by Brad Powell

Interior design is the planning of interior environments suitable for their intended use through the application of knowledge of human-environment interactions. – Brad Powell

8.30.10 | “What’s interior design?” If this question has been ringing in your ears, it may be because two of our important professional associations – International Federation of Interior Architects/Designers and International Interior Design Association – have set off another round of exploration in an attempt, among other things, to develop a consensus from which the profession might gain some traction in a public understanding of what this field is about.

IFI is an organization comprising interior/architecture design associations from around the world. Its current president, Shashi Caan, The Shashi Caan Collective, NY, has launched a worldwide series of roundtables to address this and related questions. [Note: The author helped prepare the focal questions for these roundtables.]

 … the public by and large is still very confused about what interior design is. 

According to Executive Director Cheryl Durst,IIDA is also in the process of beginning a dialog with its membership relating to the definition of interior design because many of its members find that the NCIDQ (National Council for Interior Design Qualification, www.ncidq.org) definition does not accurately reflect their practice. [Apparently a series of questions posed by the author before the most recent IIDA Chapter Leadership Conference was a spur to this exercise.]

Do we really need a definition of interior design? Socrates tells us that:

The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms.

The fundamental point behind this quotation is that communication, and indeed progress, is dependent upon a consensus of meaning. Obviously, communication depends upon the agreement of what particular sounds/words mean. Not so clear, but equally true, is that progress in any area is dependent upon a consensus of what any particular phenomena or development means. For example, from the times of ancient Greece, thoughts about nature and its workings were a matter of philosophical conjecture. While many interesting and important ideas were generated, the absence of an accepted methodology meant that there would be no consensus, and, accordingly, centuries of more and more speculation about the same things followed. Little progress was made until the Enlightenment, when the scientific method was adopted and became the means through which scientific communities accepted findings of various researchers and from which knowledge and progress grew.

I’m sure that the repetitious discussion of the same issues involving the built environment sounds very familiar to architects and interior designers who have been around for the past 20-30 years of replay of the same conversations about the interior design profession. With 150 CIDA (Council for Interior Design Accreditation) accredited schools of interior design in the U.S. (http://accredit-id.org/about), one would think that a fair consensus would have developed about the nature of interior design. Unfortunately, the general public’s conception of the field differs greatly from that of the profession (as represented by the NCIDQ definition and CIDA requirements.

At the very least, the public by and large is still very confused about what interior design is, so much so that, in the public mind there is no understanding, not even confusion. As the great Wolfgang Pauli said about one view of quantum mechanics, “It’s not even wrong!”

Generally, from reviewing the trade press and events and the numerous annual interior design awards, one might well conclude that interior design is decoration, that is Big D design, style, something that is aesthetically pleasing. This is not wrong, just incomplete and not particularly helpful in providing a basis for developing a more rounded and deeper understanding of the field of interior design. Moreover, this nebulous understanding of interior design has significant spill-over effects.

In last year’s decision by the Federal Court for the District of Connecticut – September, 2009, Federal Court decision, SUSAN ROBERTS, et. al. v. JERRY FARRELL, JR., in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection, (U.S. District Court for the District of CT, NO. 3:08CV1356 (MRK)) – the court struck down Connecticut’s interior design title legislation, the law that reserved the title of “interior designer” to qualified persons.

There Judge Mark R. Kravitz noted: “Indeed, at oral argument counsel had difficulty explaining to the Court the difference between the services rendered by an "interior decorator" . . . and an "interior designer" . . . . (emphasis added) The court also found that:

… there has been no showing that the term "interior designer" is a well-established term of art in the design industry that connotes specialized skills or proficiency. In fact, the parties stipulate that they are "not aware of any evidence that a member of the public in Connecticut who hears a person refer to him- or herself as an 'interior designer' assumes that that person possesses a particular set of credentials and/or qualifications."

…

In addition, the Commissioner [the defendant] conceded at oral argument that apart from the statutory definition that Connecticut gave to the term in 1983, "interior designer" is a generic term that holds no specific meaning.

