Another two week gap for which we most profusely apologise and once again offer as an excuse what can only be described as the happy mania t...
Another two week gap for which we most profusely apologise and once again offer as an excuse what can only be described as the happy mania that is spring in the bokoshoko workshop. With that said lets jump straight in to our main subject today; the conclusion of the Great Interior Design Competition (GIDC).
We struggled here because she lost not because she didn't adhere to the brief but ironically because she did. One of the consistent themes of the series has been Daniel/Sophie swinging between "OMG: off brief" and "OMG: push the clients". So Anne delivers an on brief design and loses. To be fair the resulting scheme is the very embodiment of the word "nice" or perhaps, in the more modern vernacular, "meh" - not mad enough to hate, nor great enough to love.
She was never a contender for overall winner but should she have lost out to Frankie well....
Enough of that, let us return to Frankie. First the previous heat where he triumphed over Anne to find himself in the final three. We have a problem - the same one we pointed out with his "Steampunk" themed design - he doesn't do any research, not from what we can tell. A brief that requested New England and yet delivered some kind of faux 1930's New York scheme was yet another highlight that here's a designer with an undoubted talent for textiles combined with a manifest inability to use Google.
In this heat much like Achilles's less well known brother he turns out to have not one but two critical weaknesses; quality of execution. Yes we've gone on for far too long about this and the general disappointing lack of quality manifest by many competitors but this is the semi-final and whilst we may forgive previous crimes such as the upholstered (in the very loosest terms) doors in his first appearance this time there's no excuses.
He presents a scheme with a nod to some kind of half-remembered image of Art Nouveau and Charles Rennie Mackntosh designed furniture (once again the theme of lack of research rears it's head) and then proceeds to send all fans of Mr. Mackintosh into apoplexy as he commits a series of heinous crimes.
Leaving aside the comprehensive evisceration of any character or warmth from the client's room the problem here is that of all the styles he could have chosen this was one that really needed to be executed not just well but perfectly.
Sadly this turned out to be less Charles Rennie Mackintosh and more, his less well know cousin, Dave Gaviscon PacAMac who agreed to a spot of that there Art Knew Voe for a pack of fags and a pizza after a night on the whiskey.
Did Lucy lose this competition? Well in one of those subtle (or cliched; you choose) scenarios no; she was beaten by Sarah and what it came down to in the end (in our opinion; given we'd never say we're mind readers) was a series of "things" that showed that this competition has perhaps more depth than we gave it credit for so...
Why? Because the "normal" client - designer relationship doesn't work the way you see in these little 60 minute segments. At this "level" a client will typically approach a designer because they're looking for the style the designer has become known for. We wouldn't approach Alexa Hampton and say "We're looking for a brutalist mid-century German modernist look" for example.
What this competition does (and it's inevitable consequence of the format) is that it makes the union of client and designer atypical; the client gets the designer and vice versa - there's no real choice here and of course neither party really has the ability to walk away.
And still we've not talked about the design(s), come on already! Well that should be an indicator of what other aspects were in play here and lead to the win.
What we saw on screen, and we'd urge you to also watch the the video below of Sarah being interviewed by Sophie Robinson for some more "colour", is what can happen when client relationship(s) fail:
In case you didn't spot it in the neat editing, there were some obvious clues that our client wasn't ideal fodder for participation in the GIDC experience. The problem is that if you put yourself in this position, where a program with an agenda unlikely to have your satisfaction at the top of the list, you accept the risk that you could end up with a Kelly Hoppen type result or equally you could end up with Laurence Lewellyn-Bowen nipping round with some wallpaper and some scenery paints.
So what does this have to do with the result; The way it was handled, this was a difficult situation, one which could have proved an unsurmountable challenge but it was handled with aplomb and what could have been a competition ending situation was likely to have become, ironically, a significant factor in Sarah's overall success.
It's important to stress that whilst the finished result is very important, there are many facets to being a designer and the difference between Sarah and the other contestants was that she demonstrated ability across all those facets.
We'd guess her background as a successful garden designer is a player here; the only way to develop the additional portfolio of skills as a designer is to do it for real. An innate creative ability is a huge advantage when talking purely about design but you can learn a lot of tricks, techniques, principles about design by reading, watching and surfing the net but the other stuff, the client stuff, managing relationships with them and suppliers; that comes from doing it.
With that said back to the designs; again casting aside issues of personal taste; each room was cohesive, each room had the defined Sarah "style" and each room once again was a graphic demonstration of how good a room dresser she is. There was a simple panning shot of 3 leather-bound books on a piece of furniture with a table lamp on them; The simplicity of the positioning belying, we suspect, an absolute sense of control when it was executed. It's this kind of thing that again is a player in defining a real designer.
So in the end the competition did what one would hope; it identified a worthy winner who in reality was the only competitor who one would expect to potentially go on to operate successfully as the leading creative in a design business.
You can read more about Sarah and her business by visiting BlackParrots. Check out the post on Mad About the House as well...
