At 09:02 PM 12/8/97 EST, Andrew wrote:
>However, after reading a few pages of Ayn Rand's Fountianhead, I have to
>publish something. First of all, for those of you who don't know what the
>book is about, its the story of an architect who is trying to express his
>modernist ideas in a society that believes all excellent architecture came
>from the past, and architects today cna only duplicate in with different
>materials.
I think EVERYONE has read this book! But keep in mind that the book isn't
really "about" architecture at all. Architecture is just the context Rand
uses to espouse her philosophy.
> ANyways, I found this quote which I thought symbolized
>architecture, thus felt compelled to bless everyone with this quote.
>"'Rules?' said Roark. 'Here are my rules: what can be done with one substance
>must never be done with another. No two materials are alike. No two sites on
>earth are alike. No two buildings have the same purpose. The purpose, the
>site, the material, determine the shape. A building is alive like a man. Its
>integrity is follow its one truth, to follow its theme, and to serve its own
>single purpose. A mand doesn't doesn't borrow pieces of his body. A building
>doesn't borrow a hunk of its soul. Its maker gives it its soul, and every
>wall, window, and stairway to express it.' " The Fountain Head, by Ayn Rand
>pages 24. Maybe this is the idealistic theory of architecture, but I believe
>it is an outstanding one.
Well, obviously, there are many different definitions of
architecture---probably as many as there are architects. Some people
subscribe to these values, some don't. I do, for the most part. Don't forget
that Roark does NOT intend these to be universal values. They are HIS
values, and he really doesn't care about yours. That is Rand's real point:
the primacy of the individual. Serve no master but yourself. Your ideas and
your work are who you are. Rand could have written any rules for Roark, but
they would have to have been absolute rules.
_The Fountainhead_ is a product of its time, when Modernism and Classicism
were still duking it out. It made it easier for Rand to frame the argument.
Many people think Rand modeled Roark after Wright. She may have, but once
again, that wasn't the point. Wright was the most vocal proponent of these
values in the US, that's pretty much it.
For what it's worth, I disagree with Roark in that I do not believe a
building should be the expression of only the maker's soul. There are a lot
of other people involved in the process, too, and their voices need to be
heard in the building, too.
Good Luck!]
mark
>However, after reading a few pages of Ayn Rand's Fountianhead, I have to
>publish something. First of all, for those of you who don't know what the
>book is about, its the story of an architect who is trying to express his
>modernist ideas in a society that believes all excellent architecture came
>from the past, and architects today cna only duplicate in with different
>materials.
I think EVERYONE has read this book! But keep in mind that the book isn't
really "about" architecture at all. Architecture is just the context Rand
uses to espouse her philosophy.
> ANyways, I found this quote which I thought symbolized
>architecture, thus felt compelled to bless everyone with this quote.
>"'Rules?' said Roark. 'Here are my rules: what can be done with one substance
>must never be done with another. No two materials are alike. No two sites on
>earth are alike. No two buildings have the same purpose. The purpose, the
>site, the material, determine the shape. A building is alive like a man. Its
>integrity is follow its one truth, to follow its theme, and to serve its own
>single purpose. A mand doesn't doesn't borrow pieces of his body. A building
>doesn't borrow a hunk of its soul. Its maker gives it its soul, and every
>wall, window, and stairway to express it.' " The Fountain Head, by Ayn Rand
>pages 24. Maybe this is the idealistic theory of architecture, but I believe
>it is an outstanding one.
Well, obviously, there are many different definitions of
architecture---probably as many as there are architects. Some people
subscribe to these values, some don't. I do, for the most part. Don't forget
that Roark does NOT intend these to be universal values. They are HIS
values, and he really doesn't care about yours. That is Rand's real point:
the primacy of the individual. Serve no master but yourself. Your ideas and
your work are who you are. Rand could have written any rules for Roark, but
they would have to have been absolute rules.
_The Fountainhead_ is a product of its time, when Modernism and Classicism
were still duking it out. It made it easier for Rand to frame the argument.
Many people think Rand modeled Roark after Wright. She may have, but once
again, that wasn't the point. Wright was the most vocal proponent of these
values in the US, that's pretty much it.
For what it's worth, I disagree with Roark in that I do not believe a
building should be the expression of only the maker's soul. There are a lot
of other people involved in the process, too, and their voices need to be
heard in the building, too.
Good Luck!]
mark