I do not think Venturi was one who over did it, my comment of superfluous elements was directly related to themed design in the context of themed entertainment.
My mistake. I certainly agree in that regard then.
I think you may be assuming a more narrow definition of 'show' than how I am using the term. I am using it more synonymously with 'story' and 'theme,' all aspects of the intended guest experience from what they see to what they feel. In well executed spaces, the dimensions, materiality and tectonics do all support that experience as much as possible. Yes, something like a Victorian storefront with in-swing doors will likely not be allowed but the elements that can be shaped should be shaped by the story.
Much of The Autobiography of an Idea focuses on emotion as a key, if not the key, function of architecture, and much of themed design is about creating emotion. Story does not seem to be much of a stretch.
Perhaps I am. I may have not conveyed my thoughts very well. I was speaking to how the program, in the architectural sense of the word, contains more than simply the guest experience. Aspects of constructability, accessibility, etc., are critical to an adequate architectural design, but are also elements of the architecture the guest does not experience in the same manner as the "show".
To use your storefront example, they may or may not be functional doors, they may or may not have the proper panic hardware or clearances, etc., but they would be used if they are able to convey the story to the guest better than out-swinging aluminum storefront system with closers and panic devices. (EDIT: sorry I think I misunderstood your point on this. But as you said, elements should be shaped by story, but sometimes can't. This reinforces my idea that the architecture of the building and the architecture of the guest experience are linked but not necessarily inextricably so).
I wouldn't ever disagree that having an emotive experience is the pinnacle of great architecture. But in creating great architecture, one must focus on
all of the elements needed to have the user experience the space as intended, and safely, which moves beyond those aspects whose goal is only getting the guest (in a themed experience) to emote. AA's add to the story, but aren't crucial to life safety. There are certainly countless egress paths that the typical guest has never, and will never, experience (which is a good thing, unless you're a big architecture nerd like some of us here).
Open plenum, black painted ceilings. This is something the guest shouldn't "experience", or certainly something the designer wouldn't want the guest to notice, but is quite obviously an important and necessary element to the architecture and to the guest experience. Building elements and the architectural design of such, that are "unnoticed" by guests, but still critical to the function of the space, are more about what I was, at least attempting, to speak to, when discussing how "story" is reflected in the architecture. I don't believe we quite saw eye to eye when referring to "story".
As a related aside, finding how they theme or "hide" such things as exit signs, sprinkler heads, HVAC vents, etc., is one of my most favorite past times at the parks, or any themed environment for that matter. Again, architectural elements required by code, but those that which the designer would feel best to avoid drawing attention to, as they can easily break the story. Like the Avoid the Penny lecture you posted (great link, btw, very informative).
