So I just picked up the Fountainhead for kicks. The first 3 pages were laughably pretentious, but once I settled in I have to say that I'm enjoying it. Very cinematic, in some ways. Has anyone adapted it into a film? It seems it could be done well while dispensing with some of the melodramatic descriptions. Very simple and compelling structure so far... definitely a study in polarity.
Anyway, there is one thing in particular that irks me. If Howard Rourke has no understanding of how human beings relate to one another in common society, how is it that he has any understanding of floor plans? What business does he have with the "form follows function" mantra, if he barely understands human functions? Why has he embraced the "open floor plan" and how is it exactly that he can "untie a plan like a string"? Is this simply Rand's comment on the purity of "modern design"?
As you read more, you'll come to a passage where he is designing a house for a client, and the client is bowled over by how thoughtful the plan is, seemingly tailored to his needs. The client asks Roark how he did it and Roark tells him that he didn't think of him (the client) at all, he only thought of what the house needed.
after you finish the fountainhead you should read atlas shrugged...
and then i think that's all the ayn rand you'll need...the fountainhead
is a good book...it could probably be about 50-100 pages shorter...
but that's sort of what's great about ayn.
The thing is, you dont' need to know 'people' to make something work. It's just like you don't ahve to be a great archtiect to be a great teacher.
Some of the best plans out there are great in their own purpose, but then, somehow, human relation just flows.
Kinda cool when you think about it.
I don't know if I buy that. Floor plans have historical evolution that reflects changes in essential sociological factors. For instance, whatever happened to maids' quarters and the basement kitchen? Servants "went out of fashion" and people started cooking their own meals. And thus certain standard floor plans evolved.
The formal dining room could also be considered an endangered species today. And take the changes in kitchens over time. In many societies, the kitchen used to be strictly off limits to guests and was even considered an unsightly thing, like one's dirty laundry. Now that social moires have changed, the kitchen is considered a both a utilitarian space and a place for socializing, and therefore it is more likely to be blended into the public sphere of the program.
I don't believe that the best plans are "great in their own purpose", because I don't believe that plans have their own purpose. At most, plans reinterpret or even challenge existing notions of social and functional existence, but this is a result of either a conscious or unconscious effort on the part of the plans' creator. The end result may, indeed be a thing of beauty not attributable so literally to the creator(s), but one must acknowledge the fact that a building is generally the result of a number of decisions made by human beings, no matter how transcendent an experience it may provide.
This is why I am amused by Rourke's apparent mastery of the floor plan. I guess we are to assume that he has this unconscious ability, a prescient sense of how people ought to live, but I find this incongruous with his character, which is essentially isolated.
Great architecture does not become great only because of it's ability to allow human inhabitants to "function" within it, and to respond to their needs with walls and cabinets put in the right place. It also directs views, inspires with spatial qualities, provides a place for memory and experience to inhabit, and in short provides a static "choreography" for humans to move within. I have little experience, but I would like to hear from someone with more whether they have ever had a client "bowled over by how thoughtful the plan is, seemingly tailored to his needs." Ah, fiction. Renderings might bowl someone, but rarely lines on a page...
The problem with Rand's book is that we cannot see these God-breathed floor plans; I found myself imagining something Wrightian, likely because I had been told that the book was inspired by FLW's infamous personality. (semi-spoiler, sorry) Again, it's fiction, and aren't we glad that 'real architects' don't ever have Roark's ego....
Nah, that's not a semi-spoiler... of all the architects with whose legends I have become acquainted, Wright would come about as close to the persona as I could imagine, and I in fact had already made the comparison while reading. Though wouldn't it have been a bit early (Fountainhead published in the early 40s) for his legend to have been so caricatured?
No matter... your points on the spatial qualities of buildings are certainly not lost on me, and I never meant to insinuate that a piece of architecture's greatness is measured solely by its floor plan's ability to accomodate human function. I just meant to point out that it is, however, an important component, and that Rourke would not seem to have any concept of that.
Basically just trying to take a jab at an important premise of the book. I do find it an amusing read, though. I wouldn't think that it would be possible NOT to recognize it as fiction, but considering the number of people who worship the book as if it were a testament...
In any case, good point about renderings... don't know how many lay people get a rise out of floor plans!
