The Naturalisation of the City After the End of the World

Fall of Rome

Pier Paolo Pa­solini is lament­ing the fall of Rome.

Yet he is not talk­ing about Ed­ward Gib­bon and we need fear nei­ther Visig­oths nor Van­dals. In­stead, the cul­prits are much more mod­est and much more mod­ern: motor scoot­ers and tele­vi­sion.
It is 1973, and after more than two decades of pro­duc­tiv­ity much marked by a pas­sion for this an­cient city, Pa­solini is speak­ing to the Roman news­pa­per Il Mes­sag­gero about gen­tri­fi­ca­tion and mod­erni­sa­tion. It seems he has been jilted and, in­deed, trans­la­tor Ma­rina Harss notes that he ‘ex­presses his break with Rome in terms rem­i­nis­cent of the end of a love af­fair’ (vii–viii). He says, melo­dra­mat­i­cally, ‘Now it has changed and I don’t want to un­der­stand it any more’ (223).

So, the city as lover. The city as muse. But if we ex­am­ine how Pa­solini speaks of Rome, this an­thro­po­mor­phism is not the only strange pres­ence in his lan­guage. Pa­solini senses the city has re­jected him, and in turn re­jects the city that has dis­ap­pointed him by buy­ing ‘a lit­tle place in the coun­try’ (224) — how cliché! how bour­geois! — but else­where he is in fact still com­ing to Rome’s de­fence. Yes, the city ‘has changed, ex­tremely and for the worse, [but] it is not the city’s fault’ (223). He has been jilted, he feels ‘total re­jec­tion’ (224), and yet he will not blame his erst­while lover. Why not? What is this strange pres­ence in Pa­solini’s re­la­tion­ship with the city? If the city is not a fully human lover, what is it? What place does this city have in his fer­tile imag­i­na­tion?

The con­tention of the fol­low­ing pages is that the urban has be­come “nat­ural”: first, that this is a symp­tom of the dis­so­lu­tion of the city in con­tradis­tinc­tion to Na­ture or the world — urbi et orbi are no longer dis­tin­guish­able nor can they be split into such a straight­for­ward bi­nary; and sec­ond, that this be­com­ing-nat­ural of the city is a symp­tom of what has been iden­ti­fied as the ‘End of the World’ or the ‘End of Na­ture’.

Any con­cep­tion of the city as “nat­ural” is of course highly counter-in­tu­itive, but I will argue that in the way that Pa­solini speaks of Rome, and the way that cities are por­trayed in the films of Michelan­gelo An­to­nioni, this con­cep­tion had al­ready started to take place, al­beit un­con­sciously. In due course, we will be able to con­sider Pa­solini not only as don­ning the man­tle of the jilted lover, but above all as a strange en­vi­ron­men­tal ac­tivist, rail­ing against the spoil­ing of a habi­tat, lament­ing the cor­rup­tion of a nat­ural realm, mourn­ing the ex­tinc­tion of species.

The End of the World!

It is partly a trick of hy­per­bole on the part of the­o­rists that we seem to be in such a dire sit­u­a­tion. When one ar­rives at a chap­ter head­ing that reads ‘The End of the World’, one sits up to take no­tice. Surely these kindly pro­fes­sors from the uni­ver­si­ties of France and the United States are not here to pro­claim the apoc­a­lypse? And in­deed, it turns out, they are not. Nonethe­less, the shift in think­ing de­manded by — above all — Bruno La­tour, Tim­o­thy Mor­ton, and Jane Ben­nett (who we shall come to much later), but also Jean-Luc Nancy, is sig­nif­i­cant enough for their rhetoric to ring true. The pre­cise co­or­di­nates of the ends of the world proph­e­sied or di­ag­nosed vary, but it is strik­ing that sev­eral thinkers have honed in on this dra­matic con­struc­tion to speak about our ex­is­tence and they share a great deal in how they be­lieve these end­ings are con­sti­tuted and come about.

The worlds in ques­tion, which are end­ing, are not the Earth, threat­ened by cat­a­clysm or me­te­orites, and by talk­ing of the ‘End of Na­ture’, La­tour does not mean to evoke the tum­bling tree trunks of the Ama­zon, or the am­pu­tated horns of rhino, though they are im­pli­cated. Rather, what is at stake is our un­der­stand­ing of how worlds are con­sti­tuted and how ‘we’ — hu­mans — re­late to such a thing as world, whether it even makes sense to talk of hu­mans as a ‘we’. This is not an apoc­a­lypse but — to turn to some­thing af­fec­tive — it might be an­other ‘Luft­beben’ [air-quake], the term coined by Peter Slo­ter­dijk for the mo­ment in the First World War that air­borne chem­i­cal weapons were first used, which for him marks the be­gin­ning of our mod­ern aware­ness of en­vi­ron­ment.

With the new quake that marks the ‘End of the World’, we re­alise that the en­vi­ron­ment, to which we have being pay­ing so much at­ten­tion, is stuck to us, in fact, we are no longer sure of where we begin and end.
Eliot’s para­dox­i­cal duet of ‘in my be­gin­ning is my end’ and ‘in my end is my be­gin­ning’ be­comes rad­i­cally true, pulled from its in­tended tem­po­ral realm into the spa­tial.
This is also what Mor­ton de­scribes as ‘a quake in being’.

The Fic­tion of In­side–Out­side

The cru­cial move­ment that brings about the end of the world con­cerns ques­tions of in­side and out­side, in­te­rior and ex­te­rior, and the processes that pro­duce these dis­tinc­tions. We find that our con­cep­tion of ‘the world’, as it has been con­ceived up until now, re­lies es­sen­tially on a process of ob­jec­ti­fi­ca­tion, on an abil­ity to see the world from an ex­ter­nal per­spec­tive, as an out­sider. Jean-Luc Nancy writes:

for as long as the world was es­sen­tially in re­la­tion to some other (that is, an­other world or an au­thor of the world), it could have sense. But the end of the world is that there is no longer this es­sen­tial re­la­tion, and that there is no longer es­sen­tially (that is, ex­is­ten­tially) any­thing but the world “it­self.” Thus, the world no longer has a sense, but it is sense.

Else­where, Nancy makes ex­plicit that the ‘au­thor’ re­quired for the old regime’s ob­jec­ti­fi­ca­tion was tied to ‘the po­si­tion of the cre­at­ing, or­ga­niz­ing, and ad­dress­ing God’.

In other words, as long as we main­tain an idea of the world as to­talised ob­ject, we al­ways re­quire re­course to an out­side sub­ject, a sub­ject that will al­ways be God, or some en­tity fill­ing the monothe­is­tic, om­nipresent, om­ni­scient God’s boots. Let­ting go of this par­a­digm, we find that in­stead of being able to ac­cess the sense of the world (in the world which ‘has a sense’), that ac­cess — that sense — is the world (in the world that ‘is sense’). The world is no longer a solid orb viewed from the out­side, but in­stead a mul­ti­plic­ity of scur­ry­ing en­ti­ties cre­at­ing the world through their con­stant strug­gle (and we are just sev­eral of these scur­ry­ing en­ti­ties cre­at­ing our own worlds).

Nancy el­e­gantly pro­vides the so­lu­tion to the dan­ger­ous bi­nary of out­side and in­side, the ‘ob­vi­ous geom­e­try of which blinds us a soon as we bring it into play in metaphor­i­cal do­mains’.

Nancy’s ex­po­si­tion of the dis­so­lu­tion of a ‘with­out the world’ (and there­fore also the con­cep­tion of our­selves as within some­thing) pro­vides the clean­est and most com­pre­hen­sive basis for un­der­stand­ing the ne­ces­sity and con­se­quences of such think­ing in that it is also the most ab­stract. It is from La­tour and Mor­ton that we begin to un­der­stand the im­pli­ca­tions of this end of the world.

While Nancy presses home the point that we have now moved from being in­side a world with an out­side, to un­der­stand­ing that there is only the world “it­self”, La­tour his­tori­cises this. He points out that na­ture had first to be ex­ter­nalised, em­pha­sis­ing the process of ex­ter­nal­i­sa­tion as tak­ing place at a his­tor­i­cally de­fined mo­ment: ‘ex­ter­nal na­ture is not a given, but rather the re­sult of an ex­plicit pro­ce­dure of ex­ter­nal­iza­tion’.

Na­ture had been ex­ter­nalised, but now as the re­sult of a search for so­lu­tions to ques­tions about ecol­ogy, which oc­cupy both La­tour and Mor­ton, we need to be­come aware of how this ex­ter­nal­i­sa­tion has be­come mis­lead­ing.

La­tour out­lines how an ob­jec­ti­fied world al­lowed the es­tab­lish­ment of ‘mat­ters of fact’ with ‘clear bound­aries, a well-de­fined essence, well-rec­og­nized prop­er­ties’ and con­trasts these with ‘mat­ters of con­cern’, which lack these qual­i­ties.

For La­tour, the need to recog­nise that the bound­aries are in fact not clear and the essences in­def­i­nite has be­come ur­gent in an age when ‘the Gulf Stream can turn up miss­ing’ and ‘a slag heap can be­come a bi­o­log­i­cal pre­serve’.
“Na­ture” seems to be im­pos­si­ble to pin down. This cri­sis mir­rors that which Nancy uses to launch his ar­gu­ment in The Cre­ation of the World, and which for our aims will prove yet more per­ti­nent than that which has taken hold of na­ture (though prop­erly said, these two crises are one and the same, merely stated with dif­fer­ent em­pha­sis):

The city spreads and ex­tends all the way to the point where, while it tends to cover the en­tire orb of the planet, it loses its prop­er­ties as a city, and, of course with them, those prop­er­ties that would allow it to be dis­tin­guished from a “coun­try.”

