Both Interior Design and Architecture are the act of designing within either a building or a space and have been adopted to differentiate unique foci of work of the interior environment. But the free use of the terms and the casual interchangeability of them by both professionals and academics establish a confused state that creates variance in the conceptual framework of this specialized design focus. This is a between and in-between situation producing a disparity of clearly defined roles and services for the comprehensive design of an interior environment; a complexity of space, human experiences, and comfort.
A critical need in both architecture and interior design is to realize that their roles, methodologies, and service expectations are continually evolving within a shifting social, economic, and political culture. As such, a professional stature develops within a dynamic state of examination and critical re-examination related to a professional culture, economic system, and contemporary social value system. An intellectual rigor and continual evaluation of its theory and process buttress this specialized status of professionalism. Equally important is the fundamental requirement of ongoing examination to facilitate interrelated participants in a setting conducive to sharing and clarifying current issues that impact all design related professions and professionals dedicated to the environments that exist within and around the building shell and the particular architectural condition.
Traditionally, the disciplines of architecture and interior design view themselves as distinctive and singular; being both boundary-tied by professional legislation as well as seeing themselves as offering specialized service roles. This is reinforced by a protective "turf mentality" advanced and guarded by their respective professional and licensure organizations. While the line between services appears simplistically clear to the public-architecture is about mostly the outside of buildings, interior design directs itself to the inside-the complexity of an in-between interior architecture obscures this view. What should be clear (and is to a small number of professionals, academics, and journalists) is there is a new set of circumstances in contemporary society that demands a shift in thinking: new problems require new approaches for creative solutions.
If we understand that the goal of design is to make our world better, disciplinary boundaries melt away and territorial squabbling dissolves. What emerges is a common core of design knowledge and a design methodology of problem solving geared toward analytical (problem definition) and outcome processes (problem solving) connected to human and environmental needs. This core is layered with communication skills sets that are both particular to individual design disciplines and shared between them. This common language provides for the transfer of abstract conceptual thought (and symbolic content) to a practical and applied language understood by practitioners and /or by the public on several levels.
Legitimacy for each discipline is then validated on understanding of the broader parameters and the specific use-needs to be served. Architecture, interior architecture and interior design are now subsets together with graphic, industrial, landscape design, and so on-of an activity focused to solving problems for individuals and their collective societies to house, enhance, and prepare for a better future.
But the need for clarity on what differentiates interior design from interior architecture is a critical question to avoid confusion and misrepresentation in professional roles and academic curricula structures. Most importantly, this issue needs to be grounded in a forum to bring moral legitimacy to these design activities in separating their use from a serious, well-guided use linked to finding optimal design solutions from a consumer marketing objective removed from the actual concept or service to be purchased.
Questions of shared and distinct content as well as professional services between interior architecture and interior design have received only minimal discussion. Often the term Interior Architecture is applied in a descriptive language in which the architectural design or architectural language is seen as a continuation or an extension of the exterior architecture to the inside of the structure in terms of detail, scale/proportion, spatial sequence and other such architectural components.
Often, "an interior architecture" is applied to the inside of a building as design elements are carried to the exterior, distinguishing a "holistic creation." Many interior design profession organizations and a number of academics are occupied with developing a pure definition of interior design as a professional discipline structured on its own unique "body of knowledge" to distinguish interior design from other design professionals and practice.
This position emerges as disconnected from a greater and more urgent need to critically examine a theoretical context linked to the culture of environmental design professionalism (architectural, interior design, landscape, etc. design professions). The term Interior Architecture must have an ensuing dialogue to secure an understood set of parameters equally applied in professional practice and within the academic setting.
Different and often subtle conceptual constructs have emerged as conditional parameters to differentiate architecture from interior design. This involves architecture as being concerned with more than a mere building of practical and economical needs and more than a mere structure of enclosure systems. Architecture as a discipline has always been engaged in the struggle to raise human and spiritual meaning to a higher purpose and a meaningful focus for at least three millenniums. An architectural structure is an expression of cultural principles and deliberate design choices based on current technology and understandings-its meaning. This is the essence of all architecture. These ideals are accomplished in the design process through a language of reduction.
It is achieved through narrowing abstract notions of ideas and symbols or program to compose a unity of form, space, detail, materials, etc. in order to achieve a Vitruviius dicta of firmness, commodity, and delight. Architecture is never removed from the architectural condition, and this reductionist ideal or a reductionism conceptual base. Architecture manifests itself as the meaning imbedded within the building inside as well as out, and as such must be housed within the practice of architecture and professional architectural services.
