If you are one of the first three (3) reactions, then you are done. The rest of you must also comment on one of the views expressed prior to your own (in agreement or not). Click the "Post a Comment" link below to submit your response.
I hope that you are enjoying the book. If not, I hope that you can suffer through it thoughtfully!
Soldier Field (Chicago)
Harold Washington Library (Chicago)
Marina Towers (Chicago)
St. Peter's Church (Chicago)
The Pompidou Center (Paris)
Falling Water (Ohiopyle, Pennsylvania)
Piazza d'Italia (New Orleans)
In The Fountainhead Ayn Rand displays the contrasting styles of two architects, Roark and Keating, that vary from complex techniques of the past to simplistic modern architecture.
ReplyDeleteToday, Peter Keating would marvel at the Harold Washington Library. The granite and red brick exterior of the building resembles French styles throughout the 18th century and especially the teachings from the Ècole des Beaux-Arts in Paris. Considering Keating acknowledged a scholarship to the Beaux-Arts academy and worked for Guy Francon, who graduated with a degree from Beaux-Arts, this style is exactly what Keating works to achieve in all his creations. In contrast, Howard Roark would dislike the Library’s added ornamental decoration along the rooftop and argue that cleaner lines would compliment the true beauty of the buildings raw structure.
Furthermore, Howard Roark would admire the Falling Water house built by Frank Lloyd Wright. Roark builds because he loves the earth and wants to represent its beauty. He shows this by incorporating the Heller House to look like and add to the beauty of the cliff it sits upon. Similar to the Heller House, Falling Water is known for complimenting its natural surroundings. Also, the space inside is well used which is a key attribute of Roark’s designs. On the other hand, Keating would object to the ugly styles of the modern Falling Water. The lack of historic architecture seen in the structure would unnerve Keating and turn him away from realizing its structural innovation.
The Harold Washington Library, and Falling Water are two buildings that have been recognized by the public as significant achievements in architecture. Both structures can be related to the opinions and styles of Peter Keating and Howard Roark, characters in the novel 'The Fountainhead'. The Harold Washington Library, also called the Chicago public library, was designed by Hammond Beeby Rupert Aings, Inc; and is significant because of the way the firm incorporated portions of other historic buildings in the Chicago area and used the Beaux- Art style. The style of ‘Beeby and Babka’ is very similar to the style of Peter Keating. After graduating from a nationally acclaimed architecture school, Keating has a very distinct mindset about his work, in which he follows the rules of architecture and how it’s ‘always been done’, rather than have a truly personal touch on his commissions. Keating would appreciate all the aspects of the Library because they reflect the history of the city, and the history of architecture. Howard Roark, however, would not praise the Library as an achievement because it does not hold anything personal, and does not exceed the limits of what the building could have been. Roark believes that every part of a building should serve a function, and be built to enhance its’ surroundings. For example, Falling Water was built literally over a waterfall. And, not only is the structural layout and achievement by its’ architect, Frank Lloyd Wright, but the extremely modern approach was surprising at first to the public. Controversially, Keating would disagree with the modern aspects of Falling Water, and comment that in order for that architect to earn more commissions he or she would be better off designing a home that will the public would be immediately comfortable with.
ReplyDeleteFalling Water and St. Peter's Church are beautiful pieces of architecture in different ways. Falling Water is much like Austen Heller's home which Howard Roark built for him. Frank Lloyd Wright designed Falling Water to be modern and very sleek. Howard Roark also was a modern architect who did not like following what everyone else was doing at the time. It took people a while to become comfortable with Falling Water. Like Austen Heller's home, Falling Water was built around it' s natural surroundings. It is clear that it was built around the waterfall as opposed to the other way around. The modern architecture is not only present on the outside, but the inside as well. The inside is also very sleek and beautiful in a modern way. Every place has a purpose and does not seem out of place. Roark had the same goal. Roark designed places to have a purpose and flow together in the end. On the other hand, Peter Keating would be opposed to the beauty of Falling Water because it is so unusual. There is nothing about Falling Water that is common amongst all homes ever built. He would also say that there is no history behind the design. Keating built what the people wanted because that's the only way he knew how. Falling Water is outside of Keating's comfort zone, which is a safe and classical style. St. Peter's Church was built in a gothic style, which was common at the time. Peter Keating likes pleasing his clients and building what was popular. St. Peters Church welcomes you with three large wooden doors beneath a gothic style arch containing a crucifix. The church is a clear reflection of what the city represents. Keating's architecture was always a reflection of the cities personality and history. Contrasting Keating, Howard Roark would disagree that St. Peter's Church is a unique and beautiful piece of work. He would argue that there is nothing different about it compared to many churches built at that time. He would also say that there is nothing personal about the building. It is just another church built in a gothic style containing arches.
ReplyDeleteThe Harold Washington Library and Soldier field are two magnificent architectural achievements with designs that can be easily compared to the styles of Peter Keating and Howard Roark, from the novel The Fountainhead. The Harold Washington Library, a building in Chicago brilliantly designed by Thomas Beeby of Hammond, Beeby and Babka Inc., would be greatly admire by Peter Keating. Its classical façade incorporates sculptures of the Roman goddess of agriculture, Ceres which, along with its seven sculptures on the roof representing the bird owl, birds often associated with Minerva, the Roman goddess of wisdom and knowledge, creates an ancient atmosphere that Peter Keating would very much appreciate. Howard Roark, however, would despise this architectural style because the façade contains sculptures of classical gods, an aspect which has been used in many buildings in the past, especially that of the Greeks and Romans. He would consider the entire building unoriginal with a possible exception of the atrium on the top floor, which, although it is a concept that dates back to the Romans, gives the top floor a contemporary feel with a large abundance of light for readers.
ReplyDeleteKeating and Roark’s attitudes toward Soldier Field, the unique home of the Chicago Bears designed by Lohan Caprile Goettsch Architects, would be absolute opposites. Howard Roark would marvel at the breath-taking architecture of the field due to its very contemporary glass exterior that some say even resembles a flying saucer, with the exception of the façade due to its neoclassical style of architecture. Keating would love the classical columns in the façade of the field, but would be horrified as the structure began transforming into the more modern and contemporary look that Roark so much enjoys, deterring Keating from is stunning potential.
In the Fountainhead by Ayn Rand, the main characters Howard Roark and Peter Keating have opposing views of architecture. While Roark prefers modern buildings that are completely his own, Keating prefers buildings that include aspects of buildings built in the past and are built in modes of architecture used frequently. Peter Keating would approve of the Harold Washington Library, while Howard Roark would dislike that its design encompasses aspects of other buildings built in the past. He would also dislike the ornamentation used throughout the exterior of building. However, in the case of Falling Water, Howard Roark would approve of its modern style and simplistic design. He would also like how instead of detracting attention from the waterfall, the building enhances its beauty. Contrastingly, Peter Keating would dislike the building because it is different and there is no other building like it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Emily that Keating would approve of the architecture of St. Peter’s Church, while Roark would dislike it. Keating would like the ornamentation and the history that is reflected in the design. Roark would dislike that St. Peter’s is similar to many other churches.
Ayn Rand’s captivating novel, The Fountainhead, exhibits two conflicting architectural styles; the classic, universal manner of Peter Keating, and the unorthodox, modern fashion of Howard Roark. Keating, like many architects of his time, employs ornate architecture techniques that have been used in the past. On the other hand, the bold Roark explores the new territory of modern architecture. Today, both St. Peter’s Church in Chicago and Falling Water are distinguished as exceptional feats of architecture, although both are very diverse in style. Roark would appreciate the modern structural aspects of Falling Water, especially the simplistic, sleek design incorporated with elements such as glass and stone. He would also welcome the concept of the structure being built with the surrounding land in mind, as Falling Water is built over a waterfall. Keating, however, would find Falling Water quite plain and would not accept the use of new methods of design. Keating was instructed by his employer, the renowned Guy Francon, to always use the designs of the ancient past in their buildings. Since Falling Water contradicts this classic method entirely, Keating would consider this structure a heresy to the field of architecture. St. Peter’s Church displays a gothic style, which can be seen in different buildings throughout the past centuries. I agree with Emily that Keating would admire the familiar aged techniques used throughout the church. Keating often built structures of this style, so something as recognizable and commonplace would make St. Peter’s all the more memorable and enjoyable for him. In contrast, Roark would not care for the monotonous use of old gothic architecture. St. Peter’s Church would seem to be nothing special, or out of the ordinary to him. Roark felt rather opposed to style and techniques remaining the same for so many centuries, and was devoted to reforming architecture with contemporary methods.
