5 ms·

It's not that Ayn Rand detested skeuomorphs. It's that she wanted to demonstrate Howard Roark's independence and honesty. AFAIK Ayn Rand did not have a position

by javert 16y ago

It's not that Ayn Rand detested skeuomorphs. It's that she wanted to demonstrate Howard Roark's independence and honesty. AFAIK Ayn Rand did not have a position on architecture; she just used it as a device in (one of) her novels. Unfortunately, many people read Ayn Rand way too literally.

yummyfajitas 16y ago
You may be right, but I'm unconvinced. Roark lumps classicalism/skeuomorphs in with design by committee and the collectivist modernism [1] as forms of collectivism: design not based on your vision, but based on the vision of others. That's just objectivism applied to architecture. Why do you feel I shouldn't take this as her literal opinion? [1] Later in the book, the mainstream architects embrace a collectivist version of modernism.
- javert 16y ago
  Ayn Rand used certain architectural ideas to illustrate second-handedness, but she could have just as easily used other architectural ideas to illustrate second-handedness. That said, it wasn't classical architecture OR modernism that Roark had a problem with, IIRC. It was the production of mongerel, impure architecture where everyone threw in something they copied from somewhere, without using their independent judgement and without considering the overall theme/meaning of the building. BTW, there is no application of Objectivism to architure (at least not directly), and there is no "Objectivist architecture." Just like there is no "Existential architecure" and no "Marxist architecture". (Though there was architecture in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany inspired by statism, and there could be architecture inspired by Objectivism, that doesn't mean Marxism or Objectivism have an official, philosophical position on architecture.)
  - philwelch 16y ago
    BTW, there is no application of Objectivism to architure (at least not directly), and there is no "Objectivist architecture." Just like there is no "Existential architecure" and no "Marxist architecture". I do not think this is true. Artistic and aesthetic judgments, in Objectivism, have philosophical meaning. Rand applied Objectivism to her novels in the same way Rand's characters would (explicitly or implicitly) apply Objectivism to their music or architecture or work. To give an example (one Rand herself would likely be displeased with, but she is more than capable of being wrong about the consequences of her own philosophy), prog rock has a better philosophical foundation than punk rock. While punk rock is nihilistic and denies talent and beauty, prog rock exaults human talent. Punk rock is predicated on the idea that any idiot can thrash on a poorly-tuned guitar and make "music", and hence worships mediocrity; prog rock is predicated on taking rock seriously as a means of artistic expression and in pushing both form and effect to all conceivable limits, using the fullest of the musician's ability and creativity to do so. (If this reasoning is unconvincing to you, you're probably not much of an Objectivist. Or a prog rock snob, for that matter.)
    - mikecane 16y ago
      >>>Punk rock is predicated on the idea that any idiot can thrash on a poorly-tuned guitar and make "music", And just like that you throw away The Ramones?
    - javert 16y ago
      Everything you said is exactly right, but there still isn't "Objectivist music" or "Objectivist architecture." Certain architectural schools or certain musical styles may be basically incompatible with Objectivism, but that doesn't mean some specific musical or architectural element (drums, for lack of a better example, or skeuomorphs) are. Hence, my "(at least not directly)".

by javert 16y ago

yummyfajitas 16y ago

You may be right, but I'm unconvinced. Roark lumps classicalism/skeuomorphs in with design by committee and the collectivist modernism [1] as forms of collectivism: design not based on your vision, but based on the vision of others. That's just objectivism applied to architecture. Why do you feel I shouldn't take this as her literal opinion? [1] Later in the book, the mainstream architects embrace a collectivist version of modernism.

javert 16y ago
Ayn Rand used certain architectural ideas to illustrate second-handedness, but she could have just as easily used other architectural ideas to illustrate second-handedness. That said, it wasn't classical architecture OR modernism that Roark had a problem with, IIRC. It was the production of mongerel, impure architecture where everyone threw in something they copied from somewhere, without using their independent judgement and without considering the overall theme/meaning of the building. BTW, there is no application of Objectivism to architure (at least not directly), and there is no "Objectivist architecture." Just like there is no "Existential architecure" and no "Marxist architecture". (Though there was architecture in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany inspired by statism, and there could be architecture inspired by Objectivism, that doesn't mean Marxism or Objectivism have an official, philosophical position on architecture.)
- philwelch 16y ago
  BTW, there is no application of Objectivism to architure (at least not directly), and there is no "Objectivist architecture." Just like there is no "Existential architecure" and no "Marxist architecture". I do not think this is true. Artistic and aesthetic judgments, in Objectivism, have philosophical meaning. Rand applied Objectivism to her novels in the same way Rand's characters would (explicitly or implicitly) apply Objectivism to their music or architecture or work. To give an example (one Rand herself would likely be displeased with, but she is more than capable of being wrong about the consequences of her own philosophy), prog rock has a better philosophical foundation than punk rock. While punk rock is nihilistic and denies talent and beauty, prog rock exaults human talent. Punk rock is predicated on the idea that any idiot can thrash on a poorly-tuned guitar and make "music", and hence worships mediocrity; prog rock is predicated on taking rock seriously as a means of artistic expression and in pushing both form and effect to all conceivable limits, using the fullest of the musician's ability and creativity to do so. (If this reasoning is unconvincing to you, you're probably not much of an Objectivist. Or a prog rock snob, for that matter.)
  - mikecane 16y ago
    >>>Punk rock is predicated on the idea that any idiot can thrash on a poorly-tuned guitar and make "music", And just like that you throw away The Ramones?
  - javert 16y ago
    Everything you said is exactly right, but there still isn't "Objectivist music" or "Objectivist architecture." Certain architectural schools or certain musical styles may be basically incompatible with Objectivism, but that doesn't mean some specific musical or architectural element (drums, for lack of a better example, or skeuomorphs) are. Hence, my "(at least not directly)".