I agree with Wilson; we must learn to distinguish between simplicity and triviality, and often simple is best.
Both with architecture and with liturgy, there are some who assume that “if one’s good, two must be better.” The liturgy gets cluttered up with bright colors and shiny objects, and the architecture of the church looks, at the end of this process, like a gingerbread architect on acid did the whole thing.
What is beautiful and what we think is beautiful are not necessarily the same thing. Our job is to build something of high aesthetic value, but to do so taking into account the fact that the transition between the old covenant and the new represented a basic move in the direction of simplicity and gladness of heart (Acts 2:46).
Those who talk aesthetics are not necessarily good at it, and those who prioritize something else are not necessarily neglecting our responsibility to worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness. And that should be our fundamental realization—real holiness brings real beauty. Sham beauty brings out the tendency that some have to try to glorify God by making the church look like the inside of a circus wagon. On top of that, it is not long before a true sense of the holy and the numinous disappears as well.