Now Andrew, surely you aren’t so politically
correct that you would reject an entire style of architecture because one of
the founding members of the broad artistic movement was a socialist. Are
you? It’s simply wrong to say Arts & Crafts houses are like Bauhaus with
frills. Nothing could be further from the truth. For one thing, Bauhaus
architecture was not built for human comfort. A&C houses were. They
emphasize simplicity, modesty and a connection to the hearth and nature. For
another, according to the architectu Witold Rybczynski, they were part of
architecture’s attempt to create a comfortable and affordable domestic style
in reaction to the fripperies of Victorian-style houses. Here’s a fair
description from a useful
When you walk into a Craftsman Bungalow the sense of space, the openness
of the rooms, and the rustic or bold-square styling feel completely
different from the Victorian houses still being built into the 1910s.
The Victorian excesses referred to included “useless” ornamentation and
gingerbread, living with a mish-mash of inconsistant patterns and style and
copying “foreign” styles. The primary inspiration for the Craftsman style
was to look to nature, local materials, local (nationalist or native)
building traditions and to design and construct after the manner of honest
craft traditions: iron and copper blacksmithing, pottery, coarse weaving and
rough hewn materials. … The house layout emphasizes the horizontal, rather
than multiple stories, and the philosophy is very middle class in a
contemporary sense without space for maids and servants. The “man” of the
house still had the library, but the “woman’s” workspace became more
functional, and the fireplace or the hearth became the family center to a
degree that was almost mythical.
What’s communist about that, for Pete’s sake? If you’re a McMansion kind of
guy, fine, have fun. But some of us on the Right actually prefer the
workmanship, modesty and intimacy of these old Craftsman houses. An NRO
reader responded to my earlier blog by saying that he too is a fan of the
“Not So Big House” philosophy of Sarah Susanka:
I have tried to spread the NSBH gospel to friends who are building
houses, but they look at me as if I have just suggested that they paint
their home a lovely shade of mauve. “Um . . . O.K., we might, um, look into
that.” What they are thinking is: “Don’t you know that bigger is better? You
know, resale value! Glamour bath! A walk-in closet the size of my parents’
den! Are you nuts? Or a Commie, trash-composting vegan?”
What they seem to miss is the central point of having a home: to live in
it.