Your posts to me on this have made me look back at the work, and I think you're right. The European minimalist school is what has produced most of the architecture I find objectionable from both an aesthetic and functional standpoint.
I wouldn't want the upkeep, and I think its a shame that you can't see the waterfall from the house, but Wright's Falling Waters house is still one of the most beautiful buildings around. I'd just rather look at it than live in it.
The two World Wars and the Spanish Revolution did something to Europe, and so much of what comes from there creatively is nihilistic now. I find it disturbing to get too involved with their design sensibilities.
Hi Richard,
I’d really take another look at Wright from the standpoint of function. I think his interiors are exquisite—the use of horizontal lines that relate the interior to the exterior, the blending of materials to relate structure to natural surroundings and the relatively intimate scale of his domestic structures has become integral to building conventions.
“Form follows function” was—according to them—the first principal of the International (European) minimalist style. This is why the stripped their buildings of all decorative elements.
The problem is that people want more than mere function, they want room for their stuff, things to remind them of where they are and where they came from, afford privacy, make them feel safe, etc. They want symbols around them. They want to feel a part of a community, and at the same time keep a sense of individuality. The International style
ignored this.
I can’t recommend Tom Wolfe’s book on this highly enough. It’s a quick, entertaining survey of 20th century architecture.