It makes a lot of sense, though - interior decorations change (with very few exceptions, e.g. the French communist party HQ, which came pre-equipped with Niemeyer-designed furniture). Light impressions don't and have a lot of practical and emotional effect on how space is used.

Yes, this.

> “It seems that perfection is attained not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing more to remove.” - Antoine de Saint Exupéry

For myself, I actually prefer this, as I can visualize different colors and how they would work, and this is easier if, e.g., the kitchen isn't painted in bright canary yellow.

My real estate agent told me to leave my furniture in the house, but since I would prefer to see it without the clutter, I didn't and took everything out. Much later I learned that people are really, really bad at visualization and spatial perception. I've spent a good chunk of my life looking at floor plans, so being able to see a space from a top-down, 2D view comes naturally. But an awful lot of people cannot do this very well.

This is why architects make 3D images (or, in the past, build physical models). J. Random Client cannot visualize the spaces from a floor plan.

The article is interesting because usually interior design is part of the architectural process, which would include furniture and fixtures and equipment. But I can see where, if FFE is not included in the contract, the architect would prefer to showcase their design alone. But, I suspect, the client probably would prefer to see something in there if only to provide scale. (Oddly, putting a human in the drawing helps, but not as much as seeing the actual furniture. Bad spatial awareness strikes again.)

Too literal.

Checkout Design Thinking https://designthinking.ideo.com/