a brief essay on the changing idea of an architect. school report on architecture and technology
As Russia moves from a feudal system to socialism, Objectivism spawns in spite of the institutionalizing of thought and civil society. Ayn Rand uses Howard Roark in the Fountainhead to depict the epitome of an individual working for himself using the myth of the architect as the representation of a self-governing entity. By doing so, Rand unites notions of contingencies on the topic of behavioural psychology, architecture and law within Howard Roark’s testimony.
Behavioural psychology marks the underlaying principles of Objectivism and the relationship of man to a collective entity. Howard Roark begins his testimony with the importance of fire to man. When man created fire, “he was probably burned at the stake he had taught his brothers to light.” Despite this, that individual had given a foundation to man’s progress by lifting “darkness off the earth.” Rand is not interested in the actions of the individual, rather in the collective, parasitic mentality that engulfs and burdens the individual’s desire. Man merely acts in his interest to serve his interest. The collective allows for a formation of a second-hander mentality that bases itself on the actions of other members of the group. In that regard, a second-hander is defined by the group and their personal actions are defined by interactions with other members of this entity. Therefore, altruism and egotism are developed by the same principles; both causalities of an individual being subservient to a collective. By using fire as the basis for Roark’s testimony, Rand uses techne as the facilitator to distinguish man’s position within society. This Palaeolithic example serves as a foundation not only for techne, but also for contingency on behavioural psychology. Man’s position within society is determined by his use of technology, in the ancient Greek usage of the word; drawing upon the definition of technique or the craft of technology. This principle defines one’s interest not in the control or manipulation of society or man, but in the production and stimulation of the arts and sciences. The creator is a man of nature. Following these traits of Objectivism, man’s position within the social realm can be traced to ideology. Ideology then distinguishes one’s psychology. Using this causal relationship, a contingency plan can be established for behavioural psychology.
In Howard Roark’s testimony, architectural contingency is tied to the individualist emphasis of Objectivism. When Roark proclaims “I am an architect, I know what is to come by the principle on which it is built,” the myth of the architect comes out with his understanding of contingency. This notion essentially praises an architect as an intellectual that understands all aspects of structuring and systematizing a form; whether a building, social structure or a nation state. Based on this understanding, an architect can also create relationships between different structures. Similar to a rhizome, different tracings of an entity are connected to another entity with a similar structure. Specifically, Howard Roark associates Cortlandt, his apartment complex plan to the contract with the developers of the complex. By acknowledging proprietary ownership of his design, his justification for the demolition of Corlandt comes down to breach of contract between the developer and the architect. Building on a plan altered from his initial design disintegrates the myth of the architect as the sole brainchild of the project. Additionally, it distorts the contingency plan laid out by the meister of the design. To comply with Objectivist ideology, a breach of contract such as this cannot be justified as it disowns the undeniable rule of individual creation.
Government and policy, if following the path of Objectivism, is created as America’s founding fathers had envisioned their federal government. That is, the protection of liberty and justice is the sole purpose of forming a state. When Roark asserts his position as an architect, he mentions “we are approaching a world in which I cannot permit myself to live” (Fountainhead 1). In this sense, Roark is asserting architectural contingency is comparable to the planning of politicians and interest groups. The association of planning for the built environment and planning for policy draws historical precent to the rise of Adolf Hitler and his chief architect, Albert Speer. Speer planned for architectural contingency in the militarized layout of Berlin, whilst Hitler planned for social and political contingency. The two were closely tied to maintain infrastructural development reflecting the development of a new civil society alongside a new economy. Nevertheless, Rand would object to the political contingency marked by Hitler’s domination due to his dictatorial course of action and his second-hander mentality epitomizing power over humanity has no relationship to the merit of the individual. Liberty is necessary in the movement from a society based on collectivism to one based on the individual. The understanding of political contingency by an architect is not only examined in a historical context, but also in the nature of his work. The workflow that defines an architect: planning based on program, legislation, coordination of labour and task management all have a methodology similar to that of creating policy. Instead of focusing on the interest groups and efficiency of an act or policy, an architect’s chief concern is realizing his design. Additionally, the definition of an architect’s work has vastly expanded with the expansion of architectural theory and virtual-reality design. On a conceptual basis, an architect may define problems of structural design in the digital realm through the collection and analysis of data. This redefinition ties with the analytical thinking required of an architect, however the skills necessary have been dispersed and require further training in the usage of technology.
In the argument for the myth of the architect, contingency has expanded to include aspects of design that reach beyond the built environment and explore psychological and legislative realms that interrelate. This ties into the notion of a rhizome mapping of the universe as well as redefining the extent to which Objectivism could portray society. At the same time, the new traits of technology also serve to redefine what the relationship between the individual and collective conflict due to the complexity of interconnectivity. Rand would object to this context of Objectivism, yet it proves a shift in humanity’s contribution to the restructuring of society and the role of technology.
