requirements.”56 The displays in HIH had some similar set ups to Italy at Work, in that there were vignettes set up to enliven the furniture and other home goods on display. In his 1953 contemporary investigation of new design exhibition trends, American industrial designer George Nelson wrote under an image of the HIH showroom: The extraordinary upsurge of interest in furniture since the end of the war has not only resulted in the appearance of a remarkable variety of furniture designed, but in a corresponding increase of interest in its display. As suggested by the illustrations,

Displaying Italian Producers for American Consumers 99 this interest in [sic.] international in its scope.… The photograph above [from HIH] suggests something of the range of current Italian work—from traditional handicraft designs to sleek constructions in wood and metal.57 This again reinforces the idea that the installation for these design exhibitions showed a larger push to give authority to the exhibited design but not to connect it too closely with art exhibited in the same institutions. The HIH Handicraft as a Fine Art exhibition also used external retail outlets for their sales early on.58 In the three-story brownstone with an interior designed by the American-based Italian architect Gustavo Pulitzer … products including ceramics, glass, porcelain, lingerie and leather handbags were all displayed … though visitors could not yet buy goods directly from the showroom, and instead were directed to department stores including Abraham & Strauss [sic.], Lord & Taylor and Macy’s, who had been carrying Italian good since the 1920s.59 This pre-existing connection between gallery display and separate retail outlet, all under the impetus for ‘enabling consumption’ of Italian wares, foreshadowed the more explicit connection between capitalist consumerism and Cold War politics in Italy at Work. It was logical then that HIH would later serve as Italy at Work’s retail outlet, selling (and helping organize insurance claims for lost objects) after the 3-year run of the show. Following the 1947 exhibition, a 1948, a New York Times article highlighted $50 million in Italian exports to the United States following the 1947 show because of the removal of tariffs.60 Within 3 years, the move toward focusing on expanding sales even further was solidified when former VP and treasurer of Bloomingdales, David M. Freudenthal, was elected president of HIH; working with Director Gertrude Allen Dinsmore.61 At the same time of Freudenthal’s ascent, HIH also added new additions to the board of directors “Adam Gimbel, head of Sacks Fifth Avenue; Miss Dorothy Shaver, president of Lord & Taylor; Roger William Straus Jr., president of Farrar Straus & Co., Inc., and E.L. Sozzi, president of the Italian-American Chamber of Commerce.”62 The organization was set up, in advance of Italy at Work, to connect both high-end and commercial producers from Italy to American consumers through HIH and private department stores. The exhibition catalogue of Italy at Work served to highlight the works and their import as consumer goods, but did not go as far as other design exhibitions in their explicit sales ends. While Italy at Work’s catalogue served as a guide to introduce American consumers to Italian design, in contrast, MoMA’s Good Design catalogue is almost exclusively a sales list. The Good Design catalogue included sale prices and where one could purchase the displayed item beside the object’s entry in the text. For example, two chairs produced by Knoll Associates by Italian-American sculptor and designer Harry Bertoia could be purchased at either Abraham & Strauss or Bloomingdales in New York for $75 and $30, respectively.63 The inclusion of the prices allowed the MoMA show to directly link the museum viewer to the design customer in an explicit way. Italy at Work could not function this way, mainly because a large majority of the work in the show were not produced in multiple. This added not only to the cost of the objects, but also the lag-time for access to the US consumers. Therefore, unlike Good Design,

100  Displaying Italian Producers for American Consumers Italy at Work relied on museum visitor’s understanding from press of the show that they could go to department stores in the same city to buy similar objects imported from Italy. It should be no surprise that department stores were keen to collaborate with museums, not only as a way to open new markets but also because of initiatives they had started or were made to start in the preceding decades. During the years of the Great Depressions, stores had to work to bring in customers with money to spend into their stores. Special events became a commonplace activity to entice buyers to visit. Though it garnered critique from some contemporaries as “poorly conceived and blatantly executed circuses and parades, ‘movies’,” historian Vicki Howard shows that during the Depression-era “ballyhoo methods” were advocated in trade press articles and by merchandising managers. They included a range of highly publicized free events, such as Wild West shows, magicians, clowns, silhouette artists, minstrel entertainments, exhibits, festivals, and product displays.”64 On top of that, during WWII, retailers were compelled to “go beyond the voluntary efforts and philanthropy they had traditionally favored.”65 Department stores had already been in the practice of both creating special events and exhibitions to drum up business and also working with government agencies for the good of the State. The Brooklyn-based Abraham & Straus (A&S) department store served as the local venue for Italian-made goods in the borough when the show opened in 1950. The museum on the edge of Prospect Park was not particularly close to the A&S flagship store in downtown Brooklyn at 422 Fulton, but the two organizations already had strong connections. As discussed in Chapter 3, Florence May Abraham Blum, daughter of founder Abraham Abraham, and her son Robert E. Blum had just opened the new design lab, in 1948, at the Brooklyn Museum that bore the name of Florence’s husband Edward C. Blum. A&S not only had strong ties to other important New York retailers, but it also was a hub for new design in Brooklyn.66 It also explains, in part, why Florence Blum and her son were some of the top donors to Italy at Work. Not only did the Brooklyn Museum already have ties to the owners of A&S, but the retailer was already an iconic American department store. It would be difficult to overstate the importance of A&S in the history of American department stores. By 1889, having opened in 1865, its 200,000 square foot store “had become the largest retail business in the state of New York.”67 It was a major fixture in the New York borough, particularly in bringing European goods to the United States.68 The draw of European goods and also the display of those goods had already been a marker for many major department stores for decades. As Victoria de Grazia shows, American buyers not only sourced European goods for sale in the United States but also used European-style display designs in US outlets.69 In part, these US department stores were selling an European aesthetic for the American lifestyle. A&S opened its “European buying office” in 1903 under the management of the elder Blum to do just this.70 This both brought an air of refinement to American consumers, but also worked to raise the standard of living for Europeans to those of the average American.71 A&S, therefore, was part of a large network of private companies supporting, officially or not, this US cultural imperialism of the ‘Market Empire’. A&S would partner with Filene’s to establish the Federated Department Stores, Inc. in 1929. Unsurprisingly for the present study, Edward Albert Filene had, at this time, been working in Europe to show the importance of the a trans-Atlantic “high standard of living” to keep a “peaceful and prosperous” “Old World” and the “New World [with] progress and security.”72 Major department

Displaying Italian Producers for American Consumers 101 stores like A&S positioned themselves locally and internationally as purveyors of stability and prosperity as much as taste. Along these lines, the Abraham family was very active in philanthropic pursuits before Italy at Work.73 Some of these efforts were showier than others. For example, in 1938, the department store donated “a baby female elephant to the [Prospect Park] zoo’s pachyderm exhibit.”74 They had established the A&S Foundation in 1944 to help their aims.75 They were particularly generous when such pursuits would support their business. When the subway expanded to connect Manhattan to the other boroughs, A&S capitalized on this; Abraham & Straus designed an elaborate Hoyt Street subway station that featured a direct entrance into the store’s basement. Large display windows were installed in the Hoyt Street station. Its private subway entrance became the first such private entryway throughout the entire New York Subway system.76 After WWII, the company ramped up their public support for Brooklyn charitable events in the lead up to their centennial in 1965. For the centennial celebrations, a number of promotional publications and events looked back on the store’s history. One press release stated that “Many community traditions are well established now: [for example] Since 1951, Junior Angler Fishing Contest in Prospect Park lake, in which to date some 60,000 youngsters have participated.”77 The department store and its owners were keen on supporting the local Brooklyn community in numerous and really varied philanthropic activities. Of course, it is their direct connection to the Brooklyn Museum that is most applicable for the current discussion. The Blums were major individual donors and trusties of the museum. Robert E. Blum not only gave $1,000 to Italy at Work, he had been a trustee for the Brooklyn Institute of Arts and Sciences since 1936—he became president in 1951.78 After the show, he became chairman of the governing committee of the museum too. Today, there is a gallery that bears his name and a quick search of the museum’s collection show that a number of works (including portraits of himself and of his father) are part of the Brooklyn Museum collection. So, like Kaufmann at MoMA, the Blum’s and the Brooklyn Museum were intertwined on multiple levels. Photographs of the displays in the A&S store do not survive in the archives, but their advertisement for their Italy at Work display gives much relevant information [Figure 5.11]. Though just one ad, it is useful to unpack the choices that were made in the images, the language, the framing because it gives insights into the larger commercial program that ran parallel to the exhibition. It is also important to note that this was a large ad, one half of a page in the New York Times, which was no small sum. This one ad is rich with references to the various aspects of Italy at Work’s ideals. With a mixture of illustrations and photographic reproductions of various available products, accompanied by prices, the advertisement is visually enticing as much as informative. A large elegant vase and an intricately woven basket frame the headline that reads: Everyone will be talking about the great show of modern Italian handicrafts at the Brooklyn Museum: Give yourself a treat and go to see it … then COME TO A&S to see and buy delightful gifts from Italy featured all through the store.79

102  Displaying Italian Producers for American Consumers

Figure 5.11 “Display Ad 55—Abraham & Straus,” The New York Times, December 1, 1950, 13./Macy’s Inc.

Displaying Italian Producers for American Consumers 103 Below, a reproduction of a ceramic vase is broken up with illustrations of various home goods: a wine glass, a playing card holder, a shell compact, and a candelabra. These images frame a series of paragraphs set the stage with prose that mimic the kind of romanticizing language of the exhibition, starting with evoking Italy’s humanist past: “the land of Cellini has never lacked for handicrafts, but something special is happening in Italy today.” The evocation of the high Renaissance sculptor and goldsmith, Benvenuto Cellini, also adds a layer of meaning here to highlight craftsmanship as well as the connection between fine art and craft. For some at the time, he may also have been a familiar name. Cellini had seen a resurgence in popularity at the turn of the century with the re-editioning of his writings and a nineteenth century opera inspired by his life touring Europe after WWII.80 Cellini had already been discussed in comparison to American design’s version of Arts & Crafts, so it was not a completely random historical comparison.81 Even if everyday readers of the New York Times may not have known anything about Cellini, it would have been inferred that the name represented a great Italian figure. In similar examples when describing contemporary Italian art, American writers evoke everyone from the more wellknown Donatello to the lesser known Benozzo Gozzoli to color their descriptions.82 The specific reference to Cellini allowed for less knowledgeable readers to understand the importance of the display on a surface level, by virtue of the Italianness of his name, and more knowledgeable ones to gain greater nuance of the connections between Cellini and the themes in the show. Either way, the A&S advertisement clearly connected itself with the orientalizing rhetoric of the Italy at Work exhibition. The first two of three paragraphs of advertisement text are structured in a similar way. First, they make a general claim that connects their special sale with a romanticized image of Italy, which evokes the country’s humanist cache. Then they discuss the exhibition and its goals. The first paragraph reinforces that this show was meant to be impactful to the broader American consumer. It reads: Italy at Work is “so special that House & Garden takes ten pages of its Christmas issue to tell about it.”83 This connects the A&S sales display not only with the museum show but with a publication of record for contemporary American home goods tastes. Indeed, House & Garden ran a large ten page spread on the works in the show [Figures 5.12 and 5.13]. It primarily highlighted furniture and more useful tableware, rather than the more artistic or decorative objects in Italy at Work. Along these lines, the photographs of the makers at work selected to illustrate the openings spread of the article were clearly chosen to highlight the artisanal nature of much of the show’s work. This article also did important work to solidify the idea of US capital investment in Italy as the inspiration for a cultural resurgence; “American aid, first private then official, also played its part in helping to nurture this dormant talent.”84 It also listed the various retail outlets, like A&S, where visitors could purchase similar designed objects for their homes. In the A&S advertisement, capitalist consumption was not sidelined by the cultural import of the work though. In the final paragraph of the advertisement, Italy at Work is clearly set up as a venue for American consumption. It reads: “A&S is supporting the Museum in featuring Italian merchandise that you may actually buy.… Come now and choose your Christmas gift!”85 Reinforcing the visuals of the advertisement, the text says that the store will have “lacy baskets from Naples and Milan, glossy new leathers and brasses from Florence, exquisite baby things, lingerie, imaginative glass and pottery and linens from up and down the boot (many one-of-a-kind).” Like the Italy at Work catalogue and press releases, the focus on craft and artisan production comes across clearly.

104  Displaying Italian Producers for American Consumers

Figure 5.12  Haanel Cassidy et al., House & Garden © Condé Nast, December 1950

Displaying Italian Producers for American Consumers 105

Figure 5.13 Staff, House & Garden © Condé Nast, December 1950

106  Displaying Italian Producers for American Consumers Tellingly, in the A&S advertisement, as in most of the publicity for the show, there was a marked absence of discussion of mass-produced goods, which undoubtedly were available in the A&S store. In particular, there was no mention of the objects representing the new technology highlighted in Italy at Work—seen in works like the Lambretta scooter or the Olivetti typewriter. Though the works using more traditional media outnumbered those in steel, aluminum, and plastic, the absence is prescient. As Scrivano states, Olivetti in particular worked hard in the 1950s to bring Italian industrial design to the United States, most notably in the 1952 show Olivetti: Design in Industry.86 Olivetti used this show to launch its own retail outlets, no longer relying department stores or third-party retailers like the Merchandise Mart.87 The A&S focus on goods used in the home likely had as much to do with the realities of their clientele as with the perception that modern Italian design was primarily representative of a continuation of tradition has been the central discussion of Italy at Work in the secondary scholarship. Highlighting the sleek modern design and functionality of the Olivetti products would have undermined the romanticizing of Italy. Along these lines, design historian Penny Sparke quite rightly posited that the inclusion of traditional craft and artisan production in Italy at Work also sheds light on the later design trends from Italy.88 Objects, like the straw donkey, were not “tourist kitsch” but a way for Americans to consume “a country and a culture which was still seen to be in touch with its rural and artisanal traditions.”89 Though it is not clear if similar objects would have been available at A&S for purchase, their inclusion in the show framed the ideas suggested in the A&S advertisement that Italian goods had a connection to deep traditions. In following years’ installments of the show throughout the United States, the connection between the exhibition and the gift-giving season of Christmas (for the predominantly Christian nation) seemed to be a thoughtful choice.90 Italy at Work opened in Minnesota at the Minneapolis Institute of Art, almost a year exactly from the Brooklyn opening, on November 27, 1951. For the Minneapolis show, a companion exhibition was opened at the Walker Art Center called “Useful Gifts 1951” that had “a local artists’ sale, including paintings, prints and ceramics.”91 The broad effects of the shows connection between culture and consumerism were felt in both realms. While the Minneapolis Institute showed Italy at Work, the Walker ostensibly showed a kind of ‘Minneapolis at work’. The second had works for sale at the institution, while the first had Italian works for sale at the local department store, The Dayton Co.92 Selling Italian Design After “Italy at Work” An even more spectacular spin off of the department store displays came to Macy’s department store as Italy at Work toured rest of the United States. That both A&S and Macy’s had similar programs should be no surprise, since brothers, Isidor and Nathan Straus, were investors in both department stores.93 The connections between A&S and Macy’s was also particularly interwoven; and, in 1994, Macy’s took over Federated Department Stores, of which A&S and Bloomingdales were members—Federated Department Stores is now branded as Macy’s, Inc.94 When the Straus brothers invested in A&S is when the name of the store changed from Wechsler & Abraham to Abraham & Straus.95 The Straus’ were also the aunt and uncle of founder Abraham Abraham’s sonin-law Simon F. Rothschild, who married Abraham’s first daughter Lillian. Even more connected, the Straus’ son Percy Selden Straus married Abraham’s last child Edith (his only child from his second marriage). Therefore, the personal and professional connected

Displaying Italian Producers for American Consumers 107 these families and their companies. They also shared in their patronage of the arts and culture in the New York boroughs as central to their public image.96 A show like Italy at Work allowed for these philanthropists to support their business and philanthropic interests simultaneously. On the flip side, their public support gave legitimacy to the claims by Italy at Work organizers that the show was meant to spark an economic recovery in Italy after the war. Macy’s special exhibition of Italian design did not occur at the same time as the one at A&S nor during the run of the Brooklyn show. It happened a year later, which shows the impact of the exhibition on the retail market in New York—also of note, Ponti had partnered with Macy’s department store already in 1928 in an exhibition of design.97 Italy-in-Macy’s, U.S.A. opened with much pomp and circumstance in September 1951, having “more than 1,000 types of Italian imports on sale.”98 The two-week event was coordinated between Macy’s and the Italian Government.99 For the grand opening, the department store brought in New York City’s Sicilian-born Mayor Vincent Impellitteri and his wife.100 Recreating the themes of Italy at Work, the fair played a dual role of consumer spectacle and political platform. Recently elected Italian-American Mayor Impellitteri had just undertaken a major political upset against the establishment candidate Tammany Hall to win the seat. At the same time, he was a prime example of the kind of Italian-American who supported initiatives like Italy at Work, though he was not among the direct donors. Impellitteri also played an important role in the continued work to support transAtlantic relations between the United States and Italy. A few months later in a 1951 LIFE Magazine spread, Impellitteri political travels were showcased in a scrapbook-like photo spread. The feature showed that he traveled to Italy and Israel with the “blessings of the State Department … [in order] to show Italy how democratic America welcomes and fosters its immigrant sons, like Vincent Impellitteri.”101 Almost humorously, one photo caption details that he visited “all big cities except Bologna, which still has a Communist mayor.”102 Like the private donors to Italy at Work, his official role was to show that Italians and their Italian-American counterparts were solidly in support of capitalist democracy. Much like Italy at Work, Italy-in-Macy’s, U.S.A. brought together a huge array of different objects and expositions accompanied the displays. Over one million dollars of merchandise populated the fifth floor of the Seventh Avenue building, their flagship store. The display was described as a “two-acre Italian enclave” that brought together the familiar contemporary ‘renaissance’ items that ranged from glassware to children’s toys. The department store was also keen to bring a wider price range of consumer products than the contemporary Italy at Work, from almost $30 to under $1 in 1951 USD. The goods for sale were activated by special events. For example, there were artisans brought in from Murano and Montelupo demonstrating glass-blowing and ceramicmaking. As the epitome of the muddy waters of consumerism and politics in both Italy at Work and Italy-in-Macy’s, archetypical and traditional Italian objects were front and center. Mimicking the opening display for Italy at Work at AIC [Figure 1.1], the display at Macy’s also had a hand-decorated donkey cart and glittering harness, traditional for Sicilian festivals, vied for attention with a thirty-six-foot gondola, complete with two jump seats, fresh from a shakedown run on the Grande Canal of Venice.103 The only major difference being, their gondola was life-sized rather than a model and the donkey cart was a diplomatic gift from “the people of Palermo to Gen. George C. Marshall.”104 Marshall lent the gift to Macy’s in order to recognize Italy’s part in making the Marshall Plan

