Fountainhead Questions

[airborne]

It would be cool to have a thread for discussion on the book/ significance of characters/events/actions. Anyway,

On pg. 197 Roark turns down a commission from Weidler, for the building of a bank. He does this because they want to add a small facade to the side of a building. Then he claims its the most "selfish" thing he's ever done. I find this hard to believe. Firstly, if one were to live so perfectly not only would he refuse to pay any taxes - he would rather fight his oppressors than let them force his mind. Basically, I don't see how turning down a commission was in his self-interest. He could've started somewhere. What would've happened if he didn't get any other commissions later. He would've died like Henry Cameron, perfectly right? dieing drunk and refusing to build anything that's not "perfect" because its not in your "self-interest".

Also anyone notice Toohey always uses a shit sense of humor for everything? I think this is a form of manipulation. Everything can be ridiculed. If you dont laugh its because you don't have a "sense of humor" as he says. When talking about people he always mentions the most insignificant repulsive things. E.g. Talking to Keating about Catherine - young couples "hands perspire - still its beautiful". Later, Keating thinks about his and Catherines hands perspiring and becomes more anxious about them looking like "Mickey mouse"(also a concept subconsciously inserted by Toohey). There are other references to them having children with "measles" and how its beautiful etc. I see that this idea is that Toohey is always equating beauty with ugliness. Measles = Beautiful. A stupid looking couple/ Micky Mouse couple = cute. Hands perspiring = cute. If Catherine wasn't clumsy = We wouldn't like her as much.

I guess you could call it manipulation of some sort...(good references around pg 236)

Edited October 10, 2007 by airborne

[KendallJ]

Basically, I don't see how turning down a commission was in his self-interest... What would've happened if he didn't get any other commissions later.

Well, that's the whole question. What are you willing to compromise to "get started"? And what must you not compromise because in doing so, you compromise your vision of what you will be when you get there.

What is Roark trading away in this hypothetical trade that is worth more to him than the commission? Answer that and you'll know why it's the most selfish thing he's ever done...

[D'kian]

Also anyone notice Toohey always uses a shit sense of humor for everything? I think this is a form of manipulation. Everything can be ridiculed. If you dont laugh its because you don't have a "sense of humor" as he says.

Doesn't he say so himself in his last scene with Peter Keating? He comes clean, so to speak, about what he's been doing and how people like Keating help him do it. He refers to using humor to ridicule and thus destroy values. He says "One does not reverence with a giggle." It's pretty clear by then

[musenji]

For clarification, he did not say it was the most selfish thing he'd ever done. He said it was the most selfish thing they'd ever seen a man do. Which doesn't change the meat of this discussion, really, but I wanted to point it out for the sake of accuracy.

[X-Factor]

"Basically, I don't see how turning down a commission was in his self-interest..."

Ayn Rand writes about Frank Lloyd Wright in her Journals: he accepted once a commission where he had to make a compromise. Afterwards, he felt quite ashamed of it.

[Matus1976]

Basically, I don't see how turning down a commission was in his self-interest. He could've started somewhere. What would've happened if he didn't get any other commissions later. He would've died like Henry Cameron, perfectly right? dieing drunk and refusing to build anything that's not "perfect" because its not in your "self-interest".

I think your mistake here is confusing the root of self interest. Roark is not acting merely to perpetuate life as his mechanical physical existence, but is acting to further a *particular* kind of life, a good life, to him, consistent with his deepest values. When he is not able to perpetuate his mechanical existence while furthering those values, he does not starve to death, but takes a different job (working in the quarry) which does not comprimise his values.

[Gary Brenner]

On pg. 197 Roark turns down a commission from Weidler, for the building of a bank. He does this because they want to add a small facade to the side of a building. Then he claims its the most "selfish" thing he's ever done. I find this hard to believe. Firstly, if one were to live so perfectly not only would he refuse to pay any taxes - he would rather fight his oppressors than let them force his mind. Basically, I don't see how turning down a commission was in his self-interest. He could've started somewhere. What would've happened if he didn't get any other commissions later. He would've died like Henry Cameron, perfectly right? dieing drunk and refusing to build anything that's not "perfect" because its not in your "self-interest".