Nancy notes what at first ap­pears as a blur­ring of bound­aries, but is in fact our re­al­i­sa­tion that the clear bound­ary be­tween urbs and orbis was a fic­tion all along, it was sim­ply more ten­able pre­vi­ously. It is the loss of this cer­tainty that also pre­cip­i­tates Michel de Certeau’s de­scrip­tion of an ‘erotics of knowl­edge’ en­gen­dered by look­ing down upon the city from a great height.

It is in the age where clear bound­aries dis­solve that this voyeuris­tic de­sire for to­tal­i­sa­tion emerges (it could not have been per­verse in the same way prior to the end of the world). This is also the plea­sure taken in fly­ing over Rome for the pro­tag­o­nists in An­to­nioni’s L’eclisse or dri­ving to the Jan­icu­lum and sur­vey­ing the city’s sprawl.

It is worth not­ing that a re­al­i­sa­tion of this dis­so­lu­tion of bound­aries did not begin yes­ter­day. Two decades ear­lier, Henri Lefeb­vre had ob­served ‘that the old “town-coun­try” dis­tinc­tion is in the process of dis­ap­pear­ing’,

and, a cen­tury ear­lier still, Hein­rich Heine evoked this tele­scop­ing of space:

Even the el­e­men­tary con­cepts of time and space have begun to vac­il­late. Space is abol­ished by the rail­way, and we are now left only with time. […] It seems to me as if the moun­tains and forests of every coun­try were ad­vanc­ing on Paris. I can al­ready smell the per­fume of Ger­man lime trees; the North Sea breaks against my door.

Wher­ever we look, we find that bound­aries, which cul­ture and lan­guage had as­sumed were fairly sturdy, are fic­tions: city melts into coun­try, the “human” turns up in “na­ture”.

One of the re­sults of our aware­ness of some­thing called the ‘End of the World’ is that we find its traces every­where, and it turns out not to be a par­tic­u­larly new phe­nom­e­non — no mat­ter how trendy or cut­ting-edge its the­o­rists might at first glance ap­pear. With­out going into Tim­o­thy Mor­ton’s con­cept of the ‘hy­per­ob­ject’ in any de­tail, this af­fect is pre­cisely why his hy­per­ob­jects are such pow­er­ful con­cep­tual tools: they allow us to the­o­rise en­ti­ties whose weird higher-di­men­sional qual­ity means they show up in all kinds of places and times one doesn’t ex­pect and in­deed one per­haps didn’t quite no­tice first time around.

It is only when the pres­ence of a hy­per­ob­ject has be­come more pro­nounced (though it can never step en­tirely out of the shad­ows), that we can start to trace its ap­pari­tions ret­ro­spec­tively.

The rea­son the metaphor of the ‘quake’ is so im­por­tant here, is that we al­most al­ways re­quire some kind of shock (shake) or cri­sis to no­tice this change. We have ab­sorbed the ide­ol­ogy of na­ture vs. cul­ture to such an ex­tent that it is not easy to kill it off. Nancy is able to argue his point el­e­gantly and ab­stractly, but even he re­quires the launch pad of the melt­ing city. Far more vi­o­lent shocks are key to the rhetoric of other thinkers. Slo­ter­dijk evokes the deadly hiss­ing of poi­son gas can­is­ters over Ypres as en­gen­der­ing a mod­ern aware­ness of en­vi­ron­ment.

Not to be out­done, Mor­ton de­scribes how the det­o­na­tion of the atomic bombs over Hi­roshima and Na­gasaki de­posited a layer of ra­dioac­tive ma­te­r­ial around the Earth, demon­strat­ing just how much the sup­pos­edly nat­ural Earth is in­ex­tri­ca­ble from the human.
Just as with the phrase ‘The End of the World’ it­self, this is colour­ful lan­guage to draw our at­ten­tion to the dra­matic shift in per­spec­tive afoot, but the re­ally cru­cial rea­son why we are re­al­is­ing this end of the world now, at the be­gin­ning of the twenty-first cen­tury, is more sub­tle.

For both Mor­ton and La­tour, the end of the world is tied heav­ily to a cri­sis of cli­mate, to cli­mate change, to the fact that we are now liv­ing in the ‘An­thro­pocene’.

This quake’s im­pact is now so strong, it has fi­nally re­vealed the fic­tion of an in­side-out­side dis­tinc­tion that cre­ates the world. But this has been going on for a long time. It is not the mo­men­tary vi­o­lence of an atom bomb, but rather the ge­o­log­i­cal de­struc­tion of the glac­ier that tears up the rocky flesh of a moun­tain be­fore evap­o­rat­ing in a mist of grad­ual global warm­ing. The term An­thro­pocene is pro­posed as the suc­ces­sor to the Holocene, de­not­ing ‘the pre­sent, in many ways hu­man-dom­i­nated, ge­o­log­i­cal epoch’ and is iden­ti­fied by ge­ol­o­gists as hav­ing begun in the late eigh­teenth cen­tury, though it is yet to be of­fi­cially adopted.
In other words, the An­thro­pocene is the epoch in which hu­mans weigh upon the Earth to such an ex­tent that even con­ser­v­a­tive, me­thod­i­cal ge­ol­o­gists begin to doubt the sim­ple sep­a­ra­tion be­tween human and nat­ural, and pre­pare them­selves to an­nounce a new epoch. The naysayer who would yet be­lieve hu­mans to be ac­tors upon a sta­ble nat­ural stage will be dis­ap­pointed to re­alise that even the most ap­par­ently sta­tic and ob­du­rate rocks are in­ex­tri­ca­bly en­twined with human ac­tion, in­deed that they are not just en­twined but that they are a uni­fied col­lec­tive, ef­fec­tively in­sep­a­ra­ble.

As we have seen, a num­ber of fac­tors con­spire to bring about the end of the world. Im­por­tantly, this process has being going on for longer than we imag­ine, which will allow us to dis­cuss art as symp­to­matic of the end­ing of the world and of the ‘be­com­ing-nat­ural’ that this pro­duces of the city, even though that art was not yet con­ceived as tak­ing place after the end of the world. The fact that ‘there is not even noth­ing’ be­yond the spu­ri­ous in­side–out­side dis­tinc­tion is counter-in­tu­itive but vital to re­mem­ber as we think of how this be­com­ing-nat­ural of the city mir­rors the be­com­ing-hu­man of na­ture.

The dis­so­lu­tion of the in­side–out­side dis­tinc­tion forces us to re-eval­u­ate aes­thet­ics of out­side, of Na­ture, of en­vi­ron­ment, and it is this re-eval­u­a­tion that will allow us to talk about the city as nat­ural.

Am­bi­ent Po­et­ics

In Ecol­ogy with­out Na­ture, Tim­o­thy Mor­ton draws on his un­der­stand­ings of Ro­man­ti­cism as a philo­soph­i­cal and lit­er­ary phe­nom­e­non to pro­pose a form of lit­er­ary crit­i­cism that might be ap­pro­pri­ate to the eco­log­i­cal cri­sis that we face. In doing so, he con­structs an aes­thetic the­ory of the en­vi­ron­men­tal: a the­ory that at­tempts to ad­dress the ways in which writ­ing and other art forms can be aes­thet­i­cally en­vi­ron­men­tal. That is to say, not sim­ply that which con­tains ma­te­r­ial be­long­ing to some agreed con­cep­tion of na­ture (a poem that sur­veys the sa­van­nah, a paint­ing of a moun­tain, a doc­u­men­tary about in­sects, etc.) but also an en­cod­ing of the en­vi­ron­men­tal within a work’s form.

He sketches a con­cept of ‘ecomime­sis’ and from this a broader the­ory, which he calls an ‘am­bi­ent po­et­ics’.

Ecomime­sis refers to a use of con­tent that specif­i­cally evokes a space, an en­vi­ron­ment, a set­ting, around the writer and/or reader. ‘Ecomime­sis is a spe­cific rhetoric that gen­er­ates a fan­tasy of na­ture as a sur­round­ing at­mos­phere, pal­pa­ble but shape­less’.

In its strongest form, this is the mode of writ­ing that tells you where the writer is — Mor­ton re­peat­edly quotes au­thors who tell you, ‘As I am writ­ing this…’, plac­ing them­selves in a ma­te­r­ial con­text that tells the reader where they are, in what en­vi­ron­ment.
This can also hap­pen when an au­thor ad­dresses their reader in the sec­ond per­son (as, for ex­am­ple, in Italo Calvino’s If on a win­ter’s night a trav­eller): the ‘“you” be­comes a niche in the text, specif­i­cally de­signed for the ac­tual reader’.
In its weaker more gen­eral form, ecomime­sis is sim­ply the evo­ca­tion of en­vi­ron­ment, a sit­u­at­ing of ac­tion within a place.
Of course, this ‘sit­u­at­ed­ness’ seems hard to avoid — a lit­er­a­ture with­out set­ting is con­ceiv­able if un­com­mon, but to spec­u­late as to film with­out a set­ting in which to prop­a­gate is more dif­fi­cult — but ecomime­sis is more specif­i­cally the evo­ca­tion of place as sit­u­a­tion, not just every pos­si­ble pres­ence of place in any con­text what­so­ever. Its en­vi­ron­men­tal char­ac­ter­is­tic lies in its being thought as a sur­round­ing en­tity, this is why it is mime­sis of the oikos, serv­ing an eco­log­i­cal func­tion, gen­er­at­ing an am­bi­ence around some­thing.

