Just to be clear. This is not about bashing either the architect or the couple, or the magazine, for that matter. It is an observation of something that use to be random, but is now occurring with far greater frequency, to the point of almost being acceptable. It's not.
The spread on the Venezuelan house in April's Elle Decor illustrated everything that is wrong with contemporary interior design and possibly, today's culture.
First and foremost there was no connection between the decor and the architecture, and, I suspect, its inhabitants. Every bit of the furniture could have been purchased from any design store anywhere in the world. The interiors could have been anywhere and belonged to anyone. That is not a house, that is an hotel.
While the couple's choices appear to be informed, they do not appear to be heartfelt. How can they be? How does that house reflect the where, the who, and the why? It doesn't and it can't. The house screams for some Nakashima and some Latin American art. Instead of all that Panton, Saarinen, and Linge Roset they should have looked at contemporary and vintage Latin American designs. Then, and only then, would the Scandinavian pieces have made sense. Within the larger and more relevant context of where and who, they would have served as exclamation points rather than big question marks asking why?
Wanting and having something is not always enough. There really needs to be a deeper connection between us and our possessions, otherwise it's all just Disneyland.
Here is the link to the spread -
BTW : Coffee + Schnauzer + Laptop = No pictures and a new Dog Rug