I should preface my remarks by saying that The Fountainhead is a Great American Novel and Rand’s best book. Furthermore, I understand the dramatic purpose served by having Roark accept no compromises even at the cost of his own career.

However, it needs to be said that architecture is both an art and a business. Roark was a superlative designer but not a very good businessman. Capitalism is, in part, about satisfying consumer demand at the lowest cost

I am reminded of a friend of our family, Leonard, who operated a men’s hat store for many years. Up until the 1960s, dress hats, the soft felt kind with a brim that ran all the way around, were worn by virtually every gentleman and those who aspired to be gentlemen. And Leonard had the best hat store in town.

But as standards of attire relaxed, the dress hat began to disappear. Leonard was unable to attract new customers, and his existing customers, those who bucked current fashion and insisted on wearing fedoras and homburgs, slowly began to die off.

Leonard could have changed with the times and sold baseball caps, but he thought they were ugly and didn’t belong on men outside of a sports arena. He refused to carry them.

In the 1980s he ran out of money, closed his shop and took a job selling suits in a department store.

I understand why Roark and Leonard insisted on selling a particular product or nothing at all. But at the same time, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with making money by selling baseball caps or Colonial Revival houses.

I wouldn’t want Rand to change a word of The Fountainhead. But a real life functionalist who couldn’t market the designs he loved would be well advised to attend to the preferences of his potential clients – and keep the functionalism in reserve for the infrequent kindred spirit.

[AMERICONORMAN]

Roark was ahead of his time. And he was willing to work in a granite quarry. Under what circumstance would he ever design Colonial Revival Houses? And Roark doesn't see his art as a business too. He needs clients to build, not the other way around. No artist should sell out if he's capable at a particular place in time to do better than what the public expects. It is interesting that Rand chose Architecture to draw this idea, since architecture is perhaps the most tempting to sell out on. I could not understand why anyone with the ability of a realist painter, would instead paint subjective swirls and splashes. I wouldn't be able to stop my hand from trembling.

Jose.

[Capitalism Forever]

Roark was a superlative designer but not a very good businessman.

Whether one agrees with that evaluation, of course, depends on one's standard of what is good.

[Ifat Glassman]

It would be cool to have a thread for discussion on the book/ significance of characters/events/actions. Anyway,

On pg. 197 Roark turns down a commission from Weidler, for the building of a bank. He does this because they want to add a small facade to the side of a building. Then he claims its the most "selfish" thing he's ever done. I find this hard to believe. Firstly, if one were to live so perfectly not only would he refuse to pay any taxes - he would rather fight his oppressors than let them force his mind. Basically, I don't see how turning down a commission was in his self-interest. He could've started somewhere. What would've happened if he didn't get any other commissions later. He would've died like Henry Cameron, perfectly right? dieing drunk and refusing to build anything that's not "perfect" because its not in your "self-interest".

If I knew you any better I could have given you an example based on your own life. But I do not, so I'll give one based on mine.

I'm a painter. Here is one of my paintings: Victorious ice dance.

Suppose somebody offered me a lot of money in exchange for this paintings, if only I added a funny red clown nose to the man and woman. Do you think the benefit of such deal outweighs the (...let's call it the) bad side of it?

Money is not an end in itself. Its purpose is to allow you to purchase things for survival and enjoyment. For me, it is not enjoyable to make a living while ridiculing the best within me. The money would have no value if I were a hooker.

And the case with Roark that you mentioned is the same. I think maybe a piece of art being corrupted is easier to understand than a building you never saw.

[AMERICONORMAN]

If I knew you any better I could have given you an example based on your own life. But I do not, so I'll give one based on mine.

I'm a painter. Here is one of my paintings: Victorious ice dance.

