Architecture vs. Interior design - one is donned with a masculine superiority where women are still trying to
establish equality; the other is misinterpreted and viewed as inferior. Through the divide in genders, it has also
created a rift in the disciplines. This article will be investigating the crack the foundations, gathering insights as to
why women have never been allowed to succeed.
Naturally the disciplines of interior design and architecture are intertwined as they share similar qualities. While
interior designers do not gain an equivalent level of construction knowledge as architects through their respective
courses, they do share the same understanding of environmental control utilising volume, void, and lighting. Interior
designers focus on the design element of a project. Owing to lesser restrictions, interior designers have more
creative imagination. Their knowledge while niche to the project is richer than most architects understanding of how
to create successful spaces tailored to the client.
There is a symmetry in the sense that architecture has always overshadowed interior design and seen as the more
superior discipline, just as men have historically been viewed as the superior gender, and this is untrue. There is a
sense of ingrained sexism which architecture and interior design cannot shake. A rigid superiority complex donning
its disciples. Its reputation as a “gentleman’s club” is long established and outdated, as are the construction
metaphors women are praised with if they ever “break ground” in the industry. Women should not have to “shatter
the glass ceiling” to make way for themselves in the 21st century.
Often when one thinks of the title “architect” – a gender neutral label – a male figure comes to mind. This is because
society is implementing a gender bias from a young age. Architectural historian, Beatriz Colomina describes this as
the “phallic myth of the solo architect.” Living in a patriarchal society where women are belittled has conditioned us
to think women are incapable of filling the role of the architect because there is little evidence in history proving this
wrong. Websites like Wikipedia having limited resources on female architects doesn’t help this case. The figure is
reduced because the files cannot be fact checked as there are often rarely publications initially crediting the women
who had originally worked on the project.
Between the 16th and 19th centuries architecture was associated with the aristocracy. For the wealthy, architecture
was deemed to be a pastime. Women were not involved in the construction aspect of buildings as it was unheard of
for them to be in the associated unions, like masonry or carpentry. In the 17th century it was common for married
women to inherit their spouse’s freedoms. When women were introduced to a formal education, they were taught
the skills relating to architecture - maths and drawing – which prepared them for employment. Soon after, women
architects were associated with philanthropy as they built better accommodation for their staff. Thus, helping to
reduce the gaps in the caste system.
The interior design of the estates in this time was a status symbol, adding to the virility of the man of the house.
Highly prized objects from Europe would adorn the hallways. Due to the narrowing of the class systems, the middle
class were able to afford luxurious interiors which would have an almost feminine nature. Rich colours would also be
featured as technology advanced, one instance being: gas lamps.
There were two routes to become an architect or interior designer prior to the 19th century. There was less of a
definition between disciplines because people freely moved between what may have inspired them. Women in the
workplace was becoming more common, but only to a certain extent as to not deflate the confidence of their male
colleagues. Drawing in architecture practices was equated to menial handiwork, such as needlework, which was
given to the lowest ranks of the firm, although challenging due to the accuracy needed. So, when women joined
together in the Women’s Tracing Society it was often abused by architects seeking inexpensive employment. This
endangered the male personnel which is a common subject for the inaccessibility of architecture.
It is said that interior decoration as a profession in America was established by the actress, Elsie de Wolfe, in the late
19th century. Her attention to detail when designing the interior of the County Club in New York, with the help of
architect Stanford White, launched her reputation. Renowned for her palette of “light, air and comfort,” she went on
to revolutionise the upper classes interiors, amongst her clients were art collector, Henry Frick and the Duke and
Duchess of Windsor. Edith Wharton’s book Decoration of Houses (1897) of the same period was deemed a manual
for interior decorating. She emphasised that the qualities of a decorator varied from the interior designer or
architect at a time where the newly recognised career was founded. In the introduction she stated, “As a result of
this division of labour, house-decoration has ceased to be a branch of architecture,” and expanded saying,
“[decorators] cannot be expected to have the preliminary training necessary for architectural work, and it is inevitable that in his hands form should be sacrificed to colour and composition to detail… The confusion resulting
from these unscientific methods has reflected itself in the lay mind.”
Through higher education the boundaries between the disciplines have become stricter. In the 20th century,
establishing a career in design seemed more fluid, people could design without formal training and reach celebrity
heights undergrads nowadays can only dream of. Post-World War One, architects discovered their arts and crafts
origins and sought to express and develop items for the interior through the newly emerging modernist movement.
Some saw it as the opportunity to showcase their work or enhance the space they had designed, much like Lilly Reich
and Mies van der Rohe with the Barcelona chairs inside the Barcelona Pavilion. As Charlotte Fiell states in the
introduction of her book Women in Design from Aino Alto to Eva Zeisel: “By introducing a female sensibility to
problem-solving, they have contributed to a psychologically broader and more humane understanding of design.”
Reich was a pioneer in the field from the 1920s to the time of her death in 1947 but was overshadowed by her male
counterpart. Her portfolio was belittled in every form, one of the iconic comments being from a Frankfurt news
publication: “abilities… which strike the chord of our time so clearly, as only a male hand would ever have done.”
Now it is restricted even further for women trying to establish themselves.
Walter Gropius, the founder and director of Bauhaus from 1919-1928, was seen as an advocate for equality when it
came to women studying at the institution. Establishing a quota of vacancies to be filled by female students. Little
did they know, it would only be to certain disciplines he deemed suitable for applicants, with a prejudice against
women in workshops and using heavy machinery. Interior design was one of these subjects. The general public have
tainted ideas of interior design because of the media’s flamboyant portrayal in magazines and television shows. It is
seen as the docile version of architecture where people think of cushions and décor before considering the real
definition. It is much more than that: a way for the designer to express themselves and the client in the spatial
dimension and to create experiences not to be only visually pleasing, but to evoke emotions. It is assumed that if
there are four walls to a room which needs to be filled, that is the interior designer’s role; when in fact it is the
experience which we can incapsulate in those four walls that is an interior designer’s main prerogative. This has led
to misleading definitions in the industry, and it being mistaken for a hobby. Interiors is where we have existed before
architecture. The interior is a form of expression, the exterior is architecture.
Contradicting the masculine architecture, “interior designers” are seen as women, and at times not designers, but
decorators of the interior. Joel Sanders, architect, and writer of Curtain Wars and Curtain Wars Revisited, has
observed that people assume it is a masculine role of the architect and who would carve space to suit the needs of
the user, and it is a feminine role who use “intuition” to design and decorate said space. He has distinguished the
difference between interior decorators and their soft furnishings countering the spatial integrity of the interior
designer, and concluded they are not the same. People have projected binary conditions onto the disciplines of
interior design and architecture to fit the societal need to have a separate role for each sex. Women are expected to
be soft and more compliant compared to their male counterparts, not just in the design realm but in any context –
and interior design has been expected to follow suit.
In the 21st century, liberating the patriarchal field of architecture almost seems achievable. Interior design can be
viewed as inferior because it is eclipsed by architecture’s grasp on the modern world due to nearly a century of
disparaging. If there was a royal society established in 1800s when interior design was climbing the ladder of
popularity, maybe it would be taken more seriously in comparison to architecture. When an interior designer is
employed and consulted on the design team, over just using an architect, the result is received better by the
inhabitant. They do only a small part of the construction process, though it could be argued to be the most
important aspect of a building during the construction process. After all, we spend the majority of our lives in the
interior.
Comentarios