BRESCIA - Enigmatic architect, Lanfranco Cirillo, socialised within the Russian elite, had 141 million euros worth of assets confiscated on Aug 3. The decision was sanctioned by the judge for preliminary investigations (G.I.P.), warranted by the astonishing discoveries uncovered by the Guardia di Finanza in a search conducted in his property in February 2021, reported the newspaper Il Giornale di Brescia. 

 An extravagant collection of paitnings that prided itself with works of the calibre of Picasso, Cezanne, Kandinsky, De Chirico, Fontana, Savinio, Modigliani, Mirò, Morandi, Campigli, Chagall, Rotella, Botero was seized. 

Along with other assets including luxury homes, bank accounts, jewellery, a wad of cash ammounting to 670,000 euros, and even a helicopter.

 A fortune sourced by the most prominent actors of the Russian political scene, most notably Vladimir Putin. Wealth that has now landed him the alleged charges of fraudulent tax returns, self-laundering, and violation of the codes protecting cultural heritage. The professional has allegedly evaded 50 million euros worth of taxable income, from 2013 to 2019, by "laundering the proceeds of evasion," tax authorities said - according to Il Giornale di Brescia. 

 Familiarised as a competent architect, Cirillo warded off the characteristic suspicion reserved to foreigners, rubbing elbows with various personalities of the Russian oligarchy. Accredited as a citizen of the Russian Federation, the architect was plunged in a gilded milieu, reknown for its deep-pocketed patrons, secretive networks, and fondness for the grandiose.  

 "I always say with pride that, if there are 120 billionaires in Russia, then 43 of them have been my clients. I'm proud of this. This is a close circle. It's very difficult to get into such a small circle in Russia," the professional said.

 According to Aleksej Navalny, the Italian architect is behind Putin's controversial “Winter Palace” on the Black Sea.

 The Russian elite has historically emblazoned itself with ambitious projects of architecture. Many of its most prominent expressions bear the authorship of Italian engineers. Russian authorities have demonstrated a habitual preference for a technical expertise of Italian provenance. Cirillo traces the steps of his forebearers.

 "Fioravanti built the Kremlin, Rastrelli built the Winter Palace, and so on. Of course, I dream of continuing this historical Italian culture that Italian architects have built. I think it’s every architect's dream," he said.

 Why is Russian leadership so fond of venturing into architecture, as opposed to its more reticent western counterpart? 

 Every State is cohabited by formal and informal powers. Every formal power is justified and confirmed by an institutional front appeasing popular demands for legitimacy. But the material or spiritual primacy of a governing class is cemented by the compresence of other tangible elements of informal nature. 

 In Russia, these two ingridients blend in a powerful admixture. Formal power is thoroughly infested by the informal. The extrainstitutional forces conjured by the state to expand the efficacy and scope of its material means ultimately culminate in a case of possession. The state draws nutrition from the poisoned well of an affluent oligarchy. 

 It is unclear how pathological the corruption has become. Were it extensive, the mecchanism of political legitimisation would come to coincide, not with typical democratic formulas of representation, blatantly discredited, but with the informal, apolitical and unapolagetic coeffecients of raw power: force, truth and mystery.

 Russia’s centralised government structure allotts ample power to its president. This baseline is ulteriorly expanded with reference to Russia’s history, disseminated with autocratic rulers of sort. The threshold of popular tolerance to the demands of power is higher by a European standard. Russian hard power is energetic from start to finish, ambitious in its articulation, and forceful in its application. 

 Force is dispensed regularly over there, as a means to suffocate the instances which could otherwise discredit the regime, that could solicit a catastrophic legitimisation crisis, akin to the dismantellment of the soviet union. 

 Fear of punishment is an effective device of crowd control in the state’s tool kit. For itself however, fear cannot secure the continuity of power.  Violence may deter a protest, but the hearts of those involved cannot be won over, quite the contrary, hardened over time, a protestor matures into a weathered dissident, a desire for reform into a desire for revolution. 

 Authority’s only durable safeguard is to be loved. Once power exhausts its capital of love, its activities become intolerable and intrusive.  Authority is effective when it is obeyed and respected. Love is an abstract notion, but loyalty, devotion and tenderness, are its concrete indicators. To engender these emotions power must become desirable, it must capture the imagination of its subjects. Desirability is a formula, and every social contract is a great love story. 

 Russian leadership understands this all too well. Through the twofold requirement of mystery and truth, power becomes desirable. The combination of these two elements produces an engrossing symbol. 

 The internal workings of a court of justice are largely impenetrable to most, yet with adequate presentation, and a publicly convened consecration to a moral imperative - the building now possess the charisma of truth - a narrative or abstraction impatient to affirm itself to an ontological dignity - Justice! in this specific case. 

 A building of the likes of the Roman “Palazzaccio”, with its austere eclectism, incarnates what could plausibly be described as the inflexible expression of justice. We are unsure of how it proceeds day by day or how it looks like in the inside but we are convinced nevertheless that justice is being dealt there. 