[emphasis added]

It is important to realize that this court did not find that there was no difference between decorators and interior designers. Rather the decision was based upon findings that, in the minds of:
>counsel for state [defending the title legislation]
>the design industry
>the general public
>the Commissioner of the Department of Consumer Protection
all in Connecticut, there is no specific meaning or educational qualification attached to the term “interior designer.” Given that Connecticut’s capital, Hartford, is a congregation of insurance companies, and that the lower part of the state near New York City is one of the original centers of the McMansion, this conclusion should not be surprising. On the other hand, at least in Connecticut, this lack of understanding is not just the state of affairs regarding the general public, it involves everyone from Government regulators and elected officials to the design industry. And all of this was swallowed whole by a Federal District judge, someone approved by the U.S. Congress, not some justice-of-the-peace in the butt-end of rural Nowheresville.

 … a definition is no place for prescriptions or value judgments … 

So, at one end of the definitional spectrum we have the know-nothings. At the other end, we find the regulators and qualifiers, NCIDQ, the know-too-muchers or kitchen-sinkers. Their definition has become somewhat of an industry standard, but, as mentioned above, many interior designers don’t believe that this definition accurately characterizes their practice. Moreover, this definition attempts to encapsulate the important substance of 4-6 years of education and 20-30 years of experience into a short paragraph. . . . a tough assignment.

One cannot fault NCIDQ: it has a specific mission for which its definition makes sense. But its definition – for purposes of structuring guides and rules for qualification – is no way to communicate with the general public or even the regulated professionals, let alone their clients. (Who knows? Maybe this is just what it appears to be: a definition written by a committee of academics.) If anything, the problem lies with the interior design professional associations for thoughtlessly endorsing this definition.

Here is the two-part NCIDQ: Definition of Interior Design

Part 1 (this segmentation is mine, not NCIDQ’s, and made only for convenience of discussion):

Interior design is a multi-faceted profession in which creative and technical solutions are applied within a structure to achieve a built interior environment. These solutions are functional, enhance the quality of life and culture of the occupants and are aesthetically attractive. Designs are created in response to and coordinated with the building shell and acknowledge the physical location and social context of the project. Designs must adhere to code and regulatory requirements, and encourage the principles of environmental sustainability. The interior design process follows a systematic and coordinated methodology, including research, analysis and integration of knowledge into the creative process, whereby the needs and resources of the client are satisfied to produce an interior space that fulfills the project goals.

Comment: Without even looking at Part 2 of the definition (which is even longer), this is hardly the five-second elevator speech that many are looking for, and it certainly does not provide an easily accessible handhold for clear communication.

Moreover, for general purposes, as opposed to regulatory or qualification purposes, a definition is no place for prescriptions or value judgments such as are reflected in the phrases: “enhance the quality of life and culture,” ”adhere to code and regulatory requirements,” “environmentally sustainable,” “aesthetically attractive,” “follow a systematic and coordinated methodology,” etc.

Many of these factors might well be included in a description of a “qualified” or “certified” interior designer, but they certainly are not helpful in defining what interior design is. [And, the NCIDQ definition’s implied dismissal of the simplest and crudest forms of interior design is probably another hang-over from the architecture profession, where critics make the distinction between architectureand building, as in Truman Capote’s characterization of another authors work:That’s not writing; that’s typing. Witty and amusing, but not helpful to understanding]

Value judgments are particularly inappropriate in a general definition. Who for example, will tell us what is “aesthetically attractive” in a particular context, let alone what is aesthetically appropriate. And who is to decide what is “environmentally sustainable”? One might stipulate that LEED certification is deemed to be environmentally sustainable for qualification or regulatory purposes, but that doesn’t make it so, nor disqualify other approaches. (See Architect Gehry on LEED Buildings: Humbug; and Gehry’s Take Two on LEED Architecture)

Worse yet, the particulars of Part 1 of the NCIDQ definition seem to be directed toward distinguishing interior design from decoration. But decoration is a necessary part of interior design, and thankfully so. Indeed, the decorative aspects are, for many interior environments, sufficient, and at the very least, are often necessary.

Stripped of its unnecessary and inappropriate (for general definitional purposes) verbiage, Part 1 of the NCIDQ definition would read like this:

Interior design is a … process, whereby the needs and resources of the client are satisfied to produce an interior space that fulfills the project goals.

As you see, striping the excesses from the original highlights some awkward phrasing and circular reasoning. Still, the stripped down version is much clearer and comes much closer to an understandable statement. If nothing else, this truncated version shows how far the essence of the NCIDQ’s definition falls short.

