very good then tenn. Finally an analogy I can understand. And maybe the rococo swoops are serving as shiny beacons, luring us all back into the core of the city...
hm, i think i am more ambitious for interior designers than even the bristol kid.
myriam is correct, an interior designer is not part of my business right now cuz i do that work myself with my partner, and i would not want an id'r to start messing with bigger projects when i am using space as architecture, as steven described...but i still have this image of petra blaisse's work, and 2x4, and other really amazing designers. they are not exactly regular interior designers (or interior designers at all), but they are part of making great projects amazing...and they certainly aren't architects...shouldn't that be the ambition of interior designers, to be so good that they make the architecture better, rather than compete with the architect over turf?
you know, rem didn't design this by himself...
and he didn't do this all in-house either. much of the design is based on petra's input. and it makes the place better, i say.
interior designers have a role, and in these examples an imprtant one...i think the problem runs two ways. architects don't wanna share, or bring in others too late in the game...best architecture is when the architect is willing to take on any good idea, even when it isn't his/hers...
ok, i'm late to this party and admittedly i haven't even read most of the thread but here's a few of my thoughts...
1 interior designers don't drink enough scotch whisky to get any respect from me
2 i actually love architectural digest magazine. clients love it & it tends to keep me grounded with what normal people like. and as a bonus, keeping a copy of it on my desk in arch school used to visibly make my teachers uncomfortable
3 and maybe this is just my personal taste, but the best interior designer i ever met—in terms of raw talent and daring—was this mentally crippled child of one of my clients who kept doing odd things like smearing peanut butter on the walls, fuckin genius! i wish we could get him to work with us but his parents are kind of protective...and didn't seem to take me seriously anyhow...sad.
many architects would make the same statement about being more grabbed by interiors pics than by building pics. The inside of a space--the occupied part--is very powerful to anyone in building design.
Interiors can be sexy, occupied spaces, but landscape is about sexy occupied and public spaces... architecture is a bit of both, but not as focused... Interior architecture and Landscape architecture are in my mind specialized design fields just like architecture...
Maybe interior design would gain more respect if they developed universal standards for registration, professional degrees, etc. Like the LEED Interiors certification is an example of a professional certification that distinguishes one professional from the next...
Seems like the only one that disrespects them are architects, right?
They are paid well (with less school) and it's more profitable than architecture. Every high end home has some interior design, but not necessarily architecture (this is also true of every large office, lobby, etc.).
Personally, it's the design talent/abilities of the individual that matters, not the amount of certifictes, licesnses, etc. Anyone can accumulate those over time, but not anyone can be a good designer.
I appreciate talent in any field, regardless of what school they went to, what tests they've taken (if any at all), etc.
I still believe good design is good design, regardless of who did it.
what is interior design though? at the end of the day is it sense color, scale, placement of objects, texture what is it? certainly when you look at a high end space or residence - in terms of $$ - the first thing that the eye is drawn to is the objects in the space, type of object, designer, scale, color etc, but that has more to do with the designer of those objects and less the talent of the designer, does it not? how do we separate the work the interior designer does vs. the architect vs. the object designer? do they need separation? can they be separate? i certainly don't discount the architecture, but i think many will agree that magazines don't do a good job of representing the work and do a better job of showcasing the objects. those seem to be within the reach of the general public, while the architecture seems to be always at arms length and unattainable.
We don't. I hold firmly to the idea that good business is hiring/working with people that are better than you are. So if you have a job that needs interior design (to me, that means anything non structural on the interior of the building), find someone that is good. Doesn't matter what they call themselves.
Interiors are generally more attainable. I dream of owning this particular Cassina chair, but that's only $2500 a lot for a single chair, but still cheap compared to putting a tiny addition on.
I do agree that there is tons of quality architecture out there that people don't notice or don't understand. I think the profession, in general, should learn how to educate people...people understand chairs, materials (ie a stone floor vs. wood) and respond to colors.
Afterall, we live inside buildings and many could really care less how it looks or where the structure is. Change the color palette, though, and you'll get responses!
not sure that a definition is necessary. i don't think we need to separate the architect from the engineer, the landscape architect, or the interior designer. that's when things go all stupid. i mean could you imagine the decline in quality of work if oma and other starchitects didn't, as a standard way of doing things, bring in arup from the start of each project? is same for id...
kay, so the interior designers i know (they are close to petra's level of work, but smaller scale) do pick some furniture but they design most of it themselves. also custom lighting, fabrics, "objects", etc, etc. they do it all. but anyway, very little of what they do is about furniture, or picking colors, no more than it is for an architect. what they do is about space, how people move around, etc. to be fair, a lot of what they do is also about communication and branding...but that needs a lot more than merely a good sense of color...the technical aspects are the same as in architecture and they are as competent as any architect i know. at that scale. i don't think they could design a big building, but wouldn't put it past them. <>
I thought interior designers worked for big box retailers doing fixture layouts in a predefined space. Now they want to design stuff. Blasphemy! It will not stand!
I don't know, A. Perhaps interior design emerging into a profession of its own is a refelction (for better or worse) of our society becoming ever more individualized/ specialized. Architects may lose some projects to the IDs that only require knocking out a few interior, non-loadbearing walls, and general interior designers may lose projects to the kitchen/ bath design specialists.
I only see 2 choices in this case: form a protest against free market capitalism and bring back some of the social modernist ideals or adapt and specialize your skill set. I still don't know...is that "selling out" or just trying to survive?
thank you jump, for such a great definition of interior design. Interior design is a collaboration with archicture to create great buildings - on the outside and inside.
We do need to acknowledge that some people here have had different experiences with interior designers- the petra blaisse's, the kitchen/bath designers and the "omg, this is fabulous" decorators of the world.
I know that i don't want to be associated with the "omg" set, nor frankly the kitchen/bath set. So please keep an open mind regarding the label "interior designer" and i realize that i need to do my part within the field in helping create a better perception of who we are and what we do.
