Interior Decorator Vs. Architect

Polarizing Difference:

Gender Dynamics in Interior Decoration

and Architecture

Introduction

It is believed that five key gendered distinctions between architects and decorators are:

Architects design structures while decorators focus on interior aesthetics.

Architects address form and function; decorators emphasize color and detail.

Architects are typically male; decorators have been mainly female or gay men.

Architects work on a grand scale; decorators operate on a personal scale.

Architects are seen as technicians; decorators are perceived as artistic.

These distinctions illustrate a broader phenomenon: the interplay between gender and design can be likened to the polarization of transverse waves. Just as transverse waves exhibit different orientations of oscillation, the fields of architecture and decoration have historically represented contrasting gender roles and professional approaches. This polarization has shaped and defined both professions, aligning them with different facets of design and construction. This article will explore how these gendered distinctions have influenced and continue to impact the practice and perception of interior decoration and architecture.

Historical Context: The Rise of the Decorator

The historical rivalry between architects and decorators can be likened to the polarization of waves, where each field occupies a distinct frequency of design. Dating back to the 18th century, upper-class homes were often decorated by upholsterers rather than the architects who designed the structures. This division created tensions, as critics like Nicolas le Camus de Mézières and William Mitford contended that upholsterers, by focusing on color and detail, disrupted the spatial integrity envisioned by architects.

By the late 19th century, a new polarization emerged with the advent of the professional decorator. Figures like Edith Wharton and Elsie de Wolfe, who were pivotal in formalizing the decorating profession, also personified the emerging gendered distinctions in design. Wharton’s The Decoration of Houses (1897) illustrated the growing divide, suggesting that decorators, lacking formal architectural training, were unable to achieve a cohesive design vision.

The Emergence of the Gay Decorator

The polarization between architecture and decoration extends into the realm of sexuality, mirroring the way transverse waves can be polarized. Early influencers in decoration, such as Ogden Codman Jr. and Elsie de Wolfe, were openly gay, reflecting a broader cultural stereotype that associates decoration with effeminacy. This correlation is not merely coincidental but rooted in the historical associations of the profession with femininity and artifice.

Decoration, similar to fashion and theater, has attracted a notable number of gay men due to its focus on self-expression and performance. This professional domain allows for the manifestation of identity through design choices, aligning with the performative nature of gender identity and sexuality. This dynamic highlights how marginalized groups often find spaces of acceptance within professions historically viewed as feminine.

Feminization of the Domestic Interior

The 20th century saw a shift in the polarization of design practices, with the feminization of the domestic interior becoming a prominent trend. This transformation reflects broader societal shifts in gender and design, as publications aimed at middle-class women began to emphasize how decoration mirrored personal identity.

Design texts from the early 20th century, including Wharton’s The Decoration of Houses and de Wolfe’s The House in Good Taste, initially framed decorating as a rational process. However, as the century progressed, a new narrative emerged that celebrated the feminine aspects of design. Decorators like Dorothy Draper and Billy Baldwin promoted the notion that taste and self-expression—qualities traditionally associated with women—were essential to effective decoration. This shift strategically capitalized on stereotypes of sensitivity and cooperation, contrasting with the more rigid and authoritative image of architects.

The Emasculated Architect

The polarization between architecture and decoration has profound implications for the architectural profession. The association of interior decorating with femininity and effeminacy has led to discomfort and insecurity among architects. The fear that engaging with décor might undermine an architect’s masculinity and professional credibility is deeply rooted in the profession’s historical context.

Architects have long faced challenges to their authority and expertise, exacerbated by perceptions of architecture as an expendable luxury. This economic and professional marginalization intersects with gendered perceptions of design, contributing to the ongoing rivalry between architects and decorators. The discomfort with design elements traditionally seen as feminine underscores the broader impact of this polarized dynamic.

Shifting Gender Norms and the Future of Design

As societal attitudes towards gender evolve, the rigid polarization between architecture and decoration is beginning to blur. The increasing acceptance of diverse gender identities and expressions is creating new opportunities for professionals to bridge traditional boundaries. The visibility of same-sex couples and the inclusion of men in decorating signal a shift towards a more integrated approach to design.

Contemporary design discourse increasingly embraces the fluidity of gender and the integration of traditionally opposed skills. Professionals who navigate and synthesize these seemingly disparate elements are positioned to lead the next wave of innovation in both fields.

Conclusion

The gendered distinctions between architecture and decoration have long shaped the practice and perception of both professions. From early rivalries to contemporary dynamics, these distinctions reflect broader societal attitudes towards gender and professional roles. As cultural norms shift and new forms of professional integration emerge, the traditional boundaries between architecture and decoration are becoming increasingly porous. The future of design lies in embracing a more fluid approach, transcending outdated gender norms and recognizing the value of diverse perspectives and skills in shaping our built environment.