Chairs Are For Sitting

Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead depicts precisely what N. John Habraken warns of in his commentary on architecture and architectural education. The individualistic architect, Howard Roark, would rather destroy his building than see it exist not preserving his completely autonomous design. The novel concludes with a celebration of integrity and ego, as Roark is ruled not guilty in the destruction of his own project, gets the girl, and gets another commission. He embodies the independence and autonomy that coincides with Rand's objectivist philosophy, with man (in this case, the architect) as a heroic being "...with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." (from Atlas Shrugged) 

Roark defending his right to throw a hissy fit and blow up

many buildings because obviously as an objectivist 

and a heterosexual, white, cisgender male in the patriarchal

1940's he should be allowed to do so. 

Though this novel and take is extreme, it isn't entirely removed from the way that some architects are portrayed or in fact act. I will never forget when watching a documentary about Richard Meier's design of the Getty Center his complaint that, during an architectural photo shoot of the finished project, the dining room was too messy. Apparently some of the chairs were not arranged at exact right angles to a few of the tables, contrary to Meier's request that everything be aligned as such. The camera panned out to the dining room, which was completely devoid of people and looking extremely in order and bathed in gentle sunlight. There were no plates, no stray pieces of silverware, no food or napkins or mess. Such a room could barely be called a dining room in this state. In this hall was a sprawl of bare tables and empty chairs. In that moment, I felt that the chairs, in Meier's mind, were not seats for people but rather items to be carefully collaged into place for the creation of a photograph. The identity of these pieces as chairs didn't matter. The fact that they were in perfect lines did. Just out of curiosity, I later went on to Meier's website to see what photos he displayed of the Getty Center. Not one of his twenty photos of the project has a single person to be found. 

Richard Meier's assistants likely have blocked the Getty's 

website, from which this photo was pulled, so that

he does not have to witness such disorder as people sitting 

in chairs in his buildings

The explicit control of all entities, a complete autonomy, is sought by both of these figures, fictitious and real. Defending and preserving integrity to a concept is integral to design. However, does such integrity of a concept mean that the integrity of form is sacred? Does it mean that there is only one way to realize an architectural idea, and that such a realization is done exclusively without consideration of people and how they come to inhabit space? 

 At the end of the day, if the architecture doesn't serve people, if a place that can be used and inhabited and cherished isn't created, if it doesn't teach or show people something, or do some combination of the aforementioned, is it architecture or is it art? Roark, and Meier, take on the role in some ways of moreso an artist. The difference between these two disciplines can be debated, and there is certainly an art to design and to architecture, but while art can be explicitly devoted to self expression, architecture is not for the self - it is for the society. Given that, it could be argued one would be foolish to not allow the society to adapt the architecture if needed, or to at least rearrange the chairs for their comfort.