Most architects today are shell and vertical circulation (pakage) designers, technicians, or construction managers. Their architecture is NOT the mother of all arts.
The vast majority of designers and decorators are closer to the realm of "art" than architects.
think about this...
a new industry that specializes in openings or stairs...
small piece of what we do. we can decide what we want to continue to "give away" as a profession. i would hate to be know as what cf calls a shell or verical circulation designer!!
we used to be the structural engineer, builder landscape arch, and designer! we are not gods...to be controlling to whole process, but we are in a crisis of really what WE do...more than the other people.
WE are losing our own place...we are just paper pushers. we are trying to get back some of it by being design build.
i don't think so raj. i am not giving anything away. i just finished a reno for a small condo building, and we designed the furniture and build-ins without any problem, as well as moving round walls and all the rest... it isn't that i can't do interior design, but i don't think i would always WANT to. Especially on a larger project where the scope is overwhelming to begin with. with something like that i would prefer to envite people in to help, and we could do the work together, playing off of our various ambitions and exeperiences.
The last 5 years i have been working in collaboration with a lot of architects, interior designers and artists, and i like it. i tend to do entirely different work with other people than i would on my own...and that is for me a good thing. learn a lot, and make a better design. oh yeah, i can learn from interior designers. big time. at least in the case of those friends of mine. they have it going on, and i am happy to work with them. and i look forward to doing more with them when the opportunity comes up. they happen to be close to world class, and i aspire to be. so it is good. but i don't think i am losing anything just because someone else is gaining. that would be petty.
as for harkening back to a time when we did it all, well i don't know when that time was. i suppose you could say the master builders of a few centuries back did it all once, but they spawned contractors, not architects, so am not so sure. as for being an engineer, well, where i live architecture is a subset of engineering, legally, and architects all are required to show structural knowledge on the exams AS ENGINEERS. if we want to do architectural design on top of that it is our choice...but the reality is that most of us choose to design buildings and hire specialists to help with the structural aspects. not because we are weak and have lost something, but just because it is easier to do things that way when you want to do something different. why not hire someone to design a new building envelope system? why not take advantage of arup's advanced geometry unit? why this neurotic need amognst architects to have their fingers on everything? me, i am happy to let everyone shine out and do their thing, and if i can work with them to make good stuff happen i am totally happy. the rest is just piss and politics.
i agree jump. i love collaborating with others. in doing so, i find that it makes my work richer. i don't understand the territorial bent of this discussion. do what you do, do it well, and in turn you will get more good work. do it poorly and you will get more poor work. simple as that. turf battles are so third grade.
because we are sued if we don't.
we are the ones with the overall vision.
i don't have a problem with (as i thought we had gotten past) ones that are truly integrated into the whole process. but (esp in US) we have gotten to a point where our work is done...and then the other trades work. arup is how it is supposed to work! where there is an understanding of the concepts of the spaces...and developed.
don't get me wrong...i am all for collaboration. but with everything there needs to be a design idea that is followed through...otherwise it starts to look like a quilt...seperate but equal...not unified. one of the issues with ID is that they are primarily not as involved (esp in residental --my area of expertise) until after the project is dried in.
as for not doing something because i don't like it...is silly. there are part of every project that are hard and difficult. it is why we have to work as a studio! if we could make money just doing pretty renderings for SD...we would--er, i would.
as for "turf battles"...i repeat my issue from the last post...
i don't think this is a crisis of "those people" but one of understanding who we are and what WE do!!
anyone have an idea...as myriam (i think) was asking what they do...
i am turning the question around...what is it WE do??
i think that the point here is- you get to decide what you want to do in this field- if you want to specialize in interiors, go ahead. If you want to be an architect who has control over everything without collaborative input from others, go ahead (i don't want to be on your project team, though) but in large projects where work gets divvied up- you might as well put together a good team and enjoy the creative and technical talents that each person has to offer. I don't think that the AIA needs to define who "they" are. That is the job of the individual.
I don't think that interior designers are taking any work away from architects. In a strictly interiors project (TI), the client has a choice of who they want to hire. They could hire an architecture frim, an interior design firm, or a firm that specializes in both. Best man (or woman) for the project get the commission.
i think architects should be very careful not shoot themselves on the foot.
design is design. it requires imagination, engineering, taste, understanding, problem solving, etc, etc.
architect is a person who has the bigger picture and expected to have one when hired. that is the traditional defination. architect should not be threteaned by other designers during the team work, should not be afraid to collaborate if necessary and and help talented people to do their best work, whether they are structural engineers, landscape architects, interior designers, decorators, sound engineers and lighting consultants (not always or necessarily in this order either).
i am an architect and like to design exteriors and interiors. as a matter of fact i do not make distinction and draw borders as to where one ends and the other starts because in reality they don't.
if somebody is going to scream around that they are the appropriate profession to do task A and task B is better done by so and so, that is not necessary to scream about, it is called hiring consultants. architect has to have the bigger picture and and support everybody to get there.
i think we as architects should be going for that higher position that our own history offers us, rather than picking arguments with interior designers about who is more fit to do whatever. it is a lot of work and know how to pick a color, furnishings, create an interior environment that functions for lets say, a large interior. it takes countless hours and coordination and planning to get those things installed and work.
a good architect is the one who can direct all kinds of people for the final picture.
that, we should be offering as profession.
You were the mother of three girls so sweet
Who stormed through your turnstile
And climbed to the street
But after conception your body lay cold
And withered through autumn and you found yourself old
Can you tell me why you have been so sad?
He took a lover on a faraway beach
While you arrange flowers and chose color schemes
Can you tell me why you have been so sad?
Can you tell me why you have been so sad?
