De Chirico malgré lui: episodi di fortuna critica dal Sessantotto al Postmoderno

Giorgio De Chirico’s critical reception has been deeply revised since his retrospective was held at Palazzo Reale in Milan in 1970. The exhibition opened a debate which lasted throughout the following decade and turned De Chirico into the elective ancestor of Postmodernism and into the paradigm of the critique to Modernity. Fully developed during the 1980s, this meditated revaluation both affected “militant” Art Critic and Art Historiography, according to a model of osmosis and parallelism between these two fields –shortly afterwards this model has to be questioned. There were at least three lines of interpretation in the rediscovery of Giorgio De Chirico: the kitsch one, proposed by Renato Barilli; the <> one proposed by Renato Guttuso and later carried out by Maurizio Calvesi; and finally the antimodern one, developed by Jean Clair which was to produce the most important historiographical consequences. Beside playing the role of most recurred antidote against the avant-gardes, De Chirico’s late reception can be considered as the last season when the “militant” critic and the art historian still could easily exchanges their role. La fortuna critica di Giorgio De Chirico subì una profonda revisione dopo la sua retrospettiva milanese tenutasi a Palazzo Reale nel 1970. L’esposizione diede avvio ad un dibattito, lungo tutto il decennio, che convertì De Chirico nell’antenato elettivo del Postmoderno e nel paradigma della critica della modernità. Giunta a maturazione negli anni Ottanta, questa meditata rivalutazione si svolse congiuntamente sul piano della critica militante e della storiografia artistica, secondo un modello di osmosi e parallelismo tra i due ambiti che, di lì a poco, entrerà in crisi. Vi furono almeno tre direttrici per questa riscoperta: quella kitsch proposta da Renato Barilli, quella “anacronista” sostenuta da Maurizio Calvesi e, in prima istanza, da Renato Guttuso, ed infine quella antimoderna formulata da Jean Clair e che avrà le ripercussioni storiografiche più profonde. La fortuna tarda di De Chirico, oltre a rivelarsi il più ricorrente antidoto contro la nozione di avanguardia, rappresentò anche l’ultima stagione in cui al critico militante e allo storico dell’arte fu concessa, con proficua o faziosa facilità, la reversibilità dei ruoli.

Giorgio De Chirico’s critical reception has been deeply revised since his retrospective at Palazzo Reale in Milan in 1970. The exhibition opened a debate which lasted throughout the successive decade and turned De Chirico into the elective ancestor of Postmodernism and into the paradigm of the critique to Modernity. Fully developed during the 1980s, this meditated revaluation affected both “militant” Art Critique and Art Historiography, according to a model of osmosis and parallelism between these two fields – shortly afterwards this model was to be questioned. There were at least three lines of interpretation in the rediscovery of De Chirico: the kitsch one, supported by Renato Barilli; the «anachronistic» one, proposed by Renato Guttuso and later carried out by Maurizio Calvesi; and, finally, the antimodern one, developed by Jean Clair and which was to produce the most important historiographical consequences. Beside playing the role of most recurred antidote against the avant-gardes, De Chirico’s late reception can be considered as representing the last season when the ‘militant’ critic and the art historian still could easily exchange their roles.