The Gaps Between Interior Design and Architecture
Henry Hildebrandt
“ ‘Imaginary’ universes are so much more beautiful than this
stupidly constructed ‘real’ one,” wrote English mathematician
G. H. Hardy, more than 60 years ago.
Hardy was acknowledging the messy business of figuring out the
complexity of the world we think we know and live in with the world we
don’t fully understand; a world of abstraction involved with the
interrelationships of particle theory as the smallest component and
seemingly ordered system of the cosmos. The dilemma of modern physics
and the more disputed concepts of contemporary metaphysics in explaining
our world is, in many ways, similar to the confusion between the terms
interior design and
interior architecture.
Both imply the act of designing within either a building or a space and
have been adopted to differentiate unique foci of work of the interior
environment. But the free use of the terms and the casual
interchangeability of them by both professionals and academics establish
a confused state that creates ambivalence in the conceptual framework
of this specialized design focus. This is a between and in-between
situation producing a disparity of clearly defined roles and services
for the comprehensive design of an interior environment; a complexity of
space, human experiences, and comfort.
A critical need in both architecture and interior design is to
realize that their roles, methodologies, and service expectations are
continually evolving within a shifting social, economic, and political
culture. As such, a
professional stature develops within a
dynamic state of examination and critical re-examination related to a
professional culture, economic system, and contemporary social value
system. This specialized status of professionalism is buttressed by an
intellectual rigor and continual evaluation of its theory and process.
Equally important is the fundamental requirement of ongoing examination
to facilitate interrelated participants in a setting conducive to
sharing and clarifying current issues that impact all design related
professions and professionals dedicated to the environments that exist
within and around the building shell and the particular architectural
condition.
Traditionally, the disciplines of architecture and interior design
view themselves as distinctive and singular; being both boundary-tied by
professional legislation as well as seeing themselves as offering
specialized service roles. This is reinforced by a protective “turf
mentality” advanced and guarded by their respective professional and
licensure organizations. While the line between services appears
simplistically clear to the public—architecture is about mostly the
outside of buildings, interior design directs itself to the inside—the
complexity of an in-between ‘interior architecture’ obscures this view.
What should be clear (and is to a small number of professionals,
academics, and journalists) is there is a new set of circumstances in
contemporary society that demands a shift in thinking: new problems
require new approaches for creative solutions.
If we understand that the goal of design is to make our world better,
disciplinary boundaries melt away and territorial squabbling dissolves.
What emerges is a common core of design knowledge and a design
methodology of problem solving geared toward analytical (problem
definition) and outcome processes (problem solving) connected to human
and environmental needs. This core is layered with communication skills
sets that are both particular to individual design disciplines and
shared between them. This common language provides for the transfer of
abstract conceptual thought (and symbolic content) to a practical and
applied language understood by practitioners and /or by the public on
several levels. Legitimacy for each discipline is then validated on
understanding of the broader parameters and the specific use-needs to be
served. Architecture, interior architecture and interior design are
now subsets together with graphic, industrial, landscape design, and so
on—of an activity focused to solving problems for individuals and their
collective societies to house, enhance, and prepare for a better future.
But the need for clarity on what differentiates interior design from
interior architecture is a critical question to avoid confusion and
misrepresentation in professional roles and academic curricula
structures. Most importantly, this issue needs to be grounded in a
forum to bring moral legitimacy to these design activities in separating
their use from a serious, well guided use linked to finding optimal
design solutions from a consumer marketing objective removed from the
actual concept or service to be purchased.