The girls were all there
They traded their vows
The youngest one glared with furrowed brows
They tenderly kissed then cut the cake
The bride then tripped and broke the vase
The one you thought would spend the years
So perfectly placed below the mirror
Arriving late, you clean the debris
And walked into the angry sea
It felt just like falling in love again [x2]
Can you tell me why you have been so sad?
Can you tell me why you have been so...
...in high school (back in the 80's) we had this guy from the states come up to canada and do some lectures to kids about how times are changing. how his generation grew up with the idea that a person could get a job and stay there til he died, and nothing would ever change. but our generation wasn't going to have that, we were going to be moving all over the place, changing jobs every 3 to 5 years and taking on several careers before it was all over...
it was a future shock sort of lecture. i can't remember his name, but he was dead right. one of the interesting side effects of our society is that that no one really minds the limits anymore. it's a post-newtonian world!
and in this brave new world the details of what an architect does is all gone a bit like schrodinger's cat...apart from the often expressed concern that an architect makes life or death decisions (and thus reserves, apparently, the right to treat anyone not so blessed like they are slightly useless) i don't think there is much use setting the scope of an architects work....we do buildings, we do research about buildings, we do furniture to fit into around and on the buildings, we do landscapes, we do...well, all kinds a shit. some of it we really do have to maintain oversight over cuz we are legally responsible...but a lot of it we don't. and in those areas there is room for conflict i guess. but as george bush says, in conflict there is opportunity...
me, i like orhan's view. the voice of experience and reason. a deadly combination.
The more collaboration, the more diverse the skill set, the more perspective and innovation, and the broader sensibility refining through communication and criticism, the better is the design.
From your posts, its seems like your trying to keep the pillow tossers in their place and make yourselves more professional. By enrolling in a march program, it seems like you also aknowledge the weaknesses of ID's that we are talking about here. jump's comments about collabo are valid, but that's exactly where all this animosity is coming from. The res archts hate working w/ a client hired ID brought in at the end, who is clueless, and who they can't fire. Where's the collabo there?
On your 500,000sf project w/ an integrated team, things work better. But, referencing an ealier post, could you or any other ID in your firm handle the PM/PA role on said project? I used to work for a large E/A firm, and I can tell you that engineers (specialists like yourselves) don't make good PM either. The leaders of the company, many engineers themselves, stopped the experiment, b/c it became obvious eng were good at what they did, but not at the global scale.
I think the crux of the issue isn't the turf war. Its if you do your work well, and how you go about doing it. If you can produce quality work, we welcome you like jump mentions. When you don't collaborate, make inappropriate changes at critical times, and on top of that make assinine assuptions about your role and ability (many examples posted here), thats when threads like this turn into a warzone. As I see it, ID like you are in the minority, you and others like you have a long road ahead to legitimize the profession. Until that happens don't expect the respect given to the other consultants.
About architect's being allergic to color, not this one. I had the best color wheel in my freshman art class. The teacher actually put it in the art show. A tempera paint color wheel on bristol board in the art show? Yup. You can't win an argument with me over what is aubergine and what is plum. I am the source, I KNOW color! And trust me, flourescent apple green walls will not look good in a glass box suburban pool/club house. Little do I know apple green is all the rage in last month's Architectural Digest. Or perhaps the utter disregard for setting (lawn and evergreens outside the box) is part of the interior concept? (We actually tried to get the ID to meet with the L Arch, at the L Arch's wishes, smart kids, to coordinate since the interior and exterior were so related. She doesn't do meetings, she refused to believe she needed to coordinate, was too busy anyways. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe her amber and copper mission chandelier will look great against the L Arch's stainless and glass minimalist light poles when viewed from the pool at night.)
Completely separate point, I don't know that anyone can deny an interiors project just isn't as involving and there aren't as many places to wrong. I PM'ed some interiors projects a couple of years before I ever PM'ed a small architecture project. You really just do it and it's easy. Quite gratifying.
I like to argue, especially when I know I'm right.
"If you can produce quality work, we welcome you like jump mentions. When you don't collaborate, make inappropriate changes at critical times, and on top of that make assinine assuptions about your role and ability (many examples posted here), thats when threads like this turn into a warzone.'
i know a lot of architects who fit into this statement too.
This is becoming too circular but I just have to add one more comment. Anyone can manage couple ID projects but running a business by establishing a good reputation with everyone involved takes more than an A on your first color wheel. Seriously though, if we all would just wear buttons with our IQ on them could we stop bickering over who's smarter, who works harder, who's more entitled?
it appears as if we are all learning a bit around here. In my (naive?) professional experience working at a commercial architecture firm, with 30+ interior designers, the large (500,00+ sf) projects were managed from the side by PM/CA interiors and arch. people (yes, more than one pm/ca), So yes- they are well qualified to handle large pm/pa/ca jobs.
And i haven't had any experience with residential- it seems that most of your experience with bad ID's is coming from that side of the field (correct me if i am wrong). So initially i was appalled at these horror stories (and rightly so): I don't know any ID's who do business like that (come in at end, change scope of project, etc). And i do know a lot of interior designers.
i am getting my March, but not because i don't want to be an interior designer. I am continuing my work in interiors but there are not many ID schools that offer the type of Masters education i am looking for. And i want to be more desirable as an employee and broaden my scope of skills.
So hopefully i am convincing you all that there are some very good ID's out there. and I am learning that there are some bad ones that work in the arch field, too. I'll just go ahead and apologize for them.
I just was up visiting with some of my interior designers and thought I'd reinvigorate the discussion.
ID's aren't so different than architects in the fact that they gripe about clients being cheap and conservative. They have the same problems with never getting to design how they want to. They dream of having that really fun job doing a new nightclub, restaurant, condo, etc. But, most of their work is corporate or retail interiors.
So in that light I'm not sure why architects would feel jealous or worry about an ID stealing another shitty part of design. Since it seems a lot of archinecters work in small offices on residential or botique type work I can understand the friction with ID's. Then again, the vast majority of work the ID's are doing isn't what any decent architect would be clamouring for either.
