nicolemauro's Profile

The issue is one of context and credibility. To the first, the subject is not about design, which alienates and confuses AT audience. To the second, assuming subject were appropriate, the person writing about it, whatever their personal experience/observation, as far as we know is not properly credentialed to write about with any kind of authority, which creates a serious trust issue amongst your readers that cannot be blithely argued away using the "we're sorry, but we're just trying to push boundaries here" kind of argument. Pornography is complicated, and involves all manner and kind of psychological response--the but-it-happens-inside-a-domestic-place-argument-and-therefore-is-worthy-of-our-attention is insulting, and problematic on many different levels. AT, for example, devotes a fair amount of attention to bedrooms and bathrooms, but you are not exploring in any kind of detail, thank you, what people are really doing in them, which leaves any "behavior in domestic space" argument you make arbitrary and difficult to trust.

It's dangerous to dispense psychological advise to a wide audience, unless your person is properly trained, and educated to do so. Perhaps they are, but, if so, their credentials should be made clear.

I read the full-post, and briefed myself on Dona Eunice's organization before responding. I should say I agree what she is doing is inspiring on many levels, and that I wrote "Without that explanation" to qualify what it might appear to people if that bit of back-story were not included--this isn't to say the before photo is a "sweatshop," only that photos dominate as the language at AT, and that not all are reading the comment streams as actively as many of the people here, thus the potential for confusion, if someone were merely glancing. The use of the term "sweatshop," I should also say, was/is intentional on my end. I use it with full knowledge of ramification, and with understanding that women in developing nations rely on factory jobs to support themselves and their families, and that such places cannot be eradicated without compromising the lives of the women working there. If it's soap-boxing to discuss what real people do in real spaces that have been before and after-ed, and, because of, have in response shifted, then I'm a soap-boxer. Changing how people live, even if for the better, is critical to examine. We all act differently in different spaces, i.e. at home, on the road, in the court-house, the hospital, etc., and architects and interior designers think about this when they make their plans/choices.

What I suspect we are seeing with Sewing United/Dona Eunice's project is a true political transformation, as well as an aesthetic one--what once was ugly and uncomfortable and difficult-looking was re-envisioned by someone or ones to become beautiful, functional, and efficient. Interior design at its best, like all fine art, can do this, and I believe that's what's been done here. There should be a photo of the sewing machines for this reason; they're the things that make the "why after is better" thesis. If staging is to blame, then I wonder why the omission. Why not stage them? This, of course, is a question for the stagers, who use biography, history, psychology, and aesthetics to create ambiance and context. Probably not totally answerable in his thread, but maybe in another forum.

Amazing use of small space, excellent use of color, and eclectic without trying too hard. Place looks inviting and fun, without the elitism or aesthetic pretension that occurs with other spaces (i.e. "you must have a this here, or a that there..."). If style is what you inherit and do with it, Nina's done it.