The Journals of Ayn Rand (27 page)

Advocates planned towns. (What will Roark say about that? Give it some thought.)

Interesting book, but too much emphasis on mass-production houses. Beautiful theories—but in practice, in the illustrations of the man’s work, too much standardization, too much reliance on the principle of “the beauty of modern tools,” not enough of that superior architectural beauty which the author himself advocates.

David Gray,
Thomas Hastings
,
Architect
.

The most disgusting book that I have read to date. The perfect picture of everything that stands against Roark. To be used plenty, for Peter Keating and all the others, particularly for John Eric Snyte. The perfect set-up of what has made modem architecture impossible. The perfect crystallization of the conventional architect, at the head of the profession, the kind responsible for Architectural Societies and all that prevents real creative genius and fights not to give it a chance. Smug, arrogant in a vulgar way, vain, self-contented, bitter and nasty toward all who are not like them, attacking genius with a phony, angry contempt, but without reasons or explanations, attacking only with ugly adjectives and curses, but never mentioning any valid grounds. [They] theorize in empty talk, seeming to accept all the best teachings of modem architecture and then distorting them by their own petty, silly, preposterous sophistries.

Only actual quotations can do justice to the picture of such an architect as Hastings:

Sic!!!

 

Such damning twaddle is presented in the book in the spirit of the greatest compliment. It speaks for itself—for the man and also for those who admired him.

Hastings had a “salon” that gathered for a “business man’s lunch.” “Charming” informality, “humor” and “quaintness.” Just a nice, big show to yell to the world: “See what lovely, regular fellows we are!” A description of Hastings’ entrance into one of these gatherings:

Lovely? Just a good back-slapper that knew damn well how to get along with his fellow men. It must also be noted that the struggle “from bottom to top” mentioned in the previous quotation was in reality from the security of an established family to his first jobs through the pull and protection of his family’s friends.

Some more about the lunches:

It is characteristic all right.

Hastings entertaining a guest at lunch:

Such wit!

Contrast this—if the mere rapprochement of the two in one thought is not too much of a sacrilege—with the chastity of a Howard Roark. [...]

No early signs of his [aptitude for] architecture, except a “talent for drawing.” At seventeen, he gave up his preparation for college and entered the offices of a firm of furniture makers and interior decorators, as student and draftsman. His first solo assignments were rooms to redecorate. He attended a “Sketch Club,” heard talk of the Paris Ecole des Beaux Arts and decided to go there. Went to Paris at age twenty. He was “affectionate, social, fun-loving, and boyishly exuberant.... Though very young he appeared to escape those sentimental and passionate predilections which blind the mind to work of equal merit but of a different kind.” He liked everything. No ideas of his own, no positive taste, no artistic, creative convictions. The above quotation is also given in the book as a compliment.

He studied at the Ecole for four years. Returning to America, at age 24, he entered the office of McKim, Meade and White as a draftsman. Here he met John M. Carrere, another Ecole man, and their friendship led to the forming of a partnership a year later. Hastings did the designing and Carrere handled the business side. His first big commission, which warranted his going into business for himself, was for a hotel in Florida, given to him by a friend and parishioner of his father. He built the hotel in the Spanish Renaissance style.

Hastings’ opinions:

Fine, but here is the conclusion:

Best example of sophistry I’ve ever heard. [Ralston Holcombe
expresses this view in the novel
.]

In 1897 (at the age of 37) he won the competition for the construction of the New York Public Library. He wanted to make it more monumental than the original utilitarian plan.

Here speaks arrogant mediocrity. Note the constant attacks on originality both from Hastings and from his enthusiastic admirer, the author of this book. Such little phrases as “exalting originality above beauty.” Nothing is ever said about originality that is beauty. [...]

During the years of work on the Library, Hastings had more than two hundred other commissions. He specialized in “monumental” works. Built a great deal for Fairs and Expositions. The most important of his works in this period was the New Theater in New York. He also won this in a competition. (Remember what Frank Lloyd Wright said about competitions! This is the best supporting evidence.)

“As he matured and gained authority, the teacher and evangelist in him became more evident.” He went to great lengths in preaching his architectural ideas. He also went heavily for “public service.” In 1910 President Taft appointed him one of the original members of the National Commission of Fine Arts. “This body was to exercise a general supervision of the National Government’s activities in the field of aesthetics and in particular of the architectural development of the National Capital.” (A fine example of what happens when National Governments go in for art.) In this capacity, Hastings had a great deal to do with the building of Washington, D.C. [...]

“He regarded architects who ignored tradition as uneducated, which was usually true, or as actuated by a frivolous and vain desire to be original at any cost.” (Mediocrity going snobbish and on the defensive.) Speaking of a Renaissance architect, he said: “It would have been impossible for him actually to define the style of his own period. That is for us, his successors, to do.” (Fine consciousness in creation!) An architect, he goes on to explain, [should] study the best that he can find in the past and use it to solve his modem problems. (Very creative!)

Hastings at fifty:

Here
is the complete picture of society and collectivism at work. Who gave medals and titles to Louis Sullivan or Frank Lloyd Wright? All this was going on in the same years when Sullivan was dying of a broken heart because his country would not recognize him, not even give work to him. If this doesn’t damn society, what can? [...]

Hastings’ views:

(Note the awful borrowing of modern ideas, only to lead up to such conclusions as he makes.)

He further claims that architecture always follows the political, religious, economic and other cultural developments of history, i.e., it follows the “spirit of the age.” And then:

(What indeed? This passage beats them all!)