Defining exactly what constitutes decoration, or how design uses it, proved a difficult task for our invited panel, but nearly to a man (and woman) they had a knee-jerk reaction against the word. This was due in no small part to more than a decade of ‘interior design and makeover ’ TV programmes that have helped to blur the distinction between interior decoration and design in the minds of the public.
The general sentiment boiled down to and Animal Farm-ish ‘interior design good, interior decoration bad’. Some felt decoration had a role to play, but that it had to have integrity and fitness for purpose, which then brought the discussion round to whether it was in that instance no longer decoration. The lively conversation roamed around trying to find defining lines between design and decoration as well as between interior designers and interior decorators (a much easier task it seemed).
In the end many couldn’t even bring themselves to utter the ‘dword’, prompting others to suggest they take ‘the plug out of their bum’ and stop being so snobby. It was a highly animated afternoon, spent perhaps fittingly, in Sir Terrence Conran’s private apartment near the Design Museum. He is after all the man who pretty much single-handedly brought interior design into the public consciousness in the first place.
FX editor Theresa Dowling kicked off the debate saying that while decoration can be taken to be a pejorative term, it has been applied usefully in the hard arts of traditional architecture, citing gargoyles in cathedrals. So decoration didn’t always have such connotations. And while on the subject of the arts, she presented an image of Holbein’s The Ambassadors, showing that it is littered with decorative objects that were imbued with importance reflecting the social-climbing status of the 16th-century interior.
‘I wonder if decoration is the right term?’ asked Scott Brownrigg’s Pernille Stafford. ‘I looked it up before I came here. The definition I found said, “An attractive item, usually one of a group attached to something to make it look more attractive” Isn’t that’s a bit shallow?’
Conran & Partners’ Jane Lawrence agreed wholeheartedly, adding: ‘But that’s exactly what some interior designers do – they attach, they add on, it’s an overlay. I struggle to find a place for the idea of decoration. In design, we have lost sight of design and allowed decoration to win out. And I think we need to be more rigorous about our design.’
‘Decoration for me is the horrific mess of Changing Rooms,’ exclaimed BDGworkfutures’ Andi Theokle. ‘and that is how it is sold to the public.’
Forbo flooring’s Jason Holmes said he actually welcomed the media interest and such programmes: ‘I see through them and resent the fact that it is just set dressing, but it has created an environment where people are more aware of design.’ He went on to delve into the history of design and decoration, adding: ‘I keep going back to this vision of the wonderful Chartres Cathedral – in fact any Gothic cathedral – where the decoration is pretty much everything.
‘It has not been revamped and it hasn’t changed with style, yet we walk in and go “Wow!” Somewhere along the line the two disciplines have grown apart. I think some of that has to do with the usage of the building.With a lot of our modern architecture we are used to the idea that it will change in five years or that it will be rebranded in two!’
Stephan Oberwegner, of Bentheim, also felt it. ‘We live in an age where everything is very temporary,’ he said, adding, ‘How many young people know how to detail a doorframe, for instance – that for me is interior design. It’s all about understanding scale and detail.
SBID’s Simon Cavelle didn’t feel that decoration and design have become divorced: ‘I see decoration as an integral part of design – it has to be,’ with BDP’s Richard Cowley agreeing: ‘It is very difficult to separate the two. They have to complement each other.’
He also warned against fashionable decoration, adding ‘something that is really cool can become quite naff remarkably quickly.’ This fuelled the debate about where fashionable decoration was appropriate, but also brought home the message about classic design operating outside of fashion and not ageing.
The idea that decoration had to be integral to any design work, not an overlay, and be fit for purpose was returned to many times. And in some sectors, particularly hospitality and the more fashion-led retail, it was felt to be more appropriate than, say, in a workplace environment: As Anshen & Allen’s Sean Rainey said: ‘It really depends on the client.’
BDP’s Lisa Colaco, along with all of the panel, agreed: ‘The style has to suit the client. That is the beauty of being an interior designer.We design to suit the client, to get the most out of their brand and what they stand for.’ However she wasn’t averse to playing devil’s advocate: ‘I came to the seminar thinking that if there is a purpose for decoration, it has to seek to follow the function and purpose of the building and I think we all seem to be of a similar mind here – quite anti-decoration!
‘But isn’t decoration really about adding that kind of humanistic level as well? Aren’t we being a bit snobby here?We can still design spaces with integrity to suit the function and holistic values, but can’t we also just accept, and I can’t believe I’m saying this, that we want things to look pretty?’
FX editorTheresa Dowling added to that part of the debate asking: ‘If you take out decoration and just talk about fitness for purpose, doesn’t it all become a little bit sterile?’ That said, others argued against decoration on the grounds that it has an intensely personal element thus making it irrelevant to others.
Setting aside the arguments over what specific form decoration takes, SBID’s Cavelle opined: ‘Decoration is very important. It is the interface with the client, this is the upper layer, and I think we, at a cost, try to divorce ourselves from it. I think we are in danger as a profession of losing our name in a drive to become serious. I think there is a danger that we throw the baby out with the bathwater.’ Cavelle believes decoration may not be the problem, but the public’s perception of interior designers as interior decorators: ‘As a professional, when I say I’m an interior designer, everybody thinks of something totally different from what we do.
‘Decorators used to call themselves decorators – they don’t any more, they call them themselves designers and that has made life a nightmare. I believe what we do is so undervalued, because it is not understood. I’m not saying dumb it down… but from my point of view we never spend enough time talking to the public and trying to change their perception of interior design.’
The discussion gathered pace in a new direction with a brief consideration of new titles for everyone, such as the label ‘interior architects’ that is now creeping in to give interior design back its professionalism, moving on to the hierarchy of who’s more senior in the pecking order, and are decorators therefore at the bottom of the pile? At which point Oberwenger ran to the defence of the real interior decorators’ integrity, referring to the skill, conservation and beauty of historic houses that is directly attributable to their own professionalism.
Perhaps as a point to distinguish between the two professions, BDG’s Theokle offered up as the debate was drawing to a close, her personal definition and delineation between designers and decorators, which met with a good deal of head nodding: ‘The way I see it is that a designer sculpts a space and an interior decorator applies things to it. You can create amazing environments with plasterboard, Corian, timber, whatever materials you want. Materials and finishes are not part of decoration… but where does that line get drawn, because some clients do very much think of finishes as decoration?’
Conran’s Lawrence seemed to remain sceptical over whether the session had pinned down exactly what constituted decoration: ‘As interior designers, we are definitely falling between many stools. We aren’t decorators, we aren’t architects, and for clients we are not defined as a body; because we haven’t defined ourselves, because we are prepared to decorate.’
Adding a little fuel to the fire and with perhaps with a glint of mischief in his eye Oberwegner followed this with: ‘I love to decorate. I love it – who doesn’t?’