Suppose somebody offered me a lot of money in exchange for this paintings, if only I added a funny red clown nose to the man and woman. Do you think the benefit of such deal outweighs the (...let's call it the) bad side of it?

Money is not an end in itself. Its purpose is to allow you to purchase things for survival and enjoyment. For me, it is not enjoyable to make a living while ridiculing the best within me. The money would have no value if I were a hooker.

And the case with Roark that you mentioned is the same. I think maybe a piece of art being corrupted is easier to understand than a building you never saw.

By the way, did I ever tell you that I think you are a wonderful artist, especially considering that you learned most of it, if not all, first hand? Spectacular. I love your ease with sensuality.

[~Sophia~]

If you are faced with having to sacrifice your creative integrity in order to make a financial profit, finding some other way of making a living (one which does not come at such a high cost) IS the right decision in most cases.

[Gary Brenner]

Capitalism Forever wrote:

Whether one agrees with that evaluation, of course, depends on one's standard of what is good.

Well, I meant "good businessman" in the sense of being able to make a profit. There are, of course, many lovely people who aren't particularly good at running a company.

Roark was ahead of his time. And he was willing to work in a granite quarry. Under what circumstance would he ever design Colonial Revival Houses? And Roark doesn't see his art as a business too. He needs clients to build, not the other way around.

My friend Leonard needed clients to sell hats. But he refused to offer them the hats they wanted to buy. So no clients. No selling of hats.

~Sophia~ wrote:

If you are faced with having to sacrifice your creative integrity in order to make a financial profit, finding some other way of making a living (one which does not come at such a high cost) IS the right decision in most cases.

But that's a sacrifice too, isn't it? If Roark is breaking rocks instead of drawing floor plans, he's not advancing his career or his theory of architecture.

[RationalBiker]

But that's a sacrifice too, isn't it? If Roark is breaking rocks instead of drawing floor plans, he's not advancing his career or his theory of architecture.

No sacrifice. If one's circumstances requires one to break rocks to put food in one's mouth, one breaks rocks instead of drawing floor plans. Breaking rocks 'advances' his career in that it keeps him alive until he gets to the point where drawing floor plans puts food in his mouth. This also wouldn't prevent him from drawing floor plans in his off time.

[~Sophia~]

But that's a sacrifice too, isn't it? If Roark is breaking rocks instead of drawing floor plans, he's not advancing his career or his theory of architecture.

No it is not.

His primary value was not advancing his career (like it was for Keating). Rightfully, architecture to him was not an end goal but only provided means to achieving a higher goal of self-fulfillment/happiness. To a fully rational/moral being those can only be achieved in a particular way.

Contrasting of Wynand with Roark served to highlight this. Wynand was the one who took the path of "good businessman" (according to your definition).

[Gary Brenner]

No sacrifice. If one's circumstances requires one to break rocks to put food in one's mouth, one breaks rocks instead of drawing floor plans. Breaking rocks 'advances' his career in that it keeps him alive until he gets to the point where drawing floor plans puts food in his mouth. This also wouldn't prevent him from drawing floor plans in his off time.

As I recall, one of Roark's options for putting food in his mouth was to design the kind of buildings that were in demand at the time. Now no one faults him for not holding on to his ideals and principals. But where was he more likely to meet men whom he could interest in his designs? In a rock quarry or an architectural firm?

No it is not.

His primary value was not advancing his career (like it was for Keating). Rightfully, architecture to him was not an end goal but only provided means to achieving a higher goal of self-fulfillment/happiness. To a fully rational/moral being those can only be achieved in a particular way.

If Roark were equally happy/self-fulfilled breaking rocks or designing buildings, then he would not have bothered to return to New York to design the Enright House. Obviously, architecture was the thing he was born to do. Remember that Roger Enright had trouble locating Roark because he had left architecture entirely. Had Roark stayed in New York and worked as a draftsman for other architects, his talents and ideas would been seen by those who could offer him the kind of work he really wanted to do. And regarding compromise, if Roark can help the government with its immoral collectivist housing project, why not help a private business with its Beaux Arts office building?

