A view from the margin.

For years and years interior designers have been fighting to protect their profession from judgment and stereo typicality. “Interior design has been perceived as feminine, superficial, and mimetic as compared to a male, rational, and original architecture. Although the subtext is not said out loud, it still is clear: interior design is inferior to architecture.”

“The boundary between architecture and interior design remains in place, held there by a persistent idea of difference between the two fields: male vs. female, structure vs. decoration, and superior vs. inferior. Ironically, at a time when interior design has become more like architecture because of its consistent emulation of its practice and education, the field of architecture seems even more intent on keeping this idea of difference in place.”

The definition of an Architect from the architectural resignation board states that :

An architects job is to create the overall aesthetic and look of buildings and structures, but the design of a building involves far more than its appearance. Buildings also must be functional, safe, and economical and must suit the specific needs of the people who use them. Most importantly, they must be built with the public’s health, safety and welfare in mind.

The definition of an Interior designer from the national council for interior design states that:

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, they must be at best interest of occupants and ensure the health, safety and welfare of the public.

Reading both definitions it is clear that both architects and designers have the same objective, same goal, and same vision for a building…to protect the publics health, safety and welfare….So what is the difference??? Where are we drawing the line stating that Architects and designers are from different worlds…If we work to achieve the same goals??

Sure an Architect can be called superior to an Interior designer but to what extent? An Architects job is to “create the overall aesthetic look of buildings and structures” while an interior designers job is to make the interior space functional for its intended purpose. It’s a fact that the architect must complete his/her job first for an interior designer to take over and finish the job off. Architects aren’t fully equipped with education relating to interior building codes such as fire rated materials, means of egress and human factors that deals solely with human interaction within the given environment. So if you ask me we are here to make the architects building fully functional inside out… We must work hand in hand for a project to reach the vision we had for it.

My opinion on this topic is simple, sweet and logical- We must co-exist to unselfishly provide a structurally functional, aesthetically pleasing and safe environment for the occupants of the space who wish to enjoy the building and all it has to offer, from the interior to the exterior, without worrying about dying in it.