 A materialised idea can produce a stong impression of strength and authority; it inspires awe and reverence if expressed correctly through the correct mediums. Conferring a concrete dimension to an idea produces a symbol. This process is broadly imperfect as concepts are vague and ambigious and matter can only grasp but a glimpse of them. A monument for instance, may recall glory, but it certainly cannot explain it, it cannot exhaust its meaning within itself. 

 Symbols do not procure knowledge, but impressions. They are mysterious aggregates. They can elicit a miscellany of irrational feedbacks: fear, worship, curiosity. The profound feeling of silent deference one feels in the face of a sacred effigy to give an example. 

 Man is restless in the face of the unkown, he suffers its powerful allure. The seductive power of a symbol can be so radical as to engender fanaticism: a forceful form of love, the adoration of something which is not entirely understood, but nevertheless obeyed.  

 Russia's Main Cathedral of the Armed Forces, with its atypical characterisation of a Christian cathedral offers an eloquent example. How different compared to the luminous baroque of latin churches. 

 The sheer volume of its imposing mass, its dark hues of green, the deep veins of gold infused in its walls, remind one of nothing less than a large dormant dragon guarding his treasure. It stirs up a powerful impression of might, it inspires awe and terror. It transfigures the old and evocative myth of Hobbes’s Leviathan. 

 It proceeds further. The dim lighting refracted from its colourful glass mosaics, the thick veils of incense smoke soffused around its halls, the stern faces of command depicted on the sacred icons - it creates a sense of mysterious holiness, it begets reverence and silence. Here, power is clad in prestige, the prestige of an unfathomable truth, and prestige is the currency of strength, the reputation of power. Despite eluding our uninitiated comprehension, we are convinced that a deeper more profound wisdom is embedded therein. We must trust this authority, or else. 

 Authoritative symbols are necessarily obscure; when we discern neither their depth nor arbitrariness, they are imbued with the unknown; they bear its mysterious power. 

 Truths are storylines, divided into minor and higher narratives. Minor narratives concern the explanation of the particular, they circumscribe their validity to a single facet of reality, say the explanation of a historical or natural process. Higher narratives conversely contract with the absolute, they deal in worldviews. 

 Whereas minor narratives posit open truths that are fallibile inasmuch as they can be disproved, higher narratives are intransigent, they have a claim over reality; they seek to encapsulate it in their systems. Even so, some questions present some challenges, they cannot be integrated coherently within the system without difficulty. 

 Great narratives lack the dialectical sophistication for synthesis because they are willfully unrationalised. The vitality of successful higher narratives does not depend on rational discourse, nor in the quantity of its esteemers, but in the intensity of devotion, in the potency of its irrational elements. Their conceptual flaws are concealed by mystery, and mystery can be represented. 

 Russian leadership consacrates its supremacy by crystalising a mysterious and eschatological worldview, through its expressive forms, chief among them: architecture. 

 In a bizarre reversal of the schism of secular and temporal power, the Russian state, militarises orthodoxy and sanctifies the state. In its iconography, Saints are seen alongside soldiers bearing kalashnikovs, iracund archangels can be seen banishing devils with their flaming swords, cathedrals are consecrated to the themes of war, and the portraits of their temporal leaders adorn their chapels. 

 It could feasibly be ascertained, that certain architectural forms exalt the individual, inspiring a collected state of contemplative reflection. Edifices built in proportion to man, reinforce reason and moderation. There simple function is immediately percievable. Whereas their good form stimulates taste. They are conducive towards the harmonious development of all human faculties, they underpin instrumental rationality with sober beauty.

 When architecture ceases to feel compassion for the human, it produces menacing and confusing images. These tend to opress reason and depress personality, diluting the individual in the collective, rousing forth irrational tendencies. Collectivism is infecund insofar as it nullfies the individual, stultifying his genius, in fact, beauty is not the by-product of a collective effort, but the vision of lofty artist put to fruition. 

 Russian architecture merges elements from both sides. Whilst extoling the collective spirit in all its irrational qualities and indecencies, it effectively beutifies it with skill, as testified by its astonishing beauty. Its buildings are colossal and oppressive, but also beautiful and imaginative.

  It is nevertheless a paradox that Russian collectivism, was enriched by the lended genius of what is concievbly the most individualistic culture to date - the Italian. 

 Lanfranco Cirillo, though an epigone of inferior talent, may still be inserted in this line of continuity, coinjoining italians and Russia evermore.

An amusing additional testimony. The leniency with which this particular strain of individualism is treated can also be observed in the secular tradition of rewarding the architects - with lavish salaries.  

 The architect's defence is confident that it can gather documents and testimony to prove that his income was generated outside Italy and therefore that nothing was owed to the tax authorities. 

 "I am surprised to have to face such a challenge after actually having lived for over 20 years in Russia. In that country," Cirillo told Il Giornale di Brescia, "I am proud to have realised important works, employing dozens of Italian companies and bringing the best of Italian excellence into the homes of many of the most important and influential people. With serenity and confidence, however, I have already started to collaborate personally with the magistrate. And I will continue to do so until my position is fully clarified."

 dm