Share This Article
There is a photograph that every interior designer of a certain generation will recognise. Not a specific one, but a type. A mood board made by hand. Fabric swatches pinned to foam board. Paint chips clipped from sample cards. A torn page from a magazine. A polaroid of a reference building taken on a site visit. Arranged on a table in a studio that smelled of tracing paper and coffee.
That mood board took hours. It required physical movement through the world, through material libraries and tile showrooms and fabric houses and paint shops. It required the designer to hold things, to feel weight and texture, to understand how a material behaved in real light rather than on a screen. It required, above all, a kind of patient accumulation of sensory knowledge that could not be shortcutted.
That photograph, and the process it represents, is becoming historical.
The way it was done
Before Instagram, before Pinterest, before AI-generated renders, interior design was a discipline defined by its slowness. Not inefficiency, but deliberateness. A project began with conversation, extended conversation, the kind that takes time and cannot be compressed into a digital brief. A designer would visit a client’s home repeatedly before proposing anything. They would look at how the light moved through the rooms at different times of day. They would notice what the client kept on their shelves, what they hung on their walls, what they were drawn to when they walked around a showroom.
The vocabulary of design was built from physical experience. You understood the difference between a cool grey and a warm grey not because you had seen them described online but because you had mixed paints in a studio and watched how they shifted under different light sources. You understood how a velvet behaved differently from a linen not because a fabric swatch appeared on a screen but because you had held both and felt the difference in your hands. You understood proportion and scale not from a rendered image but from standing in a room and feeling it.
The influences were fewer and slower. A designer built their aesthetic vocabulary from the buildings they had visited, the homes they had been inside, the books they had read, the mentors they had worked alongside. Their point of view was genuinely their own because it had been formed by their specific, irreplaceable experience of the world.
What changed and how quickly
Social media did not simply change how interior design was communicated. It changed what interior design was for. When a completed project could be photographed and shared to an audience of thousands overnight, the photographic moment became a design objective in its own right. Spaces began to be designed to look extraordinary in a single image rather than to feel extraordinary over time. The wide shot, the hero photograph, the flatlay that would anchor the Instagram post, these became part of the brief.
This created something new and genuinely seductive: democratic access to design ideas. Millions of people who would never have encountered Scandinavian minimalism or Japanese wabi-sabi or Brazilian modernism now had access to all of it simultaneously, constantly, free of charge. The visual vocabulary of global design became available to anyone with a smartphone. That is a genuinely remarkable thing.
But it also accelerated the trend cycle to a pace the industry had never experienced before. What was everywhere on Instagram in January was being replaced by something else by April. Colour palettes, materials, furniture styles, spatial typologies, all of them began moving faster than any individual project could respond to them. A design that took twelve months to deliver could feel dated before handover. The pressure to be current became a form of creative anxiety that the profession had not previously known.
The arrival of AI
Artificial intelligence entered the conversation quietly and then very loudly. The tools arrived promising to do what had previously taken hours in minutes: generate spatial concepts, visualise rooms in photorealistic detail, produce mood boards, suggest material combinations, draft layouts. For clients who had previously struggled to visualise what a designer was proposing, the impact was immediate and significant. For practices spending hours on early-stage presentations that clients could not read, the efficiency gains were real.
But something interesting happened alongside the efficiency. As Nandita Manwani, an interior designer based in Bangalore who spent a year closely tracking AI’s impact on her own practice, observed: AI has made it clearer what design actually is. Not the generation of options, but the elimination of the wrong ones. A judgment call built on knowledge, experience and intuition that rests entirely with people who are truly involved. The tools arrived and they clarified, rather than diminished, what a designer actually does.
She also made an observation worth sitting with: lazy design has always produced generic results. Long before AI existed, a designer working mechanically from a catalogue produced interiors that could have belonged to anyone. The tool did not create that problem. It simply made it faster and more visible.
What the profession must hold onto
The most persuasive argument for the continuing centrality of the trained designer is not a romantic one. It is a practical one. A render cannot tell you how a room smells in the morning. An AI mood board cannot tell you how the light in a client’s apartment shifts between autumn and winter. A social media trend cannot tell you that the family who commissioned this project will live here for thirty years and need it to feel right on an ordinary Tuesday, not just on the day the photographer arrives.
These things require presence. Attention. Time spent in a space and with the people who will inhabit it. They require the kind of accumulated material knowledge that comes from years of handling things, visiting buildings, making mistakes in real projects and learning from them.
By 2026, as one industry observer noted, the difference between a decorator and a professionally trained interior designer has become the entire profession. Space planning, construction knowledge, materials science, digital documentation, human psychology and project management are now at the heart of the discipline. The things that technology cannot replicate are precisely the things that training and experience provide.
The honest truth
The best designers working today are not the ones who have rejected new tools or the ones who have surrendered to them. They are the ones who understand what the tools are actually for. AI handles the parts of the job that were never really the craft, the parts that used to consume hours that should have gone to the client instead. Social media communicates finished work to a wider audience than any trade magazine ever could. Visualisation technology allows clients to understand proposals that would previously have required a level of spatial imagination most people do not have.
None of that replaces the conversation. The site visit. The mood board made by hand. The hour spent in a fabric library deciding between two textiles that look almost identical on a screen and feel completely different when you hold them.
The tools have changed. The discipline has not. The best work still begins with the same question it always has: what does this particular person need from this particular space, and how do we make it feel like theirs?
That question cannot be generated. It can only be asked.
The built environment has a publication. This is it. thepageshub.com | edits@thepageshub.com
Your story deserves to be told. Get featured on PAGES at edits@thepageshub.com