Then again, I'm removed from design as an architect and have become a manager paper pusher. I don't give a damn either way. Deadlines are the same no matter who's doing the work.
thanks orhan for answering that.
i like your response...that both tie us to the overall, but like to do the details as well. i guess that is where i am too. i enjoy that about our profession!
Okay, this discussion is going in circles, eveybody egging each other on... One more 2 cent egg and then we can all group hug...
A painter, or sculptor, or fabricator doesn't need to be cerrtified to do good work, they are qualified by what they do, not what label they have... So there are good people with any label. I'm sure most architects would have no problem working with artists on a project.
There are also alot of talented interior designers, I've met many in the two offices I've worked at... I'd say it's pretty hard to categorize people by the label. There are many interior designers more talented and skilled, and knowledgable than I am, at design, and to be frank:
1. People (including clients) care alot about the interiors, the interior finishes, details, layouts, furniture, aura, graphic elements, and objects go a long way towards making a space... I think these things are as important as the architecture itself, they may be varying degrees more ephemeral than the architecture, but they come closest to the human scale, how people live in the space... How many people do you know (non architects) that can go on and on and have an opinion about a nice interior, vs. how many people do you know that can go on and on (and have an opinion about) architecture?
2. A good interior can vitalize an otherwise dry architecture... A bad interior can diminish an otherwise provocative architecture. I'm not necessarily saying that interior designers play a more important role than architects, I don't think you can generalize about importance, but I think the good architects also have an interest in interiors, and often work with great interior designers... Rather than worrying about another person stealing part of the design, why not build a relationship with talented interiors people who you know you see eye to eye with so that you can collaborate on good work?
i just read an article on ove arup in bd-online. he was def special.
here is a long bit culled from the article that sorta fits this discussion, as it gets at his attitude about collaboration (author is peter jones):
"Two priorities seemed self-evident to Arup: the education of both architects and engineers in Britain needed to be radically reformed. The former needed to become mathematically and scientifically literate, and weaned from romantic nonsense about the immutable genius of artists. The latter needed to be educated in design, aesthetics, moral philosophy, and history. Secondly, however, both groups needed to understand the nature of empirical enquiry — the foundation of modern scientific method. Only then would they understand that no individual or group would possess all the skills or knowledge to resolve any complex problems; that all our ideas have finite lives (some longer than others), that all our solutions are provisional and that all values are anchored in particular cultural histories. Such an understanding would also enable clients to better identify their needs, priorities, and resources. Seamless collaboration between everyone from the start is thus not merely pragmatically justifiable, commercially advantageous, or politically advisable: it rests on philosophical foundations.
yes it is about engineers but i think it is true for all discplines. collaboration with sophisticated people makes for great projects. if we don't get the opportunity it ain't nobody's fault but our own (to praphrase nina simone)
i rather like arup's opinion of architects too. seems he believed we are quite too full of ourselves and will often lie and cheat in order to get what we want. lovely. ;-)
for those interested, and don't mind registering the whole article is here.
i would like to hear from bristol, who originally started this thread. At one point he was backing up and reconsidering his decision to start an interior design education. After a week or so of input from the archinect community, what are your thoughts?
Ever since the Betadine "Code Red" speech, I've only been half-keeping an eye on this thread. Maybe it's a sense that I'd been defeated on the verbal battlefield, or maybe it's that I've been spending the past few days figuring out my loan situation for the coming year. Either way, I apologize if I'm not well-versed in the posts of the past few days.
As I mentioned in the originating post, I'd been on the fence between ID and architecture for years. I finally pulled the trigger on ID for a number of reasons, many of which I explained in the post. But that doesn't mean that I lost the arch bug.
I would like to give my program a chance before I seriously consider jumping ship. The school that I'm attending, Drexel University in Philadelphia, has a small, but very respected and thorough ID program. I think I'd be doing myself and the program a disservice by bailing early.
Here's the thing: in the end, I want to be a designer more than I want to be an architect. It's not an issue of cost or time or even effort. I'm reasonably confident that I could get into Penn's MARCH program if I wanted to, and it's 3 years long just like Drexel's MID program. But while it would be great to walk the same path as Louis Kahn, I just don't think I'd end up with the kind of work I want.
Many architects have grudgingly admitted in this string that the practice of architecture has devolved somewhat into 20% designer, 80% project manager/paper pusher. If I wanted that, I would've stayed in my previous profession as an advertising account manager. The same Archinecters who have bemoaned the role of the "modern" architect have also admitted that interior design is a sexier profession; in the end the design of the interior is simply more noticeable, more visible, and sometimes has a greater impact on the final overall project. It also doesn't hurt that - at least in the beginning - we make more money. That sounds like a job I want.
One Interior Designer Fights Back
She hasn't come back to town yet. The minute she does, vado, you're in. She has great hair.
Liberty.....think maybe she could loan me some? Hair that is....
is it red and curly?
very good then tenn. Finally an analogy I can understand. And maybe the rococo swoops are serving as shiny beacons, luring us all back into the core of the city...
hm, i think i am more ambitious for interior designers than even the bristol kid.
myriam is correct, an interior designer is not part of my business right now cuz i do that work myself with my partner, and i would not want an id'r to start messing with bigger projects when i am using space as architecture, as steven described...but i still have this image of petra blaisse's work, and 2x4, and other really amazing designers. they are not exactly regular interior designers (or interior designers at all), but they are part of making great projects amazing...and they certainly aren't architects...shouldn't that be the ambition of interior designers, to be so good that they make the architecture better, rather than compete with the architect over turf?
you know, rem didn't design this by himself...
and he didn't do this all in-house either. much of the design is based on petra's input. and it makes the place better, i say.
interior designers have a role, and in these examples an imprtant one...i think the problem runs two ways. architects don't wanna share, or bring in others too late in the game...best architecture is when the architect is willing to take on any good idea, even when it isn't his/hers...
yup, that's just good business....something I think is missing in architecture
ok, i'm late to this party and admittedly i haven't even read most of the thread but here's a few of my thoughts...
