Helen Mirren gives a devastating portrayal of her in the Passion of Ayn Rand. For those who don't know the story, Rand fell for a young protege, a man whom she appointed as her intellectual heir. It was hot and heavy for a while, then he stopped the affair (they were both married). She proceeded to try to destroy his life. The whole sordid tale is well documented multiple places. Needless to say, her behavior showed just how different real people are from the heroic characters in her books.
But none of this takes away from what a fascinating character she was.
rand's affair with nathaniel branden.. really pathetic. she really looked like an out of touch louse when she attacked him. his rebuttal (on his website) is equally entertaining... maybe if she didn't think affairs with married men 1/4 century younger than herself were plausible, people might take her seriously today. agree with nevermore, highly overrated, and i'm sick of people bringing her up in regards to architecture.
anyone else think howard roark and the fountainhead have damaged the profession as much as charles moore and co.?
What irritates me most is that Today she's been given the status of a "philosopher" !
I find her work nothing more than a club remix of Nietzsche with philosophies of some other great minds thrown in.
The only saving grace is that her dumbfuck objectivism has been mostly ignored by philosophic circles worldwide.
Roark can kiss my architect's ass.
I blame The Fountainhead for ruining my second year at UIC. I'm normally staunchly opposed to the idea of burning books, but I might be willing to make an exception for Ayn Rand's writings.
what bothers me the most about her work, is all the people in architecture school now who think they are howard roark and act like every single one of thier designs are life changing, and any sort of criticism is just another case of the world not recognizing their personal genius.
if that were the case, about half the people i knew at school were geniuses
Holz. I can see your point but do you really think Roark is as damaging as moore? He's a fictional charecter. At best he could be compared with any number of doctors or lawyers portrayed on TV. and while you will hear doctors and lawyers complain about these charecters, no one outside of their profession cares. Anyone outside of architecture whos read the fountainhead probably doesn't even associate him with architecture. they associate him with being a strong charecter with a high sense of integrity and personal moral beliefs. oh, and also a rapist. It's only people who work in our field that translate his actions as a person into the actions of an architect. really if he was working under any other profession he would have been played by george clooney on thursday nights. And for those poor souls who read the fountainhead and get inspired to become architects, well they are no Howard Roark, and I'm sure they have that drilled into their heads rather quickly.
but i may be a little biased. I'm wearing my W.W.H.R.D. bracelet.
ThriftyAcres: marmkid's post above yours sums it up pretty well. Nobody will learn anything in architecture school when you, your professor, and half the people in your studio all have a Howard Roark complex.
oh yes, i had a couple professors with the howard roark complex.
its amusing to look back on now, how ridiculous it all is
its funny, i enjoy the book, but probably because it is a novel with architecture as one of its themes. but i hate every single charactor in the book, as they are all jerks and full of themselves
it turned into where people at school would not work over the summer because they didnt want to be stuck doing wall sections and details all day long, because with their vast experience of nothing, they were better than that
She must have been absent on the days they went over Aristotle - "man is a social animal" and John Stuart Mill- "society between human beings, except in the relation of master and slave, is manifestly impossible on any other footing than that the interests of all are to be consulted"
The idea of The Holy Genius, held on high always smacks of aristocracy to me - protecton of some pedestalled social status. The thing I think she misses is that social cooperation does not negate individual expression nor inventiveness.
rand never indicated that she thought social cooperation negated individual expression. Coercion is a totally different matter, which she did naturally get pretty fired up about.
well, roark could never work with a group because every group made demands of him. the only people he could work with were those that thought he was the greatest thing ever and let him do exactly what he wanted to. there was no cooperation in his work, except the cooperation of him making all the decisions.
she worked in extremes, which makes what she thought a little ambiguous. obviously, every single group in the world would not try to force every single opinion on you, and every architect in the world isnt stuck copying things from the past with no creativity of their own.
she shows one end of the spectrum, with reality probably somewhere in the gray area below this
"Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men. " - Ayn Rand
Yes, I think she thought in extremes. My understanding of her position - that the greatest source of creative innovation is the ego of the individual when it is able to act without the limitations of social custom. In other words, she suggests that social customs are road blocks to man's potential.