Here we begin to ar­rive at Mor­ton’s idea of an ‘am­bi­ent po­et­ics’, which im­ple­ments a broader un­der­stand­ing of how the en­vi­ron­men­tal can be pre­sent in art, and how this is ef­fec­tively a metas­ta­sis of our think­ing of na­ture. ‘The rhetoric of na­ture de­pends on some­thing I de­fine as an am­bi­ent po­et­ics, a way of con­jur­ing up a sense of a sur­round­ing at­mos­phere or world.’

For Mor­ton, this am­bi­ent po­et­ics is de­fined by a num­ber of char­ac­ter­is­tics that de­scribe the re­la­tion­ship be­tween the mime­sis of en­vi­ron­ment, the ac­tual en­vi­ron­ment within which the work is sit­u­ated, and the per­ceiver of the work. For the pur­poses of our later analy­ses, we can re­strict our­selves to two salient points: first, that the way we think na­ture with am­bi­ent po­et­ics em­pha­sises the Ro­man­tic de­sire for in­tense, di­rect con­tact with the world (with Na­ture) through aes­thetic ex­pe­ri­ence; and sec­ond, that si­lences, gaps, ‘sus­pen­sion’, white­space, and other empti­nesses, can play a vital role in es­tab­lish­ing an am­bi­ent po­et­ics, and that this is also one of the rea­sons that this mode can re­sult in a pro­duc­tion of the un­canny.

Mor­ton ar­gues,

Na­ture is like that other Ro­man­tic-pe­riod in­ven­tion, the aes­thetic. The dam­age done [by mod­ern so­ci­ety], goes the ar­gu­ment, has sun­dered sub­jects from ob­jects, so that human be­ings are for­lornly alien­ated from their world. Con­tact with na­ture, and with the aes­thetic, will mend the bridge be­tween sub­ject and ob­ject.

We are back to the fic­tion of in­side–out­side. Hav­ing de­cided that there is an out­side, namely na­ture, Ro­man­ti­cism sends out for­lorn but im­pas­sioned at­tempts to ac­cess the in­ac­ces­si­ble through the aes­thetic, like some strange space­ship sent out in a fu­tile at­tempt to ac­cess that which lies be­yond the par­ti­cle hori­zon.

Na­ture is un­der­stood as fun­da­men­tally be­yond us, but that makes it all the more al­lur­ing and we at­tempt to lo­cate it so as to be able to com­mune with it, to at­tempt to im­merse our­selves in its holy wa­ters, to im­bibe its im­ma­te­r­ial elixirs. This is what Kant de­mands of us in a hunt for the sub­lime:

we must be able to view the ocean as poets do, merely in terms of what man­i­fests it­self to the eye — e.g., if we ob­serve it while it is calm, as a clear mir­ror of water bounded only by the sky; or, if it is tur­bu­lent, as being like an abyss threat­en­ing to en­gulf every­thing — and yet find it sub­lime.

This is why ‘am­bi­ent po­et­ics has a mourn­ful qual­ity even when its ex­plicit topic is not mourn­ing’.

Even when a work of am­bi­ent po­et­ics does not ex­plic­itly seek to lament its lack of ac­cess to, or the degra­da­tion or evap­o­ra­tion of the out­side or am­bi­ent, that lament­ing is im­plicit in the po­etic at­tempt to evoke the out­side de­spite its in­ac­ces­si­bil­ity. It is dif­fi­cult to let go of this be­guil­ing promise of Na­ture. We love it too dearly and have lived with it for too long. In­stead, we live in a strange state of de­nial and nos­tal­gia and every time we evoke it, we sound like the Con­tezza in Da Ponte’s li­bretto for Le nozze di Fi­garo, ask­ing,

Dove sono i bei mo­menti
Di dol­cezza e di pi­acer?
Dove an­daro i giu­ra­menti
Di quel lab­bro men­zogner?

[Where are the beau­ti­ful mo­ments / of sweet­ness and plea­sure? / Where have the promises gone / that came from those lying lips?]

No mat­ter how well we recog­nise that the lips lied, that the promises were empty, we hold on to them, un­will­ing to let go of the won­der­ful pos­si­bil­i­ties that they promised.

Again, am­bi­ent po­et­ics is not sim­ply the in­clu­sion of some nat­u­rally con­no­tated ma­te­r­ial. It is an ex­pres­sive mode in which a re­la­tion­ship to a sur­round­ing en­vi­ron­ment is evoked. This en­vi­ron­ment is the en­velop­ing fog on which we hope to find the sub­lime pro­jected. It is this that gives us the pos­si­bil­ity for dis­cov­er­ing that what we con­sider as un­nat­ural or ar­ti­fi­cial is in fact being treated as na­ture, as an out­side or away-from-us, as a fan­tasy aes­thetic screen for the sub­lime.

The sec­ond as­pect of Mor­ton’s am­bi­ent po­et­ics that will prove use­ful is his con­tention that gaps and spaces be­tween things, as well as their tem­po­ral coun­ter­parts (de­lays and echoes), cre­ate am­bi­ence. He analy­ses Wordsworth’s ‘There was a Boy’, in which a boy calls to the owls across the hills and they re­spond in turn, sound­ing out the land­scape — but this de­pic­tion of a “nat­ural” land­scape is not what brings am­bi­ent po­et­ics into play. In­stead, it is when the owls fail to re­spond and he hangs on the si­lence, lis­ten­ing for their an­swer, that he re­alises with a shock that he is in an en­vi­ron­ment.

He hears the dis­tant voice of a moun­tain tor­rent or for the first time sees the rocks and woods around him. This kind of gap — in the poem, the mo­ment of wait­ing for re­sponse — starts to show up every­where. Mor­ton also sees it as pre­sent in the use of white­space on the printed page, the frame of a paint­ing or the space of an art gallery, the am­bi­ence opened up by the gap be­tween a lis­tener and the bells ring­ing from across the fields.
He also reads it into a basic prop­erty of the aes­thetic: the fact that ‘the mo­ment of con­tact is al­ways in the past’.
Phe­nom­ena are al­ways per­ceived a lit­tle after the fact, in some sense they al­ways pos­sess a qual­ity of the echo. This gap again em­pha­sises the dis­tance from us at which we es­tab­lished Na­ture. In evok­ing this gap, a work of art de­ploys an aes­thet­ics of am­bi­ence and in doing so pre­sents its con­tent ‘as nat­ural’ — re­gard­less of whether that is the hills of the Lake Dis­trict in the north of Eng­land or an elec­tri­cal sub­sta­tion.

By tack­ling the am­bi­ent po­et­ics that we find in rep­re­sen­ta­tions of the city, we will be able to help em­pha­sise the fact that the na­ture it claims to rep­re­sent is in­con­sis­tent, and also to un­der­mine its claims of nat­ural au­then­tic­ity. The fact that the city can be nat­u­ralised through the use of am­bi­ent po­et­ics demon­strates the rhetor­i­cal qual­ity of ecomime­sis. Na­ture writ­ing is not nat­ural in the sense that it ad­dresses trees, rather it de­ploys an ide­o­log­i­cal rhetoric of am­bi­ence.

Mar­co­v­aldo’s Sim­ple Na­ture

Be­fore we dive whole-heart­edly into for­ag­ing for Mor­ton’s am­bi­ent po­et­ics every­where we look, let us first turn to a work that ex­em­pli­fies what it looks like to still have clear bound­aries be­tween hu­man­ity and na­ture, for na­ture to still be thought of as truly ‘over yon­der’.

It should come as no sur­prise that Italo Calvino — poet of the crys­talline, bard of the in­tri­cate, nav­i­ga­tor of struc­tures — should pro­vide us with clean cuts and neat con­trasts to analyse. Calvino is at root a struc­tural­ist, some­thing that be­comes par­tic­u­larly ob­vi­ous in a later work such as Mr. Palo­mar.
Palo­mar gazes from his win­dow and sees things sig­ni­fy­ing and sig­ni­fied, is tan­gled in ego and anx­i­ety, and de­cides that ‘a thing is happy to be looked at by other things only when it is con­vinced that it sig­ni­fies it­self and noth­ing else’.
One must also only give the most su­per­fi­cial at­ten­tion to The Cas­tle of Crossed Des­tinies, In­vis­i­ble Cities, or If on a win­ter’s night a trav­eller, to recog­nise his pre­oc­cu­pa­tion with rig­or­ously con­trolled struc­tures that bind a work to­gether. The same is true to a cer­tain ex­tent in the ear­lier col­lec­tion of short tales, Mar­co­v­aldo, which fol­lows its hap­less pro­tag­o­nist (com­pared by Con­stance Markey to Char­lie Chap­lin and Woody Allen) through five cy­cles of the four sea­sons, but for our in­ves­ti­ga­tion’s pur­poses, Mar­co­v­aldo is use­ful not only for being con­tem­po­ra­ne­ous with An­to­nioni’s tril­ogy that we will come to later, but also be­cause it pro­vides us some ex­em­plary in­stances of an or­tho­dox col­li­sion of city and coun­try (oth­er­wise known as ‘na­ture’).

Mar­co­v­aldo’s orig­i­nal sub­ti­tle, ‘The Sea­sons in the City’, el­e­gantly sum­marises the co-ex­is­tence of the two clearly bounded en­ti­ties of na­ture and city. On the one hand there is the city, on the other the sea­sons — a nat­ural flux that takes place around the city. The book de­scribes the sea­sons in the city, but the im­pli­ca­tion is that this is a slice of sea­son, the sea­son it­self is an eco­log­i­cal en­tity that ex­ists at a dis­tance from hu­man­ity and its city. Mar­co­v­aldo him­self — un­skilled labourer in the ware­house of Sbav and Co., fa­ther of six, long-suf­fer­ing hus­band to Domi­t­illa — is the cross­roads of the city and na­ture. He is a mod­ern city dweller, a post-war in­dus­trial worker, but also — one as­sumes — a rel­a­tively re­cent ar­rival in the city, an eco­nomic mi­grant, per­haps as a young man or per­haps he ar­rived with his fam­ily from the coun­try as a teenager. Ei­ther way, Calvino draws him as strad­dling the oth­er­wise clear dis­tinc­tion be­tween city and na­ture. Mar­co­v­aldo is, it seems, slightly out of step with the city, his eyes are dys­func­tional, falling not upon the ‘bill­boards, traf­fic lights, shop win­dows, neon signs, posters […] care­fully de­vised to catch the at­ten­tion’ but on leaves, feath­ers, horse­flies, worm-eaten planks and fig-peel.

