This paper argues against the second
course of title change for interior design (from
‘interior design’ to ‘interior architecture’). Heuristic
reasoning based on design theory argues that interior
design is an architectural discipline. Interior design
experiences professional embarrassment (based on its
marginalisation within the architectural profession)
over the decorative aspects of its ontology, resulting
in a situation where the discipline attempts title
change to differentiate itself from a ‘less
professional’ occupation (i.e. interior decoration) to
assert its legitimacy. Title change may lead to
artificial differentiations between ‘interior design’
and ‘interior architecture’ which will eliminate
decoration from the discipline’s repertoire, leaving it
impoverished. If interior design is defined broadly,
differentiation between interior design and interior
architecture will be redundant.
Haupt, Maria Margaretha Catharina (Grietjie)(University of Pretoria, 2007-05-15)
The aim of this research is to establish which aspects influence students’ successful learning of design skills through contextually integrated learning support material for the design and technology education programme ...
This study explores the conceptual relationship between design aesthetics and Aristotelian rhetoric in the context of information visualisation. Aesthetics and rhetorical theory are traditionally studied as separate ...
Reyburn, Duncan; Kirstein, Marno(University of Pretoria, Department of Visual Arts, 2015)
This article explores the way that design ought to be narrated and legitimated
within the context of the South African design industry. Special attention is given
to the presence of disavowal in the design process, when ...