Inge Somers and Els De Vos _ Artesis University College of Antwerp

Despite significant variation in regional approaches to interior design nomenclature, regulation accreditation and research, there is a global agreement about the contested and problematic nature of the identity of interior design. Even the name of the discipline’s peak international body, IFI, displays the difficulties of identity offering a selection of options in its title – International Federation of Interior Architects/Designers – and struggles to represent the diverse characteristics of its regional member institutions. (Cys 2006, 14)

In the introduction to her review article ‘[un]disciplined’ (Cys 2006, 14-25), the Australian researcher and academic Joanne Cys appoints the identity of the interior discipline as contested and problematic and describes this as an international phenomenon. This assertion was one of the conclusions of her attendance at the round table conference ‘Interior Design; State of the Art’, organised in 2006 by the International Federation of Interior Designers/ Architects (IFI). The objective of this international round table conference was to bring together professionals and educators to discuss the state of the art of the interior discipline. Cys further declares that ‘interior design is in a formative state’, a state of emergence, demonstrated by the recent worldwide thinking about the theoretical and practice-based concepts of the discipline. [1]

In 2007, Shashi Caan, president of IFI and key note lecturer at the seminal conference ‘Thinking inside the Box’, organized by Interior Forum Scotland (IFS) [2], presented a visionary paper entitled ‘Consensus or Confusion’ (Caan 2007, 49-55). Her often-quoted ‘manifest’ called for a unity of voice and for the recognition of interior architecture/design as an autonomous and mature profession and academic discipline. The subsequent reader (Gigli et al. 2007), also entitled ‘Thinking inside the Box’, gives an overview of the issues at stake. The main themes are: ‘Educating the interior designer’, ‘What is interior design?’, ‘Why do we do interior design?’, ‘Histories of interior design’, ‘How do we teach interior design?’. Academics and practitioners (of an almost integral Anglo-Saxon tradition) presented diverse viewpoints on a discipline in evolution.

As IFI president and supported by a worldwide concern of the interior community, Caan further launched several initiatives under the auspices of IFI, among which ‘Design Frontiers: The Interiors Entity’ (DFIE). This initiative explores the value, relevance, responsibility and identity of Interior Architecture/Design. Both academia and professionals collaborate to overcome the so-called ‘confusion’ (Caan 2007) and aim to develop a consensus on the entity of interior design. In February 2011, an IFI Interiors Declaration was approved at the DFIE Global Symposium. The objective of this meeting was ‘to identify and recognize the core substance of The Interiors Entity, – points of fundamental consensus, agreed upon by interior architects/designers from around the world’ (Caan 2011b). These international debates affirm that the interior community is strongly aware of its identity problem and is striving to overcome it at great pace in the conviction that a clearly defined identity is essential for the discipline to evolve.

Fascinated by this on-going cogitation, we conducted an ‘identity-research’ on the basis of the written discourses of English speaking scholars and research groups such as IDEA, MIRC, IFS and IFW (UK, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) on the one hand and vision texts by international interior organizations such as IFI, IE, ECIA and IDEC on the other. The time period on which we focus runs from the Bologna Agreement of 1999 till now. That date was the start in Europe for the higher educational programmes of at least four years (three Bachelor years and one Master year) to convert their rather professional profile into an academic one in order to integrate into the universities. This objective incited the European programmes on the interior to re-evaluate their profile and position, encouraged by the accreditations that accommodated this process of educational changeover. A mid-time evaluation reveals that a consensus with regard to the identity and position of the discipline has not yet been reached. It is striking that a discipline whose emergence in Western culture dates from the last half of the nineteenth century (Massey 2008 and Pile 2005), is still worrying about defining and positioning itself. Why is the interior community struggling so hard with this identity issue?

Different causes are brought forward in the studied texts, but one theme is strikingly present, namely the interior discipline’s position of ‘the Other’ in a binary opposition with architecture. This observation determined the focus of this article; we argue that the interior’s identity impasse is caused by the incongruent position of what the discipline is, wants to be and how it is perceived. We believe that the origin of this uncomfortable situation is related to the interior discipline’s position of ‘the Other’. This theoretical construct, developed and valued within identity, gender and colonial studies, allows the exposure of the underlying reasons of the identity impasse. This paper does not intend to question this construct but aims to analyse different tendencies within the Anglo-Saxon discourse through this ontological construct. This paper starts from the interior design’s position ‘caught between the structure and self-importance of architecture and the laissez-faire and self-indulgence of interior decoration’ (Chalmers 2007, 78). The conclusions of the seminal conference were as follows: ‘If there were two ghosts at the feast that seemed to lurk behind every discussion, ready to pounce, they were architecture and interior decoration’ (Gigli 2007, xiv). An intense reading of the discourses reveals that the different viewpoints remain largely overshadowed by these same ‘ghosts’. To understand this caught-in-between position, the notions of binary hierarchical oppositions and of ‘the Other’, as studied and interpreted within feminist theory, are extremely useful. In this paper we will follow this angle to expose the mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion that are at stake in the identity problem of interior design. The legitimacy for this theoretical approach can be found in the interior’s historical domestic/feminine associations, still an important reoccurring theme within the discipline.

