Objects are always inevitably linked to points of reference in their history. They have an inherent transcendence that manifests itself in a superimposition of different layers of meaning/interpretation. It is a mixture of economic significance, personal experiences, collective projections, symbolic radiance, life stories, milestones – political, economic, evolutionary, humanitarian. The perception of such objects is shaped by these perspectives, interpretations and different truths. Only recently, for example, it was revealed that the famous Otto Wagner green was actually beige. What we see as Vienna’s character today was something completely different in its original intention. All of this is true, the rest is a matter of visual habits and parallel realities. Objects are always also subjects, which is why in their development one has to make use of both “Sophia” – the heir to the past – and “Philosophia” – the one turned towards the discoveries of the future.

What is the truth of seeing and recognizing?

Only the whole is true, Hegel once said. But we are not able to perceive this. Our truth will always be an excerpt and a transcendent superimposition. We don’t want to indulge in the “mess” of objectivity – as Joseph Roth calls it. Borrowed from Wolfgang Donsbach’s media theory, objective description can be ideological, functionalist, consensual and/or relativist.

Ideologically, it serves a specific social or political goal and presents “reality” as it is seen from the perspective of a particular social ideology. Functionally, it refers to professional norms and their function. Consensually, there is a scale-appropriate reduction of all relevant dimensions of the common experience of reality and the common horizon of meaning. Relativistically, the description refers to a wishful thinking, sometimes even utopia, of the world.

Talking about objective description is indeed a mess. And not useful in the case of brownfield and greenfield development. A positivistic description according to true and false is at best suitable for an inventory list, but not for a recognizing vision and is incapable of grasping the transcendence of historical and emotional anchoring. Following the above description in a mixture, the next step – loosely based on Imdahl – is to reconstruct and then interpret. Imdahl follows a dialectical three-step process of iconography (recognizing seeing), form analysis (seeing seeing) and iconics (recognizing seeing). This intentionally assumes that hermeneutic and structural modes of interpretation can be linked in the sense of an analysis of meaning and sense.

“If people were to forget how to dream, it would be the downfall of civilization” Thomas Macho

Just as the presumption of objectivity can be described as a mess, so too can the leveling of real estate development according to the most inferior functions. Uniformity is the death of passion. A small sidestep into the world of the supposedly beautiful surface is permitted: it has been empirically proven that exaggeratedly aestheticized models corrected according to the same standards do not evoke sexual fantasies or erotic dreams. The smooth appearance also lets emotions roll off. Only when they are loaded with narratives do models become attractive, interesting and desirable. Uniformity castrates our minds.

The Musée des Confluences by Coop Himmelb(l)au in Lyon – the nightmare come true of any controlling instrument that can only measure one value – is nevertheless a shining symbol of creativity and identity, a landmark that makes residents proud, captivates visitors and stands as a mighty icon behind the TV reporters reporting from the French city. The Sydney Opera House and the Eiffel Tower have undergone a similar fiscal odyssey. Who still knows that today? You only read a few lines about it in more detailed travel guides. What remains is the symbol, the place of pilgrimage and the imprisonment in world history.

Fabricator mundi / Homo Formandi

Créateurs in the real estate industry are not functionalist homo oeconomicusse. Nor should they be. They would limit themselves and their thinking from the outset. Their way of working can rather be described as a hybrid between Homo Ludens and Homo Faber (in the anthropological sense – not in the sense of Max Frisch). In his translation, the latter is the “creative person” or “the craftsman”, who in this capacity is an active changer of his environment. Homo Ludens is characterized by his play instinct, through which he sharpens and/or discovers as well as develops skills. He shapes the game through the freedom of his thinking.

However, the description of the work of créateurs goes even further and is not limited to either of these two terms. Rather, a créateur is a Fabricator Mundi – a builder of worlds. He has the playfulness of Homo Ludens and the creative urge of Homo Faber, but at the beginning of his work there is once again transcendence. Following the above-mentioned dialectical three-step of iconography, form analysis and iconics, he repositions the object in space, time, function and collective. The object becomes the subject. In the reinterpretation, the vision is first created, which is set in the future but deals with the past. It shows what experiences, adventures, feelings and points of contact one will have had with the object in the future.

The new truth is created in the superimposition of what one will have perceived, experienced, seen, smelled and felt in this place. Which phase of life will be decided there. What influence will be exerted there. How will the world recognize this place. Which selfies will be taken there and which Instagram stories will be started? The overlay creates innovation with a new syntax and creates new values and worlds. We know this from Greek mythology: Myths are created from the transgression of places, genres, possibilities or abilities through technical solutions. The Fabricator Mundi gives birth to a myth that people want to become part of. The part of financial representability is downstream. The fiscal part also has creative leeway and serves the feasibility of utopias. Economic calculations are based on the maxim of making things possible – not the other way around.

According to Nikolai Fyodorov, the universe is the project for whose success we are all equally responsible. This requires imagination and creative energy. It needs artists and engineers, future laboratories and educational institutions that combine art and life. Fabricateure Mundi know no promethical shame. We humans are not made, we have become. There is a great treasure in this. We must actively create conditions of leisure, just like any other condition of life – for creators and future consumers.