If I understand her correctly, this seems like a flawed position. Working with and in reaction to social customs can be a powerful source of innovation. The gymnist needs a parallel bar...
she said west owns middle east oil. now that's because we thought them how to take it out and use it, and they didn't do anything with it for centuries.. gimme a break.
looks like her crazy idea on that coming back in full circle.
i also think she is an overrated racist.
if you take it at face value, her position of social custom getting in the way of individualism and creative innovation is completely wrong and a little studid.
that would mean that one super person (howard roark), if left alone by himself on an island, would basically create utopia on his own and much faster than the rest of the world would because he isnt being held back by anything
but there are countless examples of progress in the world and throughout history where it was a group who built off of each others work and created something so much more than what each of them would have done alone
based on her writing, i could see her taking either view. i could see her as being so incredibly egotistic as to think the world is holding back her creative abilities, but i could also see her using this as a metaphor as to what could be done
she seems very pompous, so i tend to lean towards the first with her
i am confused by the number of posts claiming that Rand was against 'social customs', or that she proposed that her ideal man needed to work in a vacuum.
what gave you this idea?
my understanding of her work is that she held a basic view that i am sure most of us agress with.
that is - a man has the right to support his life by his own work.
strong charecter with a high sense of integrity and personal moral beliefs. oh, and also a rapist
Quixotica no offence to ya
but My fucking ass ....
Analyse the symbolism carefully ,Howard Prick is essentially insecure, has an inferiority complex, a fame-whore, untruthful, unintegral,confused ,weak and anything but an architect.
(exactly like Ayn Rand was )
Id rather stand in front of a wall wearing a black overcoat rather than naked in front of a cliff.
Only Slaves want to be free
(The Overman told me that)
her 'hero' dynamites a large construction site which he technically had no control over because someone edited his view of how it should be done.
no one was holding back his right to support his life by his own work, that had nothing to do with him supporting his own life
i understand the metaphor for it all, but her story shows a charactor who did something worse
refusing to work with someone because they dont accept his view is all fine and good, thats his right
but going to that extreme after coming back from a 3 month cruise (wish i could go on one), is a little different
i can only comment on the fountainhead, as i havent read any of her other books yet. so if there is something else in any of those, i cant comment on it
most of my ex girlfriends would probably claim that my life is based on the virtue of selfishness. :(
Jan 31, 07 3:13 pm ·
·
And here I always thought that Howard Roark, because he blew up public housing, was a racist, and Ayn Rand, because she had a love affair with a 25 year younger man, was a rapist.
Those that believe in the fountain head, please stand up?
The Mike Wallace Interview of Ayn Rand
"another television portrait from our gallery of colorful people"
God that is fun.
Helen Mirren gives a devastating portrayal of her in the Passion of Ayn Rand. For those who don't know the story, Rand fell for a young protege, a man whom she appointed as her intellectual heir. It was hot and heavy for a while, then he stopped the affair (they were both married). She proceeded to try to destroy his life. The whole sordid tale is well documented multiple places. Needless to say, her behavior showed just how different real people are from the heroic characters in her books.
But none of this takes away from what a fascinating character she was.
IMHO,This woman is one of the most overrated person to be unfortunately connected with our profession.
rand's affair with nathaniel branden.. really pathetic. she really looked like an out of touch louse when she attacked him. his rebuttal (on his website) is equally entertaining... maybe if she didn't think affairs with married men 1/4 century younger than herself were plausible, people might take her seriously today. agree with nevermore, highly overrated, and i'm sick of people bringing her up in regards to architecture.
anyone else think howard roark and the fountainhead have damaged the profession as much as charles moore and co.?
When I bought Atlas Shrugged at a used bookstore in Harvard Square, the clerk said "Be careful with this, it could ruin your life."
nevermore - agreed - Maybe Roark has qualities we aspire to, but that does not justify elevating all her work or her philosophy.
What irritates me most is that Today she's been given the status of a "philosopher" !
I find her work nothing more than a club remix of Nietzsche with philosophies of some other great minds thrown in.
The only saving grace is that her dumbfuck objectivism has been mostly ignored by philosophic circles worldwide.
Roark can kiss my architect's ass.
I blame The Fountainhead for ruining my second year at UIC. I'm normally staunchly opposed to the idea of burning books, but I might be willing to make an exception for Ayn Rand's writings.
what bothers me the most about her work, is all the people in architecture school now who think they are howard roark and act like every single one of thier designs are life changing, and any sort of criticism is just another case of the world not recognizing their personal genius.
if that were the case, about half the people i knew at school were geniuses
Living in Gin -
How did it ruin your second year at UIC?
I'm actually halfway through The Fountainhead right now. I wanted to see what all the hoopla is all about.
Holz. I can see your point but do you really think Roark is as damaging as moore? He's a fictional charecter. At best he could be compared with any number of doctors or lawyers portrayed on TV. and while you will hear doctors and lawyers complain about these charecters, no one outside of their profession cares. Anyone outside of architecture whos read the fountainhead probably doesn't even associate him with architecture. they associate him with being a strong charecter with a high sense of integrity and personal moral beliefs. oh, and also a rapist. It's only people who work in our field that translate his actions as a person into the actions of an architect. really if he was working under any other profession he would have been played by george clooney on thursday nights. And for those poor souls who read the fountainhead and get inspired to become architects, well they are no Howard Roark, and I'm sure they have that drilled into their heads rather quickly.
but i may be a little biased. I'm wearing my W.W.H.R.D. bracelet.