1 interior designers don't drink enough scotch whisky to get any respect from me
2 i actually love architectural digest magazine. clients love it & it tends to keep me grounded with what normal people like. and as a bonus, keeping a copy of it on my desk in arch school used to visibly make my teachers uncomfortable
3 and maybe this is just my personal taste, but the best interior designer i ever met—in terms of raw talent and daring—was this mentally crippled child of one of my clients who kept doing odd things like smearing peanut butter on the walls, fuckin genius! i wish we could get him to work with us but his parents are kind of protective...and didn't seem to take me seriously anyhow...sad.
Interiors can be sexy, occupied spaces, but landscape is about sexy occupied and public spaces... architecture is a bit of both, but not as focused... Interior architecture and Landscape architecture are in my mind specialized design fields just like architecture...
Maybe interior design would gain more respect if they developed universal standards for registration, professional degrees, etc. Like the LEED Interiors certification is an example of a professional certification that distinguishes one professional from the next...
Seems like the only one that disrespects them are architects, right?
They are paid well (with less school) and it's more profitable than architecture. Every high end home has some interior design, but not necessarily architecture (this is also true of every large office, lobby, etc.).
Personally, it's the design talent/abilities of the individual that matters, not the amount of certifictes, licesnses, etc. Anyone can accumulate those over time, but not anyone can be a good designer.
I appreciate talent in any field, regardless of what school they went to, what tests they've taken (if any at all), etc.
I still believe good design is good design, regardless of who did it.
what is interior design though? at the end of the day is it sense color, scale, placement of objects, texture what is it? certainly when you look at a high end space or residence - in terms of $$ - the first thing that the eye is drawn to is the objects in the space, type of object, designer, scale, color etc, but that has more to do with the designer of those objects and less the talent of the designer, does it not? how do we separate the work the interior designer does vs. the architect vs. the object designer? do they need separation? can they be separate? i certainly don't discount the architecture, but i think many will agree that magazines don't do a good job of representing the work and do a better job of showcasing the objects. those seem to be within the reach of the general public, while the architecture seems to be always at arms length and unattainable.
We don't. I hold firmly to the idea that good business is hiring/working with people that are better than you are. So if you have a job that needs interior design (to me, that means anything non structural on the interior of the building), find someone that is good. Doesn't matter what they call themselves.
Interiors are generally more attainable. I dream of owning this particular Cassina chair, but that's only $2500 a lot for a single chair, but still cheap compared to putting a tiny addition on.
I do agree that there is tons of quality architecture out there that people don't notice or don't understand. I think the profession, in general, should learn how to educate people...people understand chairs, materials (ie a stone floor vs. wood) and respond to colors.
Afterall, we live inside buildings and many could really care less how it looks or where the structure is. Change the color palette, though, and you'll get responses!
not sure that a definition is necessary. i don't think we need to separate the architect from the engineer, the landscape architect, or the interior designer. that's when things go all stupid. i mean could you imagine the decline in quality of work if oma and other starchitects didn't, as a standard way of doing things, bring in arup from the start of each project? is same for id...
kay, so the interior designers i know (they are close to petra's level of work, but smaller scale) do pick some furniture but they design most of it themselves. also custom lighting, fabrics, "objects", etc, etc. they do it all. but anyway, very little of what they do is about furniture, or picking colors, no more than it is for an architect. what they do is about space, how people move around, etc. to be fair, a lot of what they do is also about communication and branding...but that needs a lot more than merely a good sense of color...the technical aspects are the same as in architecture and they are as competent as any architect i know. at that scale. i don't think they could design a big building, but wouldn't put it past them. <>
I thought interior designers worked for big box retailers doing fixture layouts in a predefined space. Now they want to design stuff. Blasphemy! It will not stand!
I don't know, A. Perhaps interior design emerging into a profession of its own is a refelction (for better or worse) of our society becoming ever more individualized/ specialized. Architects may lose some projects to the IDs that only require knocking out a few interior, non-loadbearing walls, and general interior designers may lose projects to the kitchen/ bath design specialists.
I only see 2 choices in this case: form a protest against free market capitalism and bring back some of the social modernist ideals or adapt and specialize your skill set. I still don't know...is that "selling out" or just trying to survive?
thank you jump, for such a great definition of interior design. Interior design is a collaboration with archicture to create great buildings - on the outside and inside.
We do need to acknowledge that some people here have had different experiences with interior designers- the petra blaisse's, the kitchen/bath designers and the "omg, this is fabulous" decorators of the world.
I know that i don't want to be associated with the "omg" set, nor frankly the kitchen/bath set. So please keep an open mind regarding the label "interior designer" and i realize that i need to do my part within the field in helping create a better perception of who we are and what we do.
Most architects today are shell and vertical circulation (pakage) designers, technicians, or construction managers. Their architecture is NOT the mother of all arts.
The vast majority of designers and decorators are closer to the realm of "art" than architects.
think about this...
a new industry that specializes in openings or stairs...
small piece of what we do. we can decide what we want to continue to "give away" as a profession. i would hate to be know as what cf calls a shell or verical circulation designer!!
we used to be the structural engineer, builder landscape arch, and designer! we are not gods...to be controlling to whole process, but we are in a crisis of really what WE do...more than the other people.
WE are losing our own place...we are just paper pushers. we are trying to get back some of it by being design build.
hm,
i don't think so raj. i am not giving anything away. i just finished a reno for a small condo building, and we designed the furniture and build-ins without any problem, as well as moving round walls and all the rest... it isn't that i can't do interior design, but i don't think i would always WANT to. Especially on a larger project where the scope is overwhelming to begin with. with something like that i would prefer to envite people in to help, and we could do the work together, playing off of our various ambitions and exeperiences.