108  Displaying Italian Producers for American Consumers a reality. What is poignant about this one object is not only that it was used to explicitly connect consumerism to the new US Cold War agenda in Italy, but that it was in fact not for sale in the Macy’s sales display. Rather, the cart was on display, as if in a museum. Influenced by the popularity of Italy at Work, American consumers bought Italian design. By 1954, 13.6% of Italy’s GDP was generated by exports.105 Much of this was likely coming to the United States, in part because of the continued aid programs there. As the next chapter will show, in part, the reception of the exhibition and its long-term impact connected it to the development of the “Made in Italy” brand that was solidified as a concept during the so-called “Economic Miracle” in Italy. The explicit connections between culture, capitalism, and democracy in Italy at Work had wide ranging effects on Italian design. Notes 1 Lizabeth Cohen. A Consumers’ Republic: The Politics of Mass Consumption in Postwar America. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003. 8–9. 2 Quoted in De Grazia. Irresistible Empire. 339. 3 Cohen. A Consumers’ Republic. 126. 4 On design’s professionalization, see: Fran Hannah and Tim Putnam. “Taking Stock in Design History (1980).” In The Design History Reader, edited by Grace Lees-Maffei and Rebecca Houze, 267–72. New York: Bloomsbury, 2010. Starting in the interwar period, figures like Alfred H. Barr, Jr. were seeing design work coming out of places like the Bauhaus and wanted to bring this ideas to the United States. See: David A. Hanks. “The Bauhaus: Mecca of Modernism.” In Partners in Design: Alfred H. Barr Jr. and Philip Johnson, edited by David A. Hanks, 28–55. New York: The Monacelli Press, 2015; and Jen Hutton and Sarah Nasby. “Store/museum.” In Exhibiting Craft and Design: Transgressing the White Cube Paradigm, 1930–present, edited by Alla Myzelev, 126–39. New York: Routledge, 2017. 5 Terence Riley and Edward Eigen. “Between the Museum and the Marketplace: Selling Good Design.” In The Museum of Modern Art at Mid-Century: At Home and Abroad, edited by John Elderfield, 150–79. New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 1994. 151. 6 Riley and Eigen. “Between the Museum and the Marketplace.” 151. 7 Like many things, most of these benefits were not equally distributed to Black Americans. See: Louis Lee Woods II. “Almost ‘No Negro Veteran … Could Get A Loan’: African Americans, The GI Bill, and The NAACP Campaign Against Residential Segregation, 1917-1960.” The Journal of African American History 93, no. 3 (2013): 392–417. 8 Cohen. A Consumers’ Republic. 124. 9 Isadora Bennett and Richard Pleasant. “‘Italy at Work — Her Renaissance in Design Today’ Largest Museum Show Ever Brought to This Country to Tour United States 3 Years Opens at Brooklyn Museum November 29th.” Press release, November 29, 1950. Records of the Department of Public Information. Press releases, 1947–1952. 10-12/1950, 095-8. Brooklyn Museum Archives: Brooklyn, NY. 1. 10 Rogers. “Introduction.” In Italy at Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today, 13–18. Rome: The Compagnia Nazionale Artigiana, 1950. 18. 11 Cohen. A Consumers’ Republic. 8. 12 Isadora Bennett and Richard Pleasant. “LARGEST MUSEUM SHOW EVER BROUGHT TO U.S. HAS NATIONAL PREMIERE AT BROOKLYN MUSEUM FORMAL INAUGURATION WEDNESDAY EVENING (NOV. 29) WITH ITALIAN AMBASSADOR PRESENT,” November 29, 1950, in Records of the Department of Public Information, Press releases, 1947–1952. 10-12/1950, 095-8., Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, NY. 2. 13 Bruce Altshuler. Salon to Biennial—Exhibitions That Made Art History. Vol. 1: 1863–1959, New York: Phaidon Press Inc., 2008. 17. 14 Ryerson & Burnham Libraries. “Case 1: Bessie Bennett in Making History: Women of the Art Institute Exhibition” Art Institute Of Chicago, 2011, https://archive.artic.edu/ryerson/making-history/1#:~:text=The%20Board%20of%20Trustees%20formally,museum%20in%20 the%20United%20States. [Accessed June 20, 2022].

Displaying Italian Producers for American Consumers 109 15 Robert Riley. “Industrial Design Division.” Brooklyn Museum Bulletin 16, no. 4 (Summer 1955): 1–3; and Walter Rothschild and Florence Abraham Blum. “Opening of the Laboratory.” Brooklyn Museum Bulletin 10, no. 2 (Winter 1949): 8–9. 16 Terence Riley and Edward Eigen. “Between the Museum and the Marketplace: Selling Good Design.” In The Museum of Modern Art at Mid-Century: At Home and Abroad, edited by John Elderfield, 150–79. New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 1994. 153. 17 Riley and Eigen. “Between the Museum and the Marketplace.” 154. 18 An Exhibition for Modern Living. Detroit: Detroit Institute of Arts, 1949. 19 Walker Art Center. “An Exhibition for Modern Living.” Everyday Art Quarterly, no. 13 (Winter 1949–1950): 12. 20 E.P. Richardson. “Introduction.” In An Exhibition for Modern Living, edited by A.H. Girard and W.D. Laurie, Jr., 7–8. Detroit: Detroit Institute of Arts, 1949. 7. 21 An Exhibition for Modern Living. Detroit: Detroit Institute of Arts, 1949. 9. 22 Edgar Kaufmann, Jr. “Modern Design in America Now.” In An Exhibition for Modern Living, 27; Kouwenhove, John A. “The Background of Modern Design.” In An Exhibition for Modern Living, 11; and Richardson. “Introduction.” 8. 23 Kaufmann, Jr. “Modern Design in America Now.” In An Exhibition for Modern Living, 27. 24 Riley and Eigen. “Between the Museum and the Marketplace.” 151 and 153; and Margaret Maile Petty. “Attitudes Towards Modern Living: The Mid-Century Showrooms of Herman Miller and Knoll Associates.” Journal of Design History 29, no. 2 (2016): 194. 25 Kaufmann, Edgar, Jr. Good Design. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1950. np. 26 “FIRST SHOWING OF GOOD DESIGN EXHIBITION IN NEW YORK,” press release, 1950, Museum of Modern Art, New York. 27 Rogers. In Italy at Work. 25. 28 Rogers. “Italy at Work Checklist,” 1950, in AIC Archives: Department of Decorative Arts Exhibition Records 1951-53, AIC Archives 305-0003.2, Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago, IL. 3–10. 29 Rogers. “Italy at Work Checklist,” 6. 30 Walter Dorwin Teague. “Italian Shopping Trip: Twelve American Museums Send Out a Battery of Buyers.” Interiors CX, no. 5 (November 1950): 144. 31 At AIC, rooms 54, 55, and 56 were primarily ceramics. See: Rogers. “Italy at Work Checklist,” 17–30. 32 Robert S. Ellwood. The Fifties Spiritual Marketplace: American Religion in a Decade of Conflict. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1997. 17. 33 Ellwood. The Fifties Spiritual Marketplace. 27–34. 34 Rogers. Italy at Work. 24. 35 Catherine Rossi. Crafting Design in Italy: From Post-War to Postmodernism. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2015. 17. 36 Alfred H. Barr, Jr. “Artistic Freedom.” College Art Journal 15, no. 3 (Spring 1956): 184–88. 37 Rogers. Italy at Work. 50. 38 Rogers. Italy at Work. 50. Archival images show that in the AIC installation, at least two of the rooms were located at the entrance to the exhibition. 39 Both Gio Ponti’s dining room and Roberto Menghi’s chapel included works by important sculptors: Fausto Melotti and Giacomo Manzù. Menghi’s room is the only room without a photograph of the constructed room in the catalogue. The author has consulted the archives at both the Brooklyn Museum and AIC and was not able to find a photograph of this room. There is no catalogue raisonne for Manzù yet, but the foundation has received a large grant to produce it with digital accessibility. I have not seen an illustration of Manzù contribution. “Un catalogo digitale delle opere di Manzù, aperto il bando di borsa di ricerca” L’Eco di Bergamo May 24, 2021, https://www.ecodibergamo.it/stories/premium/Cronaca/un-catalogo-digitaledelle-opere-di-manzu-aperto-il-bando-di-borsa-di-ricerca_1396951_11/. [Accessed June 11, 2021]. 40 The catalogue details the contributions as “Decoration of walls, chairs (including seats and backs) and table by Piero Fornasetti, Milan. Glass door painted by Piero Fornasetti or Edina Altara. Glasses and bottles designed by the architect, executed by Venini, Murano (Venice). The two figures in ceramics of Orpheus and Eurydice by Fausto Melotti, Milan. All other ceramics executed by the artisans of Richard-Ginori, Doccia (Florence), under the guidance of the

110  Displaying Italian Producers for American Consumers architect. Carpet executed by MITA, Nervi (Genoa). Lighting apparatus designed by architect, executed by Giorando Chiesa, Milan. The complete interior, including furniture, constructed by Giordano Chiesa, Milan.” Rogers. Italy at Work. 60. 41 Rogers. Italy at Work. 60. 42 Jeffrey L. Meikle. Design in the USA. Oxford History of Art. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. 108. 43 Rogers. “ITALY AT WORK: Interim Report of Progress and Costs,” April 10, 1951, in Records of the Office of the Director (Charles Nagel, 1946-55). Exhibitions: Italy at Work, (1) CN 1949-50, Brooklyn Museum Archives, Brooklyn. 6. 44 Riley and Eigen. “Between the Museum and the Marketplace: Selling Good Design.” 153. 45 Jen Hutton and Sarah Nasby. “Store/museum.” In Exhibiting Craft and Design: Transgressing the White Cube Paradigm, 1930–present, edited by Alla Myzelev, 126–39. New York: Routledge, 2017. 129. 46 Riley and Eigen. “Between the Museum and the Marketplace.” 154. 47 Walter Dorwin Teague. “Italian Shopping Trip: Twelve American Museums Send Out a Battery of Buyers.” Interiors CX, no. 5, November 1950. 144–5, 194–201. 48 Scrivano. “Romanticizing the Other?” 156–61. 49 Rogers. “The Arts and Crafts in Italy Today.” In Italy at Work. 22. 50 Judith Cass. “Recorded at Random.” Chicago Daily Tribune, March 28, 1951. A1. 51 Teague. “Italian Shopping Trip.” pp. 195, 145. 52 People in the American colonies participated in the Grand Tour even before the establishment of the United States. See: Arthur S. Marks. “Angelica Kauffmann and Some Americans on the Grand Tour.” The American Art Journal 12, no. 2 (Spring 1980): 4–24. 53 Good Design. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1950. 54 Claudio Alhaique. Relazione sull’attività della Compagnia Nazionale Artigiana. Roma: Arti Grafiche A. Chicca, 1951. 37. 55 Alhaique. Relazione sull’attività della Compagnia Nazionale Artigiana. 37. 56 Carlo Ludovico Ragghianti. Handicraft as a Fine Art in Italy. New York: House of Italian Handicraft, 1947. np [Preface]. 57 George Nelson. Display. Interiors Librart. New York: Whitney Publications, Inc., 1953. 61. 58 Rossi. Crafting Design in Italy. 13. 59 Rossi. Crafting Design in Italy. pp. 13. 60 “HANDICRAFT LINES RECOVER IN ITALY: Senator Brewster Tells Italian Chamber Here of Amazing Gains in Short Time.” The New York Times, October 1, 1948, 37. 61 Pach Bros. “Elected to Presidency of Italian Handicrafts.” The New York Times, March 8, 1950, 8. 62 Bros. “Elected to Presidency of Italian Handicrafts.” 63 Good Design. 5. 64 Vicki Howard. From Main Street to Mall: The Rise and Fall of the American Department Store. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2015. 98. 65 Howard. From Main Street to Mall. 116. 66 Ilana Abramovitch and Seán Galvin. Jews of Brooklyn. Hanover: Brandeis University Press, 2022. 4. 67 Lisicky. Abraham and Straus. 24. 68 Lisicky. Abraham and Straus. 29. 69 De Grazia. Irresistible Empire. 157. 70 Lisicky. Abraham and Straus. 33. 71 De Grazia. Irresistible Empire. 75–129. 72 De Grazia. Irresistible Empire. 133. 73 Lisicky. Abraham and Straus. 33. 74 Lisicky. Abraham and Straus. 50. 75 “The A&S Spotlight,” in A Hundred Year Love Affair. 9. 76 Lisicky. Abraham and Straus. 35–36. 77 “Abraham & Straus … A Hundred Years as ‘The Store with a Heart’,” February, 16, 1965, in Abraham & Straus Collection, Brooklyn Historical Society. 3. Emphasis Original. 78 “BRILLIANT COLOR AND CHANDELIERS RENOVATE SIBWAY PLATFORM AT A&S,” February 16, 1965, in Abraham & Straus Collection, Brooklyn Historical Society. 6.

Displaying Italian Producers for American Consumers 111 79 “Display Ad 55 - Abraham & Straus,” The New York Times, December 1, 1950, 13. Emphasis original to text. 80 Peter J. Betjemann. Talking shop: the language of craft in an age of consumption. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2011. 31–70. 81 Betjemann. Talking shop. 54. 82 Aline B. Loucheim. “Tradition and the Contemporary.” The New York Times, February 19, 1950, X9. 83 “Display Ad 55.” 84 Cassidy. “Italy at Work.” House & Garden. 126. 85 “Display Ad 55.” 86 Scrivano. “Romanticizing the Other?” 160. 87 It opened its first in 1954 in Manhattan on 5th Avenue. Scrivano. “Romanticizing the Other?” 160. 88 Penny Sparke. “The Straw Donkey: Tourist Kitsch or Proto-Design? Craft and design in Italy, 1945-1960.” Journal of Design History 11, no. 1 (1998): 59–69. 89 Sparke. “The Straw Donkey.” 60. 90 Gallup polls put the US population at majority Christian identifying in 1950. See: Frank Newport. “Percentage of Christians in U.S. Drifting Down, but Still High.” Gallup (December 24, 2015). https://news.gallup.com/poll/187955/percentage-christians-drifting-down-high.aspx. [Accessed August 14, 2022]. 91 Joan Keaveny. “Art Show Previews Set at Two Institutes.” Minneapolis Star, November 26, 1951, np. 92 Haanel Cassidy. “Italy at Work: A great show of Italian handicrafts will tour 12 U.S. museums in the next three years.” House & Garden, December 1950, 126. 93 Christopher Gray, “STREETSCAPES/Abraham & Straus (Now Macy’s), Downtown Brooklyn; Different Name, Same Architecture,” The New York Times, July 24, 2005, pp. 11. For more information on the connections between A&S and Macy’s, see: Abraham & Straus. “The A&S Spotlight,” in A Hundred Year Love Affair. Ed. Helen Marie Foley, 1964. Found in Abraham & Straus Collection, Brooklyn Historical Society; Barmash, Isadore. “Macy’s Bid for Federated Has a Clear Lead: R.H. Macy’s Federated Bid Clearly Leads.” The New York Times, March 21, 1988, D1; Michael J. Lisicky. Abraham and Straus. It’s Worth a Trip from Anywhere. Charleston: The History Press, 2017. 46–47; and McCash, June Hall. A Titanic Love Story. Ida and Isidor Straus. Macon: Mercer University Press, 2012. 130. 94 Robert M. Grippo. Macy’s. The Store. The Star. The Story. Garden City Park: Square One Publishers, 2009. 177. 95 For more information on the connections between A&S and Macy’s, see: Abraham & Straus. “The A&S Spotlight,” in A Hundred Year Love Affair. Ed. Helen Marie Foley, 1964. Found in Abraham & Straus Collection, Brooklyn Historical Society; Barmash, Isadore. “Macy’s Bid for Federated Has a Clear Lead: R.H. Macy’s Federated Bid Clearly Leads.” The New York Times, March 21, 1988, D1; Michael J. Lisicky. Abraham and Straus. It’s Worth a Trip from Anywhere. Charleston: The History Press, 2017. 46–47; and McCash, June Hall. A Titanic Love Story. Ida and Isidor Straus. Macon: Mercer University Press, 2012. 130. 96 For example, see: “E.C. BLUM IS DEAD; HEAD OF A. & S., 83: Board Chairman of Brooklyn Department Store a Leader in Borough’s Cultural Life Received Service Medal Honored by Brooklyn Institute.” The New York Times, November 22, 1946, 22. 97 Daniel Sherer. “Gio Ponti in New York.” Translated by Richard Sadleir. In Espressioni di Gio Ponti, edited by Germano Celant, 35–43. Milan: Triennale Electa, 2011. 36. Also see: See Lisa Ponti. “Gio Ponti and the Italian Landfall in New York.” Translated by Richard Sadleir. In Espressioni di Gio Ponti, edited by Germano Celant, 46–47. Milan: Triennale Electa, 2011. 98 “Abroad at Home.” TIME Magazine, September 17, 1951, 101–2. 99 Catherine Rossi, Crafting Design in Italy: From Post-War to Postmodernism. (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2015). pp. 27. 100 “Italian Fair Here Opened by Major,” The New York Times, September 11, 1951, pp. 26. 101 Vincent Impellitteri. “SPEAKING OF PICTURES.… This is Mayor Impellitteri’s travelog, with captions written by himself,” LIFE Magazine, November 21, 1951, pp. 24–6. 102 Impellitteri. “SPEAKING OF PICTURES,” pp. 24.

