ANONYMOUSLY INTERVIEWED INDUSTRY POWER PLAYER (III)
DISCUSSED: "CREATING A DESIGN IMAGE" (BAD); WHO SHOULD *NOT* BE PART OF "THE DESIGN WORLD"; WHAT AND WHO IS A.D. "FOR"?; WHO IS TO BLAME FOR SH*T INTERIORS
Many great pals of “FOR SCALE” are unenviably unable to publicly express their very learned opinions because their TOP TIER EMPLOYMENT STATUS requires a certain diplomacy.
No longer.
May we please introduce: THE “ANONYMOUS INTERVIEW”, wherein we provide a release from BRAND OATH BONDAGE and allow the ‘POWER PLAYER’ to gab freely.
We have invited A TOP PERSON and a VERY BUZZY ULTRA-“IT” DÉCOR STUDIO. (Which? Of course we cannot reveal.)
We discuss:
"CREATING A DESIGN IMAGE" (WHAT THAT MEANS; WHY TO AVOID)
WHO SHOULD *NOT* BE PART OF "THE DESIGN WORLD"
WHAT AND WHO IS A.D. "FOR"?
WHO IS TO BLAME FOR SH*T INTERIORS
Also one non-them décor-creator they do give a damn about.
FS: Whatever you say, we almost always agree with. So, please, what is the State of the Professional Décor World right now?
ANON: To put it bluntly, the professional décor world, in my eyes, is suffering from an intense form of an identity crisis.
Right now, on an industrial level, it seems that the trend within professional interiors and décor is to create interior images (almost as a means to assert relevance, and reinforce trends that are directly tied to the formulaic limb of commerce and direct to consumer design trends... which can then be co-signed by a variety of design limbs, i.e. Instagr*m, publications, e.t.c., to further feed an ouroboros of moss cotton velvet and travertine catch-alls.)
FS: As an aside – who is on the naughty list?
ANON: Damn, I love feeling like Santa.
Without getting too in the weeds, I can tell you I am incredibly unimpressed by these large media campaigns around furniture designs that are basically just directly exported out of Revitt and slapped onto my Instagr*m feed.
There is a phenomenon where because a design object is photographed well, and it is packaged nicely in a deliverable format, “it needs to be respected.”
I disagree with this wholeheartedly.
FS: Returning to “design image” pls!
ANON: What I mean by “creating a design image” is:
A majority of projects that are populating such “prestigious” titles as A.D., Design M*lk, e.t.c., seem to be focused on creating a pleasing landscape for safe vintage selections, mass-produced smalls, and of course, designs from the creators that can be purchased at D.W.R., The Expert, or a cutesy little Shop*fy supported splash page.
I could probably write a lot more on The Expert as a platform, but I will probably just leave it at: why do you, as a design professional, feel compelled to share your tricks of the trade with the entire industry or the consumer who ideally would be hiring you?
FS: We, too, are exhausted by that eeeeeeverything everything everything becomes about “product”. Shop-ability is zenith — and then all of a sudden it doesn’t feel like its about ‘education’ anymore. It feels like ideas are just D.T.C. bait.
ANON: My real issue with this grift is that these images aside from being boring, feel desperately vacant — lacking any true personality or quite literally, feeling like anyone could or will live inside the space. What feels tragic to me is existing in a professional setting where everything is just statically palatable, there is no personality and there are also no mistakes — just an algorithmic impression that will stick around long enough to bleed to death what every saturated material is assigned for the moment — right now it seems to be excessive use of stainless, whereas a couple years ago it was plywood when everyone was a Judd fetishist.
I guess ultimately what I am saying is, it is boring.
This was not always the case!
In the past, design work was highly polarizing: it was tacky, it was wrong, it was human, it was risky, it was not a homogenized blob that continues to export the same advertisement template over and over.
FS: Okay, so, how’d we get here? — from your P.O.V.
ANON: Largely I believe it is to do with the hands real estate developers have in the industry now. i.e. Developers have this thing now where they make a spec house for the types who are, like, really into Tame Impala or something, and now those Developers are considered part of the professional design world. Bratty purists like myself will never accept that work as design, and neither should you!
FS: Because it dilutes?
“I have seen beautiful features of projects immediately sniped down, not only out of budgeting, but out of the marketability of the project outcome.”
ANON: At the heart of what is heartless is often the commodification and monetization of what I hope people still consider an art form.
Yes, I know interior design is a job, and it is much different than say, a painting or disciplined visual art practice, but like most creative pursuits at their best, it is a dance.
Developers are not interested in the dance; they aren’t even interested in music at all, they have a feverish thirst for profits and profits alone. I have worked with them closely in the past, and probably will continue to have to for my own livelihood **sigh**, but even being up close I have seen beautiful features of projects immediately sniped down, not only out of budgeting, but out of the marketability of the project outcome.
They despise risk, and they want a guaranteed acceptance and engagement with marketable trends.
FS: But, they aren’t the trend-pushers. Are they? Like, the Intern*t is a great re-surfacer of The Niche, but it’s main M.O. seems to be Mass Replication.
ANON: I would say, sure, it is easy to blame T*kTok, AD, Pint*rest, Instagr*m, whatever — but these platforms are at the very core, just tools. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people with guns? Can I say that?
Don’t get mad at me. I am not a libertarian or something. This is to say that it is not the fault of the tools, but the systems that uphold the tools, mainly of which I would argue is these developers, or just participants in design who’s sole interest is profit and marketability.
