With L. Fontana (1899-1968) already around 1930 the path of resolutely abstract sculpture is outlined. His “spatialism”, traced back to the dynamic-plastic intuitions of the futurists and to the origins of the problem of light as M. Rosso had set up, ends up leaving behind any distinction, however tenuous between an architectural work and a painted or sculpted work, for an interpretation of the space that we could already say no longer linked to the terrestrial vision but to that of a wider field of worlds, and for a search for light as a perpetually changing suggestion, and finally for a setting of the sign that only signifies the presence of man, concentrated in the elementary violence of the gesture and the cry. With Fontana we will remember the “montages” of E. Colla (1899-1969) composed with pieces of machines, pipes, hooks, iron wheels, transfigured into trophies and characters (the relationship with Dadaism and also with metaphysics is evident, thanks to a feeling of enigma, irony and silence that arises from it) and those – on the contrary – by F. Melotti (1901) so light, almost imponderable, that it deserves the definition that the author himself gave him of “anti-sculpture”. Similar to the signs of P. Klee and J. Mirò (but also of A. Soldati and O. Licini) or musical néumi, these “objects”, often mobile, would perhaps better fit into the area of playful surrealism. Melotti (1901) so light, almost imponderable, that it deserves the definition that the author himself gave him of “anti-sculpture”. Similar to the signs of P. Klee and J. Mirò (but also of A. Soldati and O. Licini) or musical néumi, these “objects”, often mobile, would perhaps better fit into the area of playful surrealism. Melotti (1901) so light, almost imponderable, that it deserves the definition that the author himself gave him of “anti-sculpture”. Similar to the signs of P. Klee and J. Mirò (but also of A. Soldati and O. Licini) or musical néumi, these “objects”, often mobile, would perhaps better fit into the area of playful surrealism.
According to mysteryaround, Mannucci (1904) is the greatest of our material and informal, and one of the most timely; but without sacrificing the rights of the imagination, which dominates with the composure of rhythms the same dissolution of metals into molds, spiders and clots of precious fragility and lightness. Alongside him we will cite (for affinity of poetics, although very different) Leoncillo (L. Leonardi, 1915-1968) passed from polychrome figurative ceramics, with popular moods, to informal “grés”, similar to tree trunks in a petrified forest ; U. Milani (1912-1968) also among the first to attempt, with a fine luministic and coloristic sensitivity, the material experience in bas-reliefs articulated by signs; and F. Garelli (1909-1973) who made a personal contribution to the new image research with the taking non-traditional subjects. In the geometrical orientation, and therefore connected with historical abstractionism, B. Lardera (1911) coordinates cut and toothed iron sheets, and interfering with each other, in the shape of gigantic ideograms analogous to the emblematic écriture de bronze by A. Magnelli. Metallic structures, mostly vertical, not without analogies sometimes with the plant world (and even with declared memories of Sicilian folklore) characterize the art of N. Franchina (1912); while U. Mastroianni (1910) energetically prolongs Boccione’s decomposing and dynamic research, attacking space in a plurality of directions and yet keeping the image centripetal in a dramatic range of shadows and lights, voids and solids. P. Consagra (1920), already mentioned as one of the founders of the Roman group Forma 1, begins in the 1950s the series of Colloqui, which are frontal reliefs, with sliding of flattened and interspersed planes, engraved in the surfaces, torn or burned by the flame, and proposed as a critical and humanizing expression of mechanical civilization, through a language analogous (of evident futurist origin) to the rough and utilitarian one of the car. Among the most representative and refined sculptors of the middle generation, Arnaldo and Giò Pomodoro (born in 1926 and 1930 respectively). The first, which has its premises in sign art (P. Klee, W. Wols, A. Gorky, M. Tobey) breaks the geometric envelope of the form and fills its inner core with a persuasive metaphor of violence and revelation; the second gives an extreme elastic tension in the curved structures, which unfold fluidly, alluding to contacts or expansions,
They contribute to enrich the panorama of non-figurative sculpture A. Calò (1910), elaborator of abstract forms (in the direction of an Arp and a Moore) or convulsive and broken (see the torn plates) and investigator of the values of the individual materials; C. Cappello (1912) with the exquisite elegance of reckless and rotating ellipses in space; Pierluca (P. Degli Innocenti, 1926-1968) and A. Rambelli (1924-1976) who disappeared at the height of interesting “organic” research: one author of lacerations of matter, treated as a wounded flesh in several layers; the latter intended to weld in unity the rigorous and icy world of technology with the unpredictable and pulsating world of creatures. Other sculptors of the same generation await, among the best known, M. Guasti (1924), G. Benevelli (1925), C. Ramous (1926), G. Sangregorio (1930), N. Cassani (1930), L. Gheno (1930), G. Marchese (1931), whether they interpret technological devices as possible substitutes for nature, whether they intend to insert autonomous but not extraneous, indeed plausible, forms into this. Others, on the other hand, appear more interested in the architectural values of form, such as L.