A question about the Fountainhead...

[Dave2]

This is no doubt an ignorant question but I read the book a long time ago and something out of the blue came to me: In the Fountainhead when Howard Roarke asserts his prerogative by blowing up the building isn't he employed by a corporation? He wasn't working for the government. He was an employee of a capitalist entity. And that's what he was rebelling against, wasn't he? According to the strict dictates of capitalism wouldn't Roarke's actions be completely unjustified. He was paid. His bosses could do whatever they wanted with his vision and he had no right to cry about it-- even if they put it to some collectivist purpose that was anaethema to him. He was paid. He took their money. He sold them his designs. Isn't the idea that that an artist shouldn't be beholden to the guys with the money... I mean, isn't that a left wing anti-capitalist notion? The notion that capitalism drags things down to the lowest common denominator and the individual has to resist that isn't that socialist? That's like Marcuse or Adorno or something. I'm sure there's an obvious answer to this incoherently worded question, but that's it.

Thanks.

And I realize I kind of veered into a second point there. Sorry. (Hoping that apology is not a sign of weakness.)

[Chris Grieb]

Dave2; If I am not mistaken Howard Raork was the sole owner of his firm. His designing Courtland was an arrangement with Peter Keating Howard supplies the genius. Keating the political pull. Howard on his buildings was a contactor to the owners building the buildings.

[Reidy]

In addition to what Grieb has said, Keating's clients were a government agency, not a corporation. The movie is, puzzlingly, unclear on this, but the book lays this out at length. In any case, Roark didn't take money for the job, so he wasn't, stricly speaking, working for anybody.

Peter

[seeker]

Dave2; If I am not mistaken Howard Raork was the sole owner of his firm. His designing Courtland was an arrangement with Peter Keating Howard supplies the genius. Keating the political pull. Howard on his buildings was a contactor to the owners building the buildings.

I just finished reading Fountainhead. Roark's agreement was to design and give Peter Keating the entire plans for the Courtland project and Roark had one and only one conditon : the project was to be built exactly as Roark designed it - with not even a single change - in fact Roark made it plain that he wanted nothing else in payment. Roark was the sole owner of his own business at the time.

The justification for destroying the project was that it wasn't built exactly as Roark had designed it but that changes had been made to his designs -- modifications were made to add the classical look among other things. Roark had been betrayed not so much by Peter Keating as by the government corporation which had mandated the changes, Keating was powerless to do anything to prevent it.

[Barbara Branden]

Dave, Roark's contract was with Keating; Keating's contract -- which contained Roark's clause that no changes in the design could be made -- was with the government, which built the project. Had the builder been a private company, Roark (or Keating) could have sued for breach of contract, demanding that the original design be restored. But a citizen cannot sue the government without the government's consent. As Rand explained, this is why Roark knew there would be no redress for the breach of contract and why he destroyed the buildings.

Barbara

[reason.on]

Dave, Roark's contract was with Keating; Keating's contract -- which contained Roark's clause that no changes in the design could be made -- was with the government, which built the project. Had the builder been a private company, Roark (or Keating) could have sued for breach of contract, demanding that the original design be restored. But a citizen cannot sue the government without the government's consent. As Rand explained, this is why Roark knew there would be no redress for the breach of contract and why he destroyed the buildings.

There is also the additional layer of "payment". Roark says that no man is obligated to offer the value of his productive work without "payment" (no man is obligated to tolerate theft, or live in slavery); in this case, Roark's stipulated "payment" for building Cortland is the challenge and reward of the problem itself, the work itself, the result (the building) itself. As Peter noted, Roark doesn't get any fame or money from his deal with Keating. So, by altering the idea, the solution and the resultant structure, Roark's "payment" is reneged, and the contract broken, and as BB explained the only course of action he had--in order to maintain his integrity and not live a slave--was to revoke his idea, his building from its unpaid usage.

It is his payment, in particular, that makes the courtroom arugement work. However, one might argue in turn that Roark wasn't completely honest with Keating with regard to the terms of his deal...since, if I recall correctly, Roark never tells Peter what might happen if the terms of the contract are broken.