ReplyDeletePeter Keating and Howard Roark are two architects with opposing styles in Ayn Rand’s novel, The Fountainhead. The architects would have very different views on the Marina Towers and Harold Washington Library in Chicago.
ReplyDeleteFirst, Howard Roark would approve of the modern design of the Marina Towers, also called Marina City. The architect of these duplicate towers was Bertrand Goldberg, a student of a renowned modern architect Ludwig Miles van der Rohe. There are almost no right angles in the interior of the “corncob towers” and were made with commonly used materials like concrete and plywood. The building centers around an elevator and small triangles branch out from it creating a 360-degree deck on the roof of the building. However, Keating would disapprove of the Marina Towers. He would say that the structures need more arches or pillars to give it a neoclassicism look.
Next, I agree with Colin when he said Peter Keating would admire the Harold Washington Library. This building uses Beaux-Arts styles of architecture, which is the type of school that Peter received a scholarship for. There are many tributes to Greek culture on this building like many owls and a stature of Ceres. The owl stands for wisdom in Greek culture. Also, Ceres was the goddess of agriculture, so this image represents the bounty of the Midwest. Keating would also admire the five stories tall arched windows of the building. Roark, in opposition, would find this building almost all wrong. He would detest the use of the Greek style of architecture again because it was unoriginal and used all the time.
Even though both architects have opposing styles, Roark and Keating can both find buildings today in Chicago that fit their appropriate taste.
In Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead, Howard Roark and Peter Keating has juxtaposing views on archiecture in general. Comparing Falling Water and St. Peter's church shows this.
ReplyDeleteFalling Water by Frank Lloyd Wright was built for the kaufmann family and immediately "captured everyone's imaginaions" This would appeal to Howard because it does not rely on old practices or dead men's innovations. In the novel, Howard's drawings are described as "being sprung from the ground." Since this building goes so harmoniously with nature, it has the same effect. Also like Howard's drawings, no feature seems superfluous. Therefore, he would appreciate it. However, this is the type of building that would greatly perplex Peter Keating. His education has taught him to appreciate the beauty of what has already been done, not something as innovative as this. He wouldn't dislike it really, but he could not begin to comprehend what led up to the genesis of this unique creation.
St. Peter's Church is 150 year old building that features classic elements of Gothic Architecture such as arches. Howard would be annoyed that people still build builidngs like this when it has already been done. He would prefer to live in the now, and not dwell on this old building. The one positive thing he would say is that it does serves its purpose to be a place of worship. Peter Keating has been taught to greatly appreciate buildings like this. He would force himself to find beauty in the tiniest detail. He might even use it as inspiration for his own ideas, which is what really differentiates him from Howard.
I agree with Claire Murphy on her analysis of the Marina Towers. Howard would appreciate that there are no other buildings like them in Chicago, and would think they served their purpose very well. However I agree that Peter would not understand their beauty.
In Chicago, each man would find some building to like, and also some to just think about.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHoward Roark and Peter Keating have very differing views about architecture in Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead. Howard Roark has a very modern and original approach to architecture, he believes that items such as ornaments or other decorations take away the raw beauty of a building, and that the mere design of a building should make it beautiful, not decorations like doric pillars that give a building a Greco-Romanesque feel to it, such as Soldier Field does, or at least attempts to. The original Soldier Field prior to it's renovation in 2003. Howard would not have approved of the Field's original design because of how it is mimicking Greco-Roman architecture, and how it does not connect with it's environment around it. The renovated soldier field would have deeply offended Howard due to the large metal structure about the concrete doric pillars, which gives it a feel like it had been "fixed" like if you were to duct tape a tire instead of properly patching it.
ReplyDeletePeter Keating on the other hand, would have liked Soldier Field's original Greco-Roman approach. Like Roark though would have been highly repelled by it's current duct tape fixer upper look.
Then there is the Falling Waters, which Roark would have a deep appreciation for primarily due to it's modernistic approach. FW has a smooth, clean feel with it that lacks any ornamentation, however it gains its beauty from its raw design, which Roark found to be one of the most important part of a structure's aesthetics. In addition to that, Falling Waters is integrated into it's environment instead of the environment being integrated into Falling Waters. Roark had thought that every building should bring beauty out of the earth it is built upon, no matter how ugly it is.
I agree with Grace Parker's idea that how Howard would like Falling Water's since it follows the idea that Howard's designs "spring out of the ground."
However, I disagree with her idea that Peter Keating would dislike Falling Waters, because he had shown some appreciation for Howard's modernistic work despite his inability to be vocal about it when Howard was persecuted.
Falling Water, as well as St. Peter's church in Chicago are two very different, but extraordinary pieces of architecture. Falling Water, designed by Frank Lloyd Wright, is a very modern design. On the other hand, St. Peter's church takes on a more cathedral type style where is seen world wide, especially in Europe.
ReplyDeletePeter Keating would be appalled at Falling Water because its lack for renaissance style. It's modern and sleek look, as well as its incorporation with water gives it an earthly feel which Howard Roark would admire and strive to duplicate within his works.
On the other side of things, Roark would disapprove of St Peter's church because of its lack of originality and it's incorporation with classical styles. While Roark strives to create modern buildings which aren't usually seen, Keating aims to design classical buildings which fill our world. Overall, these two architects have two very different styles, as well as opposite views on Falling Water and St. Peter's church.
I disagree with Colin Riley's opinion that Roark would admire Soldier Field. Solider Field still incorporates the classical architecture, which Roark dislikes doing. A new take on classical architecture could be a good thing, but in Roark's opinion- it isn't enough for his liking.
In Ayn Rand's novel, The Fountainhead, college classmates and aspiring architects, Peter Keating and Howard Roark, express contrasting ideas in the world of architecture. While Keating utilizes classical pieces in his work, Roark desires to express modern techniques in his buildings.
ReplyDeleteA building displaying Roark’s technique is Frank Lloyd Wright’s Falling Water. Integrating nature with stone, a masterpiece evolves into what many have come to call Wright’s, “most beautiful job”. The building hangs precariously along a rock much like Roark’s Heller house. Roark would enjoy the modern presence as his artistic style aims to be modern. Roark would also appreciate the flow between the building, trees, and waterfall. Although flow exists in the exterior of the building, Wright, much like Roark, wishes to establish flow in the interior as well. Roark would grasp the uniqueness of this building and might compare it to his own piece of architecture the Heller House. In opposition to Roark’s reaction, Keating would feel setback by this uncommon piece of architecture. As Falling Water possesses no Renaissance style or classical ideas, Keating would be unable to find the beauty in this building unlike Roark. The staggering technique might also cause Keating to dislike this building as it displays architecture that is more modern.
In opposition to the modern structure of Falling Water, architect Vitzhum and Burns use gothic architecture in the building of St. Peter’s Church Chicago. Keating would enjoy this piece of architecture as it displays many traditional pieces and coincides with the schooling philosophies Keating has been taught. Keating would find comfort and beauty while gazing upon the centered crucifix and the gothic arches. The historic style and detailed statues fit well with the time of Keating allowing Peter the comfort of fitting into the world of architecture. Roark would look upon this church and remain unimpressed by the gothic style. Howard refuses to construct historic styles as he says to the Dean, “I wish to be an architect, not an archeologist.” Roark would feel hundreds of these buildings have been built and that this building brings nothing new to the world of architecture.
I agree with Claire Murphy that Roark would approve of the Marina Towers as these towers can hardly be compared to another building. I also have noticed a connection between the point Claire made about the towers having no right angles and the gas station Roark built. Many had noticed that the station consisted of all circles, which is similar to the Marina Towers.
Roark and Keating differ in styles of architecture, but in the world around us, pieces of their ideas are found throughout history and the evolving world.