The mal­ad­justed Mar­co­v­aldo is the per­fect guide in our hunt for clas­si­cal in­ter­sec­tions of city and na­ture. He is like some strange sci­en­tific in­stru­ment cal­i­brated to find “Na­ture” in the cracks of the greyest con­crete pave­ment — not in­fre­quently dri­ven by hunger and an empty wal­let (note the as­so­ci­a­tion of na­ture with food, na­ture as re­source). It is here that he finds the ‘sub­ter­ranean bod­ies’ of mush­rooms (poi­so­nous it tran­spires, but not be­fore Mar­co­v­aldo has in­gested a plate­ful) peek­ing up in some oth­er­wise life­less scrap of earth.

It is Mar­co­v­aldo alone who spots ‘a flight of au­tumn wood­cock […] in a street’s slice of sky’ — the build­ings pro­vide the frame, but above his head Mar­co­v­aldo can see the nat­ural world full of riches — and pic­tures him­self as a hunter, calmly fol­low­ing their flight with the sight of his rifle (13). Mar­co­v­aldo spots a chance for the most sump­tu­ous din­ner of the year in a white rab­bit held at the hos­pi­tal for med­ical re­search (51–59). It too turns out to be poi­so­nous, of course. Wher­ever he looks, Mar­co­v­aldo sees the pos­si­bil­ity for some­thing sup­pos­edly nat­ural to im­prove his and his fam­ily’s mis­er­able lot — a night in the open air to es­cape his cramped lodg­ings (5–12); a wasp sting to cure rheuma­tism (21–25); the fresh air of the hills be­yond the city (‘It doesn’t have any taste at all!’) (40–44) — but al­most al­ways, he is thwarted. In­stead of wood­cock, they eat stringy pi­geon; his night in the park is sleep­less; and their cure for rheuma­tism ends in an at­tack by a whole swarm of wasps. The in­ter­sec­tion of na­ture and city is com­pli­cated. The bu­colic as­pi­ra­tions of our hero are al­ways trumped by the city’s trans­fig­u­ra­tions of na­ture. The “nat­ural” in­ter­lop­ers promise much but they have been com­pro­mised by the city.

Just how clas­si­cal Calvino’s con­cep­tion of na­ture is in Mar­co­v­aldo can be seen in ‘The city lost in the snow’.

For once, with the city under a thick blan­ket of snow, Mar­co­v­aldo can for­get about the city and his dif­fi­cult life:

He felt free as he had never felt be­fore. In the city all dif­fer­ences be­tween side­walk and street had van­ished; […] Mar­co­v­aldo […] had be­come mas­ter, free to walk in the mid­dle of the street, to tram­ple on flowerbeds, to cross out­side the pre­scribed lines, to pro­ceed in a zig-zag. (16)

This is the most rad­i­cal rep­re­sen­ta­tion of the power of Na­ture. The urban de­notes straight lines and rigid­ity. Con­struc­tion be­to­kens con­stric­tion. The win­ter bliz­zard in all its sub­lime force sub­verts the city and lib­er­ates the city dweller. By ar­riv­ing from out­side the city, the snow re­turns Mar­co­v­aldo’s en­vi­ron­ment to some kind of nat­ural state and re­stores his vir­ile agency as a nat­ural being. Shov­el­ling snow, Mar­co­v­aldo imag­ines that ‘if he went on mak­ing lit­tle walls like that, he could build some streets for him­self alone […] He could re­make the city’ (18). Na­ture ap­pears to have a sub­lime power: the power to re­store agency to the dis­en­fran­chised. Of course, as with each of Mar­co­v­aldo’s dreams, this em­pow­er­ment is only tem­po­rary — in this sense there is a def­i­nite irony to the way in which Calvino pre­sents such an or­tho­dox di­vide be­tween na­ture and city — and once the snow melts, ‘the walls, the boxes […] the things of every day, sharp and hos­tile’ reap­pear (20). The city re-stamps its or­der­ing grid on Mar­co­v­aldo’s life. This also em­pha­sises a struc­tural­ist con­cep­tion of the city with a plane of pure free­dom and po­ten­tial­ity be­long­ing to na­ture. Struc­tures are built in op­po­si­tion to this na­ture and are al­ways lim­it­ing fig­ures com­pared with their nat­ural ground: ‘a struc­ture can act only neg­a­tively, as a con­straint on human agency, or pas­sively, as an en­abling back­ground or con­text for it’.

On the sur­face, one would not think to class Calvino’s Mar­co­v­aldo with nos­tal­gic eu­lo­gies of na­ture, but as Mor­ton ex­plained, ‘na­ture be­comes, in the Ro­man­tic pe­riod and af­ter­ward, a way of heal­ing what mod­ern so­ci­ety has dam­aged’.

This is of course pre­cisely what na­ture in Mar­co­v­aldo does. It is the fan­tasy cure for mod­ern ills and while it is served up with no lit­tle irony and hu­mour, it re­mains a col­lec­tion of ‘bit­ter­sweet re­flec­tions on the loss of com­mu­nity and the iso­la­tion of the in­di­vid­ual’.
It is dif­fi­cult let­ting go of na­ture. Our con­cep­tion of it as some realm that is away from us and undis­turbed is too com­fort­ing for us to eject it piece­meal with ease. Be­sides, ‘you can­not even con­ceive the hor­ri­ble in­side-out­side that is real space’.

Here, Calvino is a place­holder for a struc­tural­ist per­pet­u­a­tion of the fic­tion of a na­ture–human di­vide that we can find with ease in dis­course about ar­chi­tec­ture and na­ture. For ex­am­ple, the idea that an ar­chi­tec­tural pro­ject might be able to gen­er­ate a ‘re­turn to na­ture’ or even act ‘on be­half of na­ture’ re­lies en­tirely on this dis­tinc­tion and es­pe­cially on the pos­si­bil­ity for clear bound­aries be­tween the two even at close prox­im­ity — as if, just as in Mar­co­v­aldo, these en­ti­ties are so clearly bounded that they might al­most be able to glance off one an­other’s shiny skin with no ef­fect other than some vague aes­thetic prod­uct.

Much more help­ful are analy­ses that recog­nise the strange and com­plex re­la­tion­ships pre­sent in the sub­urbs: ter­mites and car­pen­ter ants gnaw away at the ar­chi­tec­tural fab­ric of Las Vegas, while ticks are host to an amor­phous cloud of Lyme dis­ease, punc­tur­ing human skin and es­tab­lish­ing an asym­met­ric mu­tual blood-broth­er­hood, in which the human is mor­tally threat­ened.
Nei­ther tick nor ter­mite can be placed under the sign of po­etic Na­ture, nor eas­ily ren­dered as en­vi­ron­men­tal. They are sim­ply too close to us. Re­al­ity is not at a dis­tance from us, but closer even than we would pre­fer to think.

The Search for the Sub­lime in Traste­vere

In dis­cussing Calvino, we have been sure to be slightly un­fair, stick­ing re­li­giously to a very spe­cific in­ter­pre­ta­tion. Of course, re­al­ity is some­what more com­plex, but here we are search­ing for ex­em­pla il­lus­tra­tive of our goal, and so we must be a lit­tle se­lec­tive in our pre­sen­ta­tion of ma­te­ri­als. (Oth­er­wise, one might have, for ex­am­ple, reached for the story ‘The wrong stop’, in which Mar­co­v­aldo steps off the tram into a dark fog of dis­lo­ca­tion, as ev­i­dence of an en­vi­ron­ing, “nat­ural” city quite dif­fer­ent from the neat na­ture–city di­chotomy dis­cussed above.)

We will con­tinue along this path, as our in­ten­tion is not to sug­gest some holis­tic the­ory for the work of one au­thor or an­other, but rather to sketch the in­fil­tra­tion and metas­ta­sis of a nat­u­ral­i­sa­tion of the city in var­i­ous places. Be­cause this nat­u­ral­i­sa­tion is symp­to­matic of the end of the world, we can­not ex­pect its pres­ence in art to be con­sis­tent. Our en­ti­tle­ment to be se­lec­tive is for­tu­nate as it per­mits us to make un­ortho­dox read­ings that re­veal local in­stances of the nat­u­ral­i­sa­tion of the city re­gard­less of an ex­ist­ing con­cep­tion of an au­thor’s body of work as rep­re­sen­ta­tive of one aes­thetic or an­other.

In open­ing this essay, we en­coun­tered Pa­solini’s 1970s dis­il­lu­sion with Rome and sug­gested, a lit­tle provoca­tively, that we might read him as some kind of strange en­vi­ron­men­tal ac­tivist. The ar­gu­ments to sup­port this that fol­low nec­es­sar­ily di­verge from a read­ing of his po­etry and fic­tion as cri­tiques of the liv­ing con­di­tions of the Roman work­ing class, as Marx­ist sol­i­dar­ity with the poor and the ‘lower’ worker (a Marx­ism through Gram­sci) be­long­ing prop­erly to a con­fronta­tion with a di­alec­ti­cal his­tory.