In addition, an interior architectural product is placed within the business of architectural practice. This is more than designing the outside condition along with interior components; it involves the contractual agreement of design services encompassing interior elements equally with shell and site conditions associated in building design. Consider the turn-of-the-19th-century architectural practice of California architects Greene and Greene. The 1909 Gamble house serves as good illustration. Better known for its interiors with its expression of peg and plank detail inside and out and the sensitive use of materials, the interiors are often presented as a large residential cabinetwork with fine wood details and articulated connections.
An understanding of their professional practice displays an architecture/interior architecture fully realized as an agreement between designer and client. The open plan extends outward to porches and landscape. The fine and initiate detail has the same character in and out; all aspects of the design are brought together as a result of Greene and Greenes coordinated control of each element.
In contrast, interior design is grounded in the condition of additive assemblies and separate contracted services. While the design processes of architecture and interior design share the same procedural sequence and a core discipline vocabulary, interior design, both as a discipline and in its product, is (or can be) free of the weight of the architecture. Additive assemblies within the interior may establish an independent language, often very different and removed from the architecture that houses it. Materials, finishes, details, stylistic motifs, architectural elements, and spaces may be free from the architectural language of the building. Both the work of architecture and interior design carry the ethical and legal responsibility of health, safety, and welfare as well as special needs and sustainability. But tenant or retail space development in a shopping mall or mixed-use complex, for example, almost never engages the surrounding architecture, and is intentionally conceptually and contractually removed from the building shell.
Articulating the conceptual relationship of interior architecture and interior design idea may appear overly complex as a reduction/additive thought process, but it is this foundational or conceptual relationship of using the architectural language of reduction to define interior architectural ideals and the additive assembling concepts to distinguish interior design. The point is that from a conceptual position through the completed project, interior architecture requires the architecture to be acknowledged, embraced and used.
An interior design work is free to subvert the architecture and the architectural condition. Interior design may or may not acknowledge the architecture that provides the enclosure system; it is a process that operates on several levels and in collaboration with many disciplines. The legitimacy of interior design as a profession or discipline is not in question when understanding the broad and specific needs of facilitating our contemporary society in the built environment, inside and out.
To understand the difference between interior design and interior architecture, perhaps it is important to first notice what they have in common, namely the word interior. In the context of design interior refers to the habitable, human-centered spaces within a structure or building. These interior spaces include many functional situations, such as residences, offices, schools, restaurants, hotels, airports, stores, theaters, clubs, hospitals, childcare centers, retirement communities, showrooms, and more. Many times these interior, humanistic spaces even extend beyond the building as views from windows, doorways, porches, decks, patios, and so on.
Interior architecture can be said to be a marriage of three distinct design disciplines: interior design, architecture, and industrial design. Interior design focuses on the selection of interior materials, finishes, and furnishings; architecture on the design of building forms and systems; an industrial design on the design on manufactured products.
A successful career in high-end residential interior design means working well with people who have expendable income and a concern for aesthetics. After all, designing a home is ultimately a luxury, far from a necessity. Work in contract design does not have the same constraints. This kind of work may flourish more in travel destinations, but there are hotels, restaurants and offices throughout the country that require the skills of an interior designer.
Now a day Interior Designers usually work in the commercial sector of the building industry. The biggest percentage of their work would be in office and shop fit out, and the rarer jobs would involve hotel refurbishment, clubs and night clubs, educational institutions and hospitals; and these positions are often held by Architectural firms.Interior Designers usually work as an employee of a bigger team of designers, builders and architects. They enter such a business at ground level and work their way up through the system and in the early days their job often consists of drafting and drawing in the office.Many young designers often lose confidence in the industry as many new comers may not get the hands on experience they expected. Some dont even see the jobs that they draw up completed. That is when they may look for work in Kitchen .
Companies and shop fitting teams where work is more hands on.Because of the responsibility that many designers now face with specifying and supplying construction materials and products; there have been calls for all Interior Designers to obtain building licences in order to be able to work in the industry. This is because their job has slowly crept into overlap with that of builders and architects and is only fair! whereas Designers work with designing interior spaces and the construction of such spaces of which they then may select the same interior finishes.Either way it is important for those who are entering this field to have a good understanding of how the industry works; so that they may make the most suitable choice for their needs. Being aware is being fore armed!