Is architecture only skin-deep?

Inaki Abalos and other architectural theoreticians mourn the death of the interior in modern and contemporary architecture. Some say that architects have lost control of the interior to outside parties, whether to interior designers or to the whims of the client. This has led to a focus on the facade/enclosure and this, we are told, is where all of the energy, innovation, and excitement now lies in our field. I, however, see a different method behind the madness. I think it is no coincidence that the rise of starchitecture was followed by an overwhelming emphasis on a building's exterior. When we picture of the work of starchitects, when we seek to identify the author of a building, we most often look to the outside. Not within. In the profession's (and academia's) race to emulate these mavens of modernity, we have allowed architecture to become only one thing: a skin. After all, how else to get yourself noticed/published in a glossy magazine or in the ubiquitous ArchDaily write-up other than to create a parametrically-designed, ultra-customized, pseudo-conceptualized facade all ready for the lens of the photographer? "All right Mr. DeMille, I'm ready for my close-up!" Thankfully I believe our generation, disenchanted and renewing the search for architectural authenticity, will course-correct our profession back to caring just as much about what's inside a building as what is not.