[KendallJ]

If Roark were equally happy/self-fulfilled breaking rocks or designing buildings, then he would not have bothered to return to New York to design the Enright House.

Whoa, there are 3 options there and you've lumped in 2 with your broad brush "designing buildings". Context is awfully critical. It defines the terms under which you are willing to do something.

1. Designing artistically crap buildings on the terms of others.

2. Designing buildlings that match his creative desires and purposes.

based upon his demonstrated actions, it's is safe to say that his value judgements are such:

1. Designing to his own terms

2. Breaking rocks

3. Designing on others terms

Roark was not equally happy designing buidlings under any arbitrary terms whatsoever. His artistic freedom is more important to him that actually getting to draw a building.

[KendallJ]

However, it needs to be said that architecture is both an art and a business. Roark was a superlative designer but not a very good businessman. Capitalism is, in part, about satisfying consumer demand at the lowest cost

There is an element of truth to what you are saying here, however I think you've placed it in innapropriate principles. When Rand discusses the fact that there is no design by committee she is focusing specifically on the artistic or creative premises. That is, to the extent that Roark is an artist, one must consider how he views his artistic integrity.

There is compromise and concession all over the place in business, in general. It is part of a cooperative effort, even among rational men. Certainly, when marketing products one caters to their clients, and even may design to their tastes. However, these are not on artistic elements. When considering creative endeavors, this factor and how much it is valued comes into play.

In fact, I would argue that in the realm of creative marketing, Roark is a superb businessman, because his artistic reputation affect how much value he is able to obtain from the clients who do value his work later on. Reputation, and integrity in the artistic real matter to a client. This is why authors write lowbrow fare under pen names. He could compromise his artistic principles now, but I expect that later he would not obtain as much value from te types of houses he does want to build.

One could argue that he should have stayed in the city, but the fact is he had other reasons for choosing to leave architecture for a while, and if he is confident that people will one day seek him out, regardless of where he is, then it is irrelevant. In fact, the best advertising for an architect are the buildings he has already built.

Edited March 20, 2008 by KendallJ

[ChristopherSchlegel]

As I recall, one of Roark's options for putting food in his mouth was to design the kind of buildings that were in demand at the time. Now no one faults him for not holding on to his ideals and principals.

No one in the book? Or any given reader? To whom does this "no one" refer?

I personally would "fault him". It would have made a terrible development in the book (and his characterization).

But where was he more likely to meet men whom he could interest in his designs? In a rock quarry or an architectural firm?

But where did he meet Dominique?

Remember that Roger Enright had trouble locating Roark because he had left architecture entirely.

So that Rand could send him to the quarry! To have him hit "rock bottom" and still be what he was, not bitter, not a failure, still just Roark ("I am only myself." ). And of course so that he could meet Dominique. What genius story plotting by Rand.

Had Roark stayed in New York and worked as a draftsman for other architects, his talents and ideas would been seen by those who could offer him the kind of work he really wanted to do.

And made for a terrible story!

And regarding compromise, if Roark can help the government with its immoral collectivist housing project, why not help a private business with its Beaux Arts office building?

Because he made the right decision in turning down the commission. And that allows Rand to put him in the quarry. Great plot development! In contrast, helping Keating was a mistake that Roark made and which he then had to bear the consequences of. Another genius plot development.

I think you might be forgetting Roark is a stylized character in a carefully structured story. As opposed to your friend, Leonard, who is (was?) an actual human being.

[Gary Brenner]

Whoa, there are 3 options there and you've lumped in 2 with your broad brush "designing buildings". Context is awfully critical. It defines the terms under which you are willing to do something.

1. Designing artistically crap buildings on the terms of others.

2. Designing buildlings that match his creative desires and purposes.

based upon his demonstrated actions, it's is safe to say that his value judgements are such:

1. Designing to his own terms

2. Breaking rocks

3. Designing on others terms

Roark was not equally happy designing buidlings under any arbitrary terms whatsoever. His artistic freedom is more important to him that actually getting to draw a building.

