tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-839722827888249291.post1361145469283539235..comments2024-01-17T05:25:58.816-05:00Comments on RED STICK RANT: Is That A Class-A Rated Throw Pillow, Or Are You Just Happy To See Me?.....CLIFFORDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16404394356250504673noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-839722827888249291.post-55349097719035046512008-03-31T10:07:00.000-06:002008-03-31T10:07:00.000-06:00Anonymous:I think there is a distinction already: ...Anonymous:<BR/><BR/>I think there is a distinction already: interior design vs. interior decoration.<BR/><BR/>My argument is not to license for the sake of, well, self-esteem; but to separate those who design, create and finish space in the public realm (commercial buildings, educational facilities, etc.) from those who decorate it only or work in the domestic realm. (residential design, decorating offices, etc.)<BR/><BR/>I know I am a distinct minority in the architecture community when it comes to this issue. I am not arguing for licensure out of any sense of altruism or solidarity with fellow designers. I am arguing for this reason only: if designers are going to be involved with decisions affecting the health, safety, and welfare of the public, and I have to rely on those decisions, I sure as hell want them qualified. <BR/><BR/>Case in point: A few years ago, my wife's niece, a cashier at Sam's who had never been trained as a designer, said she was starting an "interior design" business. She was a huge fan of the show 'Trading Spaces,' and she reasoned, "How hard is that?" (actual quote). I asked why an interior "designer" instead of interior "decorator"," and she said that "designer" sounded more "professional." Thankfully, she never followed up on her quest. To prevent this kind of thing actually happening is why I support licensure......CLIFFORDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16404394356250504673noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-839722827888249291.post-26923953740161075552008-03-31T09:14:00.000-06:002008-03-31T09:14:00.000-06:00Interior Design is not a single profession. The f...Interior Design is not a single profession. The first thing that everyone should consider is that anyone can use the title, and many have taken it. So in any discussion of "Interior Designers" we are talking about a wide range of backgrounds, education, testing etc. So unlike other professions where when the discussion arises about qualifcations, scope of work and overall abilities you are working from a single point of reference. <BR/><BR/>Design continues to evolve as the public finds what they need. Two issues arise: Many designers work in areas of code. Many designers do not work in areas of code. <BR/><BR/>That is the area of issue. Regulation allows access by Registrants. With access their are responsbilities and requirements. So if those that want to work in that area can and do then they will have to be regulated. The goal is and should be to exempt those that call themselves Interior Designers but no not choose to work in code....I don't have a blogger ID but am happy to provide you with who I am...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-839722827888249291.post-82959189955023061372008-03-29T19:54:00.000-06:002008-03-29T19:54:00.000-06:00anonymous:I don’t usually respond to anyone who wo...anonymous:<BR/><BR/>I don’t usually respond to anyone who won’t leave a name, or at least a “nom-de-net.” At least, not seriously. But I will make an exception here as I think you are in the business like me, and you raise some good points worth discussing.<BR/><BR/>As you know, architects take many tests, on a range of issues, in order to get licensed. All, in some form or another, deal with one’s ability to synthesize a whole range of information and apply it to Life Safety of the general public. We are allowed to use a restricted term, “Architect,” to show that we are qualified in that regard, and held liable for it. It separates us publicly from “building designers,” who are not so trained.<BR/><BR/>Like you, I do not agree with “cosmetic licensing.” The State has no compelling public safety interest in that. It is just a feel-good to allow one group to charge more for a service. That is why, until a few years ago, I opposed the ASID jihad (and it is that) to license interior designers.<BR/><BR/>What changed my mind is personal experience. After working with a great group of interior designers at a large architectural firm in Boston, I came to expect the same level of competence from the interior designers elsewhere. I was very, very disappointed. I was paying for a consultative service but having to most of the work – and clean up (and sometimes pay for) their mistakes. (e.g. – selecting a standard office carpet for patient areas in a medical center – had never even heard of the word “non-microbial!”)<BR/><BR/>So now I support licensing. Not the “I-have-a-college-degree-so-I’m-special” licensing, but something substantive. And NOT, I repeat, NOT, to the Professional of Record level of a licensed Architect or Engineer.<BR/><BR/>My wife will be sitting for the NCIDQ next week, and I have gone over several of her mock exam problems and written materials. What I saw does seem to address Life Safety, though not all that overtly and not as much as I want. But it does appear to be there.<BR/><BR/>When I got licensed, it did not make me a better architect the next day. Nor will licensing make my wife a better interior designer. What it will do is say to the public that each of us is qualified to work at particular level in our profession.<BR/><BR/>Thank you for your comment, and I hope this rambling response helps. (P.S. If you REALLY want to get me started about an organization strangling our profession, ask me about NCARB.).....CLIFFORDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16404394356250504673noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-839722827888249291.post-43171307526782033622008-03-29T11:23:00.000-06:002008-03-29T11:23:00.000-06:00If you really believe that interior designers shou...If you really believe that interior designers should be licensed, then the only test they should be required to take is the Codes Test. Unfortunately, the current rush to license designers is orchestrated by ASID and ASID alone and they push for the NCIDQ which barely addresses the codes issue. Check out California if you want to see the correct way to license designers. But that's not good enough for ASID. They have introduced a bill to force a Practice Act on designers who must pass the NDICQ. How does that address the issues you raise in your column?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com