(This might seem as strange as ig­nor­ing the rep­re­sen­ta­tion of both Christ and John the Bap­tist as rev­o­lu­tion­ary po­lit­i­cal ac­tivists in a read­ing of Il Van­gelo sec­ondo Mat­teo, but we will at­tempt it nev­er­the­less.)

In the early story ‘Traste­vere Boy’, we find a young chest­nut seller re­duced to ‘an ab­stract hand, a mech­a­nism for ac­cept­ing pay­ment and de­liv­er­ing mer­chan­dise in a rigidly cal­cu­lated and pre­de­ter­mined ex­change’.

It would be fool­ish to try to deny the aes­thet­ics at work here — mar­ket eco­nom­ics have trans­formed the in­no­cent boy into noth­ing more than a cog in the cap­i­tal­ist city’s ma­chine — but let us focus in­stead on an­other de­tail. The boy who is the sub­ject of the nar­ra­tor’s at­ten­tion is de­scribed not only in terms of his cap­i­tal­ist func­tion, but also aes­thet­i­cally as ‘brown as a statue pulled from the mud of the Tiber’ and ‘silent as the tomb’.
This image crops up in an­other story, also writ­ten in 1950, ‘Roman Nights’ — we again find our­selves ‘in a Trastev­er­ine Rome with boys as brown as stat­ues stuck in mud’.
The boys are be­com­ing part of the city’s fab­ric, ar­chi­tec­tural em­bell­ish­ments, aes­thetic but also pri­mor­dial in their mud­di­ness and their ori­gin in the river. As if to em­pha­sise the unity be­tween these muddy boys and their en­vi­ron­ment, the later poem ‘Ser­ata Ro­mana’ has Traste­vere it­self ‘mo­tion­less and dis­or­dered, / as if dug from the mud of other eras’.
These two ver­sions of the boy are strange bed­fel­lows. On the one hand, we have the clear cri­tique of the in­stru­men­tal­i­sa­tion of the boy’s hu­man­ity by the op­pres­sive forces of cap­i­tal­ism, but on the other, the aes­theti­ci­sa­tion and im­pli­cated de­hu­man­i­sa­tion of the boy by the nar­ra­tor is not pre­sented with the same crit­i­cal per­spec­tive. It is the aes­theti­ci­sa­tion of the city — which is a nat­u­ral­i­sa­tion of the city, for as in Ro­man­ti­cism the aes­thetic is aligned with the nat­ural — that en­ables Pa­solini to speak with such pas­sion for Traste­vere as a nat­ural land­scape and trans­form its in­hab­i­tants into flora and fauna.

In ‘Il pianto della sca­v­a­trice’, first pub­lished in the 1957 col­lec­tion Le ceneri di Gram­sci, we find a poet ex­tolling some­thing that seems very close to the Kant­ian con­cep­tion of the sub­lime.

Stu­penda e mis­era
città che mi hai fatto fare

es­pe­rienza di quella vita
ig­nota: fino a farmi sco­prire
ciò che, in og­nuno, era il mondo.

[Stu­pen­dous and mis­er­able city, / which made me ex­pe­ri­ence that un­known life // until I dis­cov­ered what / in each of us / was the world.]

It seems that the city it­self has given the poet ac­cess to ‘en­tire ex­pe­ri­ences un­known to me’ in the same way that in­tense con­tact with the am­bi­ent cre­ates an open­ing to the sub­lime.

This de­sire for in­ten­sity, for com­plete im­mer­sion-in and total con­tact-with is the rea­son why he tells us that ‘it is only lov­ing, only know­ing that mat­ters’ (‘Solo l’amare, solo il conoscere / conta’).
‘Il pianto della sca­v­a­trice’ is an ex­hor­ta­tion to live pas­sion­ately and sen­su­ally and this ex­hor­ta­tion is not made in the ab­stract. Just as Kant paints the water, calm or rag­ing, as a foil to his re­quest that we ‘view the ocean as poets do’, Pa­solini places this at­tempt at con­tact in con­text.
He em­ploys am­bi­ent po­et­ics as he draws his jour­ney home ‘through dark mar­ket places, / sad streets by river docks, / among shacks and ware­houses mixed / with the last fields’.
It is by im­mers­ing him­self in this urban land­scape that he hopes to ac­cess the sub­lime. In ‘the most beau­ti­ful sum­mer night’ in Traste­vere, Pa­solini ob­serves those re­turn­ing home from a late night ‘with that light step / which struck my soul / when I re­ally loved, / when I re­ally longed to un­der­stand’ (‘con quel passo blando / da cui più l’anima era in­vasa / quando ve­ra­mente amavo, quando / ve­ra­mente volevo capire’).
By plac­ing him­self in his en­vi­ron­ment, by draw­ing him­self as a fig­ure in a land­scape, Pa­solini em­ploys the rhetoric of na­ture. His at­trac­tion to the work­ing class neigh­bour­hoods ap­pears to be as much aes­thetic as po­lit­i­cal — he wants to look up from what he is doing, like the pro­tag­o­nist in Wordsworth’s ‘There was a Boy’, and find him­self em­bed­ded in a sur­round­ing na­ture that can strike his soul and unify it with the world.

When Pa­solini later speaks out against the gen­tri­fi­ca­tion of Rome, he sounds like an en­vi­ron­men­tal ac­tivist. Why? Is he not sim­ply the coun­ter­part of De Vita, the Com­mu­nist Party mem­ber of Naples city coun­cil in Francesco Rosi’s Le mani sulla città, fight­ing for the rights of the dis­en­fran­chised, for bet­ter liv­ing con­di­tions, against cor­rup­tion, and against cap­i­tal­ist ex­ploita­tion and greed?

Or, for that mat­ter, in good com­pany, agree­ing with Leonardo Benevolo’s eval­u­a­tion of the growth of Ital­ian sub­ur­bia dur­ing this pe­riod as ‘the mal­formed re­sults of spec­u­la­tion’?
Those con­cerns are un­doubt­edly also in the room, but they are not par­tic­u­larly pre­sent in the way that Pa­solini speaks. Re­mem­ber, he says the city has changed, but ‘it is not the city’s fault’.
At first, this seems un­sur­pris­ing — how could one blame the city? If the city is a human con­struct(ion), any change re­quires human agency. The change must surely be the fault of de­vel­op­ers, politi­cians, ar­chi­tects… But the par­a­digm in which the only pos­si­ble actor is a human, is one in which na­ture has been bi­fur­cated. Some­what sur­pris­ingly given Pa­solini’s pol­i­tics, here the city has be­come nat­ural and is only changed by ex­actly the type of cor­rup­tion and sul­ly­ing posited by eco­log­i­cal nar­ra­tives. An idea of the eter­nal qual­ity of na­ture is also pre­sent in this rhetoric: Naples is the only city that he can praise for being ‘still the same as it has al­ways been’ (226). The most im­por­tant re­mark of all though, is his con­tention that ‘the model of the Roman pop­u­lace is no longer born of it­self, out of its own cul­ture’ (226). The idea of au­then­tic­ity, the idea of com­ing out of it­self, the idea that this self is sep­a­rated from — out­side — some­thing else is fun­da­men­tally a con­cep­tion of the city and its in­hab­i­tants as nat­ural. This is only con­firmed by Pa­solini’s de­nial of Catholi­cism’s in­flu­ence on Rome’s cul­ture.
He wishes to think of the pro­le­tariat as pos­sess­ing a nat­ural cul­ture, and so the in­hab­i­tants of Traste­vere take no in­ter­est in the Basil­ica of Santa Maria and its spec­tac­u­lar mo­saic.

Pa­solini has an as­pect of the en­vi­ron­men­tal ac­tivist: he evokes Rome as a nat­ural space that is being cor­rupted and pen­e­trated by for­eign bod­ies. Be­fore the end of the world, it would not have made sense — would not even have en­tered our thoughts — to imag­ine the city in this way. We be­lieved na­ture to be so clearly bounded, at such a fun­da­men­tal dis­tance from us, that it could never have been con­fused with the city, whose cos­mopoli­tanism and human dy­namism was imag­ined so dis­tinct from na­ture’s sta­bil­ity. Pa­solini does not know it, but he is speak­ing after the end of the world, and it is this fact, work­ing away at his un­con­scious, that en­ables him to imag­ine the city as a habi­tat, an ecosys­tem, under threat from hu­man­ity.

An­to­nioni’s Un­canny Land­scapes

Just as un­der­stand­ing his de­scrip­tions of the urban as nat­ural would not nec­es­sar­ily be the first in­ter­pre­ta­tion of Pa­solini to spring to mind, so we may not per­haps con­sider Michelan­gelo An­to­nioni as prin­ci­pally a film­maker con­cerned with com­pos­ing land­scapes, cer­tainly not land­scapes that might be equated with those of Eng­lish Ro­man­tic poets.

In­stead we might con­sider his ‘ex­is­ten­tial dis­course’ and the alien­ation of his char­ac­ters.
The tril­ogy of the early 1960s, which com­prises L’avven­tura, La notte and L’eclisse, is pop­u­lated by char­ac­ters that drift in a state of mod­ern dys­pho­ria, lost in at­tempts at erotic con­nec­tion, strangely dis­con­nected from the nor­ma­tive moral­ity of their so­ci­ety, deeply ab­sorbed in some dark alien­at­ing chasm that is lurk­ing in­side them, in­fected by what An­to­nioni him­self de­scribed as a ‘malaise of Eros’.
Nev­er­the­less, there is a con­sis­tency of spa­tial lan­guage in these three films that may allow us to speak of them as rep­re­sen­ta­tive of am­bi­ent po­et­ics.

