Saving Interior Design From Obsolescence
Posted on October 26, 2018
Semantics of Design
Every single designer and to a certain extent, non-designers, struggle with the definition of design. Interior design is no different. We are a relatively young field of design, often misunderstood, and stuck in a place between architecture and decoration. As we continue to grapple with proving our worth and understanding our own value add, we must also continue evolving.
“…the perennial problem of design: how on earth do you wrangle the discussion of an extremely diverse range of disciplines—from industrial to fashion and everything in between? The crux of the problem appears to be a side effect of using language indiscriminately; we use the word “design” as both a noun and as a verb, describing both the outcome and the process.” – Rob Peart, Why Design is Not Problem Solving + Design Thinking Isn’t Always the Answer, 2017[1].
In majority of interior design educational programs and firms across the US, design is focused on the end creation and outcome (what I refer to as Design as Aesthetics or DaA), rather than the process and action of design (what I refer to as Design as Process or DaP) itself. I have engaged in the teaching and practice of DaA and found them to be lacking. The interior design industry currently does not consider DaP integral to its identity nor does it currently understand its value. I believe that the industry must make space for this shift to occur. If we do not, current technological advancements will render our industry into obsolescence.
Many may argue that the architecture and interior design industry already do leverage DaP. While this approach does exist, I would argue that its scale and rate of adoption should be used as the gauge and not its existence alone. And, I would also argue that DaP can’t be measured in primary markets such as New York alone. It must be measured in secondary and tertiary such as Austin and New Orleans. My own professional experience in large and small cities, as well as across large and small design firms, leads me to believe that the industry has a long ways to go when it comes to understanding and adoption of DaP.
I am not suggesting that interior design should move away from DaA. I believe the industry must integrate, implement and prioritize DaP alongside DaA. As designers, we must challenge our own notions of design so that we can leverage context and identify connections in our projects. For example, a majority of the projects to this day, begin without research. The client provides the design team a list of needs. This list is used as the basis of design. And a few months to a year thereafter (depending on the size of the project), all of a sudden, there exists a new built environment. And most often, this new environment does not work for the end-users. Rather than the client (often the real estate & facilities manager) providing this list of needs, shouldn’t the basis of design be ethnographic studies and/or other methods of research to understand what is even necessary? Latour mentions that to design is always to redesign; and there is always something that exists first as a given, as an issue, as a problem[2]. As designers, we must internalize this simple notion. In moving forward with our clients, we must also look backwards at their past. And, we must learn to question. We must question the rigidity of our practices. We must research end-user behavior. We must thoughtfully co-create a vision for the future of work with end-users and clients. We must question our clients for their own long-term benefit. If we can learn to question, and if we can integrate DaP into our practice and education, we will design much better human- and user-centered spaces.
Utilizing Meadows’ systems framework[3] and my experience from practice & teaching, I have attempted to highlight a few aspects of the interior design industry. I have listed a few opportunities within the system that currently reinforce DaA. Alongside these opportunities, I have also identified possible interventions that could help the industry move towards DaP.
System: Interior Design Industry
Sub-systems: Practice and Education
1. CIDA Standards & Institutional Structures
Rule Beating Education curriculum across interior design programs in the US are currently structured to meet CIDA standards[4].Each program must go through CIDA reviews every 6 years and have collected course examples from at least 3 years prior. In addition to CIDA limitations, institutional cycles for addition and approval of new courses require planning ahead. These rigid CIDA standards and institutional requirements result in faculty solely focusing on meeting requirements rather than prioritizing exploration and innovative pedagogy.
Intervention Redesign CIDA Standards to (1) prioritize and include research and strategy into interior design curriculum and (2) make innovative pedagogy and practice a requirement. This shift would require interior design programs to maintain greater connection to practice. Faculty would be required to engage in practice to a greater extent and/or programs would need to bring in more design professionals to teach and critique students.
2. Tenure Guidelines & Requirements
Rule Beating Majority of institutions value research but not creative scholarship. All if not majority of the faculty, are required to publish papers and conduct academic research and are not expected to engage in practice. As a result, a design that is very much in need of connection to practice due to its applied nature, is taught to the future generation of designers by those that do not engage in practice.
Intervention Redesign tenure-track and tenured guidelines to allow for choice between practice and research as basis of success. This would allow for greater applied learning within the classroom and better connection of practice and research within program departments. Currently, academic research is disconnected from practice-driven research and this would also allow for greater overlap and raise the value and relevance of academic research.
3. Industry Fee Structures
Escalation Industry’s fee structures limit scope, schedule, budget and more importantly, value add (end-user interaction and research). Competition for work results in firms charging even lower fees that result in even greater limitations on project budget, schedule and scope.
Intervention Industry agreement on higher baseline fee structures when competing for work through organizations such as AIA, IIDA and ASID. And, inclusion of research as basic requirement on all projects exceeding a specified scale and budget. Higher fees would also allow for increase in wages across industry for architects and interior designers. This intervention seems pretty lofty however, I hope it is attainable to some extent.
4. Basis of Success
Drift to Lower Performance Historically, architecture has focused on the individual and their creation[5]. Take for example the historical works of Frank Lloyd Wright, Philip Johnson, Mies Van Der Rohe and Antoni Gaudi. As a result, success to a huge extent even in modern day practice, is “glorification” of identity and ego. This has lead to a disconnected practice. One that is more focused on ensuring control and reinforcing hierarchies.
Intervention Reframe success and reward collaboration rather than individual glory. Architecture and interior design are becoming more collaborative and interdisciplinary in practice due to technological advancements. Reframing measures of success would ensure that collaborative success and empathy are basis of work rather than ego and control. Organizational structures as a result may also become less hierarchical leading to a cultural shift in the industry.
Discipline Evolution and/or Rebirth?
In the case that technological advancements and competitive markets do render interior design obsolete in the future, can we imagine its evolution and/or rebirth? Could there be a “new” discipline that takes shape? Could this discipline successfully merge the realms of aesthetics and behavior? And lastly, could this discipline also be valued and understood better? I hope the answer to all the above is a resounding yes!
– ab
References
[1] Peart, Rob. Why Design is Not Problem Solving + Design Thinking Isn’t Always the Answer. https://eyeondesign.aiga.org/why-design-is-not-problem-solving-design-thinking-isnt-always-the-answer/ Accessed 24 Oct. 2018.
[2] Latour, Bruno. A Cautious Prometheus? A Few Steps Towards a Philosophy of Design (with Special Attention to Peter Sloterdijk) Keynote lecture for the Networks of Design meeting of the Design History Society, Falmouth, Cornwall, 3rd September, 2008.
[3] Meadows, H. Donella. Thinking in Systems: A Primer. 2008.
[4] Council of Interior Design Accreditation, CIDA. https://accredit-id.org/ Accessed 25 Oct. 2018.
[5] Canv Editorial. The Changing Face of Design. https://medium.com/canvs/the-changing-face-of-design-cbb227dcb1b8 Accessed 25 Oct. 2018.