In The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand, Peter Keating and Howard Roark have very different opinions on architecture. This fact causes them to have very different ideas on Falling Water and the Harold Washington Library. For these two architects it is truly a matter of opinion on which is an architectural masterpiece. Keating would prefer the Harold Washington Library for many reasons. First of all, Keating had an opportunity to go to a Beaux-Arts school and even studied under someone who attended this school. This implies that Keating was particularly partial to this type of architecture and the Harold Washington Library is built based on this type of art. The large granite blocks and red brick that make up the building make it a form of the Beaux-Art style. Hammond, the architectural firm that designed this building, used the brick and granite to bring in some traditional features. Keating would also be a fan of this because he enjoyed using styles from the past and incorporating them into new buildings. Howard Roark, however, would not like this building because of its use of old ideas. Roark was all about doing new things and never looking back into the past for inspiration. He also would not like it because it is not as sleek and modern as I pictured his buildings to be like.
ReplyDeleteRoark would like Falling Water, which was designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. The sleek and modern features of this building would impress Roark because he was all about using new ideas and not using old designs. It was also built within nature and the house seems almost a part of the waterfall. This is a type of building that is not found anywhere else and Roark would very much like this. Keating, on the other hand, would not like this house. The new idea of this house would shock Keating because he is focused on using the ideas of the past. The house is also very modern in the use of nature and Keating would not appreciate this the way that Roark would.
I agree with what Grace said about the St. Peter’s Church and that Howard would despise it for its use of past ideas, but that Keating would like it and find new things in every detail.
Howard Roark and Peter Keating have very different ideas regarding architectural beauty. Howard Roark believes that a building should look as if it is part of the surrounding land. This natural and modernistic idea is expressed masterfully in the Falling Water building. This building’s eloquent shapes, lines, and colors make the viewer focus on the nature that surrounds it more than the building itself. The building is comprised of materials that complement the exterior. Peter Keating, on the other hand, would dislike everything about this building: It lacks Greco-Roman columns; it is missing Gothic styled flying buttresses; there is nothing traditional about this structure. Just by appearance, one could make the assumption that the inside lacks what traditional houses have. There is probably no main entrance or main hallway; no grand staircase; and not to many grand windows. Peter Keating prefers buildings that portray a more classical style of art. Keating would enjoy St Peter’s Church in Chicago. Although the building was constructed about 150 years ago, the style is reminiscent of churches constructed during the Medieval period. Its tall stone walls and stained glass give the appearance of recognition. Peter Keating would admire the way a veiwer’s focus is drawn to the center of the building. Roark, however, would despise this building, especially because of its placement within the city. Its small stature among the tall skyscrapers makes it look very forced and abrupt. I disagree with Colin Riley’s view that Roark would admire Soldier Field. Although it is an innovative take on classical architecture, Soldier Field does not look very connected to the scenery around it. Just as Roark designed the Cosmo-Slotnick building to be a new take on classical architecture, he still hated what he himself designed.
ReplyDeleteIn the Fountainhead, Howard Roark and Peter Keating have two completely different opinions on architecture. Howard Roark likes to use almost the bare minimum (decoration wise) because he feels that it takes away from the real beauty of the structure. He tries to make his buildings almost blend in with the surrounding environment, making it fit into where it's placed. I feel that Howard would greatly dislike The Pompidou Center in Paris, because it sticks out. This building does the exact opposite of blending in with its surroundings. It also has a more Classical style, which Howard dislikes. He prefers to be more original. Howard also has more of a modernistic view of architecture, so I believe he would like Falling Water in Pennsylvania for two reasons. One, when looking at the picture, the building, it seems to fit in like a piece to a puzzle. It flows with its environment. Also, the buildings steps or levels give it more of a modernistic approach.
ReplyDeletePeter Keating, on the other hand, is almost the complete opposite. Peter prefers a more classical, less original approach. He also enjoys a more renaissance-like style. Peter takes old styles and adds a slight addition to them. That's why I believe that Peter would enjoy The Pompidou Center in Paris, because it has a more Greco-Roman style by having the pilars surrounding the entire building. I also believe Peter would strongly dislike Falling Water because it has that more modernistic look to it. Peter prefers classical, less original style.
I disagree with Colin Riley when he says that Howard would enjoy Soldier Field. Soldier Field uses a more classical style using pilars and using an internal form almost replicating the shape of the Colliseum. Everything Howard does is original, and Soldier Field is just a modern take on an original style.
In the book, The Fountainhead, Howard Roark and Peter Keating have two dissimilar approaches when it comes to artistic elements of architecture. Howard prefers a structure to blend in with its surroundings and cares more about originality and functionality. Peter Keating on the other hand, prefers classical structures and is more of a conformist with older and more common structures. Because of these two very different opinions, I feel that Howard Roark would prefer Falling Water because of its modern feel and uniqueness that sets it apart from all other structures at the time. He would also like Falling Water because it blends in with its environment due to the use of stone to make it one with the waterfall and it also utilizes its surroundings to make the house feel peaceful and natural. However, Peter Keating would disagree because of the uniqueness, the absence of a Classical design, and traditional feel to the structure. Peter would also dislike the structure because of the impression from the exterior of the house. While seeing the outside of the house, one gets the impression that the inside is rather cramped and small. This impression does not fit the designs of the Classical Era. Architects and owners usually wanted to make the house seem grand and spacious to make the owner feel comfortable and relaxed.
ReplyDeleteA structure I believe Peter Keating would prefer is St. Peter’s Church because of the Gothic style and the classical touch that makes the church seem older and majestic. Peter Keating would also prefer St. Peter’s Church because the design has been seen in many churches built throughout the century. However, Howard Roark would disagree and would very much dislike St. Peter’s Church. This is so because of he would think that St. Peter’s Church was a mere “copy” of many churches that had been built before it. He would also dislike the Gothic style because of its overuse throughout the centuries. I respectfully disagree with Colin Riley’s opinion that Howard Roark would like Soldier Field. This is so because in my opinion, Howard would see Soldier Field as a modern Coliseum that substituted metal for stone. Howard would see it as a copy of an original which makes him feel like it is a “fake” Coliseum.
^George Finn
ReplyDeleteIn the Fountainhead, Peter Keating and Howard Roark are two architects with two very different styles and views of architecture. Keating prefers a more classical influence and style to buildings with flares of Renaissance design, while Roark takes a strong liking to a very modernistic, sleek, and unique style of architecture. Based on Roark's perspective, I believe that he would love the style of the Falling Water building in Ohioplye, Pennsylvania, because the building is very simplistic, unique, it blends into the land surrounding it, and has no classical influence. Roark's Heller House must have looked similar to this building. Keating, on the other hand, would dislike it greatly because of its lack of classical influence. The building has no arches or columns, and is very "new," and "untraditional to the old ways of the classics."
ReplyDeleteA building that Keating would love would be St. Peter's Church in Chicago. He would favor this building because of its gothic arches, the flying buttresses inside, the sculptures on the sides of the building, the detail to the stonework, the stained-glass windows, the classical and European influence (based on the styles of cathedrals and basilicas in Europe), and particularly the Rennaisance-like elements to the building. Roark would dislike the building because of the classical influence: the style has already been done before. Also, the building also doesn't blend in with its surroundings or nature, like Roark would prefer.
I would agree with Morgan's statement of Keating using the ideas of the past, and Roark using new ideas and incorporating the elements of nature into his work.
Peter Keating and Howard Roark, the two main characters in 'The Fountainhead' by Ayn Rand, have very different views of architecture. Keating attended Stanton, a high end architecture school, and they taught him to recreate buildings like the ones in the past. He would appreciate the Harold Washington Library in Chicago designed by Hammond Beeby Rupert Ainge, Inc. because of its classical facade. The large granite blocks on the bottom and red brick portray the Beaux-Art style. Peter would acknowledge the seven sculptures on the roof that depict an owl and a sculpture of the Roman goddess of agriculture, Ceres. Also, he would appreciate the details on the red bricks. This would be the ideal building for Keating because it has the classical ancient aspects to it that his school taught him.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, Howard Roark would prefer the Falling Water in Pennsylvania designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. This house was built for a family who lived in the city, and enjoyed being outdoors. This would be liked by Roark because he believes that every building is like no other and has its own purpose. The Falling Water is remarkable because it was built on a waterfall and beautifies its surroundings. This building is different and Wright took a challenge and inspired people during the depression with this design. Roark would have loved the modern aspect and functionality of the long, straight horizontal lines, the long rectangular boxes on top of one another, and the simplicity of it. In contrast, Keating wouldn't have liked it because it doesn't follow the rules. It takes risks and has a modern approach instead of it having Renaissance styles.