The last 5 years i have been working in collaboration with a lot of architects, interior designers and artists, and i like it. i tend to do entirely different work with other people than i would on my own...and that is for me a good thing. learn a lot, and make a better design. oh yeah, i can learn from interior designers. big time. at least in the case of those friends of mine. they have it going on, and i am happy to work with them. and i look forward to doing more with them when the opportunity comes up. they happen to be close to world class, and i aspire to be. so it is good. but i don't think i am losing anything just because someone else is gaining. that would be petty.
as for harkening back to a time when we did it all, well i don't know when that time was. i suppose you could say the master builders of a few centuries back did it all once, but they spawned contractors, not architects, so am not so sure. as for being an engineer, well, where i live architecture is a subset of engineering, legally, and architects all are required to show structural knowledge on the exams AS ENGINEERS. if we want to do architectural design on top of that it is our choice...but the reality is that most of us choose to design buildings and hire specialists to help with the structural aspects. not because we are weak and have lost something, but just because it is easier to do things that way when you want to do something different. why not hire someone to design a new building envelope system? why not take advantage of arup's advanced geometry unit? why this neurotic need amognst architects to have their fingers on everything? me, i am happy to let everyone shine out and do their thing, and if i can work with them to make good stuff happen i am totally happy. the rest is just piss and politics.
i agree jump. i love collaborating with others. in doing so, i find that it makes my work richer. i don't understand the territorial bent of this discussion. do what you do, do it well, and in turn you will get more good work. do it poorly and you will get more poor work. simple as that. turf battles are so third grade.
yup, I agree, surrounding yourself and your business with talented people in different fields is just smart.
FLW designed everything. IMO most was not that good. So much for the crystaline past.
why do we have to have our finger on everything?
because we are sued if we don't.
we are the ones with the overall vision.
i don't have a problem with (as i thought we had gotten past) ones that are truly integrated into the whole process. but (esp in US) we have gotten to a point where our work is done...and then the other trades work. arup is how it is supposed to work! where there is an understanding of the concepts of the spaces...and developed.
don't get me wrong...i am all for collaboration. but with everything there needs to be a design idea that is followed through...otherwise it starts to look like a quilt...seperate but equal...not unified. one of the issues with ID is that they are primarily not as involved (esp in residental --my area of expertise) until after the project is dried in.
as for not doing something because i don't like it...is silly. there are part of every project that are hard and difficult. it is why we have to work as a studio! if we could make money just doing pretty renderings for SD...we would--er, i would.
as for "turf battles"...i repeat my issue from the last post...
i don't think this is a crisis of "those people" but one of understanding who we are and what WE do!!
anyone have an idea...as myriam (i think) was asking what they do...
i am turning the question around...what is it WE do??
all the junk that others don't want to do?
sorry. i'm a neutral in this exchange, but also a little envious...
i think that the point here is- you get to decide what you want to do in this field- if you want to specialize in interiors, go ahead. If you want to be an architect who has control over everything without collaborative input from others, go ahead (i don't want to be on your project team, though) but in large projects where work gets divvied up- you might as well put together a good team and enjoy the creative and technical talents that each person has to offer. I don't think that the AIA needs to define who "they" are. That is the job of the individual.
I don't think that interior designers are taking any work away from architects. In a strictly interiors project (TI), the client has a choice of who they want to hire. They could hire an architecture frim, an interior design firm, or a firm that specializes in both. Best man (or woman) for the project get the commission.
*sigh*
i thought we could exchange about about this...but people just want to call me a selfish hog of all the design work :(
if i can impress upon people AGAIN...for the 3rd time. then i will give up.
what is OUR job? what do we do? please someone?!? an honest defining of our profession is needed!
Yea!!! color pickers of the world unite!!!
This is why you don't get any respect. Fix it if you want.
i think architects should be very careful not shoot themselves on the foot.
design is design. it requires imagination, engineering, taste, understanding, problem solving, etc, etc.
architect is a person who has the bigger picture and expected to have one when hired. that is the traditional defination. architect should not be threteaned by other designers during the team work, should not be afraid to collaborate if necessary and and help talented people to do their best work, whether they are structural engineers, landscape architects, interior designers, decorators, sound engineers and lighting consultants (not always or necessarily in this order either).
i am an architect and like to design exteriors and interiors. as a matter of fact i do not make distinction and draw borders as to where one ends and the other starts because in reality they don't.
if somebody is going to scream around that they are the appropriate profession to do task A and task B is better done by so and so, that is not necessary to scream about, it is called hiring consultants. architect has to have the bigger picture and and support everybody to get there.
i think we as architects should be going for that higher position that our own history offers us, rather than picking arguments with interior designers about who is more fit to do whatever. it is a lot of work and know how to pick a color, furnishings, create an interior environment that functions for lets say, a large interior. it takes countless hours and coordination and planning to get those things installed and work.
a good architect is the one who can direct all kinds of people for the final picture.
that, we should be offering as profession.
of course orhan's right, but dammit, orhan, now what will we argue about? you ruined a perfectly good fight.
you're right Steven...
lets argue about who are hotter: Architects or Interior Designers
INTERIOR DESIGNER
ARCHITECT
interior designers
god our office would be dull without them.
"Death Of An Interior Decorator"
You were the mother of three girls so sweet
Who stormed through your turnstile
And climbed to the street
But after conception your body lay cold
And withered through autumn and you found yourself old
Can you tell me why you have been so sad?
He took a lover on a faraway beach
While you arrange flowers and chose color schemes
Can you tell me why you have been so sad?
Can you tell me why you have been so sad?