As makers of things we're naturally biased and would like, perhaps, to see a more critical focus on execution. We do wonder if there's some subtle re-working of the competitor - client matchup process that could happen to make the potential relation less humorous match.com advert and more match made in heaven allowing the designers to really flex their design muscles?
We're not convinced that Grade <x> properties are necessarily a good target although it's an entirely valid concept to introduce the notion of how competitors operate with constraints above and beyond those imposed by the client's requirements.
We'd like to see if a "white box challenge" could become part of the final; provide 2 identical rooms, no brief and just an exhortation to "go wild".
With all that said let us finish this on a positive note by congratulating a worthy winner. All at bokoshoko wish BlackParrots success.
The notion is built on the concept of providing double height spaces which serves not only to create an immediate impression of space but can also provide interesting opportunities to introduce light directly into the heart of a house.
We'vw see some people struggle with this conceptually - "How can removing floor area make it bigger?" but the sense of space, the dynamic of a room or entire house is not something that is simply contingent on floor area. Our perception of a space comprises many factors and understanding those factors and then manipulating them can be a very useful tool.
We will have a very real example later this year where moving a small single wall back by only a meter or so will have a dramatic impact on the perception of a space.
It's a concept for the braver client but is a hugely useful tool in the same box as floating furniture (allows the eye to extend to the entire dimensions of a floor) and manipulation of vertical or horizontal space perception by using stripes (paint, wallpaper or cladding).
A missed opportunity; we couldn't find much in the away of compelling imagery on the BBC's own site. Sarah Mitchenhall is the only competitor with, at least in our searching, web presence but even on their comprehensive site there was a manifest lack of images. Sophie Robinson is an Instagram addict but nothing much there either.
This may simply be that the homeowners declined to give permission, although given they'd allowed an entire film crew in to their homes seem unlikely, or that there's simply a gap in the image asset management of the people involved.
Lets start with the "patting yourself on the back" award bit.
So we called it right, Sarah Mitchenhall, was crowned the winner of this years competition - we believed we'd seen the winner when she first did that green room ensemble but it's nice to have our opinions validated! But enough of that; let us rewind a moment...
4th place: Anne @ The Coastal Cottages, Beer
We like the world Anne comes from, it's clearly not this one but it seems nice all the same. She has a thing for purple but we can't really hold that against her.We struggled here because she lost not because she didn't adhere to the brief but ironically because she did. One of the consistent themes of the series has been Daniel/Sophie swinging between "OMG: off brief" and "OMG: push the clients". So Anne delivers an on brief design and loses. To be fair the resulting scheme is the very embodiment of the word "nice" or perhaps, in the more modern vernacular, "meh" - not mad enough to hate, nor great enough to love.
She was never a contender for overall winner but should she have lost out to Frankie well....
3rd place: Frankie @ Medieval Terrace, Wells
Once again we applaud GIDC for finding interesting places to hold the events in. We have, as readers will have noted, not always been entirely complimentary about the competition but we mentioned from the outset how it should be congratulated on it's ability to showcase a multi-generational architectural heritage.Enough of that, let us return to Frankie. First the previous heat where he triumphed over Anne to find himself in the final three. We have a problem - the same one we pointed out with his "Steampunk" themed design - he doesn't do any research, not from what we can tell. A brief that requested New England and yet delivered some kind of faux 1930's New York scheme was yet another highlight that here's a designer with an undoubted talent for textiles combined with a manifest inability to use Google.
In this heat much like Achilles's less well known brother he turns out to have not one but two critical weaknesses; quality of execution. Yes we've gone on for far too long about this and the general disappointing lack of quality manifest by many competitors but this is the semi-final and whilst we may forgive previous crimes such as the upholstered (in the very loosest terms) doors in his first appearance this time there's no excuses.
He presents a scheme with a nod to some kind of half-remembered image of Art Nouveau and Charles Rennie Mackntosh designed furniture (once again the theme of lack of research rears it's head) and then proceeds to send all fans of Mr. Mackintosh into apoplexy as he commits a series of heinous crimes.
 |
| Note to Frankie: This is Charles Rennie Mackintosh |
Sadly this turned out to be less Charles Rennie Mackintosh and more, his less well know cousin, Dave Gaviscon PacAMac who agreed to a spot of that there Art Knew Voe for a pack of fags and a pizza after a night on the whiskey.
2nd Place: Lucy @ Stately Home
Lucy had shown throughout the competition not only an endless capacity for tears but, perhaps more useful for the competition, a real capacity to come up with clearly articulated designs and realise them usually by attempting to make almost everything involved by hand. Quality hasn't always been a priority but it would be unfair to suggest that she was anything other than worthy of being one of the finalists.
Did Lucy lose this competition? Well in one of those subtle (or cliched; you choose) scenarios no; she was beaten by Sarah and what it came down to in the end (in our opinion; given we'd never say we're mind readers) was a series of "things" that showed that this competition has perhaps more depth than we gave it credit for so...