I disagree with Max when he says Peter would enjoy the Pompidou Center in Paris because it has an outer face of glass, which Peter would say is too modern. Also, he wouldn't like the pipes showing on the outside because he believes everything should be like Renaissance and this is a very different approach to architecture--colorful pipes instead of marble.
Both Howard Roark and Peter Keating are involved in architecture, however they both have different styles. Howard Roark would probably like Falling Waters in Ohiopyle, Pennsylvania. This was built by Frank Lloyd Wright in the 1930’s. It has a very modern style and the shapes that make up the building make it truly unique as they jut out in different directions. This sounds similar to Howard Roark’s style because his work is described to be one of a kind and original, just how he likes it. Furthermore, Falling Waters would be perfect for Howard Roark because he likes buildings that have a sort of flow and they blend well with their surroundings. He would like that this building looks similar to the surrounding rocks that make it look like it should be there. However, Peter Keating is different. He likes to please others, including his boss Guy Francon, so he sticks with styles of architecture that have already been done like the classic columns and buttresses. This is the exact opposite of Howard Roark, who is very individualistic. Peter Keating would definitely like St. Peter’s Church because it is very uniform and has a typical structure. It isn’t anything daring or super original, but it has a simple, natural beauty like something he would design. I think he would like the symmetry of the building and how it uses a large arch to draw your attention. Howard Roark would probably think it boring and pointless to use those kinds of techniques since they have already been made famous on other structures, like the arches in ancient Roman aqueducts.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Morgan that Howard Roark would not like the Harold Washington Library and that he was all about coming up with new ideas without looking in the past. He creates his own style and the Harold Washington Library has a sort of uniform, symmetric style that is not very original. It would probably not be his favorite out of all the buildings shown.
^Sierra Klucikowski
ReplyDeleteThe main characters, Peter Keating and Howard Roark from Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead, are two very contrasting architects. Roark's style is a more simplistic and modern way of constructing buildings. Roark does not find his buildings to need the extra ornaments and details that Keating adds on his different structures. Falling Water is a perfect example of the style that Roark designs and produces. It is very modern and unlike any other building that would have been designed. The contrasting levels of the structure and even the placement of the building are all very significant the the style that Roark is familiar with. Keating on the other hand would not find this building attractive or thought provoking. Keating would not like that the building is one of a kind and is not found all over. Additionally, Keating would not enjoy the fact that the building is placed directly next to a waterfall. Another example of their differences would be in comparing them to St. Peter's Church. Keating would immediately enjoy studying this building. The high windows and the classic feel that the building gives off would attract Keating's style and techniques. He would appreciate the fact that there are many other buildings just like it all over the city of Chicago. Although, Roark would think otherwise. The exact fact that the style and structure of the building could be seen all over the city would make Roark unsatisfied. He likes things very simple and "to the point". This building however is not simple or different from any others. I agree with Gretchen in that Roark would very much enjoy Falling Water because of it's simplistic and modern design. It has a distinct difference from anything that would be designed by Peter Keating.
ReplyDeleteThe character Howard Roark in the novel the Fountainhead, by Ayn Rand, is an architect who holds onto his individuality despite what others tell him. He refuses to compromise his creativity and innovative thought for the recreation of traditional styles. This is why I agree with Elle Zedina when she says that Roark would enjoy the building Falling Water. Instead of building a structure that emulates conventional architecture, such as Greek or Roman styles, Falling Water strives to calm, sooth and enhance its natural surroundings rather than stand out among them. Roark would like how It uses simple lines and rock walls to complement the beatuy of the stream and forest, and creates one cohesive idea between architecture and nature.
ReplyDeleteLike Elle expressed, Falling Water seems to be similiar to the concept of Roark's Heller house, which Peter Keating and his colleagues frowned upon and called abstract and distasteful. Elle also wrote about how Keating might enjoy a traditional style like the academy he would have attended in France. However, I believe that Keating's mindset is so focused on pleasing his customers and boss in order to get to the top, that his style consists of what the people want. Keating would most likely consider Falling Water a failure because it is too simple for his customer's desire for elaborate detail, and it glorifies nature rather than embodying history or human advancement.
On the other hand, The Harold Washington Library's classical facade, decorative ornamentation, and tall arched windows would be far more comforting for customers because it showcases a well accepted style that has been used and praised over the centuries. Keating would like this building not just because of it's historical roots, and his customer's approval, but also because he enjoys adding unnecessary decoration to structures so they are eye catching and admirable. However, the library would displease Roark, because to him all the frills would only take away from its structural purpose and flow. For Roark stepping back in time would be a step back in his career and for society; he would rather break tradition than follow it strictly and risk losing a building's dignity and uniqueness.
In Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead", Howard Roark and Peter Keating are two opposing architects trying to find their way in the cutthroat building world. While Howard Roark knows exactly how a building should look to serve its purpose, Peter Keating bases his on precedent of Classicism and what the public desires.Roark keeps his own identity even though it at times holds him back. Two building that stood out were The Pompidou Center and St. Peter's Church for the sole reason that each reflects either Roark's or Keating's work.
ReplyDeleteHoward Roark's style is very simplistic and modern with the building serving its purpose and people more than looking pretty. The Pompidou Center in Paris was built entirely for its purpose as a vast library, art muesuem, cinema, and a venue for concerts. The facade, made up of pipes and glass, turned the architectural world upside down and was a novel yet practical idea. Howard Roark strove to do the very same thing in his work of straight-lined, modernistic buildings with light and functionality. Peter Keating on the other hand would think it was unprecedented, ugly, and completely insane.
Peter Keating would love St. Peter's church and would even suggest the design himself. It is made of gray granite(A favorite of Francon &Heyers) and has relgion and Classicism combined in one. It is beautiful to the eye and something he would be proud of. Howard Roark would look to build a church that was practical and had a lot of light. Roark would say it was a disaster, but it also depends on his stance on religion.
I disagree with Sarah Young saying Roark would like Marina Towers. The petals of the building are unnecessary to living and there are no simplicistic, straight lines that he likes so much.
In Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead, two major architects, Howard Roark and Peter Keating, have varying ideas on what makes a building beautiful. Howard Roark prefers buildings to be modern and innovated, while blending into the surrounding environment. Peter Keating on the other hand prefers a building to look traditional and classical. For this reason Peter Keating would admire Soldier Field for it’s original take on a classical idea. The design of Soldier Field was based off of the timeless structure, the Roman Coliseum. While Peter Keating would admire Soldier Field, Howard Roark would dislike many features about it. Howard Roark might say that this shape is not original enough, and that it does not blend into the surrounding environment at all. Although Howard Roark would find Soldier Field to be bland and unoriginal, he would find Falling Water to be a structure of excellent architecture and originality. The way this building blends into the water and surrounding trees is exactly the type of design Roark finds interesting. However, if Peter Keating were to look at this building he would not like anything about it. It is too modernized, does not show any relevance to Greco-Roman culture, and does not stand out from the environment enough. I completely disagree with Colin Riley when he says that Howard Roark would admire the architecture of Soldier Field. I feel that Howard Roark would wish for Soldier Field to be a much more modernized building and not stand out from the surroundings as much.
ReplyDelete^^^^John Buck
ReplyDeleteI agree with Claire Murphy when she said that Roark would approve of the design of the Marina Towers. He would enjoy their unique design that cannot be found anywhere else.