The girls were all there
They traded their vows
The youngest one glared with furrowed brows
They tenderly kissed then cut the cake
The bride then tripped and broke the vase
The one you thought would spend the years
So perfectly placed below the mirror
Arriving late, you clean the debris
And walked into the angry sea
It felt just like falling in love again [x2]
Can you tell me why you have been so sad?
Can you tell me why you have been so...
damn that reasonable so and so.
...in high school (back in the 80's) we had this guy from the states come up to canada and do some lectures to kids about how times are changing. how his generation grew up with the idea that a person could get a job and stay there til he died, and nothing would ever change. but our generation wasn't going to have that, we were going to be moving all over the place, changing jobs every 3 to 5 years and taking on several careers before it was all over...
it was a future shock sort of lecture. i can't remember his name, but he was dead right. one of the interesting side effects of our society is that that no one really minds the limits anymore. it's a post-newtonian world!
and in this brave new world the details of what an architect does is all gone a bit like schrodinger's cat...apart from the often expressed concern that an architect makes life or death decisions (and thus reserves, apparently, the right to treat anyone not so blessed like they are slightly useless) i don't think there is much use setting the scope of an architects work....we do buildings, we do research about buildings, we do furniture to fit into around and on the buildings, we do landscapes, we do...well, all kinds a shit. some of it we really do have to maintain oversight over cuz we are legally responsible...but a lot of it we don't. and in those areas there is room for conflict i guess. but as george bush says, in conflict there is opportunity...
me, i like orhan's view. the voice of experience and reason. a deadly combination.
well i took color theory. i think i got a b. so i should have color consultant put on my card.
Didn't someone already make the Death Cab For Cutie joke, or was that another thread?
The more collaboration, the more diverse the skill set, the more perspective and innovation, and the broader sensibility refining through communication and criticism, the better is the design.
maybe, i dont read these threads
i hear they are bad for your health. nicotine content is quietly going up.
bridgetown,
From your posts, its seems like your trying to keep the pillow tossers in their place and make yourselves more professional. By enrolling in a march program, it seems like you also aknowledge the weaknesses of ID's that we are talking about here. jump's comments about collabo are valid, but that's exactly where all this animosity is coming from. The res archts hate working w/ a client hired ID brought in at the end, who is clueless, and who they can't fire. Where's the collabo there?
On your 500,000sf project w/ an integrated team, things work better. But, referencing an ealier post, could you or any other ID in your firm handle the PM/PA role on said project? I used to work for a large E/A firm, and I can tell you that engineers (specialists like yourselves) don't make good PM either. The leaders of the company, many engineers themselves, stopped the experiment, b/c it became obvious eng were good at what they did, but not at the global scale.
I think the crux of the issue isn't the turf war. Its if you do your work well, and how you go about doing it. If you can produce quality work, we welcome you like jump mentions. When you don't collaborate, make inappropriate changes at critical times, and on top of that make assinine assuptions about your role and ability (many examples posted here), thats when threads like this turn into a warzone. As I see it, ID like you are in the minority, you and others like you have a long road ahead to legitimize the profession. Until that happens don't expect the respect given to the other consultants.
About architect's being allergic to color, not this one. I had the best color wheel in my freshman art class. The teacher actually put it in the art show. A tempera paint color wheel on bristol board in the art show? Yup. You can't win an argument with me over what is aubergine and what is plum. I am the source, I KNOW color! And trust me, flourescent apple green walls will not look good in a glass box suburban pool/club house. Little do I know apple green is all the rage in last month's Architectural Digest. Or perhaps the utter disregard for setting (lawn and evergreens outside the box) is part of the interior concept? (We actually tried to get the ID to meet with the L Arch, at the L Arch's wishes, smart kids, to coordinate since the interior and exterior were so related. She doesn't do meetings, she refused to believe she needed to coordinate, was too busy anyways. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe her amber and copper mission chandelier will look great against the L Arch's stainless and glass minimalist light poles when viewed from the pool at night.)
Completely separate point, I don't know that anyone can deny an interiors project just isn't as involving and there aren't as many places to wrong. I PM'ed some interiors projects a couple of years before I ever PM'ed a small architecture project. You really just do it and it's easy. Quite gratifying.
I like to argue, especially when I know I'm right.
"If you can produce quality work, we welcome you like jump mentions. When you don't collaborate, make inappropriate changes at critical times, and on top of that make assinine assuptions about your role and ability (many examples posted here), thats when threads like this turn into a warzone.'
i know a lot of architects who fit into this statement too.
This is becoming too circular but I just have to add one more comment. Anyone can manage couple ID projects but running a business by establishing a good reputation with everyone involved takes more than an A on your first color wheel. Seriously though, if we all would just wear buttons with our IQ on them could we stop bickering over who's smarter, who works harder, who's more entitled?
I think this thread ended when betadine gave me the Col. Jessep speech.
it appears as if we are all learning a bit around here. In my (naive?) professional experience working at a commercial architecture firm, with 30+ interior designers, the large (500,00+ sf) projects were managed from the side by PM/CA interiors and arch. people (yes, more than one pm/ca), So yes- they are well qualified to handle large pm/pa/ca jobs.
And i haven't had any experience with residential- it seems that most of your experience with bad ID's is coming from that side of the field (correct me if i am wrong). So initially i was appalled at these horror stories (and rightly so): I don't know any ID's who do business like that (come in at end, change scope of project, etc). And i do know a lot of interior designers.
i am getting my March, but not because i don't want to be an interior designer. I am continuing my work in interiors but there are not many ID schools that offer the type of Masters education i am looking for. And i want to be more desirable as an employee and broaden my scope of skills.
So hopefully i am convincing you all that there are some very good ID's out there. and I am learning that there are some bad ones that work in the arch field, too. I'll just go ahead and apologize for them.
I just was up visiting with some of my interior designers and thought I'd reinvigorate the discussion.
