The (Inescapable) Fountainhead

Although the actual content of Rand’s The Fountainhead and he ongoing work in definition and proliferation of objectivism is a testament within itself, the enduring lifespan of the text has been extended by its less than oblique and unabashed allegiance to selfish conservatism, or so its contemporary symbolism suggests.

While Rand’s work offered a viable counterpoint in the environment in which it was written, where the population was disenfranchised the leadership of the time offered little answers to the abundant turmoil. Turning to oneself was an applicable alternative. However over the years, The Fountainhead has mutated from a symbol of self esteem into some of a political shortcut in popular culture.
Consider the below examples as illustrations of this trend:

A Scanner Darkly



As the token paranoid character clings to a copy of the Fountainhead, the novel serves as a proxy suicide note. It says everything he wants to say. This headstrong self-belief is juxtaposed with the gravest act of self doubt, or perhaps it is arguing that the character is performing the most self-assured act he can, take the ultimate control of life and take it. Either interpretation you find, the implementation of the book as part of the frame is a deliberate attempt to drench an otherwise notable suicide scene with a quick shortcut to subtext and in turn invite speculation as above.

The Simpsons



Once again, The Simpsons adaptation of Fountainhead plays upon the commonly held conception of the novel as a gesture of distilled self-service. The curse of “mediocrity rules!”, is a ironic cry against the novel and film’s ham-fisted construction of irrational counter-characters. Roark’s court room speech is the only occasion that Maggie finds a voice, and the brief monologue is pictured as an impotent attempt that manages to change a worldview in sentences.

Pakistani adaptation of The Fountainhead



As one commenter on the video suggests:

“This drama was made during the dark days of martial law in Pakistan, when the access to foreign ideas was restricted and a media was totally controlled by government. This was a way to give people some light from outside under disguise of such dramas.”

While American audiences recalled the text as an overly politicized text with dubious undertones, those who were sheltered from outside politics grasped the concepts and consumed it as though it were a more sophisticated and Western alternative to their domestic politics.

Bonus rap music video inspired by The Fountainhead:

Being Eames

While the greatest legacy of Ray and Charles Eames may be their part in the design of the world's most ubiquitous and uncomfortable school chairs, I would say that their true gift to humanity is not something they designed or filmed. Their greatest asset was their unrelenting curiosity that drove the pair to capture the world for what they saw it: as a collection of accidental artworks. From leaves to their own children, their catalogue of films and the infinite compilation of original and incomparable design were nothing in comparison to the pairing of minds (in a marriage no less) that lived to see and improve.

I am in awe of their ability to reconcile such a staunchly commercial business with their altruistic pursuit of filmmaking. Their appearance in early television suggested a celebrity-esque stature, yet their body of work alluded more to two carefree kindred spirits who would be just as satisfied to film nothing in particular as they are to film everything but.

While cinema may be a technically accurate term to use to describe the filmic work of Charles and Ray Eames, I’d argue that it is the opposite. Their embrace of home recording; to not pursue grandiose mega-plex replicas and instead explore the spaces they inhabited everyday was a movement towards the domestic and participatory status quo for modern content development. The sheer possession of the insight to extract such beauty from the everyday is made even more enviable by the fact that this was a couple who created the domestic space for others every other minute of the day.

Perhaps they possessed a greater natural artistic pedigree than the average artist. Their involvement in early television commercial development reflects a sophisticated ability to promote but simultaneously push the envelope of art. The kaleidoscopic advertisement shown in class was a single example of a tireless work that was just effective as it was affective.

I am unable to draw a parallel with a modern figure. The closer I think would be Spike Jonze.

Spike Jonze has a respected cinematic portfolio as director of Being John Malkovich ,Adaptation, and the upcoming Where the Wild Things Are. But before that, he developed a reputation as a music video director where he leveraged the necessity for commercial appeal with suitable doses of quirk in order to break the conventional mold and almost singlehandedly revitalize the music video medium as an art form in its own right. Music videos were not the only commercial media that Jonze used as a vessel for artistic expression, his experience in promotional skateboard videos had the same composition of avant garde expression as the celebrated Adaptation.

Even so, the Eames achieved the same while promoting their own products, which either took saintly self control or a genuine love for art for art’s sake.

A Film Canon?

While studying historically significant works that predate the influences many of the influences of current films, the discourse of the canon is ever-present. The concept of an asset of hallowed films that in some way mark milestones in the evolution of the art form is the engine that drives discussion, but more importantly attracts the attention of study.

