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.
Tselepis, Thea J.; Mastamet-Mason, Anne; Antonites, Alexander Josef(South African Association of Family Ecology and Consumer Sciences, 2015)
Die Suid-Afrikaanse kledingbedryf is onder geweldige ekonomiese druk, veral ten opsigte van vervaardiging, wat ook kledingontwerp insluit. Daar is bevind dat 50% van werknemers in hierdie bedryf in 2013 afgelê is weens die ...
Du Toit, Cornel W. (Cornelius Willem), 1953-(Faculty of Theology, University of Pretoria, 2004)
This paper examines some of the main positions in the debate on intelligence, design and purpose in nature. It seems that the machine metaphor with its ostensible Deistic implications, introduced by Boyle and Paley, still ...