Cardillo case: “Can we do without deception?”

Yes… young architects have always found their way and clients. Or have they suddenly become too lazy and no longer want to make an effort? The excuse of ‘not yet published’ or ‘it is not possible without connections’ and the other arguments and assumptions listed in the editorial are flimsy and I do not accept them in this context.

However, the question of whether it is still possible without deception is somewhat irritating. It leads in the wrong direction. I want to get to the bottom of the problem. Why have such ‘fraud scenarios’ become necessary?

Today we find ourselves in a world of media networking (Marshall McLuhan, The Medium is the Message), and also in a world—as Konrad Paul Liessmann puts it in his book The Universe of Things—of appearance, semblance, and appearances.

The media, in this case, architectural magazines, constantly demand new images, projects, sensations to publish these appearances. It is a system of ‘mutual use’ and constant reproduction. And this story inadvertently reveals the ongoing collapse of this system.

Another fact is that of a certainly very talented young man (whether he is actually an architect is beside the point), who has used this mechanism of image mania for his purposes. One should actually laugh at the simplicity that this story brings to light: An unknown person overturns the entire architect’s paraphernalia and embarrasses the media. But that was not his goal, and therefore he is by no means a modern Robin Hood.

It is less a matter of investigating why A. Cardillo chose this path than why the bluff succeeded. One can certainly say that those affected did too little research, asked too few questions and, above all, used their own brains too little. In this respect, the story is a slap in the face for journalists and editors who willingly accept and reproduce everything presented to them. A pre-prepared press release, a short superficial look at pictures and works—one is so good and so experienced—just do not look in depth because that means work and effort. Meanings and content are hardly questioned anymore, a semblance is all too willingly accepted as welcome truth.

But one must also see another side: Constant time pressure, a quasi ‘obligation’ to more and more, to ever-greater reach, profit increase, and profit maximisation sometimes forces people to act faster than necessary. A recently published study of an experiment from the field of brain research brings astonishing results to light: 70% of participants under time pressure and stress chose the option that promised them personal advantage (even if the solution did not correspond to the truth): They simply lied.

So why do we not reflect on the principle of deceleration, of becoming smaller, of a certain modesty, maybe even humility? Could not local or global crises of ecology and distribution injustice also be solved with this? Then Mr Cardillo would not have to write doctoral theses for others and simultaneously fake an architect’s career. Then he could do what he might do best…

Yes and no… it has always been about knowledge or belief.

Since time immemorial, people have vied for credibility with all kinds of persuasion. Magicians, medicine men, shamans, prophets, priests, sectarians, and charlatans do this. But so do marriage swindlers, propagandists, advertising agencies, and intellectual charlatans.

It is not just about the grand credibility of world explanations, moral postulates, or healing the sick, but also about the little deceits in professional life or the flattery in love life.

Bluffing has always been in vogue where it is about deception. Naturally, this is also true in the context of building culture.

We live in a media democracy where media persuasion conveys credibility, quite independently of real facts. All lobbyists know this. Ubiquitous product advertising tries to turn citizens into consumers through powerful imagery.

And a job-seeking adept of architecture works with beautiful images, not facts. He acquires clients with the promise of a beautiful world that he would certainly like to design in reality.

It is remarkable that such rather shy deceit gets so much attention, while people prefer to close their eyes and ears to the bluster of more powerful charismatic charlatans.

65 thumbs up, 43 thumbs down, 0 post comment.

Yes… it does not help to hide from reality. Architecture, as it is practised in Germany, has developed into a highly complex field where diverse competencies are required and clients rightly expect a responsible and experienced approach to their property. There are—at least in Germany—still some competitions where young offices are admitted and can prove themselves. Those seeking success with their own office are given the opportunity—although there is still much to be desired.

More important, however, is the question of how we can regain the trust that modern architecture has lost, especially among private clients, due to delusions of grandeur and originality, and how we can convince the public once again of the valuable contribution of our work. We should also address questions outside our field and seek relevant and innovative solutions.

If one takes the problems of the built environment—of which there are still plenty—seriously, attempts to combine professional service with young, fresh ideas, and does not confuse innovation with formal originality, then exciting tasks and solutions arise around understanding, developing, and controlling systems, cycles, and living environments with the goal of ecological, economic, and social added value.

Such systems can only be developed integrally, in interplay with different disciplines and sectors. Architects can also make important contributions here with their synthesising, visualising, and moderating competence. We should seize such opportunities to reshape the professional image and not try to enforce old professional images with dishonest means. Those who wonder why they cannot find clients with formal fantasies alone have not—like some journalists—recognised that reality looks different.

22 thumbs up, 25 thumbs down, 0 post comment.