112  Displaying Italian Producers for American Consumers 03 “Italian Fair Here Opened by Major,” pp. 26. 1 104 The presence of General Marshall’s donkey cart, a diplomatic gift, in a department store display makes sense because Macy’s owner, Mr. Weil, was part of the secret cultural army recruited by William Donovan, the head of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS). See: Saunders, The Cultural Cold War, pp. 35. 105 United Nations. “World Economic Report 1953-54,” 1954, published by UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New York. 31.

6

Thoughts on the Cultural Impacts of Italy at Work

As was similarly evidenced in the number of visitors to the exhibition on its three-year, twelve location tour, the reviews of the exhibition were overwhelmingly positive. Most adhered to the rhetoric found in the exhibition press releases. Few of the reviews added much to the discussion of Italian design aesthetics. Compared to the press reception of MoMA’s contemporary Good Design exhibition, this was not peculiar.1 Regardless, the repetitive nature of many of the articles describing the Italy at Work exhibition show that the Marshall Plan messaging had a far reach outside of the exhibition. Not only did Americans read about the exciting new modern design from Italy but also the good work the US Government was doing to help Europeans after the war. The standard newspaper article was more of an announcement, which usually hit on four familiar points: the exhibition was organized through the Marshall Plan, the exhibition hoped to create an American market for Italian goods, the Italian artists liberated from Fascism were now able to express their individuality, and admission to the exhibition would be free at all venues. Reviews from New York,2 to Chicago,3 to Houston,4 all transcribed the museums’ press releases.5 Many even quoted press release text verbatim. It is clear that the propaganda campaign of the Cultural Cold War pervaded the broader public record on the show as well. The particular fight against Communism held a prominent place in exhibition reviews, as might be expected. One Fort-Worth paper vividly described the stakes; “this has been a prime factor in stopping communism in Italy in its tracks.”6 In a way, these discussions showed the success of the exhibition for the funders and their political agenda. One article stood out in its engagement with the contribution that Italian design makes to the design scene in the United States. In the 1950 New York Herald Tribune, Pulitzer Prize winning (1974) critic Emily Genauer discussed Italy at Work and, in particular, highlighted the role that artists played in the success of the show. Accurately stating that there are a number of artists exhibited in Italy at Work who were also showcased in the previous year’s Twentieth Century Italian Art exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art, Genauer wrote that the exhibition may have another outcome, one which very likely was never in the minds of its backers at all, yet is of no less importance to us at home. It may, because of the drama and flair with which the exhibition is being presented, and the fact that it will tour the country for three years, serve as no other force has yet succeeded in convincing Americans that art has a place in their lives—their everyday lives—which the smoothest, most efficiently operating machine-produced objects we surround ourselves with, has only magnified. It may result in a greatly increased demand for DOI: 10.4324/9781003265900-6

114  Thoughts on the Cultural Impacts of Italy at Work the unique and beautiful crafts [sic.] objects which now, at last, the public must realize can be as valid works of art as a painted landscape.7 Not only did Genauer highlight the presence of important Italian artists in the show, but she connected their inclusion to the development of a more developed American taste in modern design. She went on to write, …So quick always to scorn academic and Philistine principles, they [Americans] have not themselves been able to discard the bourgeois nineteenth-century notion, fostered by the industrial revolution, that a useful object is one thing, and art is something else—to be hung on a wall or placed on a pedestal.8 Here Genauer’s text emphasized the broader aims of design exhibitions like this, while at the same time reflecting the interdisciplinary nature of Italian design. Genauer’s assessment also paralleled contemporary writings about design in Italy that was discussed in Chapter 4, highlighting the conventions that high art need be “something else—to be hung on a wall or placed on a pedestal.” Genauer allowed for an understanding of the works in craft media by artists as both craft and fine art even though they were not made of canonical high art materials, such as bronze or marble. This particular review points toward two of the outcomes of Italy at Work that I will focus on in this final chapter of Cold War American Exhibitions of Italian Art and Design: “Italy at Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today.” The first is that the new taste for modern design in all its complexity, having gone international, would ultimately generate the “Made in Italy” brand. Though often most associated with fashion, the “Made in Italy” brand represents not just a label of country of origin but a national brand. The brand stands for more than just its location of creation. As fashion management scholar Erica Corbellini writes “creativity that is combined with functionality … artisanness and productions in small scale that insure quality in the manufacturing,” and that “you buy the ‘Made in Italy’ products, not because of a patriotic spirit, like the Americans, but for their propensity to beauty.”9 Therefore, the brand is about qualities of manufacture and style more than a kind of patriotic identity. Like Italy at Work, the rich variety of objects that are sold under the contemporary brand reflects humanist ideals of “beauty” and high end production as references to status within the ‘Western’ cultural hierarchies. The second outcome is the way included artists continued to work in media traditionally associated with craft after Italy at Work. Artists like Melotti and Fontana went on to create works in clay and other non-art media for over a decade after the American exhibition. Some of this work, especially for Melotti, remained under the umbrella of craft, while others were seen as fine art. This continued distinction reflects the continuing siloing of the fields after the richly interdisciplinary experiments of the first half of the century. This can be explained both by the continued professionalization of these fields and also by the role each (art and design) played within museums. Just as Italy at Work had to downplay the possible presence of ‘Art’ in the exhibition to keep political support, museums too kept these realms separate—reinforced by critics who wanted to segregate ‘kitsch’ from Art.10 Not only did Italy at Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today have an important impact on the style of design that took hold in Italy in the proceeding decades, but it had a broader impact on both art and also marketing.

Thoughts on the Cultural Impacts of Italy at Work  115 From Italy at Work to Made in Italy Still active throughout the late 1950s, CNA organized another show concerned with both “art and trade” that was distributed in the United States by the Smithsonian Institution.11 The last CNA exhibition of this large scale happened between 1955 and 57, traveling to at least seven different cities.12 Bringing in another wave of Italian design, the exhibition Italian Arts & Crafts displayed a smaller variety of works than Italy at Work, but did incorporate a similar variety of works, including: glass, wood, ceramics, stone, metal, furniture, textiles, leather work, and even strawwork. However, no artists were present in this later show. With its similar focus on modern design aesthetics and capitalist economics, this exhibition furthered the same initiatives as in the earlier Italy at Work and Handicraft as a Fine Art before it. In the end, “Italian luxury products found eager American buyers,” which not only supported the Italian export markets but also gave legitimacy to Italian design.13 However, while Italy at Work still toured the United States, Italian designers had begun to call for a greater consolidation of style. This was connected to the consumer shift that the postwar Italian state was experiencing, in part because of the Marshall Plan funds. One proposal was a “Linea Italiana” or Italian Line, which would “‘close ranks’ around Italian design so that it might be recognized on the international market in association with a country whose vocation had always been to ‘create beauty’.”14 This idea was put forth by architect, designer, and Ponti-collaborator, Alberto Rosselli, in a 1952 edition of Domus.15 He repeated this call 8 years later in 1960 in an article in Stile Industria (where he was an editor).16 Rosselli had come to these conclusions after meeting Ernesto Nathan Rogers, the same CNA official who helped organize Italy at Work, and was working under Ponti at Domus as the editor for “Disegno per l’industria” or “Design for Industry.”17 What Rosselli’s discussion added to stakes for design in Italy was the importance of industrial production. As both Penny Sparke and Catherine Rossi have detailed that, the overwhelming trends in Italian design became growingly concerned with more modern materials, particularly those associated with industry and mass consumption.18 Along these lines, as design historians Kjetil Fallan and Grace Lees-Maffei describe, the growing market for consumer goods throughout the 1950s and 60s was connected to the rise of these designed, industrial products.19 In the 1950s and 1960s, a new relationship between craft and mechanical production gained importance. As a result, the combining of modern mechanical production with traditional craft aesthetics would become a central marker of “Made in Italy.”20 This was not a passive move, however, as Rosselli’s discussions showed. This push to modernize through industrial means was also an effect of Italian perceptions of the United States. Though these predate the exhibition, Italy at Work undoubtedly played a role. As Spake shows, “modernity reverberated in post-war Italy with American associations … this cultural model was disseminated throughout society by means of mass-produced objects for the home and the public arena.”21 It is not a coincidence that English language words pervade post-war design discourse in Italy, from ‘design’ to “Made in Italy.” For the latter, this was likely chosen to perform the best in international markets, which because of US Cold War politics had further connected (and presided over) the world economic systems. “Made in Italy” would replace Italianità, shedding this Fascist remnant, and helping Italian cultural production gain a truly international presence. Even if the phrase “Made in Italy” did not become a colloquial term until the 1980s, the creation of a unified set

116  Thoughts on the Cultural Impacts of Italy at Work of traits to define Italian cultural production began at this early post-war moment.22 As Sparke argues, “[t]he catchphrase ‘utility plus beauty’ came to characterize the Italian design aesthetic of the late 1940s and early 1950s” and Italy at Work held a pivotal role in creating this definition.23 Giampiero Bosoni likewise describes this same moment in the 1950s as being characterized by “a fundamental sensitivity to lifestyle transformations [as] tools constantly employed in the new Italian approach to the design of every day items.”24 Italy at Work reflected both the wide range of design and also these beginnings of the shifts in design during the Miracolo economico or “Economic Miracle” of the 1960s.25 Under Fascism, the official focus on artisan production had represented an antiAmericanist critique of Fordist ideals—a complicated critique as discussed previously in this book.26 The shift away from a focus on artisan production within design changed in the 1950s, in part, because of the integration of the kind of American ideas. With this integration of consumer ideals, the understanding of “artigianato” shifted from something only representing “tradition” to something that also incorporated more modern ideals and methods.27 As I have shown though, the bringing together of tradition and modern had been present in discussions of Italian modern art throughout Fascism, even as one of the central tenets, in the post-war period this same attribute allowed artists to transcend the destruction of Fascism. Though more sleek and modern aesthetics were championed by later iterations of Italian design, the “Made in Italy” brand still retains the duality seen in Italy at Work. In the end, the brand “Made in Italy” established itself as an understanding of art and craft that brought together ancient traditions with modern industry in a trans-Atlantic Cold War context.28 It is clear that “Made in Italy” retained this sense of artisan industrialism because of the effects of the Cultural Cold War. American influences in Italy sought to create “the construction of a framework of financial and productive systems compatible with the economic model of the United States.”29 This focused on “the modernization of the industrial process,” but had varying degrees of efficacy.30 Particularly impacting the idea of the home, the American standards of living that included new technology like refrigerators “paved the way” for the “Economic Miracle.”31 However, as Scrivano shows, Italians engaged with these new modern technologically advanced designs in different ways that their American counterparts; like the incorporation of televisions into Italian homes was both labeled as “American” and also did not represent US ideals of individual consumption.32 The ‘individualism’ that Italy at Work organizers discussed had broader effects in Italy, where it served as another way to oppose Fascism. The “the anti-Communist propaganda of the time” seen in Italy at Work and other US- and Italian-based propaganda campaigns, “forged its rhetoric in defense of Italian culture against the potential dangers brought by standardized collectivist lifestyles and the emphasis on the private sphere.”33 Modernity and industrialization were good so long as Italian individuality, in design and in consumption, shined through. In other words, Italy needed to retain its obvious connection to its humanist tradition. As design became a professionalized field in the 1950s and 60s, the first histories of Italian design began to be published and by the 1970s they used the English term ‘design’ to specify the field.34 The broad impact of US exhibitions of Italian design, like Italy at Work, undoubtedly informed this etymology.35 As design historian Magdalena Dalla Mura and architecture historian Carlo Vinti show, an focus on Italian design’s “interdisciplinary openness towards architecture and the arts” was emphasized in these

Thoughts on the Cultural Impacts of Italy at Work  117 early histories of design. Italian design as a ‘style’ has always been hard to pin down in the conventional, modern art historical way. 36

By now we could surely argue that the historiographical utility of the idea of Italian design’s unity and singularity—to paraphrase what Italian studies scholar John Dickie wore about the notion of Italy more broadly—has “to be demonstrated rather than assumed.”37 This characterization of Italian design as not unified fits with what was displayed in Italy at Work but also is reinforced in more recent studies—including the present one. Similarly, the “Made in Italy” brand “remains bond to its national roots and to the concept of Italianness,” but does not have a clear style or standard set of aesthetics.38 “Made in Italy” has larger associations with fashion, as fashion management scholar Stefania Saviolo shows, but that has more to do with the connection to Italy’s craft industry than anything about the fashion industry.39 This can be seen very early on, in a 1950s publication titled Italy Creates. A published scrapbook of sorts, which shows reproductions of everything from newspaper reviews, to catalogue spreads, to magazine clippings, has only a poetic opening text to frame the entire booklet.40 The text reads: Italy Creates Beauty, good taste and usefulness are your first considerations when you choose something of Italy’s artistic production. The vitality of American civilization derives from the fusion of ideas drawn from many nations. The Italian contribution is imperishable, and is still in the process of growing. It is a living force and is blossoming forth once again in a new Renaissance. Buy the products of Italy and keep this creative spirit alive. Buy from Italy, which is a big market for American products.41 The pages that continue after this opening spread show images from the Italy at Work exhibition, fashion spreads from Vogue and Harper’s Bazaar, as well as ads from Saks Fifth Avenue from their own “Italian Christmas” display. Therefore, what is seen in the later, official “Made in Italy” brand was already being marketed to American audiences in the 1950s. As with Italy at Work, “Made in Italy” reflects an idea of Italy that is tied to its interdisciplinary design production. This is how industrially produced objects like Vespas and Fiats fit in the brand, as much as Gucci or Ferragamo, as much as small artisan producers across the country fit in the brand. Italy at Work launched, in its diversity of objects under the umbrella of Italian design, the international market for “Made in Italy.” Artists After “Italy at Work” The artists who were included in Italy at Work, as expected, continued their interdisciplinary experiments. In Italy, they continued to exhibit broadly in both fine art venues and in trade shows and design expositions. Artists like Lucio Fontana and Fausto Melotti continued to work with Gio Ponti and others in the boom years of the “Economic Miracle” to give aesthetic and cultural value to design and industry.42 At the same time, Italian artists, like Afro, who moved to the United States for almost two-decades,

118  Thoughts on the Cultural Impacts of Italy at Work continued to be highlighted in fine art exhibitions in the United States and Italy.43 Their interdisciplinary experiments would continue to have an impact on the development of Italian art.44 The 1960s saw international upheaval; in Italy, artists would see the Venice Biennale shut down by protesters in 1968, the Vietnam War, and an acceleration of violence between the factions of far left Communists and Socialists and right wing Fascists.45 At the heart of these battle was a need to identify what constituted Italian culture. For example, artists associated with Arte Povera appropriated the language of violence from “urban guerrilla movements” in their own work as a response.46 Even in the midst of the “Economic Miracle,” there was much disillusionment with the constitutional government and the perceived US cultural domination.47 As art historian Laura Petican discusses, Italian art since the end of the WWII is “continuous and fragmented” and “includes a totality of cultural matter,” not just fine art.48 As this book has shown, the continued collaboration among artists, designers, and architects helped to present an idea of Italian culture to the world. These connections also worked to represent a new Italy at home. Thought the collaborative projects between artists, designers, and architects did not end with the close of Italy at Work in 1953, their work did change along with the shifting economic and political landscape. When the 1961 World’s Exposition was to be held in Turin to mark the modern country’s centennial, it became a locus for these growing political, cultural, and economic tensions within the country. Artists like Ettore Sottsass, Fontana, and Melotti had prominent commissions in this exposition, showing the continued cultural need to highlight the unique qualities of Italian design and technology. The Italia ‘61 exposition represented the state of Italian culture and industry in the home of FIAT, Turin.49 Monumental installations by Melotti and Fontana were displayed at the Esposizione Internazionale del Lavoro (International Labor Exposition, EIL), and were central to the Italian national display, designed by Gio Ponti. Their works reflected the kind of Italian labor championed in the exposition and by the Christian Democrats (DC), “situating the country within an emergent global, consumer goods-driven economy.”50 Their teamwork, already on display in 1950’s Italy at Work, was to be read as labor and art coming together to create Italian products—not far from the themes in the earlier American exhibition. Their contributions even received a large spread in a December issue of Life magazine.51 At Italia ’61, Fontana collaborated with architects Gianemillo Monti, Piero Monti, Anna Monti Bertarini on a neon installation called Le fonti di energia (Sources of Energy). Though not the ceramic media exhibited in Italy at Work, his work in neon still reflected this interdisciplinary engagement with non-art materials. “Sponsored by a group of national energy corporations,” the installation connected the artist directly with industry, through the sponsorship and through the manufacturing of the object, and highlighted Fontana’s interest in new art that “responded to and harmoniously dialogued with the new architectural forms and design elements of postwar buildings.”52 Like his ceramic work, Fontana’s neon installation Sources of Energy came out of his ideas articulated in the White Manifesto, written in Argentina (1946), which “argued in favor for collective art forms rather than the traditional elitism of established art.”53 This work was quite literally a collaboration, requiring expert manufacture and installation not by the artist’s hand. It also engaged with the debates present in Italy at Work—Italian individualism and productivity. One the one hand, the work was read as “was a linear design in neon evoking, as the artist himself

