Fontana, Carlo( 1638 – 1714 )
Design for façade of Santi Faustino e Giovita, 1652 – 1714 , Metropolitan Museum of Art,
NYC, 61.658.39Neg. 271466 , 271467 , 57.437.2cm, Sepia, gray wash and graphiteThis page exhibits a double image representing the design process of the late high baroque architect
Carlo Fontana. Although appearing as finished drawings, they reveal Fontana’s habit to explore
many iterations of a given design. These images convey a temporary or preliminary attitude render-
ing them a form of sketch. Since he viewed them as a series of alternatives, they suggest that it was
his intention to eventually compare them in a process of decision-making.
Fontana was born near Como, Italy. Early in his life he moved to Rome, approximately 1650 , and
began work in Pietro da Cortona’s workshop. Following that initial exposure to architecture, he was
employed by Gianlorenzo Bernini for nearly a decade, participating in the design of the piazza in
front of St. Peter’s, and of Scala Regia. Although strongly influenced by Bernini as a young architect,
Fontana also worked directly with Carlo Rainaldi on several projects. One which best reveals these
architectural influences was the façade of S. Marcello al Corso ( 1682 – 1683 ).
Commissioned by both the papacy and private patrons, examples of Fontana’s projects include: his
first project with full responsibility, the church of S. Biagio Campitelli; a commission by Queen
Christina of Sweden for the Teatro Tor di Nona and remodeling projects; Santa Maria in Trastevere
and San Spirito dei Napolitani. In contemplating Fontana’s legacy, Rudolf Wittkower theorized that
Fontana led a reinterpretation of classicism, proposing that his architecture may have been anticipat-
ing neoclassicism ( 1958 ).
Demonstrated here (Figure 2.6) are two iterations of a decorative façade. The overall impression
of the technique feels finished and ruled, although some of the upper panels have been left blank or
include freehand sculptures. These unfinished panels suggest the ‘in-process’ qualities that make it
comparable to a sketch. Fontana has provided two equally well-detailed alternatives for the decora-
tive doorway. The page has been rendered with one option, with a slice cut through the paper above
the door to secure a tabbed flap of an alternative solution. The additional flap resembles the dimen-
sions of the door and lifts to open, as an interesting analogy to a door. When closed, the solution
beneath is completely obscured. These two options have opposing themes; one rectilinear, and the
other mimicking the arched niche above the architrave.
To assist with the interpretation of this sketch, numerous drawings by Fontana exist which
demonstrate his prolific practice. In their catalogue, Braham and Hager write: ‘The facility of the
courtier, his wish to please and his willingness to compromise are especially apparent in Fontana’s
drawings; they show how he was capable of producing, with little apparent effort, any number of dif-
ferent designs in the hope of satisfying his patrons’ (Braham and Hager, 1977 , p. 19 ). For example,
fourteen studies in the archive at Windsor show alternatives for the decoration of the piers at
St. Peter’s, with each proposal having been studied in a separate vignette.
The question arises: what intention or thought process compelled Fontana to add the paper door to
this façade? If the extra door was a later inspiration, he could have either cut out and patched the pre-
vious, or glued the new solution over the old. He could have also redrawn the façade with the new
configuration, as he had done previously. Perhaps Fontana himself had difficulties making decisions,
or, as a diplomatic move, was trying to elicit some participation from his client. By replacing only the
door, he was limiting the options. Although architects often sketch many visual possibilities for their
own study, it seems more likely that this façade was meant for presentation. Otherwise, he would not
have needed to attach the door to keep it from being lost.H5719-Ch02.qxd 7/15/05 3:22 PM Page 61