Still of a distant figure on the island’s horizon from Antonioni’s L’avventura Still of a rocky landscape with people scattered across it from Antonioni’s L’avventura
Fig. 1

William Ar­row­smith reads the search for the miss­ing Anna in L’avven­tura as hap­pen­ing against a back­drop of ‘in­form­ing im­men­sity’, as a ‘vi­sion of a lim­it­less, and lim­it­lessly vi­o­lent, nat­ural world’, which sun­ders the group, iso­lat­ing the in­di­vid­u­als and spread­ing them out against the is­land’s harsh ter­rain.

The set­ting here is con­no­tat­edly nat­ural — this is why these bour­geois day-trip­pers are here, to be in na­ture, float­ing in the far away idyll of non-hu­man­ity — so it is easy for us to see land­scapes. The craggy sur­face of the is­land, the loom­ing pres­ence of the vol­cano in the mists across the sea, the stir­ring threat of a storm, all of these are what we know as land­scapes. How­ever, we must re­mem­ber from Mor­ton’s de­f­i­n­i­tion of am­bi­ent po­et­ics that it is not “nat­ural” con­tent that is rel­e­vant but rather cer­tain aes­thetic uses of ma­te­r­ial — that may or may not be con­no­tated as nat­ural — that cre­ate an am­bi­ent re­la­tion­ship. An am­bi­ent po­et­ics places its sub­ject in a land­scape and posits that it is ‘em­bed­ded’ in na­ture.
This is pre­cisely how An­to­nioni shoots the pro­tag­o­nists now scat­tered across the is­land (Fig.1). We are shown long shots of the wide-open land­scape in which the human forms ap­pear sur­rounded.

Still from Antonioni’s La notte in which Lidia appears very small in the bottom-left of the frame, dwarfed by a concrete facade.
Fig. 2

It is through this mech­a­nism that the city in La notte and L’eclisse is nat­u­ralised. Con­sider the shot from La notte shown in fig­ure 2. It is a com­pletely un­ortho­dox fram­ing of the scene. In the bot­tom-left cor­ner, Lidia ap­pears as she roams the streets of Milan fol­low­ing Gio­vanni’s book launch. But the shot does not ask us to con­cen­trate on the in­di­vid­ual whose story we are sup­pos­edly fol­low­ing. In­deed, one might eas­ily miss Lidia en­tirely, and she is shot at such a dis­tance that one is not sure at first if it is her, or just an­other anony­mous city dweller. What dom­i­nates the frame is the fab­ric of the city: an enor­mous ex­panse of con­crete façade. This is ecomime­sis. By plac­ing the parts of his com­po­si­tion in such a re­la­tion­ship to one an­other, An­to­nioni tells us that this is an en­vi­ron­ment, an am­bi­ence that sur­rounds, a strange form of nat­u­ralised city, an ‘in­form­ing im­men­sity’ just like the is­land in L’avven­tura.

Still from Antonioni’s La notte showing Lidia inside a car on a rainy night.
Fig. 3

We might also con­sider the mar­vel­lously sym­bolic scene in which Lidia is en­closed in the triple bub­ble of car, rain, and night, hav­ing es­caped her hus­band with an­other guest at the party they are at­tend­ing, think­ing per­haps to seek re­venge for Gio­vanni’s se­r­ial in­fi­delity, though she ul­ti­mately can­not go through with this (Fig. 3). She is shown as sealed within sev­eral out­sides: first, the body of the car; sec­ond, the gluti­nous skin of rain that wraps it­self around the car; and third, the dark­ness of the night that dis­solves around that. Her em­bed­ded­ness here is ab­solute and deeply pro­tec­tive. From our po­si­tion out­side we can­not hear what is being said, and our vi­sion of the in­side is dis­torted. In the si­lence, our at­ten­tion is drawn firmly to­wards the en­vi­ron­ment and we are forced to con­tem­plate it as the rain bub­bles and stretches the sur­face of the image.

Still from the opening credits of Antonioni’s La notte featuring the reflective facade of the Pirelli Building.
Fig. 4

Am­bi­ent po­et­ics can also be evoked by the use of ‘sus­pen­sion’ — the gaps be­tween things that re­veal their en­vi­ron­men­tal sit­u­at­ed­ness.

It is through these gaps that An­to­nioni most often draws our at­ten­tion to the city as en­vi­ron­ment. As the title se­quence of La notte un­folds, we slide down the façade of the Pirelli Build­ing in Milan, catch­ing in its mir­rored win­dows the city spread out below (Fig. 4).
The sus­pen­sion is sub­tle but pre­sent. The mir­ror opens up the en­vi­ron­ment of the city and we see the city-for the Pirelli build­ing. The space be­tween them is in­scribed in the mir­ror­ing. The ef­fect is sim­i­lar to Ola­fur Elias­son’s 2010 work of video art, Innen Stadt Außen (a play on words in which we can un­der­stand ei­ther ‘in­side in­stead of out­side’ or ‘inner city out­side’).
The video con­sists of footage of a white van dri­ving around Berlin with a large mir­ror at­tached to its side. The dis­ori­ent­ing ef­fect of see­ing sur­faces that at first ap­pear real slide away and prove to be mir­rored, and the be­wil­der­ment of hy­brid im­ages where the mir­rored and the real are in­dis­tin­guish­able, pro­duces an un­canny sen­sa­tion of en­vi­ron­ment. We are forced to pay at­ten­tion to the en­vi­ron­ment be­cause the dis­tance be­tween us and the am­bi­ent is so great that we re­alise we can­not de­ter­mine what it is. We are in a Ro­man­tic uni­verse, des­per­ately seek­ing con­tact with the re­as­sur­ing wa­ters of Na­ture.

Four stills from Antonioni’s L’eclisse demonstrating temps mort.
Fig. 5

What is com­monly re­ferred to as temps mort — a cel­e­brated fea­ture of An­to­nioni’s film­mak­ing — is a tech­ni­cal mech­a­nism for the gen­er­a­tion of am­bi­ent po­et­ics through sus­pen­sion par ex­cel­lence. Fig­ure 5 shows two ex­am­ples from L’eclisse of shots where Mon­ica Vitti’s Vit­to­ria ei­ther ar­rives or de­parts from the frame but the en­vi­ron­ment re­mains sta­tic around her. (‘Think­ing things as Na­ture is think­ing them as a more or less sta­tic, or metastable’.)

When the frame is ‘empty’ we be­come aware of the en­vi­ron­ment. Even though in the first we are look­ing at an ar­chi­tec­tural space — a win­dow cut­ting a square of il­lu­mi­na­tion into the night; our gaze rest­ing on the open win­dow; the empty frames of the win­dow and the film strip mir­ror­ing one an­other — the space is made en­vi­ron­men­tal. We are told that this land­scape of light and shadow is the out­side, it is that within which Vit­to­ria is em­bed­ded. These lin­ger­ing mo­ments hap­pen again and again, es­pe­cially in La notte and L’eclisse, and it is in the lat­ter that they achieve their apoth­e­o­sis.

The final se­quence of L’eclisse is deeply un­set­tling. Vit­to­ria steps out of Piero’s house, into the street, and van­ishes. We are left with the land­scape of the city: strange geome­tries, trick­ling water, scaf­fold­ing, con­crete, shad­ows, street­lights. In the­ory, Vit­to­ria’s ab­sence ought to be much less wor­ry­ing than that of Anna in L’avven­tura, whose un­solved dis­ap­pear­ance on the iso­lated is­land can­not help but point to­wards sui­cide (es­pe­cially given the spec­tre of sui­cide that car­ries over from An­to­nioni’s early short Ten­tato sui­cidio or Fellini’s La dolce vita). How­ever, the sit­u­a­tion seems far more un­canny. It was not strange for us to see the threat­en­ing rock of L’avven­tura as a place­holder for Na­ture’s fickle and dan­ger­ous ways, but in An­to­nioni’s pre­sen­ta­tion of the city as some weird na­ture, we be­come aware of a deep-seated dis­com­fort. We are los­ing our foot­ing. Kevin Moore has at­tempted to argue this eclipse pos­i­tively as ‘our con­cep­tual guar­an­tee that they [Vit­to­ria and Piero] no longer stand apart from the world but have merged with it’, but this ar­gu­ment seems ul­ti­mately un­con­vinc­ing.

The con­cen­tra­tion on the land­scape of the city in this clos­ing se­quence does not dis­solve its sep­a­ra­tion from Vit­to­ria and Piero. In­stead, it em­pha­sises it. By fo­cus­ing in this way on the en­vi­ron­ment, An­to­nioni stresses its dis­tance from us, its role as the am­bi­ent. The greater the ab­sence grows, the more un­can­nily nat­ural the city be­comes. Mor­ton ar­gues that ‘am­bi­ent po­et­ics […] is im­bued with the un­canny’.
It cre­ates a space that while promis­ing to heal the di­vide be­tween us and the world (as Moore sug­gests hap­pens for Vit­to­ria and Piero), in fact places the world at an in­sur­mount­able dis­tance. After the end of the world, the city be­comes un­in­hab­it­able, un­canny. Just as the ge­o­log­i­cal land­scape is thought of as hav­ing an im­pact on the pro­tag­o­nists in L’avven­tura, or on Kather­ine and Alexan­der Joyce in Rossellini’s Vi­ag­gio in Italia, the city in L’eclisse alien­ates its in­hab­i­tants through its nat­u­ral­i­sa­tion.

The Wit of Vi­brant Mat­ter

How do we es­cape the spell of Na­ture? The end of the world leaves us in a sit­u­a­tion in which our af­fec­tive re­la­tion­ship to the nat­ural has be­come un­ten­able — dan­ger­ous even to our men­tal well­be­ing. We need to find a new way of re­lat­ing to the world that might free us from being stuck in our fic­tion of in­side–out­side. We need to de­velop an aes­thet­ics that is faith­ful to the re­al­i­sa­tion that we are stuck to na­ture, that we are in­dis­tin­guish­able from it.