Thoughts on the Cultural Impacts of Italy at Work  119 said, ‘the trail of a torch brandished in the air’” and on the other as “subvert[ing] the autographic reading of form and robb[ing] the gesture of its capacity to signify a living human presence.”54 Like Fontana’s vase in the textile display in Italy at Work, Sources of Energy was both a capitalist consumer product and a reflection individual artistic expression. Likewise, Melotti’s inclusion titled L’evoluzione della forma nell’artigianato (Evolution of Form in Craft) presented an experiential environment for the craft medium, ceramic. With over 800 individual ceramic tiles, Melotti transposed the ideal of handmade craft into the multiple on a mass scale. This installation functioned as both an industrial-type multiple and a handmade artifact. Though the works were meticulously handmade, the sheer volume of objects inferred mass production. Like the Campbell’s Soup Cans, which Andy Warhol started to create the same year, Melotti’s Evolution of Form in Craft osculated between craft and industry, art and design. Though, a year later, he rhetorically separated his industrious ceramic work (the in-between work of 1935–62) from his “sculptural” production, his engagement with craft and industrial materials did not end.55 After 1962, he worked, not with clay, but with wire and sheet metal to make objects that sometimes read as sculpture and other times read as vehicles, toys, buildings. Curator Sergio Poggianella points to the importance of Melotti’s engagement with questions about art and the market that “resulted in a transitory moment of fluctuating awareness.”56 The inclusion of craft and industrial materials allowed Melotti to investigate these boundaries of ‘Art’. While Italy at Work highlighted the growing importance of industrial consumer products, it also shed light on the central role that sculptors and the ceramic medium played in the creation of “Made in Italy.” As the Italy at Work catalogue had explained, A third factor related to this individualistic approach is that sympathy with his material which is almost universally characteristic of the work of the Italian craftsman. Left to himself, the craftsman may indeed create or follow a bad design, but he seldom violates the character of the material used unless forced by necessity to cater to vulgarized taste.57 In the catalogue, the focused discussion on ceramics singled out both sculptors and ceramicists. The description of their work differs from those of the large companies who produced ceramic products (Richard-Ginori, for example) as well as the smaller-scale artisan industrial installations. Terms like “abstraction” and “baroque” accompany the descriptions of artist-created ceramics, rather than “decorative” and “traditional.”58 The exhibition, like the later work of these artists and also the “Made in Italy” brand, reflected the complexity of Italian postwar production. As these artists continued to investigate ways to produce art outside of the canonical materials, forms, and modes of making, the interdisciplinary aspects of Italian design showcased in the 1950–53 exhibition Italy at Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today looks more and more significant. It was a publicly funded exhibition that highlighted the terms of the US Cultural Cold War, while showcasing the richly interdisciplinary approaches to art and design in Italy, and allowed Americans to both buy into the Cold War propaganda (quite literally) and welcome Italian-Americans into mainstream White culture. Though it was just one of a number of significant post-war exhibitions of Italian art and design, Italy at Work does highlight the broad impact of international exhibitions in terms of aesthetics, economics, politics, and society.

120  Thoughts on the Cultural Impacts of Italy at Work Notes 1 There were only two articles for Good Design for their 1950 opening published in The New York Times. One was a press release (Museum of Modern Art. “GOOD DESIGN EXHIBITION: Preview of New Display Is Held by Modern Art Museum.” The New York Times, November 22, 1950, 14) and the other was an illustrated article from long-time columnist Betty Pepis (Betty Pepis. “For the Home: 250 Good Designs for All Purposes: Eames-Selected Items Shown by Museum of Modern Art.” The New York Times, November 22, 1950, 25). A longer discussion of the series came with its 1955 installment a MoMA—Pepis. “HOME FURNISHINGS SHOWN AT MUSEUM: Modern Art Displaying 100 Items Chosen From Thousands in the ‘Good Design’ Series.” The New York Times, February 9, 1955, 24. 2 “New Italian Art Arrives For Tour.” The New York Times, November 12, 1950, 70. 3 Edward Barry. “Arts and Crafts of Italy Reflect Life and Charm.” Chicago Daily Tribune, March 15, 1951, C4; Cholly Dearborn. “Art Devotees to See Preview of ‘Italy at Work’ Exhibit.” Chicago Heartland-American, March 10, 1951, 4; Eleanor Jewett. “‘Italy at Work’ Is Art Exhibit of Rare Beauty.” Chicago Daily Tribune, March 14, 1951, A3. 4 “Major Exhibit of Italian Arts, Crafts Opening at Museum February 17.” Houston Post, February 3, 1952, 1; Catherine Louden. “Skill of Italian Artists Illustrated in Exhibition Opening at Museum Today.” Houston Post, February 17, 1952. 5 “‘Italy at Work’ is Craft Exhibit at Art Institute.” Independent, November 29, 1951, 10. This format was particularly strong in the press out of Minnesota, where text seems to be verbatim in multiple newspaper outlets. For example, see: “Italy at Work Craft Exhibition at Minneapolis Art Institute.” Breckenridge Gazette-Telegram, November 29, 1951, np; “‘Italy at Work’ Craft Exhibition.” Blue Earth Post, November 29, 1951, np; “Italian Exhibit at Mpls. Institute.” Willmar Daily Tribune, November 30, 1951, np; “Italian Work Exhibit at Minneapolis Institute.” Lanesboro Leader, November 29, 1951, np; “Exhibitions of Italian Craftsmanship Set.” Minneapolis Star, November 27, 1951, np; “Italian Art on Display.” Minneapolis Star, November 28, 1951, np; Elizabeth Lawrence. “Museum Show Has Ideas for Homemakers.” San Francisco Examiner, Sun., July 8, 1951, 3. 6 Nedra Jenkins. “Italy’s Houston Exhibit Shows Amazing Variety.” Fort Worth Star-Telegram, February 23, 1952, 14. 7 Emily Genauer. “‘Italy at Work’ Exhibition Shows Humble Objects, Too, Can Be Art.” New York Herald Tribune, December 3, 1950. np. 8 Genauer. “‘Italy at Work’ Exhibition Shows Humble Objects, Too, Can be Art.” 9 Erica Corbellini. “‘Made in’: dalla denominazione di origine alla costruzione di un immaginario.” In La scommessa del Made in Italy e il futuro della moda italiana, edited by Erica Corbellini and Stefania Saviolo, 21–58. Milan: RCS Libri, 2004. 39. 10 Most notably: Greenberg. “Avant-Garde and Kitsch (1939).” In Art and Culture. Critical Essays, 3–21. Boston: Beacon Press, 1989. 11 Manlio Brosio. “Preface.” In Italian Arts & Crafts. A Loan Exhibition of Handicrafts and Design. Edited by Italian Government. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1955. 12 This number is based on the billing records in the Archives of American Art at the Smithsonian. Billing Record for “Italian Arts & Crafts.” December 1954, in Italian Arts & Crafts, RU316 Series 1, Box 6, Folder 23, Archives of American Art, Washington D.C. 13 Henry Stuart Hughes. The United States and Italy. 3rd ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1979. 13. 14 Magdalena Dalla Mura and Carlo Vinti. “A Historiography of Italian Design.” In Made in Italy: Rethinking a Century of Italian Design, edited by Grace Lees-Maffei and Kjetil Fallan, 35–55. London: Bloomsbury, 2014. 35–36. 15 Dalla Mura and Vinti. “A Historiography of Italian Design.” 35. 16 Dalla Mura and Vinti. “A Historiography of Italian Design.” 36. 17 Paolo Rosselli. “Archivio Alberto Roselli.” https://www.archivioalbertorosselli.com/bio. [Accessed September 12, 2022]. 18 Rossi. Crafting Design in Italy. 52; Sparke. “The Straw Donkey.” 67–68. 19 Fallan, Kjetil, and Grace Lees-Maffei. “Introduction: The History of Italian Design.” In Made In Italy: Rethinking a Century of Italian Design. Edited by Grace Lees-Maffei and Kjetil Fallan. London: Bloomsbury, 2014. 14.

Thoughts on the Cultural Impacts of Italy at Work  121 20 Corbellini, Erica. “‘Made in’: dalla denominazione di origine alla costruzione di un immaginario.” In La scommessa del Made in Italy e il futuro della moda italiana. Edited by Erica Corbellini and Stefania Saviolo. Milan: RCS Libri, 2004. 39. 21 Sparke. “Industrial Design or Industrial Aesthetics?” 192. 22 Stefania Saviolo. “Made in Italy: ieri-oggi-domani.” In La scommessa del Made in Italy e il futuro della moda italiana. Edited by Erica Corbellini and Stefania Saviolo. Milan: RCS Libri, 2004. 1–2. 23 Sparke. Design in Italy: 1870 to the Present. New York: Abbeville Press, 1988. 87. 24 Giampiero Bosoni. “What is Italian Design?” In Italian Design. Edited by Giampiero Bosoni. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 2008. 37. 25 For more details on the economic miracle see: Ginsborg. A History of Contemporary Italy. 210–53. 26 Fara, Gian Maria, and Alberto M. Sobrero. Cultura e immagine dell’artigianato italiano, Istituto di Studi Politici Economici e Sociali: Temi d’oggi. Rome: Merlo, 1988. 25. 27 Fara and Sobrero. Cultura e immagine dell’artigianato italiano. 69. 28 Corbellini. “Made in.” 39. 29 Scrivano. Building Transatlantic Italy. 11. 30 Scrivano. Building Transatlantic Italy. 12. 31 Scrivano. Building Transatlantic Italy. 174. 32 Scrivano. Building Transatlantic Italy. 179. Scrivano discusses John Foot’s study of the “collective” use of the televisions in Italian communities, before it was more widely available in the late 1960s. 33 Scrivano. Building Transatlantic Italy. 187. 34 Dalla Mura and Vinti. “A Historiography of Italian Design.” 36–37. 35 Sparke. “A modern identity for a new nation: design in Italy since 1860.” 273. 36 Dalla Mura and Vinti. “A Historiography of Italian Design.” 37. 37 Dalla Mura and Vinti. “A Historiography of Italian Design.” 40. 38 Cristina Nuñez. “Made in Italy. Italy — Milan and Naples: parallel worlds of fashion.” In Tales From a Globalizing World, edited by Daniel Schwartz, 56–79. London: Thames & Hudson, 2003. 56. 39 Saviolo. “Made in Italy: ieri-oggi-domani.” 16–17. 40 Italy Creates. Edited by Commercial Attache of the Italian Consulate General in New York New York: Consolato italiano, 1953? 41 Italy Creates. np. 42 Giovanni Marzari. “Profilo biografico di Fausto Melotti.” In Fausto Melotti: L’opera in ceramica. Edited by Antonella Commellato and Marta Melotti. Milan: Skira, 2003. 452. 43 Colombo, Davide. “Chicago 1957: Italian Sculptors. Qualche vicenda attorno alla scultura italiana in America.” LUK Studi e Attività della Fondazione Ragghianti, no. 23 (Jan.–Dec. 2017): 138–54; and Barbara Drudi. Afro, da Roma a New York 1950-1968. Siena: Gli Ori, Prato, 2008. 11. 44 For insight into Arte Povera’s reception in the United States, see Chapter 5 in Raffaele Bedarida’s new book Exhibiting Italian Art in the United States from Futurism to Arte Povera: “Like a Giant Screen”. New York: Routledge, 2022. 45 See: Chiara Di Stefano. “The 1968 Biennale. Boycotting the exhibition: An account of three extraordinary days.” In Starting from Venice. Edited by Clarissa Ricci and Angela Vettese. Milan: Et al. Edizioni, 2010. 130–33; and Marinella Venanzi. “‘I would like to introduce myself with the Ambiente spaziale’: Lucio Fontana and the Biennali in the post-war years.” In Starting From Venice: Studies on the Biennale. Edited by Clarissa Ricci. Milan: et al. Edizioni, 2010. 119–29. 46 Nicholas Cullinan. “From Vietnam to Fiat-nam: The Politics of Arte Povera.” October, no. 124 (2008): 12. 47 Norma Bouchard. “Italia ‘61: The Commemorations for the Centenary of Unification in the First Capital of the Italian State.” Romance Studies 23, no. 2 (2005): 124; and Duggan. “Italy in the Cold War Years and the Legacy of Fascism.” 1–24. 48 Petican, Laura. “‘Yes, but are you Italian?’ Considering the Legacy of Italianità in Postwar and Contemporary Italian Art.” In Postwar Italian Art History Today: Untying ‘the Knot’, edited by Sharon Hecker and Marin Sullivan, 21–35. New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2018. 21–22.

122  Thoughts on the Cultural Impacts of Italy at Work 49 See: La Celebrazione del primo centenario dell’unità d’Italia. Turin: Comitato nazionale per la celebrazione del primo centenario dell’Unità d’Italia, 1961. 50 Sullivan. “The Material of Labor: Art, the Esposizione Internazionale del Lavoro, and Italia 1961.” Paper presented at the College Art Association, New York, 2014. Quoted text from: Sullivan. “Materializing Modernism in Postwar Italy: Fausto Melotti, Gio Ponti, and the 1961 Esposizione Internazionale del Lavoro.” Art History 39, no. 4 (September 2016): 721. 51 “Dramatic Decade of Italian Style,” Life 51: 22, December 1, 1961, 66–69. 52 Sullivan. “Materializing Modernism.” 739 and 740. 53 White. Lucio Fontana. 134. 54 Guido Ballo. “The Artistic Climate of the Sixties.” In Arte Italiana: 1960-1982. Translated by John Mitchell. Edited by Carlo Pirovano. Milan: Electa, 1982. 15; and White. Lucio Fontana. 163. 55 Fausto Melotti. “Sculture astratte del ‘35 e del ‘62 di Fausto Melotti.” Domus, no. 392 (1962): 48. 56 “Se la “mobilità” ideale e fisica di una realtà vibrante è una caratteristica primaria dell’arte di Melotti in opere come “Dei Due,” la ‘stabilità’ esteriore de “L’Araba Fenice” è semplicemente il risultato di un momento transitorio di un flusso di coscienza: la cristallizzazione formale di un breve racconto poetico fatto di sensazioni, emozioni, passione e sentimenti non etichettabili, liberamente giocato tra i confini immaginari dellintuizione e della logica.” Sergio Poggianella. “Melotti… da due all’infinito.” In Fausto Melotti lo spazio inquieto. Edited by Micaela Sposito. Rovereto: Transarte, 2009. 15. 57 Rogers. Italy at Work. 21–22. 58 Rogers. Italy at Work. 28–32.

Bibliography

“$14,000 in 1950 → 2022 | Inflation Calculator.” Official Inflation Data, Alioth Finance, https:// www.officialdata.org/us/inflation/1950?amount=14000. [Accessed: July 6, 2022]. Abraham & Straus. “The A&S Spotlight.” In A Hundred Year Love Affair, edited by Helen Marie Foley, found in Abraham & Straus Collection, Brooklyn Historical Society, 1964. Abraham & Straus. “A Hundred Years as “The Store with a Heart”,” February 16, 1965, in Abraham & Straus Collection, Brooklyn Historical Society. Abramovitch, Ilana, and Seán Galvin. Jews of Brooklyn. Hanover: Brandeis University Press, 2022. “About People.” Minneapolis Morning Tribune, Mon., December 3, 1951, np. “Abroad at Home.” TIME Magazine, September 17, 1951, 101–2. Ajmar, Marta. “Mechanical Disegno,” RIHA Journal 0084 (2014). URN: urn:nbn:de: 101:1-2014062622755. https://www.riha-journal.org/articles/2014/2014-jan-mar/special-issueart-design-history/ajmar-mechanical-disegno. [Accessed December 10, 2020]. Altshuler, Bruce. Salon to Biennial—Exhibitions that Made Art History. Vol. 1: 1863–1959. New York: Phaidon Press Inc., 2008. Alhaique, Claudio. Relazione sull’attività della Compagnia Nazionale Artigiana. Roma: Arti Grafiche A. Chicca, 1951. Antico, Alberto. “Letter to Charles Nagel,” 1950, in Records of the Office of the Director (Charles Nagel, 1946-55). Exhibitions: Italy at Work, (1) CN 49-45 Dir 1949-50, Brooklyn Museum Archives, Brooklyn. Arensi, Flavio. “Domani vado ad Albissola a fare ceramica.” In Picasso, Fontana, Sassu: Arte ceramica da Albissola a Vallauris, edited by Dario Cimorelli, 13–17. Milan: Dilvana Editoriale Spa, 2003. The Associated Press. “HOSPITAL REPORTED HIT. Special Cable to THE NEW YORK TIMES.” New York Times, October 4, 1935, 1. ––––––. “Text of Mussolini’s Speech Threatening War in East Africa.” New York Times, May 26, 1935, 22. Autry, La Tanya, “Museums Are Not Neutral,” Artstuffmatters, https://artstuffmatters.wordpress. com/museums-are-not-neutral/. [Accessed July 12, 2019]. Baldwin, James. “On Being White…and Other Lies (1984).” In The Cross of Redemption. Uncollected Writings, edited by Randall Kenan, 135–8. New York: Pantheon Books, 2010. Ballo, Guido. “The Artistic Climate of the Sixties.” Translated by John Mitchell. In Arte Italiana: 1960-1982, edited by Carlo Pirovano, 15–19. Milan: Electa, 1982. Ballo, Tino. The Foreign Film Renaissance on American Screens, 1946–1973, Wisconsin Film Studies, edited by Patrick McGilligan. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press, 2010. Barbero, Luca Massimo. “Lucio Fontana e Tancredi. Lo Spazialismo come aspirazione a New York.” In /New York New York/Arte Italiana: La riscorperta dell’America, edited by Francesco Tedeschi, Francesca Pola and Federica Boragina, 146–55. Milan: Electa, 2017. Barmash, Isadore. “Macy’s Bid for Federated Has a Clear Lead: R.H. Macy’s Federated Bid Clearly Leads.” New York Times, March 21, 1988, D1.