After analysing different visions through the lens of this theoretical construct, we support Havenhand’s idea of embracing the position of ‘the Other’ as a way to overcome the identity impasse (Havenhand 2004, 32-42). Coming to terms with its position as complementary other and respected as such, the discipline can gain self-confidence and simultaneously define itself. The paper ends with the introduction of the concept of ‘nearness’ as a way out of the impasse. Instead of defining the interiors’ entity on the basis of an inside versus an outside or on the basis of scale, the concept of ‘nearness’ defines its entity on the basis of an attitude. The paper suggests to graft the discipline again on its, by nature, social and empathic character.

hp2

Brian Kelly _ University of Nebraska at Lincoln

“This is architecture of extreme integration, of nuanced transgressions of the extensive and intensive, of dipping in and out of poché space, pushing up against architectural surfaces, and reconstituting them in a more complex way. Poché becomes vivid, active space rather than blackened solids of classical architectural representation. Moreover, a rethinking of the problem of standardized fixtures in ceilings and walls is long overdue, in the sense that the interface between systems and surfaces can be more productive.”

Tom Wiscombe, from Extreme Integration

As of 2012, the methods in which the construction industry fabricates a non-load-bearing partition are virtually unchanged in the last 100 years; repetitive nominal members, either wood or steel, spaced at even increments with a finish skin of some sort applied to the structure. This process and assembly is perpetuated by a construction culture that thrives on convention. Sheet building materials are nominally controlled, assembly definitions and quantifications are outlined through building codes, and trades continue a system of apprenticeship where these techniques are passed down through generations. A construction process that is a mediator between the conception of the designer and the built artifact further complicates this. These partitions often exhibit a large amount of inefficiency in systems integration where the space inside the wall becomes quite convoluted. Systems design is typically approached through an additive lens where the performance marker equates to providing adequate space to fit everything within the interior bounds of the wall. This is a highly inefficient approach where synergy between systems and the potential for spatial coordination is lost.

This critique is situated within the area between the two outer surfaces of a wall; a space referred to as poché. By in large, this space is often not aggressively programmed and results from the use of an ‘offset’ command in drafting software. This, again, is a product of the partition’s tectonic and an industry entrenched in the use of sheet goods and nominal framing members. Historically, through projects as far back as the 11^th and 12^th centuries, we can see this poché zone used much more strategically containing functions such as storage, circulation, military defense, and service quarters. This allowed the inner and outer surfaces of the wall to remain continuous and cohesive while the interior zone of the wall is much more articulated.

HP2 was a design research project into the potential of a fully digitally fabricated, high performance interior partition placed within the healthcare environment, specifically the service core existing between patient rooms. Working within charges established through various architects including Tom Wiscombe, the process refocused of the lens to the assembly, a micro to macro approach, employing techniques of mass customization and complete systems integration. Initial research indicated areas which design could assist in better delivery of healthcare, specifically in the patients’ exposure to air and surface contaminants. Altering the ways healthcare providers enter and exit the room, as well as the way air is circulated could better protect the patients in these facilities (Figure 3). Additionally, research aimed to integrate the inclusion of digital form generation and fabrication techniques to consider the partition of tomorrow – one that allows synergy between the form, space, and various building systems.

Mesh Grammars: Digital Grotesque

Benjamin Dillenburger, Michael Hansmeyer _ Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich

For many architects, computational design today is synonymous with parametric modeling. The parametric approach, which was initially facilitated by transformer tools in modeling software, has been further advanced by the widespread adoption of parametric visual programming applications. In recent years, several buildings have been constructed using parametric principles, particularly in the field of façade design.

Yet practitioners are reaching the limits of parametric approaches. For the most part, these approaches cannot be used to explore new geometries. Rather, they morph existent geometries – often organized as fields or arrays – using a limited number of control parameters. This transformation usually occurs within a fixed framework and at a single scale. Mathematical compression of a shape into parametric formulas effectively constrains the scope of output. Results are largely predictable, and can readily be reduced to the parametric operations that created them.

There is therefore a need for a more abstract computational strategy to overcome the limitations of ‘parametricism’. One solution is to shift the initial focus from objects to processes. In procedural design, parameters do not determine the geometry of objects directly, but rather they calibrate operations of a pre-defined process that itself transforms or generates geometry.

Designing using procedures enables the generation of an immense variety of unseen forms, motifs and figures. Many of these cannot clearly be categorized or indexed using existing notions. Despite arising from the digital logic of an algorithm, these forms evoke organic associations. Procedural design can thus blur the boundaries between the artificial and natural, between the digital and the grotesque.

In the following essay, we would like to demonstrate the possibilities of such a design strategy. We introduce a procedural instrument called mesh grammars that allows the design of complex architectural forms and novel structures of ornamentation. We seek to create unseen architectural artifacts that would otherwise be difficult to conceive.

