I always figured Roark's destruction of his building was a statement about her editor, and editors in general. Otherwise, she's making a pretty facile, misguided point about greatness in art. Only a fool would rationally deny that creativity requires interaction with others. Almost no successful creative endeavor receives input from just one person--- painters, sculptors, and unpublished authors are the key exceptions. And even then, how many painters make their own paint, brushes and canvas? How many sculptors forge their own tools? And who taught them? Who influenced them? Some critics hold that artistic influences on the artist are a kind of input. Saying "I did it myself" in art is merely shorthand for "the basic and central idea were mine, and maybe the execution as well." Is there such a thing as truly solo artwork?