Marc
Jan 5, 05 1:24 am ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Howard's floor plans
So I just picked up the Fountainhead for kicks. The first 3 pages were laughably pretentious, but once I settled in I have to say that I'm enjoying it. Very cinematic, in some ways. Has anyone adapted it into a film? It seems it could be done well while dispensing with some of the melodramatic descriptions. Very simple and compelling structure so far... definitely a study in polarity.
Anyway, there is one thing in particular that irks me. If Howard Rourke has no understanding of how human beings relate to one another in common society, how is it that he has any understanding of floor plans? What business does he have with the "form follows function" mantra, if he barely understands human functions? Why has he embraced the "open floor plan" and how is it exactly that he can "untie a plan like a string"? Is this simply Rand's comment on the purity of "modern design"?
Can't wait to see the responses. :-)
Marc
yep, there's a movie, an old B&W one. i don't remember who the director is. you could google it, i suppose.
As you read more, you'll come to a passage where he is designing a house for a client, and the client is bowled over by how thoughtful the plan is, seemingly tailored to his needs. The client asks Roark how he did it and Roark tells him that he didn't think of him (the client) at all, he only thought of what the house needed.
oh, that movie is so bad it's good.
after you finish the fountainhead you should read atlas shrugged...
and then i think that's all the ayn rand you'll need...the fountainhead
is a good book...it could probably be about 50-100 pages shorter...
but that's sort of what's great about ayn.
The thing is, you dont' need to know 'people' to make something work. It's just like you don't ahve to be a great archtiect to be a great teacher.
Some of the best plans out there are great in their own purpose, but then, somehow, human relation just flows.
Kinda cool when you think about it.
trace --
I don't know if I buy that. Floor plans have historical evolution that reflects changes in essential sociological factors. For instance, whatever happened to maids' quarters and the basement kitchen? Servants "went out of fashion" and people started cooking their own meals. And thus certain standard floor plans evolved.
The formal dining room could also be considered an endangered species today. And take the changes in kitchens over time. In many societies, the kitchen used to be strictly off limits to guests and was even considered an unsightly thing, like one's dirty laundry. Now that social moires have changed, the kitchen is considered a both a utilitarian space and a place for socializing, and therefore it is more likely to be blended into the public sphere of the program.
I don't believe that the best plans are "great in their own purpose", because I don't believe that plans have their own purpose. At most, plans reinterpret or even challenge existing notions of social and functional existence, but this is a result of either a conscious or unconscious effort on the part of the plans' creator. The end result may, indeed be a thing of beauty not attributable so literally to the creator(s), but one must acknowledge the fact that a building is generally the result of a number of decisions made by human beings, no matter how transcendent an experience it may provide.
This is why I am amused by Rourke's apparent mastery of the floor plan. I guess we are to assume that he has this unconscious ability, a prescient sense of how people ought to live, but I find this incongruous with his character, which is essentially isolated.
Marc
Great architecture does not become great only because of it's ability to allow human inhabitants to "function" within it, and to respond to their needs with walls and cabinets put in the right place. It also directs views, inspires with spatial qualities, provides a place for memory and experience to inhabit, and in short provides a static "choreography" for humans to move within. I have little experience, but I would like to hear from someone with more whether they have ever had a client "bowled over by how thoughtful the plan is, seemingly tailored to his needs." Ah, fiction. Renderings might bowl someone, but rarely lines on a page...
The problem with Rand's book is that we cannot see these God-breathed floor plans; I found myself imagining something Wrightian, likely because I had been told that the book was inspired by FLW's infamous personality. (semi-spoiler, sorry) Again, it's fiction, and aren't we glad that 'real architects' don't ever have Roark's ego....
Nah, that's not a semi-spoiler... of all the architects with whose legends I have become acquainted, Wright would come about as close to the persona as I could imagine, and I in fact had already made the comparison while reading. Though wouldn't it have been a bit early (Fountainhead published in the early 40s) for his legend to have been so caricatured?
No matter... your points on the spatial qualities of buildings are certainly not lost on me, and I never meant to insinuate that a piece of architecture's greatness is measured solely by its floor plan's ability to accomodate human function. I just meant to point out that it is, however, an important component, and that Rourke would not seem to have any concept of that.
Basically just trying to take a jab at an important premise of the book. I do find it an amusing read, though. I wouldn't think that it would be possible NOT to recognize it as fiction, but considering the number of people who worship the book as if it were a testament...
In any case, good point about renderings... don't know how many lay people get a rise out of floor plans!
Marc
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.