June 15, 2003
Ayn Rand’s “Heroic” Modernism: Interview with Art and Architectural Historian Merrill Schleier
by Nader Vossoughian
"Have you read The Fountainhead?” is often the reaction one gets when you tell them you study architecture. Indeed, the book has shaped the public’s perception of the architectural profession more than perhaps any other text over this last half-century. Its appeal lies in its accessibility – Rand conjures up clear heroes and clear villains. Her protagonists are frequently the subject of repression or persecution, which elicits the reader’s empathy and identification. In The Fountainhead in particular, Rand very aptly coaxes the reader’s attention by taking up a theme as powerful as any; namely, the notion of the artisan-genius struggling against an indifferent and ignorant society.Why is it that architecture, and modern architecture more specifically, figure so prominently in The Fountainhead? Why did it appeal as much as it did to popular audiences? I pose this question to the historian of art, architecture, and film Merrill Schleier, who recently published a paper on architectural modernism and Rand’s politics (see Merrill Schleier, “Ayn Rand and King Vidor’s Film The Fountainhead: Architectural Modernism, the Gendered Body, and Political Ideology,” JSAH 61:3 (September 2002): 310-331). In the interview that follows, we explore Rand’s brand of “heroic” modernism and its resonance, both politically and socially, in post-war America.
Q. In your article, you mention that Rand disliked International Style modernism, that she co-opted the discourse without embracing the aesthetic. What puzzles me is that in the years after publishing The Fountainhead, she bought a home by the Los Angeles modernist Richard Neutra. Do you know anything about her feelings for the house? Could she have been more conflicted about the International Style than she actually led on?
A. Despite Rand’s invectives concerning International Style modernism, which she termed the “concrete and pipe school of architecture,” she liked the house by Richard Neutra, which she purchased in 1945. In a letter to Gerald Loeb, who lived in a Wright house himself, she expressed her delight in the house, but added that it was “not as good as a Wright one.” Even though the house was all “steel, glass, and concrete,” Rand was enamored with the thirteen and one-half acres, which included a garden, an orchard, and a field of alfalfa. It might have also been important to Rand that Neutra had worked with Wright at Taliesin, and thus had the master’s implicit stamp of approval. Hence, she saw no inconsistencies in her disapproval of International Style modernism and her embracing of the house. In a letter to a fan who inquired about the house, she wrote back, “I’m the kind of ballplayer who endorses only what she really smokes . . .”
Q. Was Rand’s populist rhetoric (i.e., celebrating the common man in the name of individualism and capitalism) something she cultivated on her own?
A. Rand’s model of the “heroic artisan” actually represented an early version of the self-made man, which had been popular in the United States since the nineteenth century. The ideal was revived during the Depression in New Deal murals, which showed men engaged in instrumental labor. Rand viewed this as a handy way of melding two paradigms of American masculinity, the entrepreneur and the laborer. However, her worker was different than the New Deal cooperative version, which she abhorred.
Q. You say in your article that Frank Lloyd Wright was somewhat ambivalent about The Fountainhead, that he voiced admiration privately, but that he expressed reservations publicly. Could you comment more on this? What was the reception of the book among architects in general?
A. It is necessary to differentiate between Wright’s attitude toward Rand’s novel and his attitude toward the filmic adaptation of The Fountainhead. Wright loved the depiction of the architect in the novel, particularly her lionization of the individual struggling against forces of mediocrity. He felt the celebration of the individual was an important one in the context of the fight for ideological hegemony during World War II. “The Freedom of the Individual is the only legitimate object of government: the Individual Conscience is the great inviolable,” Wright wrote to Rand in 1944.
Wright cautioned Rand not to let Hollywood ruin her novel in the manner they had bastardized so many literary works in the past. After the film was released, he must have felt vindicated in his warnings. He called the film a “treacherous slant of my philosophy.” He was particularly dissatisfied with the stage sets. Replying to an interviewer, who suggested that he respond with a filmic rejoinder, he stated, “Any movie I would make against such grossly abusive caricatures of my work by this film crew would only serve their purpose.” Other architects such as George Nelson followed suit. However, there were a few apologists such as University of Southern California chapter of the American Institute of Architects who enjoyed the film, but referred to it as perhaps “the greatest single approbation of their profession.” Ted Criley, the editor of their Bulletin recognized that the film’s art staff had borrowed from Wright and Mies van der Rohe, but viewed these adaptations as somewhat humorous.
Perhaps the most important international modernist to respond to the novel was the Dutch architect J.J. Oud, who wrote Rand in 1947, “I am more than astonished to see how deeply you penetrated into the essence of architecture and architects: especially in the sense of ‘modern architecture.’” In an anecdote from his own career, he likened himself to Roark. After completing a modernist church, the pastor asked him to inform him when he was finished. Oud replied that the building was complete and inquired if the pastor was willing to be shot for his faith. When the latter replied in the positive, Oud concurred. “Now that I am finished, I am willing to be executed for a design like this.”
Q. Did Rand consider centering her book around a subject other than architecture? Why did she settle upon architecture as her subject matter in the first place?
A. Rand selected an architect as the hero because he was active and instrumental, and a creator. She also viewed the architect’s concern for structure as a perfect metaphor for the enactment of man’s rationalism, one of the keynotes of her burgeoning Objectivist philosophy. In a letter to a fan, she wrote, “You ask why I chose architecture as the profession of my hero. I chose it because it is a field of work that covers both art and a basic need of men’s survival. And because one cannot find a more eloquent symbol of man as creator than a man who is a builder. His antithesis, the collectivists, are destroyers.” This was poignant rhetoric for wartime when the monuments were being destroyed and democratic values were under siege. However, Rand equated building with capitalism, which added an economic dimension to the equation. She did not consider centering this book on another profession; however, in Atlas Shrugged (1957), she explored the careers of several entrepreneurs, including the dynamic railroad magnate, Dagny Taggert.
Q. You mention in your article that many commentators were troubled by Roark’s anarchism, the fact that he blew up a building that did not conform to his expectations. How universal was this perception? Were there commentators who defended Roark’s actions?
A. In addition to Bosley Crowther of the New York Times, several film reviewers were critical of the destruction of the housing project. The New Republic’s film critic regarded Roark as a megalomaniac, whose views were in conflict with the tenets of American democracy. “Contempt for the public has never been a cherished principle of American democracy and dynamite is no argument for a free society,” he wrote.
Merrill Schleier teaches Film Studies at the University of the Pacific.