ReplyDeleteIn "The Fountainhead" Howard Roark and Peter Keating have two differing opinions on what beautiful architecture is. Roark would love the Falling Water house because it was created to form with the environment around it much like Austen Heller's house was. Roark would also love the very basic and simplistic block design of the house. Every part of the house has a purpose and there is very little, if any, wasted space. Every section of the house serves its purpose. Overall, Roark would love the ultra modern, simplistic design of this house. Peter Keating would find this house absolutely appalling. There is not a trace of classical influence on this house anywhere. St. Peter's Church in Chicago would fit Keating's definition of a beautiful building. St. Peter's Church manifests everything Keating loves about buildings. It was built in the Gothic style that has flying buttresses and elegant archways that exhibit the classical nature of architecture.I would agree with Julianna that Peter Keating would also enjoy the Chicago Public Library due to its classical nature. The Chicago Public Library clearly illustrates a neo- classical design with roots in gothic architecture.
ReplyDeleteIn "The Fountainhead", Howard Roark's views of architecture contrast the views of Peter Keating. Howard Roark’s ideal building comes from the environment and has a modern, idealistic structure. Peter Keating’s ideal building would be Greco-Roman, but he would do whatever the client wants. Peter Keating and Howard Roark would both oppose the architecture of Soldier Field, but for opposite reasons. Peter Keating would admire the surrounding Roman architecture, especially the columns, but would dislike the more modern structure. On the other hand, Howard Roark who doesn’t like mixing two styles would still admire the modern structure but loathe the surrounding Roman structure. With a building such as Falling Waters, Howard Roark would take a fondness. He would admire the straight, simple structure that blends from the surrounding environment. But Peter Keating would dislike it for those reasons. He would say that it doesn’t have any classical architecture. I agree with Elle Zadina when she says that Keating wouldn’t like Falling Waters because its “lack of historic architecture”.
ReplyDeleteIn Ayn Rand's novel The Fountainhead, the two main characters, Howard Roark and Peter Keating have extremely opposing positions on architecture. Howard Roark's originality is rarely accepted and Peter Keatings classic style is admired by all. Howard Roark would absolutely admire the Falling Waters because of the uniqueness. As Sierra stated, Roark would appreciate how Falling Waters incorporates the outside surroundings into the edifice. Similar to the Falling Waters, Roark incorporates outside surroundings, especially nature into his designs. For example, when he designed the filling station, he includes nature, especially trees, into the station, which seemed to be accepted by everyone. On the other hand, Peter Keating would enjoy the Harold Washington Library because of the classic style and French qualities. As Elle said, the red brick and granite is part of the Beaux-Art style. Ironically, Keating was offered a scholarship to the Beaux Arts Academy. Keating's first professional job was designing his mother's house, in which he used the mid-Victorian style. I agree with Morgan that Roark would not like library because it has a uniform style throughout and Roark is into originality and stepping outside the box.
ReplyDelete^Marta Considine
ReplyDeleteIn Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead" two extremely different architects have contrasting views on the beauty of the buildings. After reading about Peter Keating, I have come to learn that he is the kind of person who would be more interested in a building like St. Peter's Church in Chicago. St. Peter's Church possesses more of a gothic and majestic feeling to the building. The Greek culture to the building and the high ceiling attract Keating's interests. It has a very simple and set structure that would ignite Keating's love for the building. I agree with Emily Ocwieja when she states that Keating's designs are meant to be more settled and he looks for the approvals of others like his boss Guy Francon.Roark would disagree with this building because it is like many of the others and has no extraordinary factors that make it unique and worth while. On the other hand, one major building that would spark Howard Roark's interest is the Falling Water in Pennsylvania. The building, by Frank Lloyd Wright, was made to be more modern. Roark possesses his love for the earth and its beauty through his designs. Falling Water blends beautifully with the waterfalls and other aspects of nature which is very akind to Roark's taste. Keating would not be fond of this building because it shows no areas of classical architecture. This building is "out of the ordinary" which Keating seems to be against. His role for architecture is to please others while Roark's is to surprise. I agree with Elle Zadina when she states that Falling Water is much like the Heller House and adds to the environmental beauty.
ReplyDeleteAyn Rand's "The Fountainhead" tells the story of two architects with very different views of architecture. Peter Keating is a more traditional architect while Howard Roark tends to design what he thinks is beautiful, even if it is not seen that way by everyone. I think that Howard would prefer a building such as the Marina Towers because it has such a unique and offbeat style to it. Peter Keating would be more likely to admire a building like St. Peter's Church because there is nothing particularly shocking about it. The church is done in a very traditional style which an architect like Keating would appreciate. I agree with Jack Nickele when he said Roark would appreciate Falling Waters because of the way it blends in to the environment surrounding it. - Bridget Feeney
ReplyDeleteIn Ayn Rand’s “The Fountainhead” the two main characters, Peter Keating and Howard Roark, have completely different architectural styles. Peter Keating prefers to take a very classical approach to his buildings. In his mind, the classical buildings that have been built and multiplied express true beauty. Therefore, Peter Keating would appreciate the Harold Washington Library. The ornamental decoration on the rooftop and the classical arches used in this building are exactly what Keating himself would sketch. However, Howard Roark, being the modernist that he is, would dislike the Harold Washington Library. He would argue that the building lacks originality.
ReplyDeleteHoward Roark would marvel at the Falling Water building. Roark’s take on buildings are that they should be one with the site they’re built on. The Falling Water building and it's surroundings flow as if it’s one central idea. There is nothing classical about it. Roark would believe it is a very original and tasteful building.
I disagree with Colin Riley’s opinion that Howard Roark would like the design of Soldier Field. Soldier Field is designed in a fashion almost like that of the Coliseum and old style arenas; so a modern take on the very classical design would not be something Howard Roark would appreciate.
In the Fountainhead, by Ayn Rand, two very different views on architecture are displayed by two characters with very different personalities. The two characters, Roark and Keating, were both taught the same material at the Architectural School of the Stanton Institute of Technology, but their choices on how to receive that information were very different, based on their own opinions of architecture. Roark prefers the type of architecture where the building blends in with the nature surrounding it, and where it is individual to the owner and unlike any other building. So that is why I think he would enjoy the building Falling Water, because there is most likely no other building similar to it. This is quite contrary to the majority of architects who believe in using all of the different types of architectural styles that they learned at architecture school and interchanging them on different buildings. So a city dominated by a number of this kind of architect would have buildings that all are similar since they would share some characteristics. An example of an architect like this would be Keating. When he designs a building, he recalls what he has learned at architecture school, looks at images of buildings to take ideas from, and generates a building that may be called original, but is actually just a combination of architectural styles that have never been combined in that way before. So I think that Keating would enjoy the Harold Washington Library because it still uses the basic styles and materials, but it is still original. Roark would not prefer this building because it seems to be just the average building. There is nothing major about it that would make people walking by to stop and gaze at it. However that is the case of the Falling Water building.
ReplyDeleteThese two characters both have interesting takes on architectural styles and both have separate groups of clients that prefer one take on architecture over the other. -Mark Bredemann
In "The Fountainhead" by Ayn Rand, the two main characters, Peter Keating and Howard Roark are both architects. However, their architectural methods vary a great deal. Peter Keating appreciates a standard, traditional building in the style that can be replicated again and again. For this reason, Peter Keating would enjoy St. Peter's Church, with it's structured design and classic style. On the other hand, Howard Roark would disfavor this church because it looks like every other church. Howard Roark enjoys genuine architecture, buildings that are one-of-a-kind. That is why Roark would adore The Falling Water building. This building exemplifies true, incredible originality which is what Roark idolizes. On the contrary, Peter Keating would frown upon the Falling Water building because he sees it as appalling and lacking of traditional styles. I agree with Charlie Floyd when he said Roark would admire the Falling Water because the building is one with the site it's built on, and that it flows with it's surroundings as if it's one central idea. I agree with this idea because the building is built as if it is flowing naturally with it's surroundings and that is something that Roark would hold in high regard.
