When I first saw The New York Times' article, "In Defense of Decorators," I was looking forward to a good read that would give my profession a lift, pointing out the advantages and benefits of hiring a decorator or designer, even perhaps in these tough economic times.
Are you enjoying CarlaAston.com/DESIGNED?
If so, click LIKE to subscribe to future posts!
Unfortunately, once I finished reading the article, I was disappointed in the tone / focus of the article, and the actual “defenses” that were offered.
Taking the high (end) road
The article opens with an interview of a textile designer, Donna May Woods, who is working on new fabrics for the very high-end luxury market.
“It is not unusual for our clients to have a chair that’s worth a million dollars,” Ms. Woods said. The fabric, she added, “needs to match that.”
Right there I thought, "That’s where The Times are going to begin the piece? Right to the ultra-rich, over the top, unattainable luxury that most average people can’t even conceive of having?"
Why did they have to go there first? Why did they have to parade all the expenditures of the upper-class (the "1%") to rile up most of America (the "99%") who's now burdened with economic struggle, in some cases survival, and associate that with decorators?
As someone who lives their life in the profession of interior design... I'm sorry, but I can't offer my gratitude for this “defense” so far.
Who wouldn't want to be given a budget that could buy design like this!? ( Designed by: Stanislav Orekhov }
Yes, that's where they went.
As the article continued, they proceeded to make an example of the disparity with this statement:
“With the economies of entire countries in smoking ruins, it would seem an odd time for such a venture. But as economists like Paul Krugman point out, life at the top has never been better, as the superwealthy have doubled their share of income in the last three decades.”
I’d just like to point out that while decorators and designers are typically a luxury expenditure, most in the profession don’t see the kinds of budgets that were written about in this article. Most of us are hired by average, everyday people who need help with remodeling projects, investing in new furniture, and building a new home. I’ve worked in homes of all kinds of values and enjoyed each project immensely.
What designer doesn’t want a grandiose budget with carte blanche to go at a project? All of us, obviously. However, the reality is that most of us are working in just that: reality. And for The New York Times to limit the article's discussion about designers and decorators by focusing only on those who exist in the ultra high-end market was a little short-sighted. And I don’t think the piece did any designer or decorator a good turn.
Our industry leaders defend us...
The “defenses” offered by several people in the profession I really admire -- and, I assume, edited by The Times staff -- read like this:
“Decorating is a profession that often ends up as a punch line in a takedown of the one percent. But it remains the support system for an entire industry of makers, the manufacturers, craftspeople and artisans whose skills can stretch back to traditions hatched centuries ago, in much the same way the fashion business used to support those in the garment district.” { Penelope Green }
Bunny Williams, an experienced, highly respected, sought-after designer, cited the number of craftspeople and tradesmen her firm helped keep in business while working on her firm’s projects...
“There might be 300 or more people doing something for our jobs: the people who make the down pillows, the cabinetmaker from Salisbury, Conn., who can be a stay-at-home dad because of his craft, the furniture restorer. It goes on and on. And their work is what makes our work unique: we can do things that are unique, and not mass produced.” { Bunny Williams }
William Sofield did the same, describing the exquisite work some of the artist, masons, and sculptors that were employed on his projects...
William Sofield, the Princeton-educated designer of Tom Ford’s sleek emporia, likes to say that he has “resuscitated every trade that’s about to die.”
Margaret Russell, editor of Architectural Digest, expressed her irritation at the uproar that occurred over the expense of redecorating the Oval Office - which, she added, was all made in America and paid for by a private trust. Artisans and artists that worked on products for the interior were given as examples.
Did they miss the mark?
I think they all kind of missed the mark. All of those defenses in the article are valid, yet not the primary reason I think designers and decorators should be defended. There's just no way that the true, singular validation for one's work as a designer should be that we're able to keep the trades in business.
And it makes me kind of disappointed that Bunny Williams had to resort to counting off the number of small businesses her projects help keep afloat as validation of her profession. With her success, and long list of enviable projects, she really shouldn’t have to give any “defense” at all.
While I read all the insights being given in the article, I began to wonder if the piece could have benefited from a more appropriate title. Maybe this one would work...
“Keeping The Artisans In Business - Thank You, Decorators”
A letter to the editor
Dear, Penelope Green (the article's author),
Will you please log back in to The New York Times' publishing system and change the title? Or is it too late? All of us designers sure would appreciate it.
Thanks ahead of time ;-)
Sincerely,
The interior design industry's 99%
Speaking of "validation"...
...I would love to know that you think.
Throughout this coming week, I'm going to be exploring some of the issues The New York Times' piece brought to light, because I feel there are counter-arguments that should have been revealed in the story, yet -- for some reason I can't figure out -- were not. And as I continue to publish my own personal thoughts this week, I’d love to hear your opinions, because they never fail to inspire the formulation of my own.
So, please, scroll to the comments below, defend yourself and our profession, and let's see if we can keep the conversation The Times initiated going; because -- I think we can all agree -- there's still a lot that needs to be discussed...
That's all I have to say (for now). Now YOU express yourself...
What do you think the defense should be?
What argument do you think would stand alone?
If you were about to hire someone on your own home's project, how woud you want your designer or decorator to validate themselves?
Or, if you are a decorator or designer, what would you say to your future client about why they should hire you?
Finally... If you were quoted in the NYT's article, feel free to leave additional insight about how you feel. Either do so in the comments or send them to me directly. If you'd allow me to, I'll publish them here on DESIGNED w/Carla Aston.
I can also be reached @...