In Vi­brant Mat­ter: a Po­lit­i­cal Ecol­ogy of Things, Jane Ben­nett ar­gues for a vital ma­te­ri­al­ism as a ‘counter to human ex­cep­tion­al­ism’.

She at­tempts to imag­ine some kind of ma­te­r­ial sub­stance that has agency, vi­tal­ity, vi­brancy, as a way of es­tab­lish­ing this counter, going as far as to take up Spin­oza’s idea that things we nor­mally con­sider inan­i­mate have some kind of de­sire (cona­tus).
This at­tempt mir­rors to some ex­tent the dis­so­lu­tions that have oc­cu­pied us in the pre­vi­ous pages (and also re­lies on their im­pli­ca­tions). We have seen a dis­so­lu­tion of in­side–out­side, the fact that a clear dis­tinc­tion be­tween city and coun­try, na­ture and human, is im­plau­si­ble. Ben­nett’s the­o­ries posit that some sim­i­lar dis­tinc­tions re­quire re-eval­u­a­tion. The fact that ‘as noun or ad­jec­tive ma­te­r­ial de­notes some sta­ble or rock-bot­tom re­al­ity, some­thing adaman­tine’, gives us the ten­dency to think of ma­te­r­ial (which runs very close to ideas of ‘na­ture’) as inan­i­mate, formable only by us, or by other sen­tient or form-giv­ing life, to think of ma­te­r­ial as life­less, and as nat­ural re­source.
This con­cep­tion of ma­te­r­ial opens the door to ex­ploita­tion: we imag­ine the oil de­posits be­neath the Earth’s crust as some dor­mant re­source, un­chang­ing up until our in­ter­ven­tion, their tem­po­ral­ity frozen until in­jected with human vi­tal­ity — a con­cep­tion any pri­mary school ge­ol­o­gist could re­fute in fact, but this af­fect is so strongly en­coded in our way of think­ing things that it leaks into our be­hav­iour. In Calvino’s Mar­co­v­aldo we saw clearly the ef­fect this has: the nat­ural is a fruit­ful sub­stance that ex­ists be­yond Mar­co­v­aldo, to be used by him, and has no nar­ra­tive of its own. In­deed, the city it­self is a shap­ing of na­ture (as shown in ‘The city lost in the snow’), a human as­sem­blage of re­sources.
Ben­nett chal­lenges us to dis­solve the dis­tinc­tion be­tween life/sen­tience and ma­te­ri­als (the most sig­nif­i­cant di­vide for our imag­i­na­tions is that be­tween human vi­tal­ity and a non-hu­man inan­i­macy), and in­stead to con­sider ‘non-hu­man ma­te­ri­al­i­ties as bona fide par­tic­i­pants rather than as re­cal­ci­trant ob­jects, so­cial con­structs, or in­stru­men­tal­i­ties’.

This chal­lenge to our way of think­ing is hard to ac­cept — it jars so abruptly with our ex­pe­ri­ence — but, de­spite the ve­neer of philo­soph­i­cal in­quiry that has coloured this dis­cus­sion, we are not here to es­tab­lish hard facts about the uni­verse. In­stead, vi­brant mat­ter might help us cre­ate an af­fec­tive lan­guage that frees us from the metas­ta­sis of the nat­ural. We would no longer al­ways be re­stricted to talk­ing about an I — an eye — as sub­ject. In­stead, we could cre­ate the po­etry of in­ter­ac­tions be­tween things. In­stead of hav­ing the hu­man-emp­tied city of L’eclisse pro­duce an un­canny af­fect, filled with threat and dis­com­fort­ing ab­sence, the things that make up the city would be­come a net­work of agen­tive, de­sirous col­lab­o­ra­tors, a vi­sion that — as long as one does not fear the end of our false be­lief in ex­cep­tional human power, and one should not — is much more friendly than the dis­tant and sub­lime walls of An­to­nioni’s Rome. (Bruno La­tour sketches just such a po­ten­tially friendly world of agen­tive ac­tors in his analy­sis of a pro­posed in­tel­li­gent trans­port sys­tem be­neath Paris.)

Art that can evoke the af­fect of vi­brant mat­ter in such a way might be cru­cial, be­cause if our cur­rent imag­i­na­tive po­ten­tials, shaped by an idea of inan­i­mate nat­ural re­sources, im­pact di­rectly on our predilec­tion for ex­ploita­tion of ma­te­r­ial qua re­source, a re­cal­i­bra­tion of these po­ten­tials is ur­gently nec­es­sary.

What might that look like? Let us end with some brief spec­u­la­tion. In Jacques Tati’s Play­time, ob­jects seem to have come alive to a strange de­gree.

A door han­dle ex­presses its de­sire to be part of a door long after its plate glass sur­round­ings have been shat­tered, and the door­man obliges its de­sire. In the air­port lounge, a lug­gage label pirou­ettes en­er­get­i­cally, care­free as it trails be­hind its owner. Ob­jects of all shapes and sizes leap out to ob­struct Tati’s Mon­sieur Hulot, and he oblig­ingly col­lides with them, but they are never threat­en­ing — there is al­ways a def­er­ence on both sides. And in per­haps the most spec­tac­u­lar scene of all, cars, buses, and a car me­chanic’s work­shop all col­lab­o­rate to turn a round­about into a joy­ous merry-go-round. Per­haps this is the af­fec­tive pos­si­bil­ity of what Ben­nett terms ‘thing-power’.
How­ever, it is im­por­tant to note that the way that we paint these agen­tive things is cru­cial to any po­ten­tial re­cal­i­bra­tion of ide­ol­ogy.

Given our cur­rent ways of think­ing, it not hard to imag­ine the ter­ror we might feel when faced with the idea of this sud­den pro­lif­er­a­tion of tiny agents, worm­ing their way through our bod­ies, de­cid­ing whether or not to in­fil­trate our porous skins. If we imag­ine the half-gram of sugar in a raisin not as some raw, inan­i­mate re­source but as a se­ries of quasi-agen­tive po­ten­tial­i­ties dis­trib­uted across crys­tals de­sirous to join our bod­ies, to trans­form and col­lab­o­rate with equally agen­tive en­zymes, we may be too scared to ever eat again — every mouth­ful an in­va­sion.

And then: every lung­ful an in­va­sion. In­deed, there are plenty of things that are ‘out to get us’, not least poi­soned at­mos­pheres of our own gen­er­a­tion, but if we want to use vi­brant mat­ter to re­cal­i­brate our way of think­ing and have us act — like M. Hulot — more def­er­en­tially when faced with our state of co­ex­is­tence, we need to find means to spin this co­ex­is­tence in a fash­ion that avoids an­tag­o­nism. At least in the open­ing phase of this process, it seems as if com­edy might play a cru­cial role — an odd con­clu­sion per­haps given the se­ri­ous mat­ter at hand.

Tati’s Play­time is in­tended as a cri­tique of mod­ernism and cookie-cut­ter, steel and glass cities full of sup­pos­edly vital in­no­va­tion that in fact com­pli­cates the lives of in­hab­i­tants such as M. Hulot (whose quasi-Lud­dite or naïve clum­si­ness is not un­re­lated to that of Mar­co­v­aldo). How­ever, a by-prod­uct of this focus on the ar­chi­tec­ture and ma­te­ri­al­ity of the mod­ern city is that we are scru­ti­n­is­ing ob­jects, non-hu­man things, and dis­cover that they are full of life. The open­ing se­quence pre­sents the lounge of an air­port as life­less, anony­mous and ster­ile, and it mir­rors a hos­pi­tal wait­ing room — a wife fusses over her hus­band, clean­ing ladies pass by dressed al­most as nuns or nurses, the linoleum floor­ing is kept im­mac­u­lately pol­ished — but in the void pur­port­edly cre­ated by mod­ernism’s steril­ity all kinds of strange small pres­ences leap out. Our at­ten­tion is drawn to the squeak and tap of shoes as they criss-cross the floor. This clip-clop­ping be­comes yet fur­ther ex­ac­er­bated when a man en­ters wear­ing flip-flops. We dis­tinctly hear the elas­tic­ity of the flip-flops as they spring up to the wearer’s feet and then slap back to the ground. All the while, human di­a­logue is given no more weight than this shoe–floor con­ver­sa­tion. This layer of the sound­scape is lim­ited to a mur­mured, ef­fec­tively in­com­pre­hen­si­ble cloud of human vocal chords — we recog­nise a wife’s con­cern for her hus­band’s warmth as he waits for his flight, but can hardly catch a word. A tra­di­tional read­ing might say that the sound of the shoe–floor world has been ex­ag­ger­ated, but in truth it has been re­stored to its right­ful place. Rather than priv­i­leg­ing the human world of ver­bal dis­course, we gain an in­sight into a broad ex­change of vi­bra­tions that we are just one part of. The focus on feet con­tin­ues when an el­derly dig­ni­tary ar­rives at the air­port in a crowd of jour­nal­ists. One par­tic­u­larly bal­letic pho­tog­ra­pher can­not take a snap with­out bal­anc­ing him­self pre­car­i­ously, hang­ing by his shoe-tip from some booth or desk. His con­nect­ed­ness with the ar­chi­tec­ture is faintly ridicu­lous but not ob­jec­tion­able. We see quite clearly the way in which he re­lies on col­lab­o­ra­tion with his ma­te­r­ial coun­ter­parts, in­clud­ing his shoe as a will­ing me­di­a­tor of forces. The comedic as­pects of all of these el­e­ments helps enor­mously in me­di­at­ing the po­ten­tial shock we might feel at the dis­cov­ery that things pre­vi­ously con­sid­ered inan­i­mate are full of life. In an­other con­text, this dis­cov­ery could quickly seem threat­en­ing, but com­edy per­mits us the op­por­tu­nity to ac­quaint our­selves with ‘thing-power’, and treat this emer­gence of a mul­ti­tude of pre­vi­ously in­vis­i­ble ac­tants with a light­ness of touch that soft­ens the blow of our fall from the throne of human ex­cep­tion­al­ism.