ReplyDeleteAyn Rand’s novel “The Fountainhead” follows two contradicting main characters, Peter Keating and Howard Roark. Keating is more taken to the traditional architectural style, or what most people perceive as beautiful. Roark is fascinated with modern architecture. Because of this, Roark would be interested in the Marina Towers. The Marina Towers were built in 1976, in the time of skyscrapers, however, the architect designed them to stand out against the numerous skyscrapers in Chicago. Roark would adore this structure because it basically has no angles. Roark was very proud when one of his buildings was made without any straight lines or angles. He would also love it because it served a purpose, not taking up any wasted space with the clever idea of putting the parking garage in the building. Keating would not like the building because of its need to stand out. If it was so beautiful, then why are there not others like it? I agree with Claire Murphy when she said that Keating would not like it because it needs more of a classical look. It lacks pillars and columns, according to Keating. Keating would approve of the Piazza d’Italia in New Orleans. Known as the “postmodern ruin”, the Piazza d’Italia combines classic Roman architecture with modern twists like neon lights and concrete. Keating would be able to get past the modern touches as long as the structure would stay true to its classical roots. Roark, who although may appreciate the attempt to combine classical and modern architecture, would not approve of the plaza. He believes that if you are going to be creative and modern, you have to be completely original and cannot go back on the ideas of the ancient Romans. -Annie Lyons
ReplyDeleteIn the novel, the Fountainhead, Ayn Rand portrays two different perspectives on architecture. One of the main characters, Howard Roark, expresses a style of architecture known as modern architecture. The other main character, Peter Keating, displays a style known as Gothic used in many Greek and Roman structures.
ReplyDeleteAfter learning about each characters view on architecture, it showed that of all the structures given St. Peter’s Church in Chicago would be most appealing to Peter Keating. Not only does it have his name in the title, it also represents the time of Gothic works. It’s high ceiling and specific ornamentation represents the kind of architecture that interests Peter and his clients. Also, the fact that it shows Jesus on the cross makes it look like part of the Classical Era. I agree with Emily Ocwieja when she says that Keating’s designs are meant to please the clients and his boss. On the other hand, Roark would disagree with this structure because it is not unique but rather an imitation of Greek architecture.
Even though Roark wouldn’t take pleasure in St. Peter’s Church, he would be amazed by the work called Falling Water. This piece of architecture by Frank Lloyd Wright incorporates nature and environment into the home. It portrays a design similar to the Heller House that Roark designed for his client. Roark would appreciate the environmentally impacted layout and design. Also, he would love its modernized quality and the fact that there is nothing like it in the world. I agree with Tommy Borah when he said that Keating wouldn’t like it because it has no Classical style. Keating would disagree with its lack of Greek architecture and the fact that it wouldn’t appeal to many clients. In conclusion, these two characters have very different opinions on architecture. – Katie Boesen
In The Fountainhead, by Ayn Rand, Howard Roarke and Peter Keating have to very different styles of architecture. Howard appreciates practicality and the involvement of nature in architecture. I believe that Roarke would be inclined towards Falling Water in Pennsylvania. The house consists of what might seem like randomly compiled geometric shapes that fall in perfect balance. The waterfalls and forest surrounding the house compliment the structure of the building in a way that Howard would marvel at. I think that Peter Keating, on the other hand, would enjoy St. Peter’s Church in Chicago. The classical style is exactly was peter creates in the novel. The ornate gold embellishments and marble and granite are precisely what Howard finds unnecessary. The Church looks like a building that would be generally well liked and admired in the time of this novel. I agree with Katherine Cienkus in saying that Howard would like the Pompidou Center for its functionality. All in all the two characters have very separate styles that are both deemed beautiful today. -Bria Condon
ReplyDeleteIn Ayn Rand's the "The Fountainhead," there are two very different ideas about architecture that are represented by two people. The two people are Howard Roark and Peter Keating. They both went to Stanton Institute of Technology and were in the architecture program. Peter Keating, who is a successful protege of Guy Francon, believes in classical and Renaissance architecture. Therefore, Keating would admire the Harold Washington Library by Hammond, Beeby and Babka in Chicago. This structure has a few allusions that refer to Mythology that include the face of Ceres, the goddess of agriculture, and an owl that represents wisdom in ancient Greek mythology. Also, the red brick facade has an old fashioned look to it. On the other hand, Howark Roark would not admire this building. He would argue that the architecture is very ordinary and not special. He would also say that this building doesn't blend in to nature. Roark would prefer the Falling Water by Frank Lloyd Wright in Ohiopyle, Pennsylvania. He would prefer this because it has a modern and unusual look to it. He would also like it because it blends into nature and is original. In fact, as I was reading the book I pictured Austen Heller's house that was designed by Roark to look something like this. Peter Keating would be disappointed in Falling Waters because it has no classical look to it whatsoever.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ellie Zidina that "He (Roark) loves the earth and wants to represent its beauty." This is true because Roark wants his buildings to blend in with nature and that is how he represents the Earth's beauty.
The novel, The Fountainhead, by Ayn rand portrays the two young architect students Howard Roark and Peter Keating, each of which with distinctly different views and architectural styles. Keating is much more classically appreciative of architecture, where as Roark believes architecture is all about individuality.
ReplyDeleteRoark would greatly appreciate Falling Water because of its clear contradiction to any type of classical architecture. It is a completely original building and the design is solely the architect’s (Frank Lloyd Wright). The way the house’s vertical and horizontal lines contrast each other artistically distinguishes it from any other building. There is nothing like it. It is a building specifically designed for its purpose, an architectural view that Roark values. He would admire each and every aspect of the building, from the materials it is made of to the purpose it was built for. Keating would be shocked by Falling Water, and would think it was too different to be a respectable building. The fact that the building lacked any traditional aspects of architecture would disappoint him. Though, Keating might find the building suitable if it was what the clients wanted the architect to build. Keating finds the preferences of the client more important than the actual architect’s vision, a view completely outlandish to Roark and Cameron. Peter Keating would much prefer a more traditional building with his own little quirks present throughout its design. A Renaissance or Gothic structure with unique flairs such as an ornamented stringcourse would be something Keating would design or admire.
Keating would not have a great liking of St. Peter’s Church in Chicago either because of its art deco architecture. Although it is a prestigious looking building, it has an art deco design which is a generally new type of design created in the 1920’s, ironically the same decade the story takes place. Keating graduated Stanton with honors, thoroughly soaking up all the information the school provided. One important principal Keating picked up along the years was that everything in architecture has been done, and that new types of design were just preposterous. This teaching of Stanton has narrowed Keating’s mind and alienated him from new types of architecture such as art deco. He would find the building strange and non-classical. Roark on the other hand would like this building, probably not as much as Falling Water, but would still find an appreciation of the new architectural design
I disagree with Katherine Cienkus that Peter Keating would love St. Peter’s Church, based on the fact that St. Peter’s Church displays a new kind of architecture and style. Even though it is an elegant structure, the building is still lacking any sort of ancient design modeled after the Romans or Greeks.