124 Bibliography Barr, Alfred H., Jr. “Artistic Freedom.” College Art Journal 15, no. 3 (1956): 184–88. Barr, Alfred H. Jr., and James Thrall Soby. Twentieth Century Italian Art. New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 1949. Barry, Edward. “Arts and Crafts of Italy Reflect Life and Charm.” Chicago Daily Tribune, March 15, 1951, C4. Battisti, Danielle. “Italian Americans, Consumerism, and the Cold War in Transnational Perspective.” In Making Italian America: Consumer Culture and the Production of Ethnic Identities, edited by Simone Cinotto, 148–62. New York: Fordham University Press, 2014. Bedarida, Raffaele. Exhibiting Italian Art in the United States from Futurism to Arte Povera: “Like a Giant Screen”. New York: Routledge, 2022. ––––––. “Export/Import: The Promotion of Contemporary Italian Art in the United States, 1935–1969.” PhD diss., Graduate Center, City University of New York, 2016. ––––––. “Operation Renaissance: Italian Art at MoMA, 1940–1949.” Oxford Art Journal 35, no. 2 (2012): 147–69. ––––––. “Viviano, Brin e la conquista di Hollywood.” In /New York New York/Arte Italiana: La riscoperta dell’America, edited by Francesco Tedeschi, Francesca Pola and Federica Boragina, 117–26. Milan: Electa, 2017. Bedarida, Raffaele, Silvia Bignami, and Davide Colombo (eds.),  Methodologies of Exchange: MoMA’s “Twentieth-Century Italian Art” (1949),  monographic issue of  Italian Modern Art, 3 (January 2020), https://www.italianmodernart.org/journal/issues/methodologies-of-exchangemomas-twentieth-century-italian-art-1949/. Bedell, Thelma S. “Letter to Joseph P. Marcelle,” August 22, 1950, in Records of the Office of the Director, Italy at Work 3: CN4945, Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, NY. ––––––. “Memo to Charles Nagel,” August 30, 1950, in Records of the Office of the Director (Charles Nagel, 1946-55). Exhibitions: Italy at Work, 1 CN49-45 Dir 1949-50, Brooklyn Museum Archives, Brooklyn. Belli, Carlo. Fausto Melotti sculture e disegni 1962-1967. Roma: Galleria “Il Segno”, 1968. Beloff, Max. The United States and the Unity of Europe. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute, 1963. Ben-Ghiat, Ruth. Fascist Modernities: Italy, 1922-1945. Berkley, CA: University of California Press, 2001. Ben-Ghiat, Ruth, and Stephanie Malia Hom. “Introduction.” In Italian Mobilities, edited by Ruth Ben-Ghiat and Stephanie Malia Hom, 1–19. New York: Routledge, 2016. Bennett, Isadora, and Richard Pleasant. ““Italy at Work — Her Renaissance in Design Today” Largest Museum Show Ever Brought to This Country to Tour United States 3 Years Opens at Brooklyn Museum November 29th.” Press release, November 29, 1950. Records of the Department of Public Information. Press releases, 1947–1952. 10-12/1950, 095-8. Brooklyn Museum Archives: Brooklyn, NY. ––––––. Largest Museum Show Ever Brought to U.S. Has National Premiere at Brooklyn Museum Formal Inauguration Wednesday Evening (Nov. 29) with Italian Ambassador Present, November 29, 1950, in Records of the Department of Public Information, Press releases, 1947–1952. 1012/1950, 095-8. Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, NY. Bertellini, Giorgio. The Divo and the Duce. Promoting Film Stardom and Political Leadership in 1920s America. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 2019. ––––––. “When Americans Loved Benito Mussolini—and What It Tells Us About Donald Trump’s Rise: The Appeal of Celebrity Authority in Tumultuous Times.” The Washington Post, February 28, 2019. Betjemann, Peter J. Talking Shop: The Language of Craft in an Age of Consumption. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press, 2011. Billiani, Francesca. Fascist Modernism in Italy: Arts and Regimes. New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2021. Billing Record for “Italian Arts & Crafts”. December 1954, in Italian Arts & Crafts, RU316 Series 1, Box 6, Folder 23, Archives of American Art, Washington, D.C.

Bibliography 125 “Biography” Anne Kirk Cooke Papers, 1860-2004; MC 643. Schlesinger Library, Radcliffe Institute, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. https://id.lib.harvard.edu/ead/sch01301/ catalog. [Accessed July 20, 2022]. Birchall, Frederick T. “Ethiopia New Seems Headed for Doom. The League Remains Inactive as Italy Takes Up the White Man’s Burden in Africa’s Last Native-Ruled Land.” New York Times, February 17, 1935, E4. Bloom, Alexander. Prodigal Sons: The New York Intellectuals & Their World. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986. Bojani, Gian Carlo. “Gio Pointi – cenni biografici.” In Gio Pointi. ceramica e architettura, edited by Gian Carlo Bojani, Claudio Piersanti and Rita Rava, 7. Florence: Centro Di della Edifici srl, 1987. Bondanella, Peter. A History of Italian Cinema. New York: The Continuum International Publishing Group, 2009. Bongiovanni, Bruno, and John Rugman. “Totalitarianism: The Word and the Thing.” Journal of Modern European History/Zeitschrift für moderne europäische Geschichte/Revue d’histoire européenne contemporaine 3, no. 1 (2005): 5–17. Booner, Paul Hyde. “Letter to Monroe Wheeler,” October 8, 1947, Alfred H. Barr, Jr. Papers. Museum of Modern Art, New York; microfilmed by the Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution. MF3153. Bosoni, Giampiero. “What Is Italian Design?” In Italian Design, edited by Giampiero Bosoni, 11–49. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 2008. Bouchard, Norma. “Italia ‘61: The Commemorations for the Centenary of Unification in the First Capital of the Italian State.” Romance Studies 23, no. 2 (2005): 117–29. Braden, Thomas W. “I’m Glad the CIA Is ‘Immoral’.” The Saturday Evening Post, May 20, 1967, 10–14. Braun, Emily. “Bodies from the Crypt and Other Tales of Italian Sculpture Between the World Wars.” In Chaos & Classicism: Art in France, Italy, and Germany, 1918-1936, edited by Kenneth E. Silver, 144–57. New York: Guggenheim Museum, 2010. ––––––. Mario Sironi and Italian Modernism. Art and Politics Under Fascism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. “Brilliant Color and Chandeliers Renovate Sibway Platform at A&S,” February 16, 1965, in Abraham & Straus Collection, Brooklyn Historical Society. Brodkin, Karen. How Jews Became White Folks and What that Says About Race in America. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1999. Brogi, Alessandro. Confronting America: The Cold War Between the United States and the Communists in France and Italy. The New Cold War History, edited by Odd Arne Westad. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2011. Bros, Pach. “Elected to Presidency of Italian Handicrafts.” New York Times, March 8, 1950, 8. Brosio, Manlio. “Preface.” In Italian Arts & Crafts. A Loan Exhibition of Handicrafts and Design, edited by Italian Government. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 1955, np. Brunette, Peter. “Rossellini and Cinematic Realism.” Cinema Journal 25, no. 1 (1985): 24–49. Burstow, Robert. “The Limits of Modernist Art as a ‘Weapon of the Cold War’: Reassessing the Unknown Patron of the Monument to the Unknown Political Prisoner.” Oxford Art Journal 20, no. 1 (1997): 68–70. Camera dei, Deputati. Relazione della X Commissione Permenente. Rome: Ministero dell’industria, 1949. Camurri, Renato. “Idee in movimento: l’esilio degli intellettuali italiani negli Stati Uniti (1930-1945).” Memoria e ricerca, no. 31 (2009): 43–62. Candela, Iria. “Fontana’s Odyssey.” In Lucio Fontana: On the Threshold, edited by Iria Candela, 15–27. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2019. Caramel, Luciano. “La scommessa di Martini.” In La Scultura lingua viva. Arturo Martini e il rinnovamento della scultura in Italia nella seconda metà del Novecento, edited by Luciano Caramel, 11–29. Milan: Edizioni Gabriele Mazzotta, 2002..

126 Bibliography Carpenter, Wava. “Designing Freedom and Prosperity: The Emergence of Italian Design in Postwar America.” Master Thesis, Cooper-Hewitt, National Design Museum, Smithsonian Institution; and Parsons The New School for Design, 2006. Cass, Judith. “Recorded at Random.” Chicago Daily Tribune, March 28, 1951, A1. Cassani, Alberto Giorgio. “Celebrazioni per il 250° anniversario della fondazione dell’Accademia di Belle Arti di Carrara.” News release, April 5, 2019. ––––––. “Enrico Galassi L’artista “fuorilegge”.” La Piê 81, no. 1 (2012): 26–31. Cassidy, Haanel. “Italy at Work: A Great Show of Italian Handicrafts Will Tour 12 U.S. Museums in the Next Three Years.” House & Garden, (1950): 124–29 & 64. Celant, Germano. Fausto Melotti. Naples: Madre Museo d’Arte Contemporanea Donnaregina, 2011. ––––––. “Gio Ponti 2011.” Translated by Richard Sadleir. In Espressioni di Gio Ponti, edited by Germano Celant, 12–13. Milan: Triennale Electa, 2011. “Cenni storici” Accademia di Belle Arti di Firenze, https://www.accademia.firenze.it/it/services/ istituto. [Accessed June 11, 2021]. Clarelli, Maria Vittoria Marini. “Arturo Martini a Roma dalla Secessione alla Quadriennale.” In Arturo Martini, edited by Claudia Gian Ferrari, Elena Pontiggia and Livia Velani, 47–61. Milan: Skira, 2006. Cockcroft, Eva. “Abstract Expressionism, Weapon of the Cold War.” In Pollock and After: The Critical Debate, edited by Francis Frascina, 125–33. New York: Harper & Row, 1985. Codovini, Giovanni, and Dino Renato Nardelli. Le leggi razziali in Italia. Foligno: Editoriale Umbra, 2002. Cohen, Lizabeth. A Consumers’ Republic: The Politics of Mass Consumption in Postwar America. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003. Comar, Nicoletta. “Carlo Sbisà: Catalogo Generale Dell’Opera Pittorica.” Doctoral Dissertation, Università degli Studi di Trieste, 2009. Colombo, Davide. “1949: Twentieth-Century Italian Art al MoMA di New York.” In /New York New York/Arte Italiana: La riscoperta dell’America, edited by Francesco Tedeschi, Francesca Pola and Federica Boragina, 102–09. Milan: Electa, 2017. ––––––. “Chicago 1957: Italian Sculptors. Qualche vicenda attorno alla scultura italiana in America.” LUK Studi e Attività della Fondazione Ragghianti, no. 23 (2017): 138–54. Corbellini, Erica. ““Made in”: dalla denominazione di origine alla costruzione di un immaginario.” In La scommessa del Made in Italy e il futuro della moda italiana, edited by Erica Corbellini and Stefania Saviolo, 21–58. Milan: RCS Libri, 2004. Costache, Irina D. “Italian Futurism and the Decorative Arts.” The Journal of Decorative and Propaganda Arts 20 (1994): 182–95. Country Data Book: All Participating Countries. Economic Cooperation Administration. Washington, DC, United States, 1950. Crenshaw, Kimberlé. “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics.” University of Chicago Legal Forum 1989 (1989): 139–67. Cullinan, Nicholas. “From Vietnam to Fiat-nam: The Politics of Arte Povera.” October, no. 124 (2008): 8–30. The Cultural Cold War in Western Europe, 1945-1960, edited by Giles Scott-Smith and Hans Krabbendam, The Intelligence Series. London: Frank Cass Publishers, 2003. Curtis, Penelope. “Modernism & Monumentality.” In Scultura Lingua Morta: Sculpture from Fascist Italy, edited by Penelope Curtis, 11–34. Leeds: Henry Moore Institute, 2003. Dalla Mura, Magdalena, and Carlo Vinti. “A Historiography of Italian Design.” In Made in Italy: Rethinking a Century of Italian Design, edited by Grace Lees-Maffei and Kjetil Fallan, 35–55. London: Bloomsbury, 2014. Dean, Vera Micheles. Europe in Retreat. New York: Alfred A Knopf, 1939.

Bibliography 127 Dearborn, Cholly. “Art Devotees to See Preview of ‘Italy at Work’ Exhibit.” Chicago HeartlandAmerican, March 10, 1951, 4. De Grazia, Victoria. Irresistible Empire: America’s Advance Through Twentieth-Century Europe. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005. ––––––. “Visualizing the Marshall Plan: The Pleasures of American Consumer Democracy or the Pains of “the Greatest Structural Adjustment Program in History”?” Chap. 2 In Images of the Marshall Plan in Europe. Films, Photographs, Exhibits, Posters, edited by Günter Bischof and Dieter Stiefel, 25–37. Innsbruck: Studienverlag Ges.m.b.H., 2009. De Nicolò, Marco. Storia della Confederazione Nazionale dell’Artigianato. 2 vols. Vol. 1, Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino, 2016. The Design History Reader, edited by Grace Lees-Maffei and Rebecca Houze. New York: Bloomsbury, 2010. Dellapiana, Elena. “I designer architetti.” In Il Design degli Architetti Italiani, edited by Fiorella Bullegato and Elena Dellapiana, 8–31. Milan: Electa, 2014. ––––––. “Italy Creates. Gio Ponti, America and the Shaping of the Italian Design Image.” Res Mobilis 7, no. 8 (2018): 19–48. Dellapiana, Elena, and Daniela N. Prina. “Craft, Industry and Art: ISIA (1922-1943) and the Roots of Italian Design.” In Made in Italy: Rethinking a Century of Italian Design, edited by Grace Lees-Maffei and Kjetil Fallan, 109–25. London: Bloomsbury, 2014. DeSalvo, Louise. “Color: White/Complexion: Dark.” Chap. 1 In Are Italians White? How Race Is Made in America, edited by Jennifer Guglielmo and Salvatore Salerno, 17–28. New York: Routledge, 2003. The development of Italy’s economic system within the framework of European recovery and cooperation. Mutual Security Agency. Rome: Comitato interministeriale per la ricostruzione, 1952. Di Stefano, Chiara. “The 1968 Biennale. Boycotting the Exhibition: An Account of Three Extraordinary Days.” In Starting from Venice, edited by Clarissa Ricci and Angela Vettese, 130–33. Milan: Et al. Edizioni, 2010. Dierenfield, Bruce J. The Civil Rights Movement: The Black Freedom Struggle in America. New York: Routledge, 2021. Dinsmore, Gertrude. “Memo: Revisions for Page 5 of Meyric Rogers’ Handbook for the Exhibition “Italy at Work”—Made by Mrs. Dinsmore House of Italian Handicrafts,” undated, in Records of the Office of the Director, Italy at Work 6: CN5051, Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, NY; and Rogers, Letter to Charles Nagel, Jr., October 21, 1949, in Records of the Office of the Director, Italy at Work 1: CN4945, Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, NY. “Display Ad 55 - Abraham & Straus.” New York Times, December 1, 1950, 13. D’Italia, Aria. “Expression of Gio Ponti (1954).” Translated by Richard Sadleir. In Espressioni di Gio Ponti, Vol. 2, edited by Germano Celant, 8–9. Milan: Triennale Electa, 2011. “Dramatic Decade of Italian Style,” Life 51: 22, December 1, 1961, 66–69. Drudi, Barbara. Afro, da Roma a New York 1950-1968. Siena: Gli Ori, Prato, 2008. Duca, Lo. Arturo Martini. Arte Moderna Italiana, Vol. 23, edited by Giovanni Scheiwiller. Milano: Ulrico Hoepli, 1933. Duggan, Christopher. A Concise History of Italy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. ––––––. “Italy in the Cold War Years and the Legacy of Fascism.” In Italy in the Cold War. Politics, Culture and Society 1948-58, edited by Christopher Duggan and Christopher Wagstaff, 1–24. Oxford & Washington, DC: Berg Publishers Limited, 1995. “E.C. BLUM IS DEAD; HEAD OF A. & S., 83: Board Chairman of Brooklyn Department Store a Leader in Borough’s Cultural Life Received Service Medal Honored by Brooklyn Institute.” New York Times, November 22, 1946, 22.

