Fountain Head / Mass Murder

Lebbeus Woods said that this movie "has had an immense impact on the public perception of architects and architecture, and also on architects themselves for better and for worse"'

Should we like or dislike the image that this movie has made for architects. In truth I’m conflicted. I love the fact that Roark, whose design has been grossly changed without his consent, blows it up because as he says himself "I destroyed it because I did not choose to let it exist". But I also hate that we, as architects, are so often seen as arrogant and pretentious about our designs, which we see as art that is ours and ours alone. This is simply not true, if when Van Gogh painted the Starry Night was asked by his client or an admirer to change the colour of the sky, he with his integrity intact could simply say “Piss Off”. However for an architect, this is not so simple, because we design for others, not just for clients, but those who will walk by, see, live or work in the area. Not to mention the mere fact that our design is not ours alone.

When Roark blow up his design he also destroyed work, labour and taught placed into it by 100's of other professionals. Can we not think of the Project Manager managing the project, the engineers, the layers and the assistants that have played a role in the design/construction? Should we not assume that they take as much pride in their work as Roark; that they see the shambles and fragments of Roark’s destruction as a loss of well laboured and productive work? This movie, in trying to romanticize the thought that an idea belongs to the creator, fails to tell the whole story.

In many ways I agree with this thought, but it’s a very narrow view to take. This belief that an idea belongs to the creator and therefore they should be allowed to control it, somehow reminded me of a interview I saw about Cody R. Wilson, who designed the first 3D printed fire arm and then posted the designs on-line for free download. Listening to him made me livid. I am against people who are unlicensed and inexperienced owning guns; I will also never understand the need for anyone outside the military/police force to own a machine gun. At least a shot gun is built to hunt animals but machine guns are built to kill people. Why anyone would need or want one is beyond me. However Cody Wilson claims his actions are "it’s intently disrupted - that’s true" and that this is a political statement to show that "Gun control for us is a fantasy".

Never in my life have I wanted to kill another person so much by using their own invention against them. Anyone know where the nearest 3D printer is?

Does he not have the right to control his idea/invention? - YES

Should knowledge and invention not be shared? - YES

YES in a perfect world, then again in a perfect world there wouldn’t be mass shootings in schools. There wouldn’t be drive by shooting or armed robbery. I am horrified at the thought of who and for what reason people are downloading these designs and makeing their own homemade killing machines.

His argument is that it is "attractive" that "none of this is serialized as you may notice…… if you are 12 years old you can buy it online which I think is a thing of beauty." and then continues to state that "What’s great right now about America, is that you can buy ammunition on-line". Can he seriously not see the implications of his actions? not to mention that he is undoubtedly destroying the ideas that the creators of the 3D printer had; surely they envisaged their invention as a way to improve the future and not to destroy it.

Dickhead!