by Brad Powell

Interior design: the planning of interior environments, the effectiveness of which depends on the suitability for their intended use, reflecting an understanding of human-environment interactions.
– Brad Powell

<time datetime="2010-10-04" pubdate="" style="font-family: verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; ">10.4.10</time> | In the three previous installments I have suggested the need for another definition of interior design, one that embraces the full scope and potential of an art/science that understands and is built upon the interplay of environmental forces.

This requires us to deepen our thinking about interior design. Existing definitions fail to fully recognize that interior design is not a value system; it is a tool used to accomplish defined results. As such, it relies on knowledge that can be used for ends that some would consider unworthy or unacceptable. A corollary is that, particularly in vulnerable populations, ineffective interior design can be harmful.

. . . in the built environment, if there is an interior, there is no such thing as “no interior” design.

We must also step back and address issues that are at the heart of interior design, but are too often ignored or whose solutions are taken as a given. One fundamental fact is that interior design is not a choice: we can’t avoid interior design; but every one of us chooses the quality of interior design. If there is an interior, there is no such thing as “no interior design.” The plan, or lack of plan, may be a result of ignorance, indifference, reckless disregard, gross negligence, negligence, or on the other hand, it may a wonder to behold, but, in any event, the result is interior design, poor, adequate, or awesome as it may be.

Windows, or lack of them, are elements of the interior design, the orientation of the building, the external views, the location of the HVAC equipment, the nature of the floor, the height of the ceiling, the location and size of the supporting columns, the size of the spaces, the floorplates, the arrangement of the spaces, all involve and affect interior design. Of course, many of these things also fall within the purview of architectural practice. Astonishingly, however, some architects often plan these aspects without the input of interior designers, even on complex structures. Nonetheless, there is no escaping that these and similar aspects of a building are all interior design elements.

The question, then, is not “whether” interior design, but rather, how effective is the interior design that is there? Given the ubiquity of interiors and the necessity of interior design, the profession must develop a plan through which it will be able to infiltrate all areas of our life with interior design solutions easily adaptable by everyone. It is not enough to pursue great Design, the type of stuff that shows up in trade magazines, etc. As a tool, the profession must have answers, and the fact is, we do not have sufficient knowledge about the effects of moving from a natural environment to a life almost totally within a built environments to confidently assert that “we know what we are doing.” And the answer is not to leave this important area to shelter magazines, and the like.

Some of the most fundamental aspects of interior design seem to slip by with only passing attention. We all know that no building is worth inhabiting if it does not have acceptable air quality. But, how many interior designers test the air quality in the buildings they deal with, or would know how to do so or what to test for? I have heard of interior designers saying that they would refuse to design a “non-green” interior, but I have never heard an interior designer say that they would refuse to work in a building with unacceptable air quality. We also know that one of the best ways to achieve occupant satisfaction is to build in a few elements of individual control, especially over climate and lighting . . . and dare I mention acoustics?

These are all settled issues in interior design with known solutions, and they point directly to the heart of the profession and its purposes. The need to attend to these issues is not subject to debate. Rarely, however, would the general public associate these activities with interior design.

But what if the field were known for planning interior environments, systematically creating places for people to live and work? Would anyone planning a living/working environment expect others to live with mold, radon, formaldehyde, to live without being able to regulate their climate or lighting, or to live with overbearing acoustic noise or to be overwhelmed with the odors emanating from a Chinese restaurant? Of course not. And shouldn’t interior designers set the pace for dealing with these issues? And if they did, would the public have a better and more accurate perspective of the importance of interior design? I think so.

Progress of the field of interior design and its value to the general populace are limited by the absence of the following:

http://media.officeinsight.com/images/template/icons/gt.tradegothicbold2.14pt.12px.png); ">
• an overarching plan for the field of study and practice
• a position of responsibility on the essential scope and objectives of the field
• a methodology that facilitates consensus on a set of established (albeit continuously developing) solutions to common problems, particularly those which can be readily adopted to the general public
• the development of communication avenues to create a greater public understanding of the importance of interior design and what the profession does to address the related problems and issues

(We all have a debt of gratitude to ASID for its considerable contributions in these areas.)

How do we create an inviting environment for attracting and communicating more broadly, and for sowing a much better understanding of the capabilities of interior design?

We need a bridge of understanding between facilities and design professionals, on the one hand, and the greater consuming population, on the other. Let’s start small; let’s start with a notion of design that is grounded in planning.

Plan Rather Than Design

Most our readers are comfortable with Designand its laudable products and projects. Indeed, our industry is almost inundated with annual celebratory events recognizing these accomplishments. But almost all of these are, essentially, drive-by awards, which, while reflecting great accomplishments by the designers and their clients (and manufacturers) and significant efforts by those judging the efforts, have little exposure to or meaning for the public in general.

