 |
| Image Source |
When it comes to interior design, I think that it is especially distinct within the home, because the home space is the most personal and thereby subject to the most control by its inhabitants. Unlike spaces in the public arena, if people want to change their living space they can, to the extent that their level of ownership allows them of course. By this I am simply pointing out that an apartment dweller may be limited to rearranging or replacing the objects and furniture within their homes, whereas a house-owner has the liberty to paint the walls, drill holes, and build more things as long as it is not restricted by city building codes. (There are exceptions such as when people do make holes in their apartment walls, or when people create street art, but regulations do not permit these acts and impose consequences when they are violated.)
All of these circumstances seem fairly simple, but my question is: Why do people feel compelled to change their spaces? Where does this impulse to redesign come from?
 |
| Some like it messy. Image Source |
On one level, the motivation is preference. For instance, everyone has different levels of sensitivity to their immediate surroundings-- some people are open to all kinds of colors, some people prefer neat spaces to messy ones or vice versa, some enjoy the presence of other people, others like to have alone time. These examples demonstrate a variety in sensations, different types of acclimatization, an assortment of associations, etc. Related to this is the psychological framework of space, where one perceives the environment as a kind of extension of one’s mentality or identity; some people may find that a messy space jumbles the mind, or find comfort in filling their space with objects, textures, and colors that hold positive memories and feelings.
But where does feeling lead to action, and where does the appeal of redecoration originate? If we think of redecoration and redesign as an expression of creativity, creativity comes from inspiration, and inspiration comes from everything else that we process from the world around us. This perspective aligns with the old adage that there is nothing new under the sun, so there may be nothing truly original from the sources. Taking derivatives of these sources, however, we do achieve a degree of novelty that marks a move away from what came prior. But how much novelty does this mean?
 | |
| PIY- Paint It Yourself! Image Source |
In our modern society, I think that these sources of creativity for residential interior design often have close relationships with consumer culture in combination with the DIY (Do-It-Yourself) ethic. Although DIY culture originally stands as a critique against modern consumer culture, it seems that consumer culture is recently adapting to the DIY mentality.
I have come to this conclusion after thinking for the past month about residential interior design in terms of the media (TV, magazines, blogs, online shopping), the economy (suppliers, marketing, consumption), personal observation (of the media and from recently visiting IKEA), and the insights presented in The System of Objects by French sociologist Jean Baudrillard. Given that this book was first published in France in 1968 (as Le Système des Objets), many of Baudrillard’s arguments are not applicable to today’s American society or at least in California as I am familiar with it, but some of his claims do ring true.
 |
| The above design optimizes a small space by having an interchangeable desk-to-bed arrangement. Image Source |
Baudrillard indicates that objects embody both a “technological system” in their bare materiality and construction, and also a “cultural system” in the way they structure human behavior and relationships. In his analysis of interior design, Baudrillard argues that with the increasing proliferation of objects, the relationships between people and furniture has become more spatially open and multi-functional. The earlier bourgeois function of furniture has been to mark boundaries within family relationships, but the modern role of furniture now places less emphasis on this symbolism and instead, pushes for “greater mobility, flexibility, and convenience” (Baudrillard 17). Baudrillard demonstrates how this transition comes into play in consideration of how the construction of interiors is broken up into parts, or “modular components,” which together value organization over traditional symbolism.
 |
| A model interior. Image Source |
Good design highlights problems and proposes effective solutions, and organization is one commonly valued solution. When organization meets appealing aesthetics, it is even better design. Moreover, when these designs are structured into a business, presentation is of paramount significance. The display of cleanly furnished interiors at showrooms or in magazine catalogs represent Baudrillard’s concept of the “model interior” (Baudrillard 19). The “model interior” displays an ideal; it shows sublime examples, encouraging people to strive to attain it, to emulate it, and at least, be inspired.
Furthermore, Baudrillard discusses how the interior design market presents the subject more as an actor who creates the space. Perhaps this has to do with the proliferation of objects I referred to above and also with Post-Fordism which both attribute to the growing appeal of individual customization and independent design.
 | |
| IKEA catalog cover. Image Source |
The point is, people more and more think of themselves as in control of their space, and they value the ability to customize to their own wants and needs.
Businesses like Home Depot or Lowes, or furniture stores that sell self-assembly goods (which provide and package the parts so that the customers can assemble the furniture themselves) have adapted to this cultural yearning for individualization and turned it into a business model-- the trick is to provide the parts and designs, shape inspiration within the consumer’s mind, and ultimately, satisfy the consumer with a sense of uniqueness, independence, and cost-efficiency. By guiding customers with model designs and the tools to do the work themselves, companies like IKEA save money and gain the capacity to offer lower, more competitive prices.
After all, who doesn’t love to save money? (ie. Spend less, still spending, nevertheless). And who cares if this sense of uniqueness and independence is an illusion if it is cheaper, useful, and looks nice?
Businesses like Home Depot or Lowes, or furniture stores that sell self-assembly goods (which provide and package the parts so that the customers can assemble the furniture themselves) have adapted to this cultural yearning for individualization and turned it into a business model-- the trick is to provide the parts and designs, shape inspiration within the consumer’s mind, and ultimately, satisfy the consumer with a sense of uniqueness, independence, and cost-efficiency. By guiding customers with model designs and the tools to do the work themselves, companies like IKEA save money and gain the capacity to offer lower, more competitive prices.
After all, who doesn’t love to save money? (ie. Spend less, still spending, nevertheless). And who cares if this sense of uniqueness and independence is an illusion if it is cheaper, useful, and looks nice?
One possible criticism here is that as people turn to consumer avenues to recreate their spaces, they are simply buying a mainstream aesthetic style. This way, our spaces will only be as novel as the mind of the designer. Customization can certainly go steps further from the initial purchase (like by assembling in a different way or painting something different colors), but my impression is that most people are too lazy, too busy, or too indifferent to go that far.
Another problem area is increased market competition— those who are not adapted to these user-oriented trends may not have the leverage to reach the average consumer and will instead be forced to focus on high-end, niche markets (at least if we are talking about residential interior design).
So, in what ways does residential interior design translate into the vocabulary of consumer culture AND the Do-It-Yourself mentality?
1. Home is a personal space. It makes sense that people want to fashion it the way they see fit, and it is a space that people can realize their control.
2. Redecorating is not just a matter of moving around pre-existing objects. A lot of times, it requires an acquisition of new, different objects—an exchange of out with the old, in with the new. In other words, get/buy more stuff. (If it’s just a matter of changing colors, one still needs to buy more paint, more paint supplies, or just more colored textiles.)
3. Inspiration comes from model, idealized interiors-- conceptualized by the designers and visually presented for consumers.
4. DIY activities are empowering and fun. (Well, for some it can be a hobby; for others it can be grueling frustration.)
5. The DIY ethic is an ever-growing cultural trend. We see it become increasingly pervasive in part because of the Internet which provides people a democratic way to exchange ideas and the means to shift market forces.
6. Consumer culture with a DIY twist and a low price tag is purchase-friendly. Just take a look at IKEA and their successful marketing strategies.
Work cited: Baudrillard, Jean. The System of Objects. Trans. James Benedict. New York: Verso, 1996. Trans. of Les Système des Objects. 1968.
No comments:
Post a Comment