In my opinion, materials should be used as what they are….in this case, a log cabin wall is a simple construction method used for simple, pioneering buildings. Using the same ‘method’ for a…log palace… is just plain wrong.
I would disagree with this idea. Materials are tools, and they allow for a creation of an extremely wide array of expressions. While the personal preference of the concept of “material honesty” is not wrong by any means (no personal preference is ever wrong), it should not be misconstrued into some incorrect assessment of objective reality. A reality that all materials have always been used in combination with other materials, to achieve some specific requirements that otherwise could not be met. A common misconception about, for example, traditional architecture and techniques is that it is always “primitively pure” (like some sort of a stock “noble savage”). While in fact, the materials have always been used in ways that would be berated as “fake” by some, if found in a modern structure – concrete core hiding behind brick and marble facade, stucco and plaster making a brick wall seem like a solid flat wall (which it is not), paint hiding the properties of an underlying material in the same manner, exterior cut stone hiding a rubble behind, various structural elements such as walls, windows, vaults, ceilings – “faking” structural functionality whilst being designed purely for aesthetic purpose.
Same is here. There is a notion that log “cabin” is necessarily a “primitive building” – but it is nothing but a social construct. A construct which creates a “limit” on expression of log structures, a limit which has no objective hold (i.e. it is obviously possible to use and combine log structures in a greater variety of expressions), but only “moral” hold. Such “moral” hold would not “allow” existence of actual traditional “luxury” houses, such as a traditional Swiss blockhaus, or traditional Russian wooden architecture. But alas, the richness of some particular architectural expressions stems from the fact that its creators often didn’t know that they “trespass” some supposed “moral” design limitations.