The question then is, “How do we create an inviting environment for attracting and communicating more broadly, and for sowing a much better understanding of the capabilities of interior design?” The obvious answer is to learn to communicate with each audience in terms that it can understand.

In my definition of interior design, I use the concept “to plan” rather than “to design.” This is a small but meaningful step in breaking down some of themystique so that everyone knows that interior designers are working with a purpose.

A very important communication barrier is the loose use of the term “design.”Design has acquired a specialized meaning in the design professions and the publications that deal with them. The developed secondary meaning of “design” – in accord with a particular design theory, aesthetically desirable, style, sophisticated, novel, reflective of the times, etc. – stands in the way of effective communication with the public at large. Too many have the notion that those who don’t “get” what this means, and those who cannot at least “recognize it when they see it,” should be dismissed as philistines or, at a minimum, the unannointed.

Interestingly, however, while designers may view askance those who are not design-knowledgable, they know very well that a great deal of planning goes into every interior design. In common parlance, design means to plan, to act with a purpose, and so on. John Berry, in his wonderful book, Herman Miller, The Purpose of Design, introduces his subject with the best definition of design by a designer, that I am aware of:

One could describe design as a plan or arranging elements to accomplish a particular purpose.
-Charles Eames, quoted in Berry, page 3

The concept and process of planning is something that all of us understand and respect. One of the most important of characteristics of all humans is that they can, and do, plan, act by design, with intent, to achieve a purpose. There is simply nothing special about humans, inter se, designing: it’s what we do. Thus, tax lawyers and accountants design tax plans, software engineers design software applications, chemical engineers design oil refineries, aeronautical engineers design moon shuttles, civil engineers design highways, other people design prosthesis and all sorts of medical and dental equipment, architects and engineers design buildings. We design our cocktail parties and our Thanksgiving dinners.

I use the word planning to begin to define interior design because the concept resonates with all of us. We know what it is, we do it all the time, and we know that it is often difficult, requiring us to take into account several, often competing, variables. And we know that, without careful planning, the sought-for final result would never happen, let alone, on time, on budget. Every professional from the autocratic architect to the flamboyant decorator plans, even though the origin of the plan or even the plan itself may not be fully documented or understood.

What we want to move away from is the George Will characterization that interior designers throw pillows in a room based upon a whim or a whisk of a cape. No, if there be pillows, and there often are, they are there because of a plan, and in fact, may reflect a culture where sitting on pillows is the norm, or a pillow may be in a particular place because it provides needed support for an occupant, say with a broken limb or an ailing back. Or they may lend just a touch of color or pattern that helps visually orient the space for the viewer.

Can a simple word such as “planning” make a difference? Maybe, and we are not merely dealing with semantics, we are talking about communicating and about another ways of looking at what interior designers do. Moreover, there is a distinct line of thought that language does shape how your think and perceive. (See this week’s Research and Design Connections; see also Through the Language Glass: Why the World Looks Different in Other Languages by Guy Deutscher, 304 pp. Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt & Company, reviewed athttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/books/review/Bickerton-t.html see alsoScholarly Work, Without All the Footnotes, by Arthur S. Brisbane,http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/03/opinion/03pubed.html?_r=1&ref=opinion;and Does Your Language Shape How You Think?”http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/magazine/29language-t.html?ref=memory by Guy Deutscher

To say that something is a great design is to invite wonder, perhaps awe, but to say something is a great plan is to invite further inquiry about what the plan is, to seek to understand the plan and more fully appreciate how it was developed and why it works, how its various pieces work together to produce the ultimate effect or to achieve its objectives.

Wonder, awe and mystique do have a special place, and are held dear by all professions. But, we have seen that these qualities can thrive, not based upon ignorance but, once the sacred veil is pulled away, on an appreciation of what can be accomplished. Doctors and lawyers have knowledgable assistants performing increasing important functions and individuals and groups being encouraged to become advocates for their own health and legal rights. This is inevitable once a degree of understanding seeps into the common consciousness.

It follows that, if wider acceptance of interior design is sought, we cannot simply focus on the wonder and awe of pretty magazine pictures: look at that great design, the colors, the use of new materials, etc. The interior design field has a much greater depth and reach than this important interface. Among other things, we have to know what the special place of Design is, where can it be effectively used, what are the givens . . . in a particular culture . . . for a particular individual or subset of individuals?

Let us then fully embrace Design, while recognizing that it has, at least in our culture, created a skewed interest in this aspect of interior design, so much so that design has become style has become off center. This eccentricity is a barrier to progress, rather than a stepping stone to a more careful exploration of the full scope and utility of interior design by the general public and prospective clients.

The next installment will offer some thoughts on Design in the world of left-brain thinkers.