128 Bibliography Elkins, James. “Two Ways of Looking at Ceramics (2002),” 2002, NCECA Annual Conference, Kansas City Art Institute, Kansas City, Missouri. Transcript available at: https://www.academia. edu/3248608/Two_Ways_of_Looking_at_Ceramics. [Accessed June 11, 2021]. Ellwood, David W. “Italian Modernisation and the Propaganda of the Marshall Plan.” Chap. 2 In The Art of Persuasion. Political Communication in Italy from 1945 to the 1990s, edited by Luciano Cheles and Lucio Sponza, 23–48. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 2001. ––––––. “The 1948 Elections in Italy: A Cold War Propaganda Battle.” Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television 13, no. 1 (1993): 19–33. ––––––. “The Propaganda of the Marshall Plan in Italy in a Cold War Context.” Chap. 12 In The Cultural Cold War in Western Europe, 1945-1960, edited by Giles Scott-Smith and Hans Krabbendam. The Intelligence Series, 225–36. London: Frank Cass Publishers, 2003. Ellwood, Robert S. The Fifties Spiritual Marketplace: American Religion in a Decade of Conflict. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1997. “Enormous Exhibition Showing Italy’s Renaissance in Industrial and Decorative Arts Opens at Brooklyn Museum November 29th–Tours U.S. Coast-to-Coast for Three Years,” November 29, 1950, in Records of the Department of Public Information. Press releases, 1947–1952, 10-12/1950, 100-6, Brooklyn Museum Archives, Brooklyn. “Enrico Bernardi, Chest of Drawers.” Art Institute of Chicago, https://www.artic.edu/artworks/80330/chest-of-drawers. [Accessed June 11, 2021]. “E.S. TALIAFERRO, INDUSTRIAL AIDE: Retired Adviser on Foreign Operations Dies at 68.” New York Times, August 5, 1963, 23. An Exhibition for Modern Living. Detroit, MI: Detroit Institute of Arts, 1949. “Exhibitions of Italian Craftsmanship Set.” Minneapolis Star, November 27, 1951, np. Falconi, Laura. Gio Ponti: Interiors, Objects, Drawings, 1920-1976. Milan: Electa, 2010. Fara, Gian Maria, and Alberto M. Sobrero. Cultura e immagine dell’artigianato italiano. Istituto di Studi Politici Economici e Sociali: Temi d’oggi. Rome: Merlo, 1988. Fausto Melotti: L’opera in ceramica, edited by Antonella Commellato & Marta Melotti. Milan: Skira, 2003. Filippelli, Ronald L. American Labor and Postwar Italy: 1943-1953; a Study of Cold War Politics. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1989. Frateili, Enzo. ““Lo Stile nella produzione” di Ponti.” In Gio Ponti. L’arte si innamora dell’industria, edited by Ugo La Pietra, 23–26. Milan: Rizzoli, 2009. The first century of ABRAHAM & STRAUS recording its 100-year love affair with its community, 1965, in Abraham & Straus collection 1865-1995, Folder ARC.223, F.3, Center for Brooklyn History. Focardi, Filippo. “Reshaping the Past: Collective Memory and the Second World War in Italy, 1945-55.” In The Postwar Challenge. Cultural, Social, and Political Change in Western Europe, 1945-58, edited by Dominik Geppert, 41–63. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Forgacs, David. “Rossellini’s Pictorial Histories.” Film Quarterly 64, no. 3 (2011): 25–36. “For Immediate Release: “Italy at Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today” Tremendous Exhibition of Contemporary Italian Crafts to Be Shown at the Art Institute March 15 Through May 13.” In Art Institute of Chicago. Chicago, IL, 1951. Franc, Helen M. “The Early Years of the International Program and Council.” In The Museum of Modern Art at Mid-Century: At Home and Abroad, edited by John Elderfield, 108–49. New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 1994. Frascina, Francis. “Institutions, Culture, and America’s ‘Cold War Years’: The Making of Greenberg’s ‘Modernist Painting’.” Oxford Art Journal 26, no. 1 (2003): 71–97. Fujii, George M. “Selling the Marshall Plan in the United States.” In Images of the Marshall Plan in Europe. Films, Photographs, Exhibits, Posters, edited by Günter Bischof and Dieter Stiefel, 39–57. Innsbruck: Studienverlag Ges.m.b.H., 2009.

Bibliography 129 Galla, Patricia T. “Memo: List of attendance numbers at each museum,” February 18, 1953, AIC Archives 305-0003.2, Buffalo, NY. “Gallery Installation List.” 1950, in AIC Archives: Department of Decorative Arts Exhibition Records 1951-53, Italy at Work: 305-0003.2, Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago, IL. Gambio, Richard. Blood of My Blood. The Dilemma of the Italian-American. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1974. ––––––. “A World War II “Italian” Diary of an Italian-American G.I.” Italian Americana 29, no. 2 (2011): 201–10. Gamble, Antje. “Buying Marino Marini: The American Market for Italian Art After WWII.” In Postwar Italian Art History Today: Untying ‘the Knot’, edited by Sharon Hecker and Marin Sullivan, 155–72. London: Bloomsbury, 2018. ––––––. “Exhibiting Italian Democracy in the 1949 “Twentieth Century Italian Art”.” In Modern in the Making: MoMA and the Modern Experiment, 1929–1949, edited by Sandra Zalman and Austin Porter, 215–29. London: Bloomsbury Press, 2020. Genauer, Emily. “‘Italy at Work’ Exhibition Shows Humble Objects, Too, Can Be Art.” New York Herald Tribune, December 3, 1950, np. Gentile, Emilio. “Italy 1918-1943.” In Post Zang Tumb Tuuum: Art Life Politics: Italia 1918-1943, edited by Germano Celant, 46–51. Milan: Fondazione Prada, 2018. ––––––. “The Conquest of Modernity: From Modernist Nationalism to Fascism.” Modernism/ Modernity 1, no. 3 (1994): 55–87. Gienow-Hecht, Jessica C.E. “Culture and the Cold War in Europe.” Chap. 19 In The Cambridge History of the Cold War, Volume 1, edited by Melvyn P. Leffler and Odd Arne Westad, 398–419. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Ginsborg, Paul. A History of Contemporary Italy. Society and Politics 1943-1988. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003. Giunta, Andrea. “The War Years: Fontana in Argentina.” In Lucio Fontana. On the Threshold, edited by Iria Candela, 41–49. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2019. Glen, Justin. The Washingtons: A Family History. California: Savas Publishing, 2015. Good Design. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1950. Goodman, Elliot R. “East vs. West in Communist Ideology.” Journal of International Affairs 15, no. 2 (1961): 95–107. Gray, Christopher. “STREETSCAPES/Abraham & Straus (Now Macy’s), Downtown Brooklyn; Different Name, Same Architecture.” The New York Times, July 24, 2005, 11. Greenberg, Clement. “Avant-Garde and Kitsch (1939).” In Art and Culture. Critical Essays, 3–21. Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1989. Grippo, Robert M. Macy’s. The Store. The Star. The Story. Garden City Park: Square One Publishers, 2009. Guglielmo, Jennifer. “Introduction: White Lies, Dark Truths.” In Are Italians White? How Race Is Made in America, edited by Jennifer Guglielmo and Salvatore Salerno, 1–14. New York: Routledge, 2003. Guglielmo, Thomas A. ““No Color Barrier” Italians, Race, and Power in the United States.” In Are Italians White? How Race Is Made in America, edited by Jennifer Guglielmo and Salvatore Salerno, 26–43. New York: Routledge, 2003. ––––––. White on Arrival. Italians, Race, Color, and Power in Chicago, 1890-1945. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Guilbaut, Serge. How New York Stole the Idea of Modern Art: Abstract Expressionism, Freedom, and the Cold War. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 1983. ––––––. “Postwar Painting Games: The Rough and the Slick.” In Reconstructing Modernism: Art in New York, Paris, and Montreal 1945-1964, edited by Serge Guilbaut, 30–84. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1992. Hammacher, A.M. Fausto Melotti. Translated by James Brockway. London: Marlborough, 1973.

130 Bibliography “HANDICRAFT LINES RECOVER IN ITALY: Senator Brewster Tells Italian Chamber Here of Amazing Gains in Short Time.” New York Times, October 1, 1948, 37. Hanks, David A. “The Bauhaus: Mecca of Modernism.” In Partners in Design: Alfred H. Barr Jr. and Philip Johnson, edited by David A. Hanks, 28–55. New York: The Monacelli Press, 2015. Hannah, Fran, and Tim Putnam. “Taking Stock in Design History (1980).” In The Design History Reader, edited by Grace Lees-Maffei and Rebecca Houze, 267–72. New York: Bloomsbury, 2010. Harper, John Lamberton. America and the Reconstruction of Italy, 1945-1948. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Hecker, Sharon. A Monument’s Moment: Medardo Rosso and the International Origins of Modern Sculpture. Berkley, CA: University of California Press, 2017. ––––––. “‘Servant of Two Masters’: Lucio Fontana’s Sculptures in Milan’s Cinema Arlecchino (1948).” Oxford Art Journal 35, no. 3 (2012): 337–61. ––––––. “Technical Experiments and Serial Sculpture.” In Medardo Rosso: Experiments in Light and Form, edited by Sharon Hecker and Tamara H. Schenkenberg, 30–37. St. Louis, MO: Pulitzer Arts Foundation, 2017. Hogan, Michael J. The Marshall Plan: America, Britain, and the Reconstruction of Western Europe, 1947-1952. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. House of Italian Handicrafts, Inc., “Memorandum on ‘Italy at Work’,” May 26, 1953, in Records of the Office of the Director, Italy at Work: CN5253, Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, NY. Howard, Vicki. From Main Street to Mall: The Rise and Fall of the American Department Store. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2015. Hughes, Henry Stuart. The United States and Italy. 3rd ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979. Hutton, Jen, and Sarah Nasby. “Store/museum.” In Exhibiting Craft and Design: Transgressing the White Cube Paradigm, 1930-Present, edited by Alla Myzelev, 126–39. New York: Routledge, 2017. Ignatiev, Noel. How the Irish Became White. New York: Routledge, 1995. Impellitteri, Vincent. “SPEAKING OF PICTURES… …This Is Mayor Impellitteri’s Travelog, with Captions Written by Himself.” LIFE Magazine, November 21, 1951, 24–26. “Italian Art on Display.” Minneapolis Star, November 28, 1951, np. Italian Arts & Crafts. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 1955. “Italian Exhibit at Mpls. Institute.” Willmar Daily Tribune, November 30, 1951, np. “Italian Fair Here Opened by Major,” The New York Times, September 11, 1951, 26. “Italian Work Exhibit at Minneapolis Institute.” Lanesboro Leader, November 29, 1951, np. “Italy at Work Craft Exhibition at Minneapolis Art Institute.” Breckenridge Gazette-Telegram, November 29, 1951, np. ““Italy at Work”/Exhibition of Contemporary Decorative and Industrial Arts from Italy.” November 29, 1950, in Records of the Office of the Director, Italy at Work 4: CN 50-51, Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, NY. Italy at Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today, 13–18. Rome: The Compagnia Nazionale Artigiana, 1950. “Italy at Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today.” In AIC Archives: Department of Decorative Arts Exhibition Records 1951-53, 305-0003.4, Chicago, IL: Art Institute of Chicago, 1951. “Italy at Work—Her Renaissance in Design Today”, undated, in Records of the Office of the Director, Italy at Work 1: CN5051, Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, NY ““Italy at Work” Craft Exhibition.” Blue Earth Post, November 29, 1951, np. ““Italy at Work” Is Craft Exhibit at Art Institute.” Independent, November 29, 1951, 10. “Italy at Work: Statement of Receipts and Disbursements,” undated, in Records of the Office of the Director, Italy at Work 3: CN5051, Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, NY. “ITALY CHALLENGED ON BULLET DENIAL. Wireless to THE NEW YORK TIMES.” New York Times, October 22, 1935, 14.

Bibliography 131 Italy, Country Study, European Recovery Program. Economic Cooperation Administration. Washington, DC: United States Government Print Office, 1949. Italy Creates, edited by Commercial Attache of the Italian Consulate General in New York. New York: Consolato italiano, 1953. “Italy Exhibits Chemical War. Wireless to THE NEW YORK TIMES.” New York Times, May 19, 1935, 26. “Italy Friendship, Commerce, and Navigation Treaty.” Office of Trade Agreements Negotiations and Compliance, no. 1 12 UST 131; TIAS 4685, http://tcc.export.gov/Trade_Agreements/All_ Trade_Agreements/exp_005443.asp. [Accessed May 20, 2015]. Jachec, Nancy. Politics and Painting at the Venice Biennale 1948-64: Italy and the Idea of Europe. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2007. Jacobs, Meg. “The Politics of Plenty in the Twentieth-Century United States.” Chap. 11 In The Politics of Consumption. Material Culture and Citizenship in Europe and America, edited by Martin Daunton and Matthew Hilton, 223–39. Oxford: Berg, 2001. Jenkins, Nedra. “Italy’s Houston Exhibit Shows Amazing Variety.” Fort Worth Star-Telegram, February 23, 1952, 14. Jewett, Eleanor. “‘Italy at Work’ Is Art Exhibit of Rare Beauty.” Chicago Daily Tribune, March 14, 1951, A3. J.S. “Lucio Fontana at Martha Jackson.” Arts Magazine 44 (1970): 60. Kallis, Aristotle. “The “Third Rome” of Fascism: Demolitions and the Search for a New Urban Syntax.” The Journal of Modern History 84, no. 1 (2012): 40–79. Kaufmann, Edgar, Jr. Good Design. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1950. ––––––. “Modern Design in America Now.” In An Exhibition for Modern Living, edited by A.H. Girard and W.D. Laurie, Jr., 27. Detroit: Detroit Institute of Arts, 1949. Keaveny, Joan. “Art Show Previews Set at Two Institutes.” Minneapolis Star, November 26, 1951, np. Kouwenhove, John A. “The Background of Modern Design.” In An Exhibition for Modern Living, edited by A.H. Girard and W.D. Laurie, Jr., 11–26. Detroit: Detroit Institute of Arts, 1949. Lasch, Christopher. “The Cultural Cold War: A Short History of the Congress for Cultural Freedom.” In A New Past: Dissenting Essays in American History, edited by Barton J. Bernstein, 322–59. New York: Pantheon Books, 1968. Lawrence, Elizabeth. “Museum Show Has Ideas for Homemakers.” San Francisco Examiner, July 8, 1951, 3. Lisicky, Michael J. Abraham and Straus. It’s Worth a Trip from Anywhere. Charleston: The History Press, 2017. Loucheim, Aline B. “Tradition and the Contemporary.” New York Times, February 19, 1950, X9. Louden, Catherine. “Skill of Italian Artists Illustrated in Exhibition Opening at Museum Today.” Houston Post, February 17, 1952. Lucas, W. Scott. “Revealing the Parameters of Opinion: An Interview with Frances Stonor Saunders.” Chap. 2 In The Cultural Cold War in Western Europe, 1945-1960, edited by Giles Scott-Smith and Hans Krabbendam. The Intelligence Series, 15–40. London: Frank Cass Publishers, 2003. Luconi, Stefano. “Black Dagoes? Italian immigrants’ Racial Status in the United States: An Ecological View.” Journal of Transatlantic Studies 14, no. 2 (2016): 188–99. ––––––. “The Bumpy Road Toward Political Incorporation, 1920-1984.” In The Routledge History of Italian Americans, edited by William J. Connell and Stanislao G. Pugliese, 319–36. New York: Routledge, 2018. ––––––. ““The Venom of Racial Intolerance”: Italian Americans and Jews in the United States in the Aftermath of Fascist Racial Laws.” Revue française d’études américaines, no. 107 (2006): 107–19.

132 Bibliography Ludwig, Emil. “Mussolini Looks at the World: Il Duce Expounds to Emil Ludwig His Political Doctrines, Talks of Socialism, Capitalism, Fascism and Communism, and Delivers a Critique Upon Three Dictators of Other Epochs.” New York Times, July 17, 1932, 1, 2, 15. ––––––. “The Mussolini Behind the Iron Mask: Emil Ludwig Finds Him a Man of Nuances, Not Extremes, Who Controls His Nerves by Hard and Relentless Work.” New York Times, May 19, 1929, 2, 71. Lynch, Agnes. “Curator Tours Italy Seeking Revitalized Art.” Chicago Daily Tribute, April 8, 1951, S_A3. “Major Exhibit of Italian Arts, Crafts Opening at Museum February 17.” Houston Post, February 3, 1952, 1. “Making of Art Institute Show to Be Told Guild.” Chicago Daily Tribune, February 18, 1951, N_A9. Marcus, Millicent. “Pina’s Pregnancy, Traumatic Realism, and the After-Life of Open City.” Italica 85, no. 4 (2008): 426–38. Marks, Arthur S. “Angelica Kauffmann and Some Americans on the Grand Tour.” The American Art Journal 12, no. 2 (1980): 4–24. Martini, Arturo. La Scultura Lingua Morta. Verona: Editiones Officinae Bodoni, 1948 (1945). Marzari, Giovanni. “Profilo biografico di Fausto Melotti.” In Fausto Melotti: L’opera in ceramica, edited by Antonella Commellato and Marta Melotti, 447–55. Milan: Skira, 2003. Matteoni, Dario. “Gio Ponti, a Suspended Modernity.” Translated by Emily Ligniti and Carol Lee Rathman. In Gio Ponti il fascino della ceramica/Fascination for Ceramics, edited by Dario Matteoni, 19–31. Milan: Silvana Editorale S.p.A., 2011. McCash, June Hall. A Titanic Love Story. Ida and Isidor Straus. Macon: Mercer University Press, 2012. Meikle, Jeffrey L. Design in the USA. Oxford History of Art. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Melotti, Fausto. “Letter to Carlo Belli,” August 20, 1950, in Archivio del ‘900, R. 44/c.198 V15, Museo di Arte Moderna e Contemporanea di Trento e Rovereto, Rovereto. ––––––. “Sculture astratte del ‘35 e del ‘62 di Fausto Melotti.” Domus, no. 392 (1962): 48. Merjian, Ara H. “A Future by Design: Giacomo Balla and the Domestication of Transcendence.” Oxford Art Journal 35, no. 2 (2012): 121–46. Meyer, Gerald. “When Frank Sinatra Came to Italian Harlem. The 1945 “Race Riot” at Benjamin Franklin High School.” In Are Italians White? How Race Is Made in America, edited by Jennifer Guglielmo and Salvatore Salerno, 161–76. New York: Routledge, 2003. Miller, Richard. “Letter to Charles Nagel,” August 5, 1950, in Records of the Office of the Director (Charles Nagel, 1946-55). Exhibitions: Italy at Work, (1) CN49-45 Dir 1949-50, Brooklyn Museum Archives, Brooklyn. Morelli, Francesca Romana. “Oppo “grande arbito degli artisti d’Italia”?” In Cipriano Efisio Oppo Un legislatore per l’arte: Scritti di critica e di politica dell’arte 1915-1943, edited by Francesca Romana Morelli. Esposizione Nazionale Quadriennale d’Arte di Roma, 1–6. Rome: Edizioni De Luca, 2000. “Mrs. Taliaferro Is Married to Ethelbert Warfield on L.I.”. New York Times, November 12, 1967, 89. Museum of Modern Art. “GOOD DESIGN EXHIBITION: Preview of New Display Is Held by Modern Art Museum.” New York Times, November 22, 1950, 14. Nagel, Charles Jr., “Letter to Aldo M. Mazio,” June 29, 1950, in Records of the Office of the Director, Italy at Work 3: CN4945, Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, NY. ––––––. “Letter to Ambassador James Clemete Dunn,” July 7, 1950, in Records of the Office of the Director (Charles Nagel, 1946-55). Exhibitions: Italy at Work, 1 CN4945 Dir 1949- 50, Brooklyn Museum Archives, Brooklyn. ––––––. “Letter to Edwin B. Wilson,” not dated 1950, in Records of the Office of the Director, Italy at Work 1: CN4945, Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, NY.

