Week Seven: Me Against the World

Though we are all individuals who have self will and our own different personalities, since birth we all have succumbed to the mass. In the field of architecture where an idea that stems from individual creativity becomes a project that can only be evaluated and appreciated through being used by the public, the debate on the role of an architect arises. The Fountainhead illustrates the struggle of Howard Roark, a visionary architect, who stays steadfast with his idealism, proclaiming that he does not build to serve clients! The success of Howard Roark at the end being honored and hailed as a revolutionary architect that defies pre-establishment is what modern day architects/architecture students still aspire to achieve.
There is a danger that an architecture project, when not concerning for the public good, is a completely selfish, egoistic act. Roark in the Fountainhead has been fighting for her modernist ideals against the collective demand for classical architecture, the accepted taste. The question is on whether his insistence lays in believing his new concept will contribute to the society or he is just too stubborn in getting his ‘sculpture’ built. In this case I say sculpture because if a project does not consider inhabitation it is merely an object. Architects are deemed to be complex. They first of all are taught to be creative and visionary, an ability with which their career life journey of combating/compromising with the public starts. For architects that believe their purpose is to serve the public, their career would be much less complicated. However for those who are firm on the concepts they give birth to, they will have the same ‘disability’ as illustrated in one of Dos Passos’ characters in USA, Professor Veblen in ‘The Bitter Drink’. He has the “constitutional inability to say yes” while all “good jobs (are) kept for the yesmen.” (845, USA, John Dos Passos) The three selected characters from the USA trilogy, Veblen from The Bitter Drink, Henry Ford from Tin Lizzie and Frank Lloyd Wright from Architect are all proponents in the early 20th century American History that had some avant garde spirits of their own. Veblen an academic who ends up sipping in bitter drink lamenting his failure to be accepted by society with his ineptness to play in the ruling class/university system; Henry Ford (a parallel to Gail Wynand in the Fountainhead), by contrast, had tremendously success by he at the end was also revolted by the mass; the architect Frank Lloyd Wright suffers from rumors and gossips. All these characters are vulnerable when it comes to dealing with the masses.
Geniuses do not thrive alone. All are part of the masses and are reliant on the masses. Roark in the Fountainhead I think is a romanticized version of the glory of an architect. The last scene in which Gary Cooper stands on top of his tower with Patricia Neal looking up to him as a worshiper looking up to a Greek statue appears quite ironic. Roark appears precisely in the manner what he is trying to fight against! The sequel of Fountainhead would be: with the previously disadvantaged Roark being the architect in fashion, he soon will lead the opinions of the yesmen, thus, him becoming part of the ruling class system which then be dethroned by the newly disadvantaged.
A similar ironic cycle happens in Occupy Wall Street as well. Two protestors are seen having Starbucks coffee in hands. Can you occupy Wall Street with Starbucks in your hands??? (source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterleeds/2011/10/24/can-you-occupy-wall-street-with-a-starbucks-in-your-hand/)