In other times, it was common for Gaudinistas to reaffirm themselves as supporters that everything had flowed from the creative hand of the great genius and were reluctant to admit the participation of certain collaborators. Such was the case that affected not a little the architect Josep M. Jujol.
With the passage of time, published studies and also a different way of looking at and interpreting the works, Jujol’s presence has only reaffirmed itself.
Here is a specific case. It caused a lot of talk and even controversy: the Batlló house. The scholar Joan Bassegoda Nonell gave me as an almost definitive argument that Jujol could not have intervened because he was still a student. It is true, to the point of having shone so brightly at the School of Architecture that one of his professors had caught his attention.
Jaume Bayó commented that “all the teaching staff talked about the extraordinary draftsman and colorist that Jujol was, and he was valued and known throughout the School”. Despite his youth and not yet having the title, he was required to collaborate in the restoration and rehabilitation works of the Sabassona palace, already owned by the Ateneu Barcelonès.
The architect Mateu Barba explains in his book with exquisite sensitivity the crucial moment when partner Dr. Pere Santaló introduced the young Jujol to his friend Gaudí there. This meeting was destined to have far-reaching consequences for both of them. As if that wasn’t enough, it turned out that Professor Bayó’s brother was the contractor for Casa Batlló.
Gaudí admitted him to his work group, explained to him the superficial idea he had for decorating the facade and did not hesitate to commission him to execute it. It was 1906. Jujol let loose his hand with a freedom and inventiveness of surprising avant-garde. His abstract composition floats in a sea of ??suggestive and unpredictable movement. The result dazzled Gaudí.
It contrasts remarkably and clearly with the exposed cladding on the rear facade. The technique is the same, apart from putting together pieces of broken pottery, but the result is completely different and highlights not only the performance of another hand, but also the poverty of a static and repetitive style, without a minimum of imagination
