OK...I'm now about two thirds of the way through The Fountainhead. Gail Wyland and Howard Roark are friends, which is driving Dominique crazy. Tooey seems to be on the cusp of hatching an (evil?) plot to take over the Banner and then the world.
I've decided that Howard Roark is an archtype intended to show, unclouded by realistic personality traits, the importance of integrity in the act of creation and that Elsworth Tooey is a foil, intended to show how collaberation and cooperation is the antithesis of quality and the ally of mediocrity.
But as I progress through the book I can't help but wonder about the practical aspects: There's a lot of effort that goes into building anything complex and most of that effort is not creative, just making sure that all the bolts get tightened, that every "t" is crossed and that obvious eventualities are planned for. Rand writes that the Banner ran a picture of Roark captioned "Are you happy, Superman?" and I think to do what Rand describes him as doing, Roark would indeed need to be a superman.
I think of Roark designing skyscrapers (even small ones) in the 20's, without computers. No Autocad, no Excel, yet he's doing all this himself or with the help of a couple of dedicated "draftsmen". I suppose that criticizing Rand on the authenticity of her protrayal of architects is like criticizing Hollywood for its portrayal of software development (see "Tron").
It's also hard to imagine Elsworth Tooey as the villian. Most CEOs of big companies, I venture, are more Tooey-like then Wyland-like. Sole-proprietors can get away with being autocratic and dictatorial. Large companies are political jungles and executives there succeed and function by establishing alliances and exerting influence through networks. When Tooey uses his relationships with various lower-level employees at the Banner to promote a book called "The Gallant Gallstone", I thought of an article I'd read the day before in the Wall Street Journal touting a small upstart on-line advertising placement company as a threat to Google and Yahoo. I wonder how very frequently folks do just what Tooey did to get product placements in the big papers. I'll bet it's quite common.
It's interesting, too, how Roark spurns his customers' input. Sure, it's great to create. Very satisifying, but isn't it importantant that what you create be useful and have a life beyond the act of creation? I'd guess Roark would say no. As long as he gets to build the Stoddard Temple, it's fine that it's destroyed---after all he did get to build it. I feel like Rand cheats a bit. She hasn't yet mentioned architectural suggestions that were not cosmetic in nature. I read a review of Frank Lloyd Wright's "Falling Water" in which it was said that the owner called the edifice "Rising Mildew" and complained about how hard it was to keep it dry. So Wright built this revolutionary building and express his artistic vision, but it failed to satisfy the customer's desire for a comfortable country home.
While looking around to see what other people think of Rand and The Fountainhead, I came across this blog entry by a golf course architect. He categorizes architects into three groups and I found it interesting that he puts the best and worst of architects into the same class as Roark; those "leaders" that have great conviction in what they have to offer, even sometimes leading to the construction of something that is not appropriate to the client.
Rand does mention that Roark built a resort in Pennsylvania targeted at middle-class vacationers and that Roark was able to successfully refocus the customer's intentions into something that offered higher comfort and quality for the same price. For example, Roark designs separate private swimming pools and tennis courts that can be constructed for the same cost as clustered common pools and courts. This, to me, is more important than artistic vision: Skillful interpretation of the customer's requirements, both stated and unstated, blended with the latest in technology to deliver an end project that surprises and delights. This is what Roark did with the Monadnock project.
I've decided that Howard Roark is an archtype intended to show, unclouded by realistic personality traits, the importance of integrity in the act of creation and that Elsworth Tooey is a foil, intended to show how collaberation and cooperation is the antithesis of quality and the ally of mediocrity.
But as I progress through the book I can't help but wonder about the practical aspects: There's a lot of effort that goes into building anything complex and most of that effort is not creative, just making sure that all the bolts get tightened, that every "t" is crossed and that obvious eventualities are planned for. Rand writes that the Banner ran a picture of Roark captioned "Are you happy, Superman?" and I think to do what Rand describes him as doing, Roark would indeed need to be a superman.
I think of Roark designing skyscrapers (even small ones) in the 20's, without computers. No Autocad, no Excel, yet he's doing all this himself or with the help of a couple of dedicated "draftsmen". I suppose that criticizing Rand on the authenticity of her protrayal of architects is like criticizing Hollywood for its portrayal of software development (see "Tron").
It's also hard to imagine Elsworth Tooey as the villian. Most CEOs of big companies, I venture, are more Tooey-like then Wyland-like. Sole-proprietors can get away with being autocratic and dictatorial. Large companies are political jungles and executives there succeed and function by establishing alliances and exerting influence through networks. When Tooey uses his relationships with various lower-level employees at the Banner to promote a book called "The Gallant Gallstone", I thought of an article I'd read the day before in the Wall Street Journal touting a small upstart on-line advertising placement company as a threat to Google and Yahoo. I wonder how very frequently folks do just what Tooey did to get product placements in the big papers. I'll bet it's quite common.
It's interesting, too, how Roark spurns his customers' input. Sure, it's great to create. Very satisifying, but isn't it importantant that what you create be useful and have a life beyond the act of creation? I'd guess Roark would say no. As long as he gets to build the Stoddard Temple, it's fine that it's destroyed---after all he did get to build it. I feel like Rand cheats a bit. She hasn't yet mentioned architectural suggestions that were not cosmetic in nature. I read a review of Frank Lloyd Wright's "Falling Water" in which it was said that the owner called the edifice "Rising Mildew" and complained about how hard it was to keep it dry. So Wright built this revolutionary building and express his artistic vision, but it failed to satisfy the customer's desire for a comfortable country home.
While looking around to see what other people think of Rand and The Fountainhead, I came across this blog entry by a golf course architect. He categorizes architects into three groups and I found it interesting that he puts the best and worst of architects into the same class as Roark; those "leaders" that have great conviction in what they have to offer, even sometimes leading to the construction of something that is not appropriate to the client.
Rand does mention that Roark built a resort in Pennsylvania targeted at middle-class vacationers and that Roark was able to successfully refocus the customer's intentions into something that offered higher comfort and quality for the same price. For example, Roark designs separate private swimming pools and tennis courts that can be constructed for the same cost as clustered common pools and courts. This, to me, is more important than artistic vision: Skillful interpretation of the customer's requirements, both stated and unstated, blended with the latest in technology to deliver an end project that surprises and delights. This is what Roark did with the Monadnock project.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home