In ‘Trees in Urban Design’, Henry stated this pharagraph;

In addition to actually creating discrete spaces, trees are used to connect and extend the geometry, rhythms, and scale of buildings into the landscape. It is this function much more than any decorative or softening effect that is of primary importance to architecture. When trees are used primarily to “soften” or “decorate”, they are being imployed to correct deficiencies that might have been averted to begin with by sensitive design. Used as extensions of architectural and city form, they greatly expand the scope and potential of urban design

Henry F. Arnold

In the middle of my journey defining interior design, as well as on my way to research about urban green infrastructures (that I got as my dissertation topic SOMEHOW), it is interesting that I found the similar perspective on “decoration” in these two subjects’ decision making.

Back when I was studying interior design, my lecturers had to remind us over and over that we are not interior decorator. They said that every decision in our design has to have meaning and reasonable justification. When we choose colours, or placing furnitures, or adding indoor plants; what is it about? To make the space prettier? Why? Why should the place be pretty?

I was taught that way, and still am thinking that way. I think designing something with function in mind is more valuable. In this blog post I don’t have any intention to amplify this teaching, I want to ask instead; what is decoration? What value does it hold? To what extent does something is called a decoration? Is it a sin to make something pretty?

Conran’s US Magazine (c) Design Museum London