I think the context of “designing buildings” was clear enough. There is no disagreement on this thread that Roark preferred breaking rocks to designing on others’ terms. The point I raised stands: if one’s ultimate goal is operate a successful architectural firm that markets plans of a particular style, how does one get there? By sweating as a day laborer in Nowheresville, USA or by working under an established architect where one can make contacts and build a reputation for efficiency and innovation?

There is an element of truth to what you are saying here, however I think you've placed it in innapropriate principles. When Rand discusses the fact that there is no design by committee she is focusing specifically on the artistic or creative premises. That is, to the extent that Roark is an artist, one must consider how he views his artistic integrity.

There is compromise and concession all over the place in business, in general. It is part of a cooperative effort, even among rational men. Certainly, when marketing products one caters to their clients, and even may design to their tastes. However, these are not on artistic elements. When considering creative endeavors, this factor and how much it is valued comes into play.

In fact, I would argue that in the realm of creative marketing, Roark is a superb businessman, because his artistic reputation affect how much value he is able to obtain from the clients who do value his work later on. Reputation, and integrity in the artistic real matter to a client. This is why authors write lowbrow fare under pen names. He could compromise his artistic principles now, but I expect that later he would not obtain as much value from te types of houses he does want to build.

One could argue that he should have stayed in the city, but the fact is he had other reasons for choosing to leave architecture for a while, and if he is confident that people will one day seek him out, regardless of where he is, then it is irrelevant. In fact, the best advertising for an architect are the buildings he has already built.

If Roark was a superb businessman, then he was a superb businessman who had no clients, no money to pay the rent, and eventually no business. As I said, he is like my friend Leonard whose insistence that there is only one kind of hat for gentlemen brought him to the point where he had no customers and then no hats.

As for reputation, I do not know of any field in which an assistant is held responsible for the final look of a product. Writer-Director Joseph L. Mankiewicz, for example, worked on dozens of mediocre movies before giving us the classic All About Eve. And what do people remember him for today? Certainly not Only Saps Work.

Even Ayn Rand contributed her talents to mediocre products. Ever seen You Came Along? I have, and it’s not what comes to mind when I think “Ayn Rand.”

[KendallJ]

If Roark was a superb businessman, then he was a superb businessman who had no clients, no money to pay the rent, and eventually no business.

Picking a point in time and judging a businessman by the number of clients and revenue he has at that point in time is a ludicrous way to evaluate a businessman. Business failure and times of business start-up are common occurences, and are common even for the greatest businessmen. Failure is part of learning, and the ability to learn and adapt is a key aspect of business. Roark and your friend are very different because of how they ended their careers, not because of their situation at any point in time.

[KendallJ]

The point I raised stands: if one’s ultimate goal is operate a successful architectural firm that markets plans of a particular style, how does one get there? By sweating as a day laborer in Nowheresville, USA or by working under an established architect where one can make contacts and build a reputation for efficiency and innovation?

The path you mention is really only one path to such an end, and it is really only arguably the best path in the case of the average person. I recommend such paths to people of average persuasion. There are many alternates that are viable, and there is a maxim I consider when I consider when to open those up to others:

If you're good enough, it is not necessary nor is it necessarily the most effective route to follow conventional paths and still succeed.

The question is do you have the knowledge and to know how good you really are or will be, the commitment to make yourself into that vision, and the self-confidence to strike out on the road less travelled now.

Stop applying the law of averages to a context that specifically is not meant to show that.

[KendallJ]

As for reputation, I do not know of any field in which an assistant is held responsible for the final look of a product. Writer-Director Joseph L. Mankiewicz, for example, worked on dozens of mediocre movies before giving us the classic All About Eve. And what do people remember him for today? Certainly not Only Saps Work.

Well wait a minute. This proves my last statement that the path you give is hardly optimal. The senarios are not the same then. What does a prospective architectural client buy? if not the final look of the product. You said Roark should work for a known architect so he could "make contacts and build a reputation for efficiency and innovation."