Daphne

Fumio Hirakawa and Marina Topunova _ 24d-studio

Introduction of new conditions that is to be situated at a historically rich context always faces a great challenge in how it can maintain the site integrity and its atmosphere.  Such problem can be approached in respect to the already established autonomous identity of the context, which can, for example, incorporate forging of existing conditions and elements that infuse with the site.   Although, this approach will create a further replication of the banal outcome and novelty will not emerge.  On the flipside, forceful resistances to the vernacular with novel interventions that are oblivious to the surroundings also bring an incohesive result to the context.

It is preferred that the historic integrity and the nostalgic atmosphere of place is preserved in conjunction to expressing the constant shifting of contemporary conditions to further enrich the cultural context.  If new design intervention is rigorously implemented, it will not direct to the ignorance and negligence of the context.  The layering of seemingly banal history of the site that consciously blends with the novel building can articulate and embrace the whole entity.  This allows the history to remain as “a set of echoes in the building itself – echoes that cite the history of the site…and make audible an ongoing conversation with the ancient history.” ^{(Ursprung, 2002)}

Daphne challenged this notion at Santorini Biennale of Arts in Greece with a site-specific installation situated within the tunneled stairway that interplays with the notion of concealing and revealing the ancient walls of the tunnel leading to the peak of Kasteli at Pyrgos. Made entirely of self-supporting paper panels, Daphne creates an enclosure that intervenes the visitors’ perception of the existing condition as a container of conglomerated memory as the paper panels age and deform their shape under the influence of local conditions of blaring sun during the day and high humidity during the night.

Expanding Liminality: A Collapse of Boundaries and the Birth of a New Domain

Ostap Rudakevych, Masayuki Sono _ Pratt + Clouds Architecture Office, NY

“… the breath of our mouths is the picture of the world, the type that exhibits our thoughts and feelings in the mind of another. All that man has ever humanly thought, willed, done, or will do, upon earth, has depended on the movement of a breath of air… the best medium of our thoughts and perceptions.”

 – Johan Gottfried Herder, Outlines of a Philosophy of History of Man, 1784

Since 1989, a small group of people have been living in a laboratory floating four hundred kilometers above earth’s surface. The knowledge gained from inhabiting the upper reaches of the atmosphere provides a learning experience that will ultimately make it possible for man to ascend from earth, embarking on interstellar journeys toward greener pastures on distant planets.

It could be said that this trajectory in human imagination is infinite. It began when hominids abandoned underground caves and went on to develop huts and castle towers, stairs and elevators, skyscrapers and space stations, propelling us further from the liminal lithosphere. This article examines the atmosphere, or third sphere, and calls on design disciplines to engage this space, as it is deeply interconnected with our well being. Indeed, modern humans are creatures of the air. The atoms in our body, the cells that make up our organs, our teeth, blood and skin, originated in the atmosphere.

Among these atoms is an unnatural element, which exists deep in all of our bones, embedded in the marrow. This radioactive isotope, called Strontium-90, is a byproduct of nuclear fission and was ejected into earth’s atmosphere in the course of open air atomic bomb tests. The churning of the atmosphere takes particles such as Strontium-90, or those arriving from outer space, and distributes them uniformly over land and sea, where they are then subducted into molten rock. These elements are ejected back to the atmosphere through volcanic eruptions, in a perpetual exchange between air, land and sea. Humanity is thus connected in a very physical sense by that which appears most immaterial: Air.

Purpose: a Discussion on the Future of Office Design

Michael White (moderator), Li Wen, Nick Christopher, Olivier Sommerhalder, Richard Hammond, Sabu Song, Shawn Gehle _ Gensler Los Angeles

Industries today are experiencing a clear paradigm shift in workplace culture. While the neckties have loosened and many of the walls have come down, the objective of a company’s workplace has remained the same: the workplace is a space to gather people around a common agenda. Increasingly the workplace is required to reinforce a sense of purpose in the work one performs. How this “purpose” is achieved within the existing stock of efficiency driven office spaces and buildings is now in question. Instead of seeking space to simply house workers, companies are now seeking spaces capable of serving and fostering communities of creative problem solvers.

Contemporary companies recognize that human capital is their most valuable asset. A new energetic workforce, along with Gen-Xers, who are now moving into upper and middle management, are looking toward workplaces that shed the image of the large corporate monolith. In place of a generic working environment the new workforce is looking for spaces that are authentic and personal. Whether it’s the spaces we live or where we work, human beings crave constant familiarity, connectivity, and a level of personalization. In an effort to facilitate communication between colleagues and to domesticate the workplace, companies are providing familiar amenities such as kitchenettes, social lounges, and recreation centers.

Concurrently, designers are looking at where work is happening outside the office walls for inspiration. Spaces supporting creativity, encouraging collaboration, facilitating mobility, and fostering individuality are all being surveyed. As the distinctions between living and working become increasingly blurred, so do current and preconceived notions of office space. Future work environments will need to harness individual creativity around a common purpose as opposed to merely housing the day-to-day procedures of doing the work.

Gensler Los Angeles is at the forefront of addressing this shift away from office buildings that merely house workers and has been researching and designing toward a paradigm of working environments that serve the future workforce. Specifically, three teams have investigated and implemented design strategies that challenge current office space precedents, while seeking to identify tomorrow’s work spaces.