Howard Roark?

[curious george]

I'm currently reading "The Fountainhead", and am puzzled by a key idea in it. Roark builds not to suit his customers taste, but his own taste. I realize that architecture is naturally subjective, but this seems backwards. Lets say Ford made a totally awful car, it only comes in chartruse, gets two miles the the gallon, and is the ugliest car ever concieved. Even if Ford really loves the car, the market and a capitalistic society will reject it. Isn't capitalism based around economic success? (Not that there isn't much good to be said about following ones own beliefs)...

[D'kian]

I'm currently reading "The Fountainhead", and am puzzled by a key idea in it. Roark builds not to suit his customers taste, but his own taste.

Go back to his conversation with the Dean. Roark states something along the lines of "I don't want to build in order to have clients. I'm going to have clients in order to build." That means he'll build for such clients who want him. He won't twist his designs, or adopt a Peter Keating business model, in order to get clients. His purpose is to build the way he wants to, not to become wealthy.

The client is part of the building problem for Roark, as much as the site of the materials available. For example, he won't up and design a ten bedroom house when the client wants three bedrooms, but he will decide where to put them by his own standards. If the client doesn't like the result, he can shop for another architect. If the client wants to impose design elements Roark does not like, he'll turn down the job. Without spoilers, I'll just say that happens now and again later in the novel.

I don't suppose you've read Atlas Shrugged yet. When you do pay particular attention to the Money Speech. Money is a tool, not an end.

[curious george]

His purpose is to build the way he wants to, not to become wealthy.

I don't suppose you've read Atlas Shrugged yet. When you do pay particular attention to the Money Speech. Money is a tool, not an end.

PT1. Thank you for a good reply, I now see that his goal was not neccesarilly money. But would it be wrong to build to suit a clients tastes if ones goal was money?

PT2. Your right I haven't read Atlas Shugged yet ("Anthem", "We the Living", and working on "The Fountainhead"). My question is what is the end? If money and/or power aren't in society? Is it greatness relative to ones peers? Or simply being the hardest working and/or most fufilled (spoilers welcome).

[D'kian]

PT1. Thank you for a good reply, I now see that his goal was not neccesarilly money. But would it be wrong to build to suit a clients tastes if ones goal was money?

Rand asnwers that question by means of the personalities of the other architects in the novel.

PT2. Your right I haven't read Atlas Shugged yet ("Anthem", "We the Living", and working on "The Fountainhead"). My question is what is the end? If money and/or power aren't in society? Is it greatness relative to ones peers? Or simply being the hardest working and/or most fufilled (spoilers welcome).

Part of it you'll find out in TF, the rest is in Atlas.

[Zip]

PT2. Your right I haven't read Atlas Shugged yet ("Anthem", "We the Living", and working on "The Fountainhead"). My question is what is the end? If money and/or power aren't in society? Is it greatness relative to ones peers? Or simply being the hardest working and/or most fufilled (spoilers welcome).

Living your life.

[Capitalism Forever]

Roark builds not to suit his customers taste, but his own taste. I realize that architecture is naturally subjective

That is the premise you need to check. While it is true that each of us has his personal taste in architecture, the fact that it is personal does not necessarily make it subjective. You can, and should, form your personal standards by a rational, objective thinking process.

The great difference between the business models of Roark and Cameron on the one hand, and people like Keating and Wynand on the other hand, is that the latter tried to cater to the irrational tastes that were currently popular in the culture, while the former went by the following motto:

To give them, Cameron was saying, what they want, but first to teach them to want--to want with their own eyes, their own brains, their own hearts. To teach them to dream--then give the dream to them in steel and mortar[.]

It's a bit like with parents and children. If you don't teach your children how to value things rationally, they will still have various wishes and desires--irrational wishes and desires, i.e. whims. If you then go on to "give them everything they want," meaning: you satisfy all their irrational whims, that does not make you a good parent. To be a good parent means, first of all, to teach your children to think rationally, and then to support them in pursuing rational values.

[phibetakappa]

I realize that architecture is naturally subjective

Architecture is not naturally or un-naturally subjective.

Roark follows the objective principle, "Form follows function," i.e., that the form a building should take, is dictated by the function of the building.

In contrast, if Roark used only his whims or the whims of his clients then his work would be subjective. Subjectivity, describes a mental state where reason is not the active cause in one's mind, but rather one's emotions divorced from fact.

Objectivity is a certain normative condition of a man's consciousness, used to describe how it is functioning. In OPAR, you'll find objectivity defined as, volitional adherence to reality, via the method of logic.

The function a building serves, is supposed to serve, is being designed to serve necessarily redounds around a set of contextual requirements. If designing a supermarket, the function of a supermarket is to provide a market for groceries.

A good market vs. a bad market is dictated by certain objective factors such as a ) the nature of people as such (how large are they, how fast do they move, how does the average process of selecting groceries work) b ) the nature of groceries (their size, do they spoil, how are they typically apportioned c ) the nature of the conventional system of exchange in effect (what medium of exchange is used, how are transactions to be made etc.)

To understand the objective nature of a bad market, just imagine your typical supermarket, but start changing things like: push the isles closer together so only one person can pass at a time, randomly arrange the food so there’s no order, locate the cash registers in the back of the store, don’t provide wheeled carts, make the shelves nine feet high, or don’t use shelves, etc.

In the context of a supermarket, any volitionally selected element of its designed is either “optimal” or “efficient,” based on the intended function of the building, as-well-as the actual nature of all the objects interacting in the space.

Again, in OPAR, you'll find objectivity defined as, volitional adherence to reality, via the method of logic. Where does the “logic” come in?

Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. If the indented function of the building, is to maximize and facilitate the exchange of goods between the store and the patrons, then having super high shelving, cramped isles, and/or disorganized goods, “contradicts” the intended function, i.e., the indented function of the store, is made possible by the form of the store, and it cannot both be well-designed, and not well-designed at the same time and in the same respect.

Edited July 8, 2009 by phibetakappa

[exaltron]

It's a bit like with parents and children. If you don't teach your children how to value things rationally, they will still have various wishes and desires--irrational wishes and desires, i.e. whims. If you then go on to "give them everything they want," meaning: you satisfy all their irrational whims, that does not make you a good parent. To be a good parent means, first of all, to teach your children to think rationally, and then to support them in pursuing rational values.

You mean like this? That would get my award for Parenting Most Likely to Lead to Childrens' Neurosis.

Well said by the way, excellent analogy.

[John Link]

You mean like this? That would get my award for Parenting Most Likely to Lead to Childrens' Neurosis.

Just imagine how the kids will react when, years later, they find out that their father engineered this deception.

By the way, did you get the job?

John Link

[Capitalism Forever]

Just imagine how the kids will react when, years later, they find out that their father engineered this deception.

Since the dog's new home is only 20 minutes away, it may actually be a matter of weeks or days rather than years...

[musenji]

PT2. Your right I haven't read Atlas Shugged yet ("Anthem", "We the Living", and working on "The Fountainhead"). My question is what is the end? If money and/or power aren't in society? Is it greatness relative to ones peers? Or simply being the hardest working and/or most fufilled (spoilers welcome).

Have you ever created something you were truly proud of? A thing which no one had ever thought of before, but you created because to you it was a good idea, and when you finished the project, you felt you brought that good idea to life? If you have known that sort of pride, then you know the answer. Roark gets that kind of pride from creating/designing his buildings, and seeing them constructed. He could design as much as he wanted in a room by himself, but he would not be able to see the buildings erected. That, I think, is the meaning of "I have clients in order to build".