I will just leave it at: not everyone has to be a part of the “design world”, and people who have big piggy bank trust funds that insist on just walking in an industry initially centralized around true artistic thought and expression should kindly f*ck off. If the shoe fits, blah blah blah.
FS: Despite the popular phrase, design is not “everywhere” — unless you consider “design” that it just is no matter what, a synonym for anything that comes into being digitally or materially.
We consider “design” as more of a value.
But anyway: design is sometimes just “Product”, ffs.
WE feel that’s the problem that Design With Reach is having, or whatever, is like, does the “design” feel exciting or relevant or something Beyond Product? (Even when it’s good, what they are selling.) Somehow, the context always makes their stuff feel like Product.
We have a feeling that a kind of ‘90s anti-“sell out” vibe will return, at least to the non-fasc*sts. People are gonna want “no-name” designs (i.e. Very Good vintage stuff nobody knows the origin of), for example — like, f*ck Big Design, it’s not a flex just to have money.
ANON: Ha! I would agree with you that there is this resurfacing of a desire for that which can’t be replicated or be found again, I certainly experience that itch myself.
FS: Now, returning décor media, too. Because, as a part of a rather buzzy décor operation, you do get press.
Now, it seems there’s a certain unspoken consensus that getting into Architectur*l Digest is best for client seduction (fair?), in terms of your own aspirations, what sits up top?
ANON: A.D. is definitely appealing to clients, because it is a reference point they can understand and appreciate.
I feel like A.D. has such a wide reach right now, but with that bigger name and cultural popularity, you are less likely to get a more refined feature in a well-referenced and industrially respected publication because you are in this way already spoken for.
However, there are some projects that sort of just belong there? Especially celebrity stuff if you can get the green light from the client, A.D. seems to take anything with some little sprinkle of celebrity. It’s a weird line to understand, but A.D. is not necessarily an enemy, but with a sensationalizing of celebrity comes a sort of vibe where money does in fact talk, and nothing makes money in design publications like a look into a celebrities life. Stars: they are just like us!
“A.D. is not necessarily an enemy, but with a sensationalizing of celebrity comes a sort of vibe where money does in fact talk.”
FS: Okay, pivoting: is part of a buzzy décor operation, what’s “good” these days in décor?
ANON: Okay, cool, positive time now. I am sure everyone reading this thinks I am some form of supervillain typing this from an iron tower, or that guy who owns Oakley’s military compound style residence.
A designer who really inspires me right now is Marion Mailaender. She is completely her own visionary, mixing solid materials with industrial accents, and truly making rooms with unapologetic expression.
I will save the poetic waxing and allow the reader to just dive into her work, because there are truly very few designers that can compare to her.
I read on her website or somewhere on the internet that an incredibly critical part of her process is the ongoing, abstract and expressive, dialogue that she upholds with her clients.
Trust is incredibly crucial to any “design success”; without it there is a very slim chance of achieving anything real. It is also, oftentimes, the most frustrating and punishing variable in the process itself, which is why screening clients is more important for the designer than screening a designer is for the client. If you are a good designer, with good communication skills and a foundation built on trust, there will always be a client, but moving backwards is always a lot more difficult.
hen I look at Mailaender’s work, I see an overwhelming amount of established trust, and beyond.
FS: And, ok, we do fundamentally believe that probably the best décor is not done by “professionals” – it’s absolutely unicorn rare, but the untrained and unpretentious and really pull of miracles. THAT SAID, everyone used to be a D.J. and now everyone is a “design practice”. THOUGHTS?
ANON: I really like this sentiment, because I do find myself pretty enamored with the perspective of the “outsider” in most realms of creative expression, film, music, e.t.c. — design being no exception. But I don’t think a prerequisite of coming from a non-traditional background is completely necessary.
However, on this subject I think I would say that in any art form or creative field, in the beginning the person making the creative decisions needs to study the medium from a technical and historical context.
Especially in design, there is an invitation to play, to have fun, to juxtapose objects, lighting, color, and material in a way that perhaps is initially outside a personal reference point.
These days, I see the same notes being struck again and again, which from my perspective is cataloged by this desire and assurance to be accepted as a professional.
The question is how do you design, and why do you design, and what do your designs say about yourself in comparison with the industry you inhabit.
I am a firm believer in doing whatever it is that you feel drawn to on a personal level, but you should always be aware that whenever you are contributing to a field dominated by professionals who have been contributing longer than you, you will and should be judged for your own output.
I find there is almost zero negative press in the design world, which to me, feels like a failure of the industry.
In other creative fields, finished products are torn to shreds or praised to the heavens by all forms of industry critics, yet in design there is this passive praise that seems to categorize everything. It can’t ALL be good, can it?
Blah, anyway… uhhhhhhh yeah, I don’t know — get into it if you want, but just know that like anything worth doing, it is not easy, and your process should change overtime. Refinement is an ally, criticism is an ally, the status quo is not, and commerce is not an indicator of what’s good; it is an indicator of what HAS been good and an invitation for what could be better.
FS: Thank u, we love u.
AND TO READERS: Thank u 2. Until next week.
Love and good luck,
FOR SCALE is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
"At the heart of what is heartless is often the commodification and monetization of what I hope people still consider an art form." ❤️❤️❤️
Really love this interviewee!