As contemporary students, we have virtually no input to what is considered as part of the film canon. We can’t evaluate the total value each piece afforded in its time as we sit at a long progression of inspiration and re-inspiration stemming from the initial piece like descendents. Basically, we can never construct a comprehensive image of what the world was like before the film, and how it influenced what came immediately after.

For this reason, we have to accept that the film canon that is defined is canonical. But I wonder how valid this is? Billy Stevenson’s pursuit of re-watching the supposed film canon is an intriguing experiment but on the surface seems to have low expectations of itself. I am not aware of what Stevenson intends to do once he has reviewed the canon, but I assume that it won’t go as far as to challenge the existing canon. By re-watching each film in order, he is a position to effectively chart the influences even with the gaps in between. And with that sense, he is better equipped than anyone to identify if the canon is still relevant today.

I feel that a film canon is weakened by the unwillingness to start removing films from the list. It’s not illogical to assume that a film, although it may influence film for one, two, or even three decades after its premiere only to be forgotten for every year afterward. As the world changes, the relevance of film adjusts. Where once the story may have engaged

Some would argue though that even if a canonical film is no longer in the chain of inspiration, it should retain its position in the canon for its previous influence. It remains there for study, and retrospection. I find the value of this dubious. The film canon should be dynamic, forever changing to ensure its relevance to the most current society, and even if we haven’t reached a point where the influence of a film has died out, the mindset of the canon should at least reflect that it is not a concrete folder of films that are untouchable. A film canon, in my mind, shouldn’t be an archive but rather a shifting cohort of exemplary films that matter. Note present tense.

Perhaps this an unreasonable and myopic approach, but it’s worth thought. Often I get a sense of over-retrospection; a continual and unrelenting reflection of the best of past and how it sat in the time with extrapolations of possible influence to an audience that has seldom been exposed to the film’s of that canon. This leads into an even greater question: If you look back too often and for too long, do you miss the present?

Fanvids and Cornell

When comparisons between Rose Hobart and fanvid culture arose, everyone seemed awfully quick to relegate both to the outer rims of popular culture.

Cornell's work an obsessive, meticulous piece whose absent narrative repels unsuspecting viewers so accustomed to a lienar story. The fanvids of the anonymous online mass labelled as festishic works of collage porn. The musical choices derided for being so typically 'outsider', but not.

While this is a valid lens to view the relationship between the works, it is unfortunately wrong. These works reflect a greater, innate human trait that epitomises mindless consumerism, but taken to the lengths of almost methamphetamine addiction.

Consider first. Humans have proven time and time again that they have an inevitable instinct to create, or more, to express. Whether it be as commonplace as a shopping list, to the most sophisticated life's work never completed, every day is an exercise in the exorcism of the information we absorb. Education is founded on the principle that there are certain facts and practices a human must know in order ot be a 'productive' citizen. Each fragment of media we consume is distilled and sculpted to regurgitated as our own contribution to the world.

And so, consumerism (that is to indiscriminately ingest almost every piece of everything we come in contact with) can be said to be the chief motivator of human expression. The more input, the more output. Ideally, the output would something wholly individual and original but for the most affected consumers this is an impossible task.

Those who toil arduous hours stitching together television fragments as if it were an elaborate operation, have lost the ability to think outside the narrow context of their consumption but harbour a inflating desire to express themselves. So, fanvid creators communicate in the only language they are truly fluent in, their own consumption. As rebuilding a shrine, or translating the Bible, these creators remodel their devotion according to their own desires. It comes as no surprise then that they pick from the same limited canon of popular music, their individual expression is generated in how they can collage the same pieces everyone else consumes.

They are hardly social outcasts, or even outliers, when communicate and create with the scraps of artless, abundant culture that others pass off as too commercial. They are the final evolution of the consumer.

Cornell, behaving the same decades earlier, demonstrates this same instinct in an environment where cultural absorption is limited by time and space. By drawing fragments from a single widely-received commercial success, Cornell acts just as the fanvid artists do. He is personalising the popular culture for himself, as it is the most truly reflective art form he can find.

Therefore, thus, hence and furthermore, just because something is subcultural doesn't mean it is automatically 'outsider'. Minorities exist at both ends of the social strata, and in this case, we see the very apex of consumerism, where it becomes a language akin to Esperanto.