In this article, I argue that interior design is paradigmatic for our understanding of art more broadly. Key to my argument is the phenomenological structure of inhabitation, for what distinguishes interior design as an artform is the fact that its products are inhabited rather than, say, looked at or listened to. Though he rarely discusses domestic dwelling as such, Maurice Merleau-Ponty is helpful in explicating the phenomenological structure of inhabitation. In Part 1, therefore, I investigat…
Read moreIn this article, I argue that interior design is paradigmatic for our understanding of art more broadly. Key to my argument is the phenomenological structure of inhabitation, for what distinguishes interior design as an artform is the fact that its products are inhabited rather than, say, looked at or listened to. Though he rarely discusses domestic dwelling as such, Maurice Merleau-Ponty is helpful in explicating the phenomenological structure of inhabitation. In Part 1, therefore, I investigate Merleau-Ponty’s repeated reliance on terminology having to do with inhabitation, showing that this terminology is used to describe phenomena as fundamentally interactive. In Part 2, I investigate interior design and domestic inhabitation themselves to reveal a similar structural interactivity: The spaces I inhabit are both shaped by and shaping of my quotidian habits and patterns of embodied activity. Finally, in Part 3, I argue that the co-shaping or mutual expression that we find in the relationship between inhabitant and inhabited space in interior design is also at work in our relationship to other artworks such as paintings. When we perceptually dwell with them, paintings, too, have the power to interactively restructure our manner of embodied engagement with the world, even as our engagements with paintings shape the continually developing sense of those very paintings. Thus, I ultimately argue that, at the deepest level of experience, we do not so much look at paintings as we inhabit them.