Reading+Reflections

John Erik Snyte and the influence of classical architecture:

In The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand presents a number of various interpretations and perspectives on architectural philosophy, ranging from the strict adherence to classical styles taught at the Stanton Institute to Howard Roark's commitment to creating for himself, without relying on or drawing inspiration from the architectural styles and architectural knowledge created by others before him. One rather interesting perspective that seeks to find a compromise between these two extremes, and in the process creates a style unique to itself, is the philosophy of John Erik Snyte. Snyte seems to believe that there are strengths to all architectural schools of thought, and seeks to combine all of these strengths in the creation of his buildings. This concept itself is sound. Its application, however, is not. Instead of drawing inspiration from various architectural styles and figuring out which elements are appropriate for each building and how to tie these elements together, Snyte haphazardly combines modern and classical elements, thinking that putting Greek columns on an otherwise modern building is the same as using Greek knowledge of architecture such as the use of geometric shapes and the rules regarding proportions as inspiration for architectural elements within a modern building. There is nothing wrong with looking to past achievements for inspiration, as long as these achievements aren't merely copied or incorporated into a building without thought or logical process. In fact, the Parthenon is famous for its bold simplicity in shape and pattern, a characteristic commonly associated with many modern buildings. Using building blocks from the past to further present and future advancement is not the same thing as copying building blocks from the past.

Ellsworth Toohey praises Modern Architecture:

For more than half of the book, the proponents of modern architecture and classical architecture were clear, as well as the metaphorical roles that each movement played. I was therefore rather surprised to Ellsworth Toohey write a column in praise of modern architecture in Part 3, chapter 6, and still don't quite understand why. He seems to justify it by claiming that modern architecture has been validated by the approval it has received from the masses, and praises its simplicity as a representation of the common man. However, this stance seems out of place among the rest of Toohey's writings, and does not seem to fit with what we know about him as a character. In this column, Toohey merely seems to reflect public opinion and change to fit it, rather than the manipulation of public opinion that seems to be a rule among all of Toohey's actions. I was also surprised to see Ayn Rand criticize the Bauhaus movement (without mentioning it by name) and the trend toward more purely functional buildings, as the philosophies driving such trends seem to be extremely similar to those driving Roark's architectural style, and I have had difficulty understanding Any Rand's explanation of the difference between the influence of Cameron/Roark and the influence of these more popular schools of modern architecture, and seems to reject them based purely on their popularity among architects and the public.

Bokononism:

If I had to describe Bokononism is one statement, it would be that it was a philosophy designed to serve in the same capacity as a religion without actually being a religion. Much like most real religions, it provides guidance and perspective, allowing its practitioners to feel the comfort of knowing gods plans, and the serenity that they cannot influence them to any notable degree. However, Bokononism is different in that it admits that it is "based on lies", and that concepts such as the karass were made up by Bokonon himself. In a way, this reinforces the message that Bokonon is trying to send, as it is another way of stating that one cannot know everything.