Breaking the Binary Oppositions of the Interior: A Momentary Permanence

Article Sidebar

PDF

Main Article Content

Issue Vol. 2 No. 2 (2019)
Published Jul 30, 2019
Section Articles
Article downloads 877
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7454/in.v2i2.58
Submitted : Apr 18, 2019 | Accepted : Jun 24, 2019
Roderick Adams
Northumbria University, United Kingdom
roderick.adams@northumbria.ac.uk
Lucy Marlor
Northumbria University, United Kingdom
lucy.marlor@northumbria.ac.uk

Abstract

The previously static view of the interior is changing, as social, economic and cultural factors produce a new requirement for building flexibility and potentially forcing a change to the normal spatial paradigms. There is an emerging altered dynamic between building, interior and user, posing the question – when does architecture become the interior? Conceptions of the future interior give renewed focus to the more flexible void space, over the opposing static architectural shell. By adjusting the realms of contact within a space and limiting the influence of architecture, the user is re-envisioned as a central adjudicator of spatial experience. Provocatively, conceiving the interior as a more temporal or fluid entity, we may liberate its relationship with its immovable and constant architectural keeper. This paper will argue the dynamic city structure is driving a new conception of the interior and its place within society and architecture.

Keywords: binary, thresholds, dualism, structuralism, boundary

Article Details

How to Cite
Adams, R., & Marlor, L. (2019). Breaking the Binary Oppositions of the Interior: A Momentary Permanence. Interiority, 2(2), 113–128. https://doi.org/10.7454/in.v2i2.58
Author Biographies

Roderick Adams, Northumbria University, United Kingdom

Dr Roderick Adams is Associate Head of Design at the School of Design, Northumbria University, a senior academic, researcher and practising interior designer. Rod's academic profile includes developing new interdisciplinary research approaches that connect education and the professional practices of design. He integrates international research and design activity through sustainable international design partnerships. His current research projects explore spatial narrative and culture, workplace design, productivity, design anthropology and contextual design futures.

Lucy Marlor, Northumbria University, United Kingdom

Lucy Marlor is a practising designer and Programme Leader of the BA(Hons) Interior Design degree at Northumbria University. Prior to entering academia, Lucy spent several years in commercial practice, designing across a wide range of sectors including leisure, hospitality, healthcare, education, civic, workplace and private residential projects. Her practice-based research interests lie in the adaptive re-use and re-purposing of existing architecture and interior space, in particular the decline and abandonment of existing architecture within the built environment and how we may better utilise unused or ruined spaces. Recent academic and commercial practice activity includes conference papers, designed artefacts, national and international architecture and design competitions and live commercial interior design projects in the North East of England.

References

Caan, S. (2011). Rethinking design and interiors: Human beings in the built environment. London: Laurence King.

Can, I., & Heath, T. (2016). In-between spaces and social interaction: A morphological analysis of Izmir using space syntax. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 31(1), 31-49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-015-9442-9

Coyne, R. (2012). Structuralism in architecture: Not a style but a tool for critique [Webpage]. Retrieved from https://richardcoyne.com/structuralism-in-architecture/

Holahan, C. J. (1982). Environmental psychology. New York: Random House.

Lehman, M. L. (2016). Adaptive sensory environments. London: Routledge.

Massey, D. (1995). Places and their pasts. History Workshop Journal, 39, 182-193.

McCarthy, C. (2005). Towards a definition of interiority. Space and Culture, 8(2), 112-125. https://doi.org/10.1177/1206331205275020

Price, C., & Littlewood, J. (1968). The Fun Palace. The Drama Review, 12(3),127-134.

Price, C., & Littlewood, J. (1964). 1964: Fun Palace [Webpage]. Retrieved from https://www.cca.qc.ca/fr/issues/2/cetait-le-futur/32737/1964-fun-palace

Ryder Architecture (n.d). Newcastle Central Station [Webpage]. Retrieved from https://www.ryderarchitecture.com/projects/newcastle-central-station.htm

Scott, F. (2008). On altering architecture. London: Routledge.

Söderqvist, L. (2011). Structuralism in architecture: A definition, Journal of Aesthetics & Culture, 3(1), 5414. https://doi.org/10.3402/jac.v3i0.5414

Stone, A. (2007). The underestimation of the interior. In J. Gigli & E. Hollis (Eds.), Thinking inside the box: A reader in interiors for the 21st century (pp. 227-238). London: Middlesex University Press.

Voordouw, J. (2018). Topology and interiority: Folding space inside. In G. Marinic (Ed.), The interior architecture theory reader (pp. 318-322). London: Routledge.

Author(s) retain the copyright of articles published in this journal, with first publication rights granted to Interiority.