6.

This week, we didn't have any guest speakers, but rather, had group discussion.  We've spent time this week reviewing the things we've learned in different lectures from different speakers, adding tidbits along the way.  We learned about specific things like the Wassily Chair, and customs (how that affects the pricing).  We talked about Shaker Interiors, and how that was different than "normal" design.
On Wednesday, we reviewed another lecture and sustainability a little bit.  We also looked at how different elements of a room/design can affect the user even on a psychological level and proxemics.  I thought this topic was particularly interesting because it encapsulates everything that we (as people) think about in terms of design, if only on a subconscious level.  Another big thing we hit was the simple fact that everything we do must be ratoionalized; things can't just be "pretty."  The more we discuss, it seems the more there is to discuss.

5.

Monday we went to Marlene's room to listen to the lecture with the architecture students because it was "Interior Design Week."  Barbara Klinkhammer (sp?) spoke on lighting. She covered a LOT of information.  Lighting is a very technical field, with many small things you can do to get very large effects.  She talked about how the type of light/ light source affected the visual appearance of an interior space.  Had we had a little more time to covered such an amount of material, it probably would've been quite interesting.

On Wednesday, Avigail (sp?) talked to us about a little of the history/theory of interior design.  I found this lecture to be quite interesting because I love history in general and seeing a progression through time.  She mainly talked about Mies van der Rohe (Modernism) and Robert Venturi (Post-Modernism).  This lecture gave me a better appreciation because beforehand, I found his clean, straight lined designs to be rather boring.  Now I have a better understanding of where he was coming from when he was designing, and perhaps what he was trying to accomplish, and it's really a neat thought process.  I found Venturi to be interesting just the same if only because he is so different from van der Rohe.  They were both trying to accomplish different things and I think there is room both ideas.  Venturi's approach to learning or trying new things I thought was neat. (i.e. the visit to Vegas)

4.

On Monday, Professor David Matthews came to speak to us about different design practices. We'd talked about several of these before, but he brought up some that we had not covered yet, and gave us a little bit more depth of some of them. He took us to his blog, and through various links, showed us the websites of multiple famous design firms from all over the world.  It was really quite fascinating because the pictures these websites showed we absolutely amazing to look at--some of them brilliant.  It was neat to see some of the things interior designers can do that one would not typically think of, such as trade shows or exhibit design.  Most of the time, no one really thinks of how exhibits, etc. are planned out, but that they just appear.  The thought that goes into all of that, and the end result is really neat.  I also though the page(s) he showed us on lighting was really interesting.  I'm not sure it'd be quite my niche, but the end result is quite something.

Wednesday was a bit scattered, with questions and light arguments about the quality of HGTV.  It was just a sort of free discussion day with no set topic.  At the end of class, we talked a bit about was passive solar means, and its positive effects.