ThriftyAcres: marmkid's post above yours sums it up pretty well. Nobody will learn anything in architecture school when you, your professor, and half the people in your studio all have a Howard Roark complex.
oh yes, i had a couple professors with the howard roark complex.
its amusing to look back on now, how ridiculous it all is
its funny, i enjoy the book, but probably because it is a novel with architecture as one of its themes. but i hate every single charactor in the book, as they are all jerks and full of themselves
it turned into where people at school would not work over the summer because they didnt want to be stuck doing wall sections and details all day long, because with their vast experience of nothing, they were better than that
the fountainheads was the name of our intramural basketball team in grad school. other than that i didnt finish the book or the movie...
Every uber-mench for himself!
She must have been absent on the days they went over Aristotle - "man is a social animal" and John Stuart Mill- "society between human beings, except in the relation of master and slave, is manifestly impossible on any other footing than that the interests of all are to be consulted"
The idea of The Holy Genius, held on high always smacks of aristocracy to me - protecton of some pedestalled social status. The thing I think she misses is that social cooperation does not negate individual expression nor inventiveness.
rand never indicated that she thought social cooperation negated individual expression. Coercion is a totally different matter, which she did naturally get pretty fired up about.
well, roark could never work with a group because every group made demands of him. the only people he could work with were those that thought he was the greatest thing ever and let him do exactly what he wanted to. there was no cooperation in his work, except the cooperation of him making all the decisions.
she worked in extremes, which makes what she thought a little ambiguous. obviously, every single group in the world would not try to force every single opinion on you, and every architect in the world isnt stuck copying things from the past with no creativity of their own.
she shows one end of the spectrum, with reality probably somewhere in the gray area below this
"Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men. " - Ayn Rand
Yes, I think she thought in extremes. My understanding of her position - that the greatest source of creative innovation is the ego of the individual when it is able to act without the limitations of social custom. In other words, she suggests that social customs are road blocks to man's potential.
If I understand her correctly, this seems like a flawed position. Working with and in reaction to social customs can be a powerful source of innovation. The gymnist needs a parallel bar...
she said west owns middle east oil. now that's because we thought them how to take it out and use it, and they didn't do anything with it for centuries.. gimme a break.
looks like her crazy idea on that coming back in full circle.
i also think she is an overrated racist.
if you take it at face value, her position of social custom getting in the way of individualism and creative innovation is completely wrong and a little studid.
that would mean that one super person (howard roark), if left alone by himself on an island, would basically create utopia on his own and much faster than the rest of the world would because he isnt being held back by anything
but there are countless examples of progress in the world and throughout history where it was a group who built off of each others work and created something so much more than what each of them would have done alone
based on her writing, i could see her taking either view. i could see her as being so incredibly egotistic as to think the world is holding back her creative abilities, but i could also see her using this as a metaphor as to what could be done
she seems very pompous, so i tend to lean towards the first with her
People who think theyve got the world all figured out are so sad to me.
i am confused by the number of posts claiming that Rand was against 'social customs', or that she proposed that her ideal man needed to work in a vacuum.
what gave you this idea?
my understanding of her work is that she held a basic view that i am sure most of us agress with.
that is - a man has the right to support his life by his own work.
simple.
Quixotica no offence to ya
but My fucking ass ....
Analyse the symbolism carefully ,Howard Prick is essentially insecure, has an inferiority complex, a fame-whore, untruthful, unintegral,confused ,weak and anything but an architect.
(exactly like Ayn Rand was )
Id rather stand in front of a wall wearing a black overcoat rather than naked in front of a cliff.
Only Slaves want to be free
(The Overman told me that)
her 'hero' dynamites a large construction site which he technically had no control over because someone edited his view of how it should be done.
no one was holding back his right to support his life by his own work, that had nothing to do with him supporting his own life
i understand the metaphor for it all, but her story shows a charactor who did something worse
refusing to work with someone because they dont accept his view is all fine and good, thats his right
but going to that extreme after coming back from a 3 month cruise (wish i could go on one), is a little different
i can only comment on the fountainhead, as i havent read any of her other books yet. so if there is something else in any of those, i cant comment on it
it is worth reading the small non-fiction texts in "The Virtue of Selfishness" to get an overview of her philosophy, for those that are interested.
i have atlas shrugged that someone gave me, but i havent gotten around to reading it yet
most of my ex girlfriends would probably claim that my life is based on the virtue of selfishness. :(
And here I always thought that Howard Roark, because he blew up public housing, was a racist, and Ayn Rand, because she had a love affair with a 25 year younger man, was a rapist.
Those that believe in the fountain head, please stand up?
LOL
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.