Part 2 of the NCIDQ definition is a list of services that may be provided by interior design professionals. Pithy it’s not. [See footnote 1] Without discussing these services at length, one can easily see that these service-descriptions don’t define what the field is, but rather, describe some of the ways in which it is implemented. Moreover, while these services, in the aggregate, may give a fair notion of what some interior designers do in practicing their profession, it is not credible that one would take any one of these services to be the exclusive province of an interior designer (or an architect for that matter), with the exception of the provision relating the signing and sealing of documents (a subject that would be more appropriately addressed in a specific provision of related legislation rather than tucked into a general definition).

To understand the function of Part 2 of the NCIDQ definition, it is helpful to remember that one of the important aspects of interior design legislation is that it represents an effort to achieve for interior designers the right to practice the profession for which they have been trained. Thus, the inclusion in interior design legislation of some of these service descriptions is deemed necessary to fight arguments of, for example, architects, that interior designers do not have right to deliver the services described.

The unfortunate consequence of including such descriptive lists is that – counter to the manifest intent of the NCIDQ – upon achieving their desired legislation, some interior designers have adopted the aggressive exclusionary approach of their architect adversaries. Having achieved a right to practice that includes the right to deliver certain specified services, they chose to unjustifiably deny to others the same rights. What is particularly harmful is the cavalier application of these descriptive rights in a broad anti-competitive way. Proscriptions of this nature must be specific and clear, not something that flows from a definition.

Finally, Occam’s Razor reminds us to keep it simple as a way of getting the heart of the matter, and thus providing very memorable, usable solutions. That’s what a definition does: conveys the essentials of the term or phrase it defines and provides a basis for a growing understanding. This suggests that we should avoid the mighty struggle of interior design professionals and educators to draw a complete picture, in effect, and encyclopedia article, in formulating a definition of the field.

Part 1 of this exploratory series is intended to lay the background for the subsequent installments, the second of which will appear next week. As a prelude, I reiterate my new definition of interior design, which is set forth at the head of this piece.

Interior design is the planning of interior environments suitable for their intended use through the application of knowledge ofhuman/environment interactions [, including the physical and psycho-socio needs of the occupants].

[The bracketed [] portion is optional; my preference is to omit it.]

The bolded terms in this definition provide the key to understanding this definition, and I will explore its meaning next week.

Footnote 1 :

Part 2 - NCIDQ Definition:

Interior design includes a scope of services performed by a professional design practitioner, qualified by means of education, experience and examination, to protect and enhance the health, life safety and welfare of the public. These services may include any or all of the following tasks:

>Research and analysis of the client's goals and requirements; and development of documents, drawings and diagrams that outline those needs

>Formulation of preliminary space plans and two and three dimensional design concept studies and sketches that integrate the client's program needs and are based on knowledge of the principles of interior design and theories of human behavior

>Confirmation that preliminary space plans and design concepts are safe, functional, aesthetically appropriate, and meet all public health, safety and welfare requirements, including code, accessibility, environmental, and sustainability guidelines

>Selection of colors, materials and finishes to appropriately convey the design concept and to meet socio-psychological, functional, maintenance, lifecycle performance, environmental, and safety requirements

>Selection and specification of furniture, fixtures, equipment and millwork, including layout drawings and detailed product description; and provision of contract documentation to facilitate pricing, procurement and installation of furniture

>Provision of project management services, including preparation of project budgets and schedules

>Preparation of construction documents, consisting of plans, elevations, details and specifications, to illustrate non-structural and/or non-seismic partition layouts; power and communications locations; reflected ceiling plans and lighting designs; materials and finishes; and furniture layouts

>Preparation of construction documents to adhere to regional building and fire codes, municipal codes, and any other jurisdictional statutes, regulations and guidelines applicable to the interior space

>Coordination and collaboration with other allied design professionals who may be retained to provide consulting services, including but not limited to architects; structural, mechanical and electrical engineers, and various specialty consultants

>Confirmation that construction documents for non-structural and/or non-seismic construction are signed and sealed by the responsible interior designer, as applicable to jurisdictional requirements for filing with code enforcement officials

>Administration of contract documents, bids and negotiations as the client's agent

>Observation and reporting on the implementation of projects while in progress and upon completion, as a representative of and on behalf of the client; and conducting post-occupancy evaluation