> “The house is a work of art”
I really disagree with this and think this sentiment lies at the heart of a lot of our current architectural and housing issues.
Yes, houses should be beautiful and inspiring. However, they should not be “art” they should not be trying to say something. They should be trying to mesh with and improve the neighborhood they are in. They should be rooted in time and place. Every traditional form in a region is there because of tradeoffs of housing design in the area. Trying to build modern blocky houses and violating these tradeoffs with tech and materials always feels bad. Theres a reason New England farm houses are the way they are and so sought after.
Houses as sculpture made by architects trying to impress other architects results in a disjoint aesthetic. Nobody wants to visit a hodge podge of houses in the style of whatever was in vogue when they were last remodeled. See all the blocky and angular, white, black with some wood tones built/remodel in the past 10 years that already look dated. They ruin beautiful traditional neighborhoods.
Buildings as art/fashion is inherently unsustainable as they have to be bulldozed whenever tastes change.
Architectsagainsthumanity has a lot about this.
> They should be trying to mesh with and improve the neighborhood they are in. They should be rooted in time and place.
I take it you are not familiar with FLW's philosophy? He believed buildings should mirror their environment using local materials and forms that fit into the landscape. He definitely wasn't in favor of the houses you seem to be describing, which don't fit their environment or local nature. That doesn't mean his buildings can't be considered beautiful or art. Art can fit into and mirror its environment.