As on­tol­ogy, Ben­nett’s vi­brant mat­ter re­mains a lit­tle un­con­vinc­ing. How­ever as ide­ol­ogy, a tool for aes­thet­ics and po­et­ics, it pro­poses it­self as im­mensely con­struc­tive. We need to move away from in­side–out­side dis­tinc­tions. We need to for­get about na­ture, but we also need to pay at­ten­tion to global warm­ing. To achieve this, per­haps we need to stop wor­ry­ing and learn to love vi­brant mat­ter.

Bib­li­og­ra­phy

  • An­der­matt Con­ley, Ver­ena. ‘Urban Eco­log­i­cal Prac­tices: Félix Guat­tari’s Three Ecolo­gies.’ In Eco­log­i­cal Ur­ban­ism, ed. Mostafavi and Do­herty, 138–39.
  • An­to­nioni, Michelan­gelo. The Ar­chi­tec­ture of Vi­sion: Writ­ings and In­ter­views on Cin­ema. Edited by Marga Cot­tino-Jones, Carlo Di Carlo, and Gior­gio Tinazzi. New York: Mar­silio Pub­lish­ers, 1996.
  • Ar­row­smith, William. An­to­nioni: The Poet of Im­ages. Edited by Ted Perry. Ox­ford: Ox­ford Uni­ver­sity Press, 1995.
  • Bachelard, Gas­ton. The Po­et­ics of Space. Trans­lated by Maria Jolas. Boston: Bea­con Press, 1994.
  • Benevolo, Leonardo. The Eu­ro­pean City. Trans­lated by Carl Ipsen. Ox­ford: Black­well, 1993.
  • Ben­nett, Jane. Vi­brant Mat­ter: A Po­lit­i­cal Ecol­ogy of Things. Durham, NC: Duke Uni­ver­sity Press, 2010.
  • Bruno, Giu­liana. Atlas of Emo­tion: Jour­neys in Art, Ar­chi­tec­ture, and Film. New York: Verso, 2007.
  • Calvino, Italo. Mar­co­v­aldo. Trans­lated by William Weaver. Toronto: L&OD, 2007.
  • Calvino, Italo. Mr. Palo­mar. Trans­lated by William Weaver. 1st Amer­i­can. San Diego: Har­court Brace Jo­vanovich, 1985.
  • Crutzen, Paul J. ‘Ge­ol­ogy of Mankind.’ Na­ture 415, no. 6867 (Jan­u­ary 3, 2002): 23. doi:10.1038/415023a.
  • Elias­son, Ola­fur. Innen Stadt Außen. Video, 10 min­utes. Berlin: Mar­tin-Gropius-Bau, 2010. http://​www.​ola​fure​lias​son.​net/​works/​Innen_​Stadt_​Aussen.​html
  • Eliot, Thomas Stearns. Four Quar­tets. New York: Har­court Brace Jo­vanovich, 1971.
  • Har­ri­son, Stephan, Steve Pile, and Nigel Thrift, eds. Pat­terned Ground: En­tan­gle­ments of Na­ture and Cul­ture. Lon­don: Reak­tion, 2004.
  • Heine, Hein­rich. Lutezia. Berichte über Poli­tik, Kunst und Volk­sleben. Zweiter Theil. Ham­burg: Hoff­mann und Campe, 1854.
  • Hilal, Sandi, Alessan­dro Petti, and Eyal Weiz­man. ‘Re­turn to Na­ture.’ In Eco­log­i­cal Ur­ban­ism, ed. Mostafavi and Do­herty, 230–35.
  • Kant, Im­manuel. Cri­tique of Judg­ment. Trans­lated by Werner S. Pluhar. In­di­anapo­lis, IN: Hack­ett, 1987.
  • La­tour, Bruno. Aramis, or The Love of Tech­nol­ogy. Trans­lated by Cather­ine Porter. Cam­bridge, MA: Har­vard Uni­ver­sity Press, 1996.
  • La­tour, Bruno. Fac­ing Gaia: Six lec­tures on the po­lit­i­cal the­ol­ogy of na­ture. 2013. [Forth­com­ing, a pro­vi­sional PDF of the lec­tures can be found here: http://​www.​bruno-​latour.​fr/​node/​486]
  • La­tour, Bruno. Pol­i­tics of Na­ture: How to Bring the Sci­ences into Democ­racy. Trans­lated by Cather­ine Porter. Cam­bridge, MA: Har­vard Uni­ver­sity Press, 2004.
  • Lefeb­vre, Henri. The Urban Rev­o­lu­tion. Trans­lated by Robert Bononno. Min­neapo­lis: Uni­ver­sity of Min­nesota Press, 2003.
  • Markey, Con­stance. Italo Calvino: A Jour­ney to­ward Post­mod­ernism. Gainesville, FL: Uni­ver­sity Press of Florida, 1999.
  • Michaux, Henri. Nou­velles de l’étranger. Paris: Mer­cure de France, 1952.
  • Mod­ena, Letizia. Italo Calvino’s Ar­chi­tec­ture of Light­ness: The Utopian Imag­i­na­tion in an Age of Urban Cri­sis. New York: Rout­ledge, 2011.
  • Moore, Kevin Z. ‘Eclips­ing the Com­mon­place: The Logic of Alien­ation in An­to­nioni’s Cin­ema.’ Film Quar­terly 48, no. 4 (July, 1995): 22–34. doi:10.2307/1213577.
  • Mor­ton, Tim­o­thy. Ecol­ogy With­out Na­ture: Re­think­ing En­vi­ron­men­tal Aes­thet­ics. Cam­bridge, MA: Har­vard Uni­ver­sity Press, 2009.
  • Mor­ton, Tim­o­thy. Hy­per­ob­jects: Phi­los­o­phy and Ecol­ogy after the End of the World. Min­neapo­lis: Uni­ver­sity of Min­nesota Press, 2013.
  • Mostafavi, Mohsen, and Gareth Ger­ard Do­herty, eds. Eco­log­i­cal Ur­ban­ism. Cam­bridge, MA: Har­vard Uni­ver­sity Grad­u­ate School of De­sign, 2010.
  • Nancy, Jean-Luc. The Cre­ation of the World, Or, Glob­al­iza­tion. Trans­lated by François Raf­foul and David Pet­ti­grew. Al­bany, NY: SUNY Press, 2007.
  • Nancy, Jean-Luc. The Sense of the World. Trans­lated by Jef­frey S. Li­brett. Min­neapo­lis: Uni­ver­sity of Min­nesota Press, 1997.
  • Pa­solini, Pier Paolo. Roman Nights and Other Sto­ries. Trans­lated by John She­p­ley. Marl­boro, VT: Marl­boro Press, 1986.
  • Pa­solini, Pier Paolo. Roman Poems. Trans­lated by Lawrence Fer­linghetti and Francesca Va­lente. San Fran­cisco: City Lights Books, 1986.
  • Pa­solini, Pier Paolo. Sto­ries from the City of God: Sketches and Chron­i­cles of Rome, 1950-1966. Trans­lated by Ma­rina Harss, edited by Wal­ter Siti. New York: Hand­sel Books, 2003.
  • Sil­lan­poa, Wal­lace P. ‘Pa­solini’s Gram­sci.’ MLN 96, no. 1 (Jan­u­ary, 1981): 120–137. doi:10.2307/2906432.
  • Slo­ter­dijk, Peter. Ter­ror from the Air. Trans­lated by Amy Pat­ton and Steve Cor­co­ran. Los An­ge­les: Semi­o­text(e), 2009.
  • U.S. De­part­ment of Agri­cul­ture, Agri­cul­tural Re­search Ser­vice. USDA Na­tional Nu­tri­ent Data­base for Stan­dard Ref­er­ence, Re­lease 26. 2013. http://​ndb.​nal.​usda.​gov/​ndb/​foods/​show/​2446?​qlo​okup=092​98
  • Viano, Mau­r­izio. ‘The Left ac­cord­ing to the Ashes of Gram­sci.’ So­cial Text no. 18 (De­cem­ber, 1987): 51–60. doi:10.2307/488690.
  • Warner, Ma­rina. Alone of All Her Sex: The Myth and Cult of the Vir­gin Mary. Lon­don: Vin­tage, 2000.

Fil­mog­ra­phy (Chrono­log­i­cal)

  • 1953Ten­tato sui­cidio. Di­rected by Michelan­gelo An­to­nioni. Part of L’amore in città, which also fea­tures episodes di­rected by Fellini, Lat­tuada, Liz­zani, Maselli, and Za­vat­tini.
  • 1954Vi­ag­gio in Italia. Di­rected by Roberto Rosselini.
  • 1960L’avven­tura. Di­rected by Michelan­gelo An­to­nioni.
  • 1960La dolce vita. Di­rected by Fed­erico Fellini.
  • 1961La notte. Di­rected by Michelan­gelo An­to­nioni.
  • 1962L’eclisse. Di­rected by Michelan­gelo An­to­nioni.
  • 1963Le mani sulla città. Di­rected by Francesco Rosi.
  • 1964Il van­gelo sec­ondo Mat­teo. Di­rected by Pier Paolo Pa­solini.
  • 1967Play­time. Di­rected by Jacques Tati.