1. Roark wants certain types of contacts, looking for a certain type of product. How will a job working for someone who solicits clients who aren't those clients help him make contacts? If it is just general networking amongst those with means to buy his commissions, in the hopes that someone knows someone who knows someone who might like his designs, then there are a zillion ways to do that, up to and including waiting for them to see the best advertising you have, the buildings you've already built.

2. If he is just a draftsman, how is he to gain a reputation for what his customers buy, namely his design philosophy? How is he to be known for the particular type of innovation he wants his clients to value if he is working in a situation where that is the type of innovation that you claim he will not be known for since none of his masters design reputation will rub off on him.

3. A reputation for efficiency as a draftsman does not translate into such efficiency in the abilty to run a design team, nor to create designs of his own. At best he might have a general association with someone which might rub off on him, but that is a real reach and really only valueable if the kind of clients he seeks are more interested in who he worked for than what he creates. I think you're reaching here.

One goes and works in a filed in subordinate jobs to learn the business or make contacts with people who can give you a break, enabling you to strike out on your own. Rand and Mankewiecz were learning how to be writer/directors. That is a perfectly valid reason to "apprentice" or work your way up. The fact is that if, like Roark, you already know what you need to know and people who can enable you are to be found elsewhere, or will seek you out, then there is no reason why you should have to start that way. The case can easily be made that both of these things are true of Roark, and therefore your judgement of his business skills is unwarranted.

Edited March 20, 2008 by KendallJ

[aequalsa]

Failure is part of learning, and the ability to learn and adapt is a key aspect of business.

To add to this point, I from(I think it was 'the millionaire next door'), the average millionaire in the US is 56 years old and has been bankrupt twice. Great achievement in any regard requires great risk and with great risk comes great failure as well as great rewards.

Gary, I think you misunderstand Roark's primary purpose. He never intended to run a successful architectural firm, make money, or be pragmatic even if you, I, and even Miss Rand might rationally choose otherwise in his shoes. I would argue that architecture for him is a religion more then a rational pursuit. In all the rest of life, compromises must be made, government buildings must be built, difficulties must be endured, rocks must be hammered, but in architecture, he was unwilling to compromise. That was his line in the sand. More important to him then any discomfort or inconvenience was the independence of his thought in regard to this one value. This wasn't a job or a career, it was a sacred duty to the content of his soul. He would not compromise this highest value under any circumstances. If this means that he only builds one house, then he will have one house built according to the independent dictates of his mind. Quantity does not matter to him.

Remember it's a book about the soul of an individualist. Not the philosophy of one. Not the sensibility of one. It's a novel, and this is how the theme is presented. It allows a window into the inner workings of someone capable of valuing something so completely, that all other considerations are not of consequence. All that matters is being able to build something that is completely his.

[~Sophia~]

If Roark were equally happy/self-fulfilled breaking rocks or designing buildings, then he would not have bothered to return to New York to design the Enright House. Obviously, architecture was the thing he was born to do.

I did not say that. Breaking rocks gave him the flexibility, the freedom to be selective in terms of what kind of projects he would accept. Due to his honesty, compromising today in order to build in the way he believed it should be done at some point - would have eliminated the possibility of his self fulfillment/self pride forever, regardless of future 'success'.

Architecture to another may not mean the same thing; it maybe just be a way of making a living doing something they happen to be good at (or the goal maybe like you said: to operate a successful architectural firm), in which case, how to go about it rationally may mean something different. That is not being in his shoes, however. In his shoes (or in shoes of anyone of similar moral character who values something his much), that was the only choice one could make in order to maintain a chance at the life he wanted.

Rand was very firm when talking to publishers about TF. She insisted, being an unknown at the time writer, on her work getting published exactly the way she wrote it without ANY revisions. This was highly unusual and brave request for a writer to make in her position.

Edited March 20, 2008 by ~Sophia~