1st Place: Sarah Mitchenhall
We know that amongst some of our friends this caused some consternation but as we tried, clumsily, to articulate in our Week 8 of 52 (You don't have to like it) post it's a mistake to judge the worthiness of the winner based purely on your own design prejudices/taste.Why? Because the "normal" client - designer relationship doesn't work the way you see in these little 60 minute segments. At this "level" a client will typically approach a designer because they're looking for the style the designer has become known for. We wouldn't approach Alexa Hampton and say "We're looking for a brutalist mid-century German modernist look" for example.
 |
| Sarah Mitchenhall (left) and Alexa De Castilho (right) |
And still we've not talked about the design(s), come on already! Well that should be an indicator of what other aspects were in play here and lead to the win.
What we saw on screen, and we'd urge you to also watch the the video below of Sarah being interviewed by Sophie Robinson for some more "colour", is what can happen when client relationship(s) fail:
In case you didn't spot it in the neat editing, there were some obvious clues that our client wasn't ideal fodder for participation in the GIDC experience. The problem is that if you put yourself in this position, where a program with an agenda unlikely to have your satisfaction at the top of the list, you accept the risk that you could end up with a Kelly Hoppen type result or equally you could end up with Laurence Lewellyn-Bowen nipping round with some wallpaper and some scenery paints.
So what does this have to do with the result; The way it was handled, this was a difficult situation, one which could have proved an unsurmountable challenge but it was handled with aplomb and what could have been a competition ending situation was likely to have become, ironically, a significant factor in Sarah's overall success.
It's important to stress that whilst the finished result is very important, there are many facets to being a designer and the difference between Sarah and the other contestants was that she demonstrated ability across all those facets.
With that said back to the designs; again casting aside issues of personal taste; each room was cohesive, each room had the defined Sarah "style" and each room once again was a graphic demonstration of how good a room dresser she is. There was a simple panning shot of 3 leather-bound books on a piece of furniture with a table lamp on them; The simplicity of the positioning belying, we suspect, an absolute sense of control when it was executed. It's this kind of thing that again is a player in defining a real designer.
So in the end the competition did what one would hope; it identified a worthy winner who in reality was the only competitor who one would expect to potentially go on to operate successfully as the leading creative in a design business.
 |
| Black Parrots? |
GIDC 2016; the Wrap
With the understanding that this is cut from the same (cake) as the GBBO or The Pottery Throwdown etc we commend the series on highlighting our heritage. We sincerely believe the right person won and the additional spin of the guest judges was, if nothing more, a light refresh.As makers of things we're naturally biased and would like, perhaps, to see a more critical focus on execution. We do wonder if there's some subtle re-working of the competitor - client matchup process that could happen to make the potential relation less humorous match.com advert and more match made in heaven allowing the designers to really flex their design muscles?
We're not convinced that Grade <x> properties are necessarily a good target although it's an entirely valid concept to introduce the notion of how competitors operate with constraints above and beyond those imposed by the client's requirements.
We'd like to see if a "white box challenge" could become part of the final; provide 2 identical rooms, no brief and just an exhortation to "go wild".
With all that said let us finish this on a positive note by congratulating a worthy winner. All at bokoshoko wish BlackParrots success.
Rising the Mezzanine
We'll write more in another post (when we find an additional couple of hours!) but we're watching Ugly House to Lovely House with George "power gaze" Clarke and 100k House: Tips and Tricks and noting the increasing use of the mezzanine as a tool, surprisingly given it takes floor space, to create space.The notion is built on the concept of providing double height spaces which serves not only to create an immediate impression of space but can also provide interesting opportunities to introduce light directly into the heart of a house.
 |
| Architect's plan of a mezzanine; lose space to gain space! |
We will have a very real example later this year where moving a small single wall back by only a meter or so will have a dramatic impact on the perception of a space.
 |
| 2 explantations: a fly with a smartphone or a mezzanine; one you want in your kitchen the other you don't |
What's with the vectors?
We had to metaphorically spank the Dreamstime account for this post. This is our go to place for stock images and you'll see a lot of them in this post. Now surely there's some irony at work here for a subject such as the GIDC, the competitors, their business and the coverage why did we need to download vector images?A missed opportunity; we couldn't find much in the away of compelling imagery on the BBC's own site. Sarah Mitchenhall is the only competitor with, at least in our searching, web presence but even on their comprehensive site there was a manifest lack of images. Sophie Robinson is an Instagram addict but nothing much there either.
This may simply be that the homeowners declined to give permission, although given they'd allowed an entire film crew in to their homes seem unlikely, or that there's simply a gap in the image asset management of the people involved.
This Week's Obsession: The Working Week
Nothing material this time - just a simple question; any chance a day could perhaps be extended to 26 or so hours? Those extra 2 hours might give us an opportunity to catch up.- [message]
- Week What of What? You What? I mean, pardon?
- These posts give us a chance to recap on the last week at Bokoshoko and give you a glimpse of what's happening. Many of our projects take time to come to fruition or our customers would prefer we did not share so these posts also show we're not just sitting around!