In the Fountainhead, by Ayn Rand two very intelligent men are introduced. Although they share the gift of intelligence, they do not share the same opinions whatsoever. Howard Roark believes that one should make history rather than dwell on the past while Peter Keating believes that recreating what was beautiful in the past in the present. If both men were to make their opinions about Falling Water, I believe that Howard Roark would recognize the architectural genius put into this work. This is because the building looks as though it belonged there, as if it had just come out of the ground and grew. Roark's own house "looked as if the cliff had grown and completed itself". (page 119) I believe that Falling Water portray the same idea that Roark was going for. If Peter Keating had an opinion about Falling Water I think that he would appreciate its beauty, but also believe that there is something missing. This 'something' would most likely be a style from the past being recreated. However if these two men were also asked to give their opinions on the Harold Washington Library I believe that the tables would turn and Keating would be the man admiring the building. This is because The Harold Washington Library exhibits Beaux Arts architecture and pediments with ornamentation that shows Mannerist stlyles. Keating would especially enjoy the Beaux Arts architecture because that is the type of architecture taught at Ecole des Beaux Arts in Paris, to where he was granted a four year scholarship. Roark, on the other hand, would probably disagree and explain that many of the exterior, including the Greek gods and goddesses were not necessary and did no really serve a purpose. Also I believe that he would explain that this building is nothing special than what he has seen from the time when the style was invented.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Colin about what he said on Soldier Field. I believe that Roark would admire this building because rather than dwell on the past it and jump starts the future. However, I have to disagree with Colin and say that Keating would respect that this stadium reflects the classical shell of a stadium designed in the 1920s. This building is an example of a happy medium between using the pasts styles and making your own. - Lucy Melbinger
In The Fountainhead, by Ayn Rand, the two main characters Howard Roark and Peter Keating have very different views of what they believe as beautiful. Although they both recieved a similar education at the Architectural School of Stanton their views greatly differ. Howard Roark's view is more of a modern view and he prefers one-of-a-kind buildings that have a purpose. For this reason I believe Howard Roark would prefer Marina Towers. He would prefer this building because of how modern it is and the purpose it serves. Marina Towers also stands out among the many skyscrapers in Chicago and it makes a statement which is what Howard tries to accomplish through architecture. On the other hand, I believe Peter Keating would prefer St. Peters Church due to its more traditional architecture style which is what he prefers. The gothic style church shows a very traditional and classical type of architecture with its flying buttresses. Peter likes this classical type of architecture. I agree with Claire Murphy when she said that Peter Keating would not like Marina Towers because of its lack of arches and pillars. I also agreed when she said that it needed more of a neoclassicism look for Peter to approve of it. -Michael Brien
ReplyDeleteIn the book the Fountain Head by Ayn Rand, there are two characters who have completely different views on architecture. Howard Roark likes the style of more modern architecture while Peter Keating likes the style f more classical architecture. Two building in which the two men have different views are the Falling Water and the Piazza d’Italia. The Falling Water would appeal to Roark. He be amazed with the building and would love to do something in that style himself. He also would enjoy it because it is original and not seen much. While Roark enjoys this, Keating would not. He does not enjoy the modern style, he likes the classical style that you see all over. The Piazza d’Italia, would not appeal to Roark. He does not believe that they should continue to build building from so long ago. While on the other hand Keating would really like this. Not only does he like classical, but he also likes the Renaissance. He enjoys buildings that have the same style as long ago and continues to be built. I agree with Katie Boesen that St. Peters Cathedral would appeal to Keating. He would like how it resembles the Gothic style. I also agree that Roark would not find pleasure in the Cathedral. - Lauren Lyman
ReplyDeleteIn The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand, Peter Keating and Howard Roark are new faces in the architect world with contrasting ideas and visions. Peter Keating focuses on maintaining a sort of old World classical style when it comes to the design and construction of buildings. Therefore, he would be in awe at the Harold Washington Library located in Chicago. This building uses a Beaux-Arts design which styles and techniques may be dated as early as 1670. Beaux-Arts characteristics include arched windows and classical details, both of which the Harold Washington Library possesses. Roark on the other hand, who enjoys a more boundary-pushing and modern approach to architecture, would not be satisfied by this building. He would more likely be captivated by Soldier Field in Chicago. Its futuristic, avant-garde structure would be brilliance in his eyes. The fact that the stadium draws attention to the city would please Roark. Keating, however, would argue and say that it disgraces the intricate and ornate fashions of classical design.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Julianna’s thoughts about Peter Keating fancying the Harold Washingotn Library. As she mentioned, Keating wanted to keep the architecture of the past alive and this building does that exactly with its incorporation of old styles.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAyn Rand shows the many beautiful forms of architecture in the classic novel, The Fountainhead. The characters, Peter Keating and Howard Roark, have opposing views on architecture. Roark believes in creating something new and magnificent, something no one would expect to see. He feels comfortable building something people would not expect. On the contrary, Keating believes in architecture that represents the uniqueness and history of the site. He trusts and respects the styles
ReplyDeleteof architecture carried down before him.
Soldier Field, the magnificent home of the Chicago Bears, was designed by Holabird and Roche. Howard Roark would be awed by the breath-taking design of the field. Details such as the contemporary glass would be in the interest of Roark. Also, the thought of Soldier Field being one of the first sports fields to add modern architecture into its design would please Roark, a man who wants to set new terms for architecture. Although Keating might appreciate the ancient columns below the field, the modern and uneven structure would terrify Keating. For instance, the contemporary glass surrounding the actual field does not really follow a law of architecture. It is not evenly measured and it stands out because of it. Peter Keating would not show trust in Soldier Field because the architect shows modern transitions, which Keating does not support.
Architect Vitzhum and Burns designed St. Peter’s Church in Chicago, Illinois. I believe Peter Keating would fall in love with a building such as St. Peter’s Church. The architecture of the building follows the teachings of architecture Keating has worked hard to interpret. They use gothic and traditional designs and use details that suit the area surrounding the building. Keating would believe in a building such as this because it shows that following through with his studies results in buildings such as St. Peter’s Church. In opposition, Howard Roark would show no interest in this building. He would believe that hundreds of buildings have the same structure and design. Roark shows no desire in copying the ideas of ancient architecture. He wants to be known for coming up with a new concept. He would say that the building is not contributing to the needs of present and future architecture.
I agree with Colin Riley’s opinion of Roark’s view on Soldier Field. Even though the field incorporates traditional architectural styles, it still shows a way of modernizing the structure. For being a sports stadium, I believe that Roark would appreciate the thought of beginning a new way to incorporate modern architecture into the structure of sport stadiums.
In Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead, Peter Keating and Howard Roark represent two extremes in architecture: modern(Roark) and classic(Keating). Peter Keating is likely to design buildings similar to Piazza d'Italia because of its ageless trend of arches and columns. Keating's style is more or less to copy what those before him have done, in order to gain acceptance. Roark, on the other hand, designs a building, very similar to Falling Water, in the novel. It appears modernistic, and that is because Roark is trying to design a home that's only purpose is to serve the basic needs of whoever dwells in it. He describes his design as having "integrity". I disagree with Will Lederer on the point that Keating would be disappointed in Falling Waters. Peter respects the modernistic style, but can't quite grasp Roark's ability to design with only the basics in mind.
ReplyDeleteIn Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead, Peter Keating and Howard Roark have two completely different ideas of what architecture should look like. Peter Keating believes architecture should be based more on the classics, while Roark prefers more modern architecture. Keating, for example, would prefer to design a building like Soldier Field. He would like how it used previous styles of the Romans, with the layout of the stadium looking similar to the Coliosseum, and the Greeks, with the columns on the outside of the building. Roark on the other hand, would have hated it. He would have hated the imitation used on the building and would have wanted the design to be more original and modern. Roark, though, wold have liked the Pompidou Center. It was new, modern and totally different. It fit the purpose of the building, a modern art museum, and it fit in with it's location in the busy city of Paris. He also would have liked the angles and straight lines used. Keating would have hated the building viewing it as an insult to architecture. It was too modern and too risky for his taste and it didn't hold to any of the classic principles taught to him at Stanton.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Marisa who stated Howard Roark would like Falling Waters in Pennsylvania. Roark would like it because it was the perfect building for the location, and worked with the land. Plus the bulidng was more modern with it's straight lines and angles. It was just the thing Roark would have designed. Gabrielle Timm
The Fountainhead, a controversial novel by Ayn Rand, compares and contrasts the conflicting styles of two young architects, Peter Keating and Howard Roark. Both are extraordinarily talented, but while Keating settles for conventional designs and absorbs the fame and fortune it brings him, Roark is stubborn, rebellious, and determined to have his buildings erected exactly as he sees them. The problem is, people will not accept his unusual, though very practical, designs, and still, Roark insists on having it done his way. He is the objectivist, after all. Of the seven buildings listed, I think the Harold Washington Library, also known as the Chicago Public Library, would be most admired by Keating and most despised by Roark. Likewise, Fallingwater, designed by America’s most famous architect, Frank Lloyd Wright, seventy-five years ago, would be most admired by Roark, and possibly disliked by Keating. With the exception of the top floor, with its grand windows, the Renaissance inspires almost the entire Library. Keating would recognize the beauty and tradition in the intricate ornamentation, while Roark would find the Greek sculptures that outline the roof obnoxious and unoriginal. Because Roark is interested in building solid, spacious structures, he would love Fallingwater and the fact that it is both modern and in harmony with nature. While Keating would not necessarily hate it, he would find it difficult to appreciate such a simple, yet unorthodox, thing. I would like to compliment Colin Riley and Owen Naab on recognizing the strange combination of architectural styles of Soldier Field, and how the original version would appeal to Keating, while the addition would appeal to Roark. I agree completely. In conclusion, Peter Keating and Howard Roark both have enormous potential, but they are traveling in opposite directions. While Keating is dwelling on the past, Roark is paving way for the future. Karina de Hueck.