RCR

[Barbara Branden]

Christian: "However, one might argue in turn that Roark wasn't completely honest with Keating with regard to the terms of his deal...since, if I recall correctly, Roark never tells Peter what might happen if the terms of the contract are broken."

I doubt if Roark gave much thought to what he would do, because although he might have expected that small details of his plan would be challenged and perhaps altered, he didn't expect to discover that a monstrosity had been subsituted for his design.

Barbara

[Rodney]

I would also caution that one should not read too much into specific plot details and wordings used by Ayn Rand. In her fiction she was operating as an artist, and sometimes the artistic effect took precedence over intellectual precision.

For example, one might, if reading myopically, conclude that Ayn Rand had a touch of mysticism because of that line following the occurrence of the words "Cortlandt Homes" to the effect that, to Keating, "the name had sounded like the muffled stoke of a bell; as if the sound had opened and closed a sequence which he would not be able to stop." But clearly all it means is that Rand wanted the reader to experience a certain sense of significance and inevitability attached to the events that followed.

I see the same mistake in reactions to her nonfiction statements as well--especially in assessments of her epistemology. But if you keep in mind that Rand espoused both the exact and the natural use of language, one can put her words in context and perspective.

Edited October 11, 2006 by ashleyparkerangel

[Judith]

The question does arise, however: what would keep the building owners from rebuilding it? Having disclosed the design, Roark couldn't go into their minds and make them forget it. I know the book was written in the age before photocopiers were invented, but surely there were so many copies of the designs in existence among the contractors and subcontractors that the entire master design could have been reconstructed without too much trouble. I've always wondered about that. Roark destroyed the physical embodiment of the design, but it's impossible to destroy the creation itself when the creation is an idea that has "backups", so to speak, that aren't accessible to him.

Judith

[James Shay]

The question does arise, however: what would keep the building owners from rebuilding it? Having disclosed the design, Roark couldn't go into their minds and make them forget it. I know the book was written in the age before photocopiers were invented, but surely there were so many copies of the designs in existence among the contractors and subcontractors that the entire master design could have been reconstructed without too much trouble. I've always wondered about that. Roark destroyed the physical embodiment of the design, but it's impossible to destroy the creation itself when the creation is an idea that has "backups", so to speak, that aren't accessible to him.

Judith

Architectural drawings are issued, along with the other information required to construct a building, as "instruments of service". The architect retains ownership of them and, in effect, licenses them for a one time use, unless other arrangements are made with a client. Although there is the common misconception that drawings may be used multiple times, the reality of document ownership is made clear in the contract between the architect and owner.

In the real world of design and construction, without the wonderfully imaginative artistic license Rand employed, Roark would have known things were going very off the rails on the Courtland project long before construction began. As he reviewed the progress of the construction drawings for compliance with the vision contained in his early design sketches and drawings, the deviations would become apparent. He would not have simply given Keating sketches and let it go at that. If the drawings were modified after initial completion, the time lag required to do the changes before the beginning of construction probably would have tipped him off. Perhaps the classical details were tacked-on during construction, but I believe many of the changes were more substantial and would have required extensive changes to the construction documents.

The affirmation of individual human creativity, shown in Roark's career as an architect, is one of the themes that makes The Fountainhead as great as it is. But, the other side of that - the contempt for so many other architects, which is similar to the attitude of Frank Lloyd Wright, and the relentless presentation of Roark as the sole creator of his structures - without collaborators in his office, outside engineers, and others - are what make The Fountainhead unpopular among architects.

[Judith]

Architectural drawings are issued, along with the other information required to construct a building, as "instruments of service". The architect retains ownership of them and, in effect, licenses them for a one time use, unless other arrangements are made with a client. Although there is the common misconception that drawings may be used multiple times, the reality of document ownership is made clear in the contract between the architect and owner.

Ah -- thanks for clearing that up. I wish Rand had made it clear -- one or two sentences would have done it.

Judith