“There are no shortcuts to any place worth going” — Beverly Sills

Yes, it is possible without deception.

Acquiring clients through the press, that is, gaining a reputation from the public, is not the only way to gain clients, as Antonino Cardillo suggests. This “knighthood by the public” is also not necessarily reserved for a few, but increasingly open to the young as well. The Cardillo case is a story of the suggestion of the built project, of the semblance of laboriously acquired professional experience, and this goes far beyond placing a talented design in the public eye. Audience and reputation are important components of external impact, but they should not be the primary motivation of one’s work.

The art of entering the architectural profession lies in winning the trust of a client without ever having demonstrated one’s trustworthiness in building. Antonino Cardillo deprives himself of the moment of luck by his photorealistic bluff, of having achieved just that. The maturation process of a firm, a work, or a person takes place outside the limelight. “Early and unearned respect corrupts the soul”, as one of our favourite professors, Coy Howard, always said.

Although the Cardillo case reveals a questionable chain of exploitation of architectural news that needs to be critically examined, the lack of journalistic control does not justify systematic fraud. One’s own misconduct may be related to external circumstances, but one always bears responsibility for one’s actions.

Regarding the aesthetic questions raised by the case, it can be fundamentally stated that the idealisation of the architectural moment has found its way into the image. To discredit the possibilities of technology due to its potential for manipulation would be wrong: Software and computers have anticipated design potentials that have enriched architecture in many ways. The tools of architects are not to blame. What ultimately remains is the insight that what is truly built cannot bluff—the selection process of time will decide whether it may remain or not.

11 thumbs up, 61 thumbs down, 0 post comment.

No… the first reflexive answer would indeed be a clear ‘Yes’, as this suggests the defence of the noble values of the architectural guild. Upon reflection, however, I say clearly ‘no’.

Making noise has always been part of the trade, as architecture depends on the advance trust of the client. This was already the case in the Renaissance, when elaborate models were built that could only partially represent reality. Robin Evans described architecture as “action at a distance”, because something must be translated at every step, from the idea to the sketch, from the design concept to the visualisation, and finally from the building to the plans. The limitation of what is conceivable as architecture is thus also in the chosen medium. What, then, if it had been questioned back then whether architects would be able to realise the project?

In other cultures than ours, projects arise only through images created for them. It is the depiction of a vision that enables projects. Apartments are paid for based solely on visualisations. Who knows if they will be realised exactly as shown? Until then, many aspects will play a role that are not all under the control of the architect. Deception by architects or project developers?

Zaha Hadid, one of the most influential architects in the industry, represented project visions as paintings and graphics for years and introduced new formal approaches into the discussion. As an art form, it is acceptable, but as architecture, is it deception?

Many competitions have been changed to qualification procedures. Is it better for architecture if the same actors constantly plan and realise new versions of the same thing? New ideas and visions need courage for the gap. Deception only occurs when one is not able to fulfil the promise made, that is, when the architect does not have the tools to appropriately realise these visualisations.

142 thumbs up, 8 thumbs down, 3 post comment.

Yes and no… one could simply and balancedly hold with Kant and apply two standards of evaluation. The moral standard would say yes, as Cardillo’s actions are against the truth because a professional should abide by the rules, and thus he acts wrongly and despicably. An aesthetic evaluation, however, could come to the opposite judgement, as the action is characterised by a certain elegance that justifies his work. No, he did the right thing, probably naively and unconsciously, because he continues a story, a canon appropriate for architecture.

Architecture has always imitated reality, played with visual perception to convey content that is not real. Before the advent of modernity in architecture and its rhetoric of constructive honesty, architecture played with illusions through sophisticated representation techniques. Donato Bramante’s trompe l’oeil in Milan’s San Satiro Church of 1483 uses perspective to give the impression of depth to an apse less than a metre deep. In many of his villas in Veneto, Andrea Palladio developed a construction system where he used curved bricks to erect columns that then, with the help of a marbled plaster, simulated natural stone.

Today, reality blurs between digital media, construction, and professional assurance, and therefore the imitation of this reality is equally ambiguous. Cardillo skilfully applied the representation techniques of our time, even if he did not produce particularly interesting architecture. However, once printed in magazines and spread via blogs and websites, Cardillo’s renderings are no less real than the current shopping mall in Singapore or the latest theatre built in Dubai. Although Bramante or Palladio cannot serve as references for Cardillo and his coup falls into a deeply Italian category of visual masquerade, my sympathy has always been with the clever rogue rather than the wealthy foreign tourist who has just bought a piece of the Colosseum in Rome.

38 thumbs up, 2 thumbs down, 0 post comment.