ReplyDeleteSimplistic and practical, Howard Roark’s buildings logically utilize the land on which they are constructed and reject the classical conventions set forth by previous ages. On the opposite end of the spectrum, Peter Keating holds that a dignified building seeks guidance from structures erected from former time periods. Because of the tremendous effort author Ayn Rand devotes to depicting the clash between two distinguishable styles of architecture through Roark and Keating in The Fountainhead, it is viable to accurately propose each man’s opinions on buildings not yet erected in the time of the novel. For example, the Piazza d’Italia of New Orleans, Louisiana, draws on classical Italian architecture to incorporate the use of arches and columns to create what most, including Keating, agree to be an aesthetically stunning plaza. However, Roark does not build for an audience. Flourished with superfluous detail and ornamentation, Roark would condemn the design for displaying false arches and columns with purposeless cornices that support literally nothing.
ReplyDeleteWhereas the Dana Building, erected by Roark’s mentor, Henry Cameron, emphasizes “the harmony of the steel skeleton within” (33), the Pompidou Centre in Paris displays an exo-skeletal structure. Possessing a deep-seeded desire to preserve the integrity of a building, Roark would critique this edifice, though it is created in the modernistic style, for displaying elements of confusion and abusing the precision of sharp angles. Now consider Keating. If built in the setting of this novel, Pompidou Centre would have been the butt-end of mockery from Keating and his contemporaries. However, as Pompidou Centre, erected in 1977, received accolades as innovative in design, Keating, too, would have hailed it as the cutting edge of architecture. In saying this, I confirm John Ray’s assessment that Keating cannot truly grasp matters that escape his comprehension. Eager to please those around him, Keating is wavering and fickle, especially regarding matters outside of architecture, including his relationship with Catherine. ~Jake Skarzynski
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn the book The Fountainhead, Author Ayn Rand creates two characters with completely different opinions on architecture. As Olivia Gatti said, Peter Keating prefers style that borrows elements from classical Roman or Greek culture, though the elements being used may not be necessary to the buildings being erected. Howard Roark, on the other hand, believes that each building should be uniquely designed to suit its own purpose. Just as no two clients are exactly alike nor are asking for buildings to serve the same purpose, Roark believed that buildings should be reflections of just that. Creations should be simple and functional, yet at the same time, daring and different.
ReplyDeleteBased on the information presented in the book reflecting the characters’ opinions on design, I believe Keating would have enjoyed the architectural style of Harold Washington Library in Chicago. The building is simple and borrows many elements of structures that came before it. Ornate carvings decorate the building and create a classical twist on an otherwise plain building. Such elements were stressed in Guy Francon firm. I also agree with Olivia in saying that Roark, on the other hand, would be much more satisfied with the character and originality presented in Falling Water in Pennsylvania. The house complements its surroundings and flows as naturally as the water beneath it. The building supports Roark’s ideal that buildings should not be “cookie cutter” structures. There is no trace of classical influence, yet the building is beautiful and complex, and completely one of a kind.
~Mary Lee Sperl
The story of Howard Roark and Peter Keating, The Fountainhead, by Ayn Rand, displays two unique and opposite portrayals of architecture in the early 20th century. With the acceptable and classic style, Peter Keating soars through Stanton Instittue of Technology and on to Guy Francon's architecture firm. On the other hand, there is Roark who at the beginning was expelled from Stanton and goes to work for Cameron, a washed up architect, is a rebel with new ideas that others seen as destructive of the architects idea. I think that Harold Washington Library would be recognized by Peter Keating due to his love of the Renaissance and Graeco-Roman architecture. However, Roark would find it repetative and overdone because of the classical architecture themes. On the contrasting side, there is Falling Water. I agree with Haley Hartzel that Peter Keating would be astounded by the audacity of the new age style, but that Howard Roark would find it magnificent. Howard would find the new styles used in the architecture ideas would be austounding and try to find how to apply such new ideas to his own development as an architect. Even though both artists have different platforms of artchitercural ideas, they both have a strong and indomitable basis on their technique of building wonderful forms of art in the architectural sense.
ReplyDelete-Hayley Hartnett
In "The Fountainhead" by Ayn Rand, we are introduced to Howard Roark and Peter Keating, two characters who have different architectural styles. Roark prefers modern designs that serve the needs of people who occupy it, while Keating prefers classical designs that will satisfy the public. I agree with John Ray’s opinion, stating that Keating would design a building like the Piazza d’Italia in New Orleans because of the numerous columns and its similarity to a traditional type of structure. Roark would dislike Piazza d’Italia because most of the building is designed based on what has been designed before; there is not much originality. However, Roark would admire a structure like Falling Water in Ohiopyle, Pennsylvania because of its uniqueness and innovative design. It seems to blend in well with its natural surroundings and has a more modern feel. Although Keating would not despise Falling Water, he would probably just have a hard time comprehending with such a simplistic design that flows so smoothly between the design and its environment.
ReplyDeleteIn the book "The Fountianhead" by Ayn Rand the two main characters, Howard Roark and Peter Keating, have two very different ideas of architectural beauty. Roark is a more modern architect while Keating is a classical architect. I agree with Sean Festle when he said that Roark would enjoy Falling Waters. Its uniqueness and the way it blends with its surroundings is something that would appeal to him. Keating, on the other hand, would enjoy the Harold Washington Library. The Harold Washington Library has many similarities to roman architecture, such as a sculpture of the roman goddess Ceres. -jimmy Moriarity
ReplyDeleteAs a common quote says, “Beauty lies in the beholder.” And this statement also applies to Howard Roark and Peter Keating love for architecture. The two buildings they will be seeing today will be the St. Peter’s Church and the Falling Water. Keating of course would prefer St. Peter’s Church because it would something he could of done. It has a gothic style, with the pointed arches, so ergo it could be looked at and changed a little bit differently, but still be in the same style, Keating would do that. Since it was also a church he would want to please them by making something they wanted, something popular, Roark not so much. He wouldn’t be much of a fan for conformity, he just builds what he wants, which is usually unusual, and so he wouldn’t like this church that much. Yes, Howard would get the purpose of the church for preaching ones religion, but do you need all the statues outside. Plus he wouldn’t like he because it would be copying an old style not moving forward to something more modern, like Falling Water. Howard would love and appreciate this house and the time it took to make it. He could tell how it looks like it was made from the ground it stands on, but is also uniquely apart from it. He probably could see all the purposes for how each room was made and how the house was made, he would make this because it has three of his favorite attributes in it; it’s unusual, it incorporates nature, and it is great architecture. Peter Keating would not like this because it is unusual and probably unpopular at the time. Peter Keating also wouldn’t be able to create this because there is no other building like it, no style, and no history to try to base it off and as everybody can tell he cannot make squat from his own imagination. Both buildings have great architecture it just depends on the person’s views and perspective if they see it or don’t.
ReplyDeleteSince a lot of people seem to disagreeing with Colin Riley’s idea of Roark like Soldier Field I will agree with him. If they read what he wrote he mostly says that Roark would like the metal part or the interior of it and not so much of the classical themes around it, I agree with that statement. But taking the building as a whole he would see the transition the architect was conveying form old and classical designs to more new and modern times, so overall he would admire the building, but wouldn’t completely love it.
- Timmy Reynolds
St. Peter's Church and the Falling Water house are two completely opposite buildings in the same way Peter Keating and Howard Roark are two completely different architects. One is a completely unique building that perfectly fits its surroundings and would not have the same effect in any other location. The other is a very old-fashioned, classical building that copies the style of past cultures. Roark would have loved the Falling Water building because of the modern design and the way it was built for that specific location. Keating on the other hand would see why Roark would love such a building but would never quite come to like it himself. St Peter's Church is a building that Keating would design but it would not quite satisfy him just like all the other buildings he designs on his own. He always builds classical or gothic or some other style that was copied but never liked them and always went to Roark so he could incorporate modernistic ideas into an old-fashioned building. Roark would just flat out say it is awful and unoriginal. It just copies and long dead society.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Sarah Young when she says Keating would greatly enjoy St. Peter's Church and find comfort in it. He would not, these building did not completely satisfy him but he forced himself to love them because all the great architects did. He might force himself to enjoy it but he would never find comfort in such building