Question 4

The House of the Future spoke more to the idea of object and consumerism than the idea of house and architecture. The house allowed the examination of plastic as a futuristic material. The article says the house was to be a "showcase of plastic" being the "dream material" of the time, that sought to bring out the characteristics of plastics rather than emulating traditional building materials. At first, the idea was American homes that aimed to be dream homes simply needed to fill their homes with plastic. Later on, the idea of the 'container' spread to the house itself. In this, the house is seen as an object, a consumer desired object, rather than a traditional house. The HOF was treated as "staged architecture," something to be viewed, much like the art inside it. The article asserts that "the HOF represented not infinite flexibility but a singular, self-supporting shape that would, like any other consumer product, be abandoned as soon as a new model came out." Much like any consumer product, the is always high demand for the newest design. The Apple Ipod is a current example. Nearly each year, a new model comes out, and immediately people want it. An updated design, a few new features are all it takes to be eaten up by the consumer driven desire for newness. As for this desire to cross into the House of the Future, it may not be as good. The house then becomes dispensable, just another object to collect and discard when it is out of date. Today, and for many years now, civilizations have been more sedentary. Nomadic need for temporary homes has been set aside for permanent settlements. Though the abandonable home fits the model for our consumer side, it does not serve the needs of the way we live.