It isn't a 'compromise'. It isn't just 'the inside of buildings' and it isn't 'less complex than full architecture' - but it is a touch confused and I believe it's name to be part of is it's downfall. The title 'Interior' is misleading for many and makes suggestions that within architectural education that it fills the void between Interior Design and Architecture. Having taught on all three of these courses at various different Universities one can see why jumping to this conclusion would be logical. However, having a degree course, even a vocation, born from void-filling is not something I wish to advocate or promote.
"Interior architecture is much more than architecture of the interior."
An understanding of this first requires a critical analysis of the term' interior'. Speaking from my experience teaching on the Interior Architecture course at Brighton University only, the term ‘interior’ is seen to be multi-dimensional in form and intention. The course guides students to explore this transient nature;
- how and why the boundaries of space can be created and manipulated
- the impact of enclosure on emotion and spatial construct
- a focus on the integration of human interaction and design principles.
'Interiority' is a sense - it is so much more than the presence or absence of enclosure.
Interior Architecture is a young and specialist career path with only a handful of courses in the UK. The scarcity of this course places it in a provocative and equally dangerous position. Serving an informed and understanding industry is of paramount importance to both the universities as a whole and the graduates they produce.
I believe there should be a thorough discussion of the interior and how it's dissemination can add to/differ from other already over-subscribed courses/graduate numbers. I invite you to please comment below and share your opinions.