Bibliography 133 ––––––. “Letter to Harry Lucia,” March 6, 1950, in Records of the Office of the Director, Italy at Work 1: CN4945, Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, NY. ––––––. “Memo to Joseph P. Marcelle “Sponsors to date for the Brooklyn showing of “Italy at Work - Her Renaissance in Design Today”,” July 24, 1950, in Records of the Office of the Director, Italy at Work 3: CN4945, Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, NY. Negri, Fabrizia Buzio. “Aria, acqua, terra, fuoco. Ad Albisola, la scintilla dell’arte tra Déco e Futurismo.” In Albisola futurista - La grande stagione degli Anni Venti e Trenta, edited by Fabrizia Buzio Negri and Riccardo Zelatore, 13–19. Gallarate: Edizioni Civica Galleria d’Arte Moderna, 2003. Nelson, George. Display. Interiors Librart. New York: Whitney Publications, Inc., 1953. “New Italian Art Arrives for Tour.” New York Times, November 12, 1950, 70. Newport, Frank. “Percentage of Christians in U.S. Drifting Down, but Still High.” Gallup, December 24, 2015. https://news.gallup.com/poll/187955/percentage-christians-drifting-downhigh.aspx. [Accessed August 14, 2022]. Nuñez, Cristina. “Made in Italy. Italy — Milan and Naples: Parallel Worlds of Fashion.” In Tales from a Globalizing World, edited by Daniel Schwartz, 56–79. London: Thames & Hudson, 2003. Nye, Joseph S. Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power. New York: Basic Books, 1990. O’Hare McCormick, Anne. “The People’s Own Dictators: Like Receivers in Bankruptcy They Are an Expedient for Liquidating Distressed Democracies.” New York Times, April 13, 1924, SM1, 14. ––––––. “The Swashbuckling Mussolini: Latest Heir of the Caesars Has Conquered. Because His Countrymen Understand Arrogance.” New York Times, July 22, 1923, BR1, 18. Omi, Michael, and Howard Winant. Racial Formation in the United States from the 1960s to the 1990s. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 1994. Orden, Erica. “MoMA Attendance Hits Record High.” The Wall Street Journal (2010). https://www. wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703964104575335301840480246. [Accessed December 1, 2020]. “OUR BACKING ASKED FOR U.S. OF EUROPE: 81 Prominent Americans Sign Petition for Union.” New York Times, April 18, 1947, 12. Pacifici, Sergio J. “Notes Towards a Definition of Neorealism.” Yale French Studies, no. 17 (1956): 44–53. Painter, Nell Irvin. The History of White People. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2010. Pepall, Rosalind. ““Good Design Is Good Business”: Promoting Postwar Italian Design in America.” In Il modo italiano. Italian Design and the Avant-Garde in the 20th Century, edited by Giampiero Bosoni and Guy Cogeval, 69–79. Montreal: The Montreal Museum of Fine Arts, 2007. Pepis, Betty. “For the Home: 250 Good Designs for All Purposes: Eames-Selected Items Shown by Museum of Modern Art.” New York Times, November 22, 1950, 25. ––––––. “HOME FURNISHINGS SHOWN AT MUSEUM: Modern Art Displaying 100 Items Chosen from Thousands in the ‘Good Design’ Series.” New York Times, Febuary 9, 1955, 24. Petican, Laura. ““Yes, but Are You Italian?” Considering the Legacy of Italianità in Postwar and Contemporary Italian Art.” In Postwar Italian Art History Today: Untying ‘the Knot’, edited by Sharon Hecker and Marin Sullivan, 21–35. New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2018. Petty, Margaret Maile. “Attitudes Towards Modern Living: The Mid-Century Showrooms of Herman Miller and Knoll Associates.” Journal of Design History 29, no. 2 (2016): 180–99. Pica, Agnoldomenico. Storia della Triennale di Milano 1918-1957. Milan: Edizioni del Milione, 1957. Poggianella, Sergio. “Melotti… da due all’infinito.” In Fausto Melotti lo spazio inquieto, edited by Micaela Sposito, 13–19. Rovereto: Transarte, 2009.

134 Bibliography Ponti, Gio. “L’Affermazione delle industrie femminili italiane.” In Gio Ponti e il «Corriere della Sera» 1930-1963, edited by Luca Molinari and Cecilia Rostagni, 277–83. Milan: Fondazione Corriere della Sera, 2011 [1939]. ––––––. Espressione di Gio Ponti. Milan: Guarnati, 1954. ––––––. “Prefazione.” In Ceramica alla 9a Triennale di Milano, edited by Zetti e Spreafico, 5–8. Milano: Editorale Domus, 1953. ––––––. “La prossima Triennale e l’attrezzatura artistica italiana (1942).” In Gio Ponti e il «Corriere della Sera» 1930-1963, edited by Luca Molinari and Cecilia Rostagni, 336–42. Milan: Fondazione Corriere della Sera, 2011. Ponti, Lisa. Gio Ponti: The Complete Works. London: Thames and Hudson, 1990, 288. ––––––. “Gio Ponti and the Italian Landfall in New York.” Translated by Richard Sadleir. In Espressioni di Gio Ponti, edited by Germano Celant, 46–47. Milan: Triennale Electa, 2011. Pontiggia, Elena. “Martini a Milano.” In Arturo Martini, edited by Claudia Gian Ferrari, Elena Pontiggia and Livia Velani, 17–36. Milan: Skira, 2006. Ponzio, Angelica. “The Denver Art Museum: Gio Ponti’s [American] “Dream come True”.” Docomomo US (2020). Published electronically September 21, 2020. https://docomomo-us.org/ news/the-denver-art-museum-1966-72-gio-ponti-s-american-dream-come-true. [Accessed June 11, 2021]. Portoghesi, Paolo. “Gio Ponti’s Ceramics.” Translated by Richard Sadleir. In Espressioni di Gio Ponti, edited by Germano Celant, 18–22. Milan: Triennale Electa, 2011. Post Zang Tumb Tuuum: Art, Life Politics, Italia 1918-1943, edited by G. Celant. Milan: Fondazione Prada, 2018. Pugliese, Stanislao G. “Fascism and Anti-Fascism in Italian America.” In The Routledge History of Italian Americans, edited by William J. Connell and Stanislao G. Pugliese, 349–67. New York: Routledge, 2018. Ragghianti, Carlo Ludovico. Handicraft as a Fine Art in Italy. New York: House of Italian Handicraft, 1947. Ramy, Alexander. “Letter to Meyric Rogers,” December 12, 1949, in Records of the Office of the Director, Italy at Work 1: CN5051, Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, NY. Razzano, Guido Maria. “The Roots of the Italian Uniqueness Exhibition.” In Italian Uniqueness: The Making of a National Identity. 1961/2011, edited by Enrico Morteo and Alessandra Maria Sette, 20–23. Venice: Marsilio, 2011. “Recovery in Italy by 1952 Forecast.” New York Times, November 25, 1948, 55. Reeves, Harrison. ““HIRE MUSSOLINI!” This Is Suggested for a National Slogan Over Here.” New York Times, June 29, 1932, 20. Relazione della X Commissione Permenente. Ministero dell’industria. Roma: Camera dei Deputati, 1949. Rice, Diana. “The Foibles of the Austere Mussolini: Cheerfully the Italian Premier Pauses Amid Affairs of State to Confess That He Is Quite Fond of Red Roses, Horseback Riding, Violin Playing and Gay Cravats.” New York Times, March 25, 1928, 85. Richardson, E.P. “Introduction.” In An Exhibition for Modern Living, edited by A.H. Girard and W.D. Laurie, Jr., 7–8. Detroit: Detroit Institute of Arts, 1949. Riley, Robert. “Industrial Design Division.” Brooklyn Museum Bulletin 16, no. 4 (1955): 1–3. Riley, Terence, and Edward Eigen. “Between the Museum and the Marketplace: Selling Good Design.” In The Museum of Modern Art at Mid-Century: At Home and Abroad, edited by John Elderfield, 150–79. New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 1994. Roediger, David R. Working Towards Whiteness: How America’s Immigrants Became White. New York: Basic Books, 2005. Rogers, Meyric R. “Article for February Bulletin,” undated (1950?), in AIC Archives, 305-0003.4, Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago, IL. ––––––. “Introduction.” In Italy at Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today, 13–18. Rome: The Compagnia Nazionale Artigiana, 1950.

Bibliography 135 ––––––. “Italian Contemporary Industrial Arts” Report on a survey made in Italy, June 2–July 5, 1949, in Records of the Office of the Director (Charles Nagel, 1946-55). Exhibitions: Italy at Work, (1) CN 1949-50, Brooklyn Museum Archives, Brooklyn. ––––––. “Italy at Work Checklist,” 1950, in AIC Archives: Department of Decorative Arts Exhibition Records 1951-53, AIC Archives 305-0003.2, Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago, IL. 3–10. ––––––. ‘ITALY AT WORK: Interim Report of Progress and Costs,’ 10 April 1951, in Records of the Office of the Director (Charles Nagel, 1946-55). Exhibitions: Italy at Work, (1) CN 1949-50, Brooklyn Museum Archives, Brooklyn. Rogers, Meyric R. and M. Maestro, “Script for Radio Interview,” August 17, 1950, in AIC Archives: Department of Decorative Arts Exhibition Records 1951-53, AIC Archives 305-0003.3.4, Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago, IL. Rosselli, Paolo. “Archivio Alberto Roselli.” https://www.archivioalbertorosselli.com/bio. [Accessed September 12, 2022]. Rossi, Catherine. Crafting Design in Italy: From Post-War to Postmodernism. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2015. Rothschild, Walter, and Florence Abraham Blum. “Opening of the Laboratory.” Brooklyn Museum Bulletin 10, no. 2 (1949): 8–9. Rudgers, David F. “The Origins of Covert Action.” Journal of Contemporary History 35, no. 2 (2000): 249–62. Ryerson & Burnham Libraries. “Case 1: Bessie Bennett in Making History: Women of the Art Institute Exhibition” Art Institute of Chicago, 2011, https://archive.artic.edu/ryerson/makinghistory/1#:˜:text=The%20Board%20of%20Trustees%20formally,museum%20in%20the%20 United%20States. [Accessed June 20, 2022]. Sabatino, Michelangelo. Pride in Modesty. Modernist Architecture and the Vernacular Tradition in Italy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010. Said, Edward. Orientalism. New York: Vintage, 1978. Salaris, Claudia. La Quadriennale. Storia della rassegna d’arte italiana dagli anni Trenta a oggi = History of the Exhibition of Italian Art from the Thirties to Today. Translated by Felicity Lutz. Fondazione La Quadriennale di Roma. Venice: Marsilio Editori, 2004. Sapori, Francesco. L’ Arte e il Duce. Milano: A. Mondadori, 1932. Sarfatti, Michele. “Characteristics and Objectives of the Anti-Jewish Racial Laws in Fascist Italy, 1938-1943.” Translated by Antony Shugaar. In Jews in Italy Under Fascist and Nazi Rule, 19221945, edited by Joshua D. Zimmerman, 71–80. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Saunders, Frances Stonor. The Cultural Cold War. The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters. New York: The New Press, 1999. Saviolo, Stefania. “Made in Italy: ieri-oggi-domani.” Chap. 1 In La scommessa del Made in Italy e il futuro della moda italiana, edited by Erica Corbellini and Stefania Saviolo, 1–20. Milan: RCS Libri, 2004. Sborgi, Franco. “Presenza in Liguria di Arturo Martini.” In La scultura a Genova e in Liguria. IL Novecento Volume III, edited by Franco Sborgi, 56–64. Campomorone: Industrie Grafiche Editoriali F.lli Pagano S.p.A., 1989. Schlesinger, Arthur M., Jr. The Vital Center: The Politics of Freedom. Cambridge: The Riverside Press, 1962 (1949). Schlesinger, Robert. “Arthur Schlesinger Jr.’s Not-So-Secret Career as a Spy.” U.S. News & World Report, August 20, 2008. https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2008/08/20/arthurschlesinger-jrs-not-so-secret-career-as-a-spy. [Accessed July 20, 2022]. Schmidt, Oliver. “Small Atlantic World: U.S. Philanthropy and the Expanding International Exchange of Scholars After 1945.” Chap. 6 In Culture and International History, edited by Jessica C.E. Gienow-Hecht and Frank Schumacher, 115–34. New York: Berghahn Books, 2003. Scrivano, Paolo. Building Transatlantic Italy: Architectural Dialogues with Postwar America. Studies in Architecture, edited by Eamonn Canniffe. Burlington: Ashgate, 2013.

136 Bibliography ––––––. “Romanticizing the Other? Views of Italian Industrial Design in Postwar America.” In The Italian Legacy in Washington DC: Architecture, Design, Art and Culture, edited by Luca Molinari and Andrea Canepari, 156–61. Milan: Skira, 2007. ––––––. “Signs of Americanization in Italian Domestic Life: Italy’s Postwar Conversion to Consumerism.” Journal of Contemporary History 40, no. 2 (2005): 317–40. “Sees Italy Making Steady Comeback.” New York Times, December 24, 1946, 25. Sherer, Daniel. “Gio Ponti in New York.” Translated by Richard Sadleir. In Espressioni di Gio Ponti, edited by Germano Celant, 35–43. Milan: Triennale Electa, 2011. Sparke, Penny. “A Modern Identity for a New Nation: Design in Italy Since 1860.” In The Cambridge Companion to Modern Italian Culture, edited by Zygmunt G. Barański and Rebecca J. West, 265–81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. ––––––. “Industrial Design or Industrial Aesthetics?: American Influence on the Emergence of the Italian Modern Design Movement, 1948-58.” Chap. 10 In Italy in the Cold War. Politics, Culture and Society 1948-58, edited by Christopher Duggan and Christopher Wagstaff, 159–65. Oxford & Washington, DC: Berg Publishers Limited, 1995. ––––––. “The Straw Donkey: Tourist Kitsch or Proto-Design? Craft and Design in Italy, 1945-1960.” Journal of Design History 11, no. 1 (1998): 59–69. Spinelli, Luigi. “Art in the Home/L’arte della casa.” Translated by Mary Consonni, Bradley Baker Dick and Luisa Gugliemotti. In Domus 1929-1939, edited by Charlotte Fiell and Peter Fiell, 8–11. Köln: Taschen GmbH, 2006. “Statement of Receipts and Disbursements,” March 20, 1951, in Records of the Office of the Director (Charles Nagel, 1946-55). Exhibitions: Italy at Work, CN 50-51 Budget & Donors, Brooklyn Museum Archives, Brooklyn. “Storia e Rappresentanza,” Confederazione Nazionale dell’Artigianato e della Piccola e Media Impresa, https://www.cna.it/chi-siamo/storia-e-rappresentanza/. [Accessed June 11, 2021]. Streit, Clarence K. “League Awaits Showdown. Mussolini Is Expected to Force the Council to Take Grave Decisions on Ethiopia.” New York Times, June 9, 1935, E5. “Suggested Budget for Exhibition “Italy at Work—Her Renaissance in Design Today”,” undated 1950, in Records of the Office of the Director, Italy at Work 3: CN5051, Brooklyn Museum, Brooklyn, NY. Sullivan, Marin. “Lucio Fontana and Fausto Melotti: Divergent but Parallel.” In Return to Earth: Ceramic Sculpture of Fontana, Melotti, Miró, Noguchi, and Picasso 1943-1963, edited by Jed Morse, 10–31. Dallas: Nasher Sculpture Center, 2013. ––––––. “The Material of Labor: Art, the Esposizione Internazionale del Lavoro, and Italia 1961.” Paper presented at the College Art Association, New York, 2014. ––––––. “Materializing Modernism in Postwar Italy: Fausto Melotti, Gio Ponti, and the 1961 Esposizione Internazionale del Lavoro.” Art History 39, no. 4 (2016). Teague, Walter Dorwin. “Forward.” In Italy at Work: Her Renaissance in Design Today, edited by The Art Institute of Chicago, 9–11. Rome: The Compagnia Nazionale Artigiana, 1950. ––––––. “Italian Shopping Trip: Twelve American Museums Send Out a Battery of Buyers.” Interiors 110, no. 5 (1950): 144–45, 94–201. Ten Years of Italian Democracy, 1946-1956. Presidency of the Council of Ministers, Information Office, Documentation Centre. Rome: Centro di documentazione, 1956. The Thirties: The Arts in Italy Beyond Fascism. Translated by Stephen Tobin and Lara Fantoni. Edited by Antonello Negri, Silvia Bignami, Paolo Rusconi and Giorgio Zanchetti. Florence: Giunti, 2012. Thompson, Susan. “Futurism, Fascist, and Mino Somenzi’s Journals of the 1930s: Futurismo, Sant-Elia, and Artecrazia.” Translated by Stephen Sartarelli and Marguerite Shore. In Italian Futurism, 1909-1944: Reconstructing the Universe, edited by Vivien Greene, 256–58. New York: Guggenheim Museum Publications, 2014. Tombstone List for Italy at Work, in AIC Archives: Department of Decorative Arts Exhibition Records 1951-53, AIC Archives 305-0003.2, Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago, IL.