ID's aren't so different than architects in the fact that they gripe about clients being cheap and conservative. They have the same problems with never getting to design how they want to. They dream of having that really fun job doing a new nightclub, restaurant, condo, etc. But, most of their work is corporate or retail interiors.
So in that light I'm not sure why architects would feel jealous or worry about an ID stealing another shitty part of design. Since it seems a lot of archinecters work in small offices on residential or botique type work I can understand the friction with ID's. Then again, the vast majority of work the ID's are doing isn't what any decent architect would be clamouring for either.
Then again, I'm removed from design as an architect and have become a manager paper pusher. I don't give a damn either way. Deadlines are the same no matter who's doing the work.
thanks orhan for answering that.
i like your response...that both tie us to the overall, but like to do the details as well. i guess that is where i am too. i enjoy that about our profession!
Okay, this discussion is going in circles, eveybody egging each other on... One more 2 cent egg and then we can all group hug...
A painter, or sculptor, or fabricator doesn't need to be cerrtified to do good work, they are qualified by what they do, not what label they have... So there are good people with any label. I'm sure most architects would have no problem working with artists on a project.
There are also alot of talented interior designers, I've met many in the two offices I've worked at... I'd say it's pretty hard to categorize people by the label. There are many interior designers more talented and skilled, and knowledgable than I am, at design, and to be frank:
1. People (including clients) care alot about the interiors, the interior finishes, details, layouts, furniture, aura, graphic elements, and objects go a long way towards making a space... I think these things are as important as the architecture itself, they may be varying degrees more ephemeral than the architecture, but they come closest to the human scale, how people live in the space... How many people do you know (non architects) that can go on and on and have an opinion about a nice interior, vs. how many people do you know that can go on and on (and have an opinion about) architecture?
2. A good interior can vitalize an otherwise dry architecture... A bad interior can diminish an otherwise provocative architecture. I'm not necessarily saying that interior designers play a more important role than architects, I don't think you can generalize about importance, but I think the good architects also have an interest in interiors, and often work with great interior designers... Rather than worrying about another person stealing part of the design, why not build a relationship with talented interiors people who you know you see eye to eye with so that you can collaborate on good work?
Okay, everybody group hug...
i just read an article on ove arup in bd-online. he was def special.
here is a long bit culled from the article that sorta fits this discussion, as it gets at his attitude about collaboration (author is peter jones):
"Two priorities seemed self-evident to Arup: the education of both architects and engineers in Britain needed to be radically reformed. The former needed to become mathematically and scientifically literate, and weaned from romantic nonsense about the immutable genius of artists. The latter needed to be educated in design, aesthetics, moral philosophy, and history. Secondly, however, both groups needed to understand the nature of empirical enquiry — the foundation of modern scientific method. Only then would they understand that no individual or group would possess all the skills or knowledge to resolve any complex problems; that all our ideas have finite lives (some longer than others), that all our solutions are provisional and that all values are anchored in particular cultural histories. Such an understanding would also enable clients to better identify their needs, priorities, and resources. Seamless collaboration between everyone from the start is thus not merely pragmatically justifiable, commercially advantageous, or politically advisable: it rests on philosophical foundations.
To a remarkable degree, Arup attracted individuals who absorbed much of this mentalité by osmosis, and the distinguished architects with whom the firm subsequently worked — Richard Rogers on the Pompidou Centre, Normal Foster on the Hong Kong & Shanghai Bank — increasingly appreciated the quantum leaps that can result from genuine intellectual co-operation. It is not therefore surprising that innovative architects who themselves have enjoyed a rich intellectual education — Zaha Hadid, Rem Koolhaas — keenly seek collaboration with the most sophisticated engineering consultants. Empirical enquiry is never completed: the transformations Arup initiated remain an unending challenge for everyone involved in design. "
yes it is about engineers but i think it is true for all discplines. collaboration with sophisticated people makes for great projects. if we don't get the opportunity it ain't nobody's fault but our own (to praphrase nina simone)
i rather like arup's opinion of architects too. seems he believed we are quite too full of ourselves and will often lie and cheat in order to get what we want. lovely. ;-)
for those interested, and don't mind registering the whole article is here.
i would like to hear from bristol, who originally started this thread. At one point he was backing up and reconsidering his decision to start an interior design education. After a week or so of input from the archinect community, what are your thoughts?
Ever since the Betadine "Code Red" speech, I've only been half-keeping an eye on this thread. Maybe it's a sense that I'd been defeated on the verbal battlefield, or maybe it's that I've been spending the past few days figuring out my loan situation for the coming year. Either way, I apologize if I'm not well-versed in the posts of the past few days.
As I mentioned in the originating post, I'd been on the fence between ID and architecture for years. I finally pulled the trigger on ID for a number of reasons, many of which I explained in the post. But that doesn't mean that I lost the arch bug.
I would like to give my program a chance before I seriously consider jumping ship. The school that I'm attending, Drexel University in Philadelphia, has a small, but very respected and thorough ID program. I think I'd be doing myself and the program a disservice by bailing early.
Here's the thing: in the end, I want to be a designer more than I want to be an architect. It's not an issue of cost or time or even effort. I'm reasonably confident that I could get into Penn's MARCH program if I wanted to, and it's 3 years long just like Drexel's MID program. But while it would be great to walk the same path as Louis Kahn, I just don't think I'd end up with the kind of work I want.
Many architects have grudgingly admitted in this string that the practice of architecture has devolved somewhat into 20% designer, 80% project manager/paper pusher. If I wanted that, I would've stayed in my previous profession as an advertising account manager. The same Archinecters who have bemoaned the role of the "modern" architect have also admitted that interior design is a sexier profession; in the end the design of the interior is simply more noticeable, more visible, and sometimes has a greater impact on the final overall project. It also doesn't hurt that - at least in the beginning - we make more money. That sounds like a job I want.
Of course, I reserve the right to change my mind.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.