Bibliography 137 “Tourists Hail Mussolini: Cheering Americans Surround Premier in Rome Hotel Lobby.” New York Times, July 27, 1925, 7. “Un catalogo digitale delle opere di Manzù, aperto il bando di borsa di ricerca” L’Eco di Bergamo May 24, 2021, https://www.ecodibergamo.it/stories/premium/Cronaca/un-catalogodigitale-delle-opere-di-manzu-aperto-il-bando-di-borsa-di-ricerca_1396951_11/. [Accessed June 11, 2021]. United Nations. “World Economic Report 1953-54,” 1954, published by UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New York. Vasori, Antonio. “De Gasperi, Nenni, Sforza and Their Role in Post-War Italian Foreign Policy.” In Power in Europe? Great Britain, France, Italy and Germany in a Postwar World, 1945-1950, edited by Josef Becker and Franz Knipping, 89–116. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1986. Venanzi, Marinella. ““I Would Like to Introduce Myself with the Ambiente spaziale”: Lucio Fontana and the Biennali in the Post-War Years.” In Starting from Venice: Studies on the Biennale, edited by Clarissa Ricci, 119–29. Milan: et al. Edizioni, 2010. Vitali, Lamberto. “Contemporary Sculptors: VII-Marino Marini.” Trans: Bernard Wall, Horizon 17–18, no. 105 (1948). Walker Art Center. “An Exhibition for Modern Living.” Everyday Art Quarterly, no. 13 (1949–1950): 12–14. Wheeler, Monroe. “Memo to Alfred Barr and James Thrall Soby,” April 17, 1946, Alfred H. Barr, Jr. Papers. Museum of Modern Art, New York; microfilmed by the Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution. MF3153. ––––––. “Letter to Charles Rufus Morey,” February 24, 1947, Alfred H. Barr, Jr. Papers. Museum of Modern Art, New York; microfilmed by the Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution. MF3153. White, Anthony. Lucio Fontana: Between Utopia and Kitsch. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2011. Wilford, Hugh. “Calling the Tune? The CIA, the British Left, and the Cold War, 1945-1960.” Chap. 3 In The Cultural Cold War in Western Europe, 1945-1960, edited by Giles Scott-Smith and Hans Krabbendam. The Intelligence Series, 41–50. London: Frank Cass Publishers, 2003. Wilkins, Ann Thomas. “Augustus, Mussolini, and the Parallel Imagery of Empire.” In Donatello Among the Blackshirts: History and Modernity in the Visual Culture of Fascist Italy, edited by Claudia Lazzaro and Roger J. Crum, 53–65. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 2005. Wilson, Michael. “How De Niro Gave Us Sinatra’s ‘New York, New York,’ Our 7 P.M. Anthem.” New York Times, May 2, 2020, 1. Woods, Louis Lee, II. “Almost “No Negro Veteran… Could Get A Loan”: African Americans, the GI Bill, and the NAACP Campaign Against Residential Segregation, 1917-1960.” The Journal of African American History 93, no. 3 (2013): 392–417. Zevi, Bruno B. “Letter to Alfred H. Barr, Jr.,” February 17, 1947, Alfred H. Barr, Jr. Papers. Owned by Museum of Modern Art, New York; microfilmed by Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution. MF3153.

Index

Abraham & Straus (A&S) see department stores Afro see Basaldella, Afro Albisola, Italy 72, 91 Alexander, Ramy 3–4, 31–32 Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America (ACWA) 51–2 Argentina 63, 118 Art Institute of Chicago, The (AIC) 2–3, 7, 15n16, 19, 23, 38–9, 49, 66, 73, 75, 81n79, 81n86, 86–8, 89, 90–91, 93, 94–7, 107 Ascoli, Max 30–31, 47, 52–3, 57n81 Bachelard, Gaston 64 Bachrach, Grace Baer (Mrs. Clarence G. Bachrach) 50, 59n115 Badoglio, Marshal 24 Badoglio, Pietro 26 Baldessari, Roberto Iras 69 Baldwin, James 10, 42, 54n11, 55n36 Balla, Giacomo 69 Basaldella, Afro 63, 72, 117 Bauhaus 63, 71, 108n4 Bedell, Thelma B. 28 Bellanca, August 51–2, 59n125 Belli, Carlo 69, 79n56, 81n83 Bertoia, Harry 99 Biennale di Monza 68, 70 Biennale di Venezia see Venice Biennale Bloomingdales 99,106 Blum, Edward C. 48, 58n97–n100, 87, 100 Blum, Florence Abraham (Blum, Mrs. Edward C.) 48, 100–101, 109n15 Blum, Robert E.48, 100–101 Boito, Camillo 67 Bonomi, Ivone 26 Brooklyn Bureau of Charities 48, 51, 58n102 Brooklyn Institute of Arts (Brooklyn Institute of Arts and Sciences) 48, 101

Brooklyn Museum, The 3–4, 12, 23–24, 28, 38–9, 47–53, 84–7, 87–8, 88–9, 93, 100–101, 106–7 CADMA see Commissione Assistenza Distribuzione Materiali Artigianato capitalism 6, 9, 21, 24, 98; also see consumerism Casa d’Arte Futurista see Depero, Fortunato Cascella, Pietro 37n105, 63 Catalano, Josephine E. 51 Catalanotti, Joseph 51–2, 59n124 Catholic Cavaliere 51 CCF see Congress for Cultural Freedom Cellini, Benvenuto 103 Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) 23, 24n35–n37 Cerrato, Victor 75 Cesarini Sforza, Anna Maria 63 Christian Democrats see Democrazia Cristiana Clerici, Fabrizio 2, 32, 37n105, 95 CNA see Compagnia Nazionale Artigiana; see also Confederazione Nazionale Artigianato Cold War: geopolitical phenomenon 1–3, 5, 7–14, 18n63, 19–24, 27, 31–2, 38–43, 54, 61–3, 65, 67–8, 73, 83–5, 93, 99, 108, 113–16; Cultural Cold War 1–2, 5–7, 11–13, 14, 18n63, 18n65, 19–23, 31–2, 34n35, 39, 62–5, 76, 83, 93, 113, 116, 119 Commissione Assistenza Distribuzione Materiali Artigianato (CADMA) 30, 33n8, 47, 52–3 Communism 2, 6–7, 16n37, 24, 33n10, 44, 52, 86, 113; see also Soviet Russia Compagnia Nazionale Artigiana (CNA) 3, 20, 28–32, 36n89, 37n104, 47, 53, 64, 96, 98, 115 Confederazione Nazionale Artigianato 29, 36n19 Congress, American 4, 65

Index  139 Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF) 19, 23–4; also see Cold War Consagra, Pietro 31, 37n105, 63, 72 consumerism 2, 6, 9, 11, 65, 76, 83, 93, 99, 106–8; also see capitalism Cultural Cold War see Cold War D’Harnoncourt, René 61 De Gasperi, Alcide 20–21, 26–7, 53 democracy 1–2, 6–7, 10, 12–13, 21–5, 31–2, 40–43, 45, 53–4, 83–6, 89, 97, 107–8 Democrazia Cristiana (DC) 20–21, 27, 118 department stores 3, 11, 13, 83, 85–7, 89–90, 93, 95, 97–101, 106: Abraham & Straus 3, 48, 86–7, 99–108; Federated Department Stores 48, 100, 106, 111n93–n94; Gimbel Bros 85; Halle Bros., The 86; Jackson’s 86; Lord and Taylor 85; Macy’s 3, 99, 106–8, 111n93–n95, 112n104; Marshall Field 3, 85; McCurdy’s 86; Meier and Frank 86; Rinascente, La 68; Stix, Baer and Fuller 85; Wm. Hengerer Co., The 86 Depero, Fortunato 69 Detroit Institute of Art (DIA) 14n8, 88–9, 98 Di Chirico, Giorgio 66, 72–3, 77n9 Doccia, Italy 68, 109n40 Domus (journal) 68, 79n44, 115; also see Ponti, Gio Draper, Mary Childs 48, 58n102, 59n115 Dunn, James Clement 53 Economic Cooperation Administration (ECA) 19–20, 27–30, 36n77–n78, 38, 47, 50, 53, 93 Economic Recovery Program (ERP) 19–21, 27–9, 51–2 Eisenhower, Dwight D. 50 Ethiopia 42, 44, 56n66 Exhibition for Modern Living, An (exhibition) see Detroit Institute of Art Fabbri, Agenore 31, 37n105, 63, 72 Fantoni, Marcello 74, 86 Fascism (Italian) 10, 12–13, 16n30, 20, 23–6, 29–30, 33n10, 34n48, 43–7, 52, 65–72, 113, 116 Federated Department Stores see department stores Ferragamo 4, 117 FIAT 117–18 Fiocchi, Lino 68 Florence, Italy 3–4, 31–2, 78n33, 103 Fontana, Lucio 9, 31, 37n105, 63–5, 72–5, 90–93, 114, 117–19; images of his

work 64, 86, 91–2; Manifesto Blanco/ White Manifesto 63, 118 Ford Foundation 23 Fra-Mar Restaurant 51 Futurism 30, 69–70, 80n74 Galassi, Enrico (Galassi Studio) 72, 77n9 Garguilo’s Restaurant 51 Gentile, Emilio 30, 46 Gentile, Giovanni 46, 56n69 Gerli, Paolino 51 Gimbel, Adam 99 Gimbel Bros see department stores Girard, Alexander 88–9 Good, Alice Campbell (Mrs. William H. Good) 50, 59n115 Good Design (exhibition) see Museum of Modern Art Goodman, Elizabeth A. 50, 59n115 Greenberg, Clement 24, 66 Guarnati, Daria 68 Guttuso, Renato 31, 37n105 Halle Bros., The see department stores Handicraft as a fine art (exhibition) see House of Italian Handicraft Handicraft Development Inc. (HDI) 3, 31, 52–3, 61 House and Garden (magazine) 103, 104–5 House of Italian Handicraft (HIH) 2, 30–32, 37n104–n105, 47, 53, 85, 98–9; Handicraft as a fine art 2–3, 30–31, 37n104–n105, 98–9, 115; Italian Contemporary Industrial Arts 32 Hull, Cordell 27 humanism 4–8, 12–13, 19–20, 23, 39–40, 43, 61–2, 65, 91, 93, 98, 103, 114, 116 Il Milione gallery (Milan, Italy) 71 INCOM 52 individualism 22–4, 29–30, 39, 61–2, 85, 116, 118–19 Innocenti 62 installation styles: salon style 86, 90; “store/ museum” 97; white cube 13, 86, 89–90 Interiors (magazine) 24, 91, 92 International Exhibition of Decorative Arts in Monza 68, also see Biennale di Monza International Silk Association 51, 59n119 Istituto Superiore Industrie Artistiche (ISIA) 8, 71–2 Italia ’61 (exhibition) 118–19 Italian Contemporary Industrial Arts (exhibition) see House of Italian Handicraft Italian Publishers Representatives, Inc. 51

140 Index Italian Teachers Association 51 Italian-American Professional & Business Men’s Association 51 Jackson’s see department stores Jadwin, Cornelia Blankley (Mrs. Palmer H. Jadwin) 50, 59n115 James, Gladys Evelyn (Mrs. Darwin R. James Jr.) 51, 59n123 Jewish (religion) 25, 46–7; Jewish Americans 42, 51, 57n80 Jewish Hospital Brooklyn 50 Kaufmann, Jr., Edgar J. 84, 88–9, 97, 101 Khrushchev, Nikita 84 kitsch 65–6, 76, 106, 114 Knight of Holy Sepulcher 50 Knight of St. Gregory 51 Knoll Associates 99 LaCorte, John N. 51, 59n127 Lambretta 1, 5, 22, 106 Lancia, Emilio 68 Lanza, Vito F. 50, 59n118 Lazarus, Ralph 48, 58n98 Leonardi, Leoncillo (called Leoncillo) 37n105, 63, 72 Levi, Carlo 31, 37n105 Lewisohn, Sam A. 51, 59n121 Lord and Taylor see department stores Lo Stile (journal) 68; also see Ponti, Gio Lurcerini, Ugo 74, 86 Macedonio, Giuseppe 74, 86 Macy’s see department stores Made in Italy (branding) 13–14, 76–7, 85, 108, 114–19 Mallorca 70 Manifesto Blanco see Fontana, Lucio Manzù, Giacomo 1, 63, 109n39 Marangoni, Guido 67 Marcelle, Joseph P. 28 Marini, Marino 31 Marshall Field see department stores Marshall Plan 1–10, 12–13, 19–23, 27–32, 38–9, 44, 48–50, 53, 65, 76, 83, 93, 98, 107, 113, 115; also see Economic Cooperation Administration Martini, Arturo 70–72, 74; La Scultura lingua morta 71 Mazio, Aldo M. 48–9 Mazzini Society 47, 51–2; also see Ascoli, Max Mazzotti, Tullio (called ‘Tullio d’Albisola’) 63, 71 McCurdy’s see department stores Meier and Frank see department stores

Melotti, Fausto 31–2, 37n104–n105, 63, 69, 72, 74–6, 109n39, 114, 117–19; images of works by 75, 96 Merchandise Mart (Chicago, IL) 89, 98, 106; also see Museum of Modern Art, Good Design Metropolitan Museum of Art 87; Met Breuer 73, 81n82 Milan Triennale 67–8, 71–2 Miller, Richard 3, 31 Molloy, Rev. Thomas Edmund 50 MOMA see Museum of Modern Art Monza, Italy 67–8, 70–71 Morandi, Giorgio 31, 37n105 Morgagni Society of Brooklyn 51, 59n127 Mulas, Ugo 91, 93 Museum of Modern Art 3–5, 13, 14n10, 61, 65, 78n19, 84–7, 89, 97–101, 113, 120n1; Good Design (exhibition) 84, 89, 99–100, 113, 120n1; Twentieth Century Italian Art (exhibition) 4, 14n11, 65, 77n7, 78n18, 113 Mussolini, Benito 5, 24–5, 44–7, 52, 70–71; also see Fascism Mutual Security Agency 28 Muzio, Giovanni 72 Nagel, Charles Jr. 3, 28, 31, 37n106, 38, 48–50, 52–3, 74 Nazis (National Socialists) 24–6, 47, 57n74 New Deal 23 Nixon, Richard 84 Novecento (group) 71 NYC Public Schools 51–2 O’Hare McCormick, Anne 44 Olivetti 22, 62, 106 orientalism 5, 42; also see Said, Edward Pact of Steel (1939) 25, 44 Paino, Angelo 50, 59n119 partisans see resistance Partito Comunista Italiano (PCI) 26–7, 29, 53 Pecora, Justice Ferdinand 50 Peressutti, Enrico 32 Pica, Agnoldomenico 70, 80n62 Pirandello, Luigi 48 Pisano, Charles 51 Pleasant, Richard 52 Pollini, Gino 69, 79n56 Ponti, Gio 8, 32, 67–9, 71–2, 74–5, 79n47, 95, 107, 109n39, 115, 117–18; images of works by 96 primitivism 4, 64, 66, 69–70, 76 Profaci, Joseph 51, 59n120

Index  141 Quadriennale di Roma 71, 80n66 race 1, 6, 10–11, 39–42, 98 Ragghianti, Carlo Ludovico 30 Republic of Salò 24–5 resistance (Italian) 25–6, 47, 53 Rhode Island School of Design 14n8 Richard-Ginori 68–9, 72, 79n39, 109n40, 119 Rinascente, La see department stores Rockefeller Foundation 23, 47 Rogers, Ernesto 32 Rogers, Meyric R. 3–4, 15n16, 22–3, 31–2, 38, 74, 89, 115 Rome Open City (film) see Rossellini, Roberto Roosevelt, Franklin D. 50, 52 Rossellini, Roberto 25–6 Rosso, Medardo 70 Ruisi, Judge Leonard E. 50, 58n113 Sabia, Antonio 48 Said, Edward 33n4, 42–3 salon style see installation styles Salterini, John 48–9 Sapori, Francesco 70 Sarfatti, Margherita 71 Sassu, Aligi 31, 37n105, 63, 72 Savinio, Alberto 72, 77n9 Scalamandré, Franco 48–9 Scultura lingua morta, La (publication) see Martini, Arturo Sottsass, Ettore 31, 118 Soviet Russia 5–7, 20–23, 26–7, 62, 84, 86; also see communism Spellman, Cardinal Francis Joseph 50 Stix, Baer and Fuller see department stores “store/museum” see installation styles

Teague, Walter Dorwin 1, 3–4, 24, 32, 65–6, 91–2, 95, 97–8 Triennale di Milano see Milan Triennale Truman, Harry S. 50 Tullio d’Albisola see Mazzotti, Tullio Turecamo, Bartholdi (Barney) 50, 58n113 Twentieth Century Italian Art (exhibition) see Museum of Modern Art Uffizi Galleries 4, 32 Ughetta, Judge Henry L. 50 Università d’Arte Decorativa (UAD) 70–71 US Export-Import Bank 28–30, 53; also see Marshall Plan USSR see Soviet Russia Valentino, Rudolph 45 Valori Plastici 71 Van Sinderen, Annie Jean (Mrs. Adrian Van Sinderen) 48, 58n100 Venice Biennale 10, 71, 118, 121n45 Vesuvio Restaurant 51 Voorhees, Josephine Ludlow (Mrs. Tracy S. Voorhees) 50, 59n116 Watson, Thomas J. 50, 59n116 white cube see installation styles White Manifesto see Fontana, Lucio Wildt, Adolfo 70 Wm. Hengerer Co., The see department stores Wollemborg, Leo. J. 51; also see Italian Publishers Representatives, Inc. World War One (WWI) 40, 45, 67–8, 71 World War Two (WWII) 1, 6, 8–10, 12, 19–21, 24–8, 38–9, 42, 45, 47, 63, 100–101, 118 Yugoslavia 7, 27