things i would like to see in some of these decorating shows...for example... i love to watch house & home, design inc and designer guys and many others and l do love the homes and ideas that they show...my problem is that i wish they would show more everyday homes, i never see typical 70's bungalows or high ranches and for people like me on a tighter budget....i find many of the shops or ideas are very expensive. For my budget a 8000 dollar bathroom makeover is not what i would consider cheap....and then you get some who take a 1000 dollars to do a room and glue hay to a wall, not my idea of good decorating....just my opinion and if anyone knows of good reasonable ideas and would like to share, feel free
janetc
Comment Guidelines
We welcome your feedback on Houseandhome.com. H&H reserves the right to remove any unsuitable personal remarks made about the bloggers, hosts, homeowners and/or guests we feature. Please keep your comments focused on decorating, design, cooking and other lifestyle topics. Adopt a tone you would be willing to use in person and do not make slanderous remarks or use denigrating language. If you see a comment that you believe violates any of the guidelines outlined above, please click “Alert a Moderator.” Thank you.
JanetC, this discussion was merely a debate and analysis by opposing parties over the assumed raison d'être of what is on TV and why. Nothing more nothing less.
[B]somehow some here have totally taken what i said and blown it way out of whack....i believe i do know reality from what is on the tv shows....IM NOT A STUPID PERSON!
janetc [/B]
somehow some here have totally taken what i said and blown it way out of whack....i believe i do know reality from what is on the tv shows....IM NOT A STUPID PERSON!
janetc
....it's the media's job to protect us from reality. They have extended that into the new realm of decorating shows as well!!! I think television enables us to be entertained in our home by people we would never allow to set foot in our homes!!
The same thing with the design shows. It's all entertainment, with a few good ideas here and there thrown in for good measure!!! It's all picture thinking, really!!!
I too have another thought, or ten. I also have a yen to prosetylize.
Reality is in my living room, but it is not on the flickering screen. On the screen, the women are more beautiful, the men are taller (even the short ones) and no one ever has bad breath.
I avert my gaze too often from what little reality does appear on that screen. I don't wish to watch spouses verbally abuse one another on daytime talk shows, or to scrutinize surgery on the medical shows. And the news - why, it is simply heart-wrenching.
What appears on our televisions and in all popular culture does, sadly, reflect our predilictions. If there were no viewers tuning in, the sponsors would turn their backs and the screen would go blank. If subscriptions wane, the next issue won't be published.
In truth, I find the decorating shows and magazines, with all those fine homes, a pleasant escape from all the sordid depictions of what our society, apparently, wishes to peer at. Isn't Antiques Roadshow a bit more edifying than the Trailer Park boys? Wouldn't you rather admire the lovely Sarah Richardson and her beautiful, unliveable rooms, than marvel at the underwear worn by Dog the Bounty Hunter's wife, Beth?
I admire beauty, I do not resent it.
If you want to discuss what is represented in the media and what is in actuality reality, you will not find that on television. Ever.
The reason for this obvious incongruity is that the majority of viewers are not attracted and intrigued by such stories, unless it is the representation of the ‘deviant’, then the viewer is allowed to become the judge and jury, thus the interest in the program goes from awe and admiration to snicker and laughter.
You will not see a wide and fair representation of the entire social and cultural class on television. This is how stereotypes arise, created and enforced by media. The viewer is given what it wants, an escape, something different from their normal life, but also the hope that the possibility for assimilation exists. It is as if viewers want to see glamourized pictures, but through gaps in the fingers in front of their face.
Viewers form their opinions about individuals from cultural groups from the pictures they see in the media. Editors should make an assessment of the pictorial coverage of under-represented groups for their own television station, but they do not. Because it does not bring in the $$$.
There is more profit to be gained in re-writing reality, simply by objectifying the represented television give the audience what it wants. The audience have no idea what they want, they need to be told, as perpetuated by the media since the beginning of television.
Content is King. It sells an audience, thus in turn it sells advertising. Advertising is profit, thus the advertisers gain power over content.
IF there was such a large interest for the average home, where are the magazines? The TV shows? Surely, TV does not CARE what it produces as long as it keeps turning a profit. Is that not obvious from the endless reality shows and talk-shows?
TV is not a funnel for truth, but it IS a funnel for what people want to see. What is sensible chic? A designer room copied? So I ask, what is the difference by watching a show with a high budget, when you can go to similar stores and get replicas? Why does the show need to have an L-shaped room? Where are the small bathroom? Oh, I know, Home to Go. Debbie Travis, Neat, Holmes on Homes, Sensible Chic, Love by Design, etc etc etc. The Designer guys aren’t the only ones out there.
Why watch travel shows, if you can’t one day afford to go? Why watch movies, if you think it can never ever happen to you, even for a moment. Why hope that your child can become a hockey player or a violinist, if you can never afford to go to a hockey game or to the symphony?
My gosh! You should be a writer (if you aren't already). That was a fantastic post, you have a real talent for articulating! You have spoken, VERY well, the thoughts and ideas of many of us I'm sure.
Thank you for taking the time to compose such a wonderful post!
i have said that in past postings on this thread, decorating is just the fun part but what is more important is what makes a home.... and my home is my castle and i never said once that it wasnt, all i stated is that it would be nice to see ideas of what people do in homes like mine and many others. The happy times and memories of family and friends that have been shared within our walls is what has made it home
janetc
but for some reason I pictured someone carrying an Eames chair.
Dreamer, that's precisely what that means, ... one would not carry the albums from the home, so much as the contents of the album - the wrapping is not as important as the content within.
The same can be said about a home. We spend so much time agreeing and disagreeing on what represents "style" and "design" that we often forget to remember, it's only stuff.... what inspires us is often more about the enjoyment had in putting it all together, the emotions achieved upon completion, and the time shared within its confines afterwards, with friends and family.
old sage words... A man's home is his castle (use whatever pronoun you like)...
Like Dreamer said.. it is in the eye of the beholder. If you think your home to be your castle it is. I know many people who feel their homes to be ho hum yet they live in a show piece. It's completely subjective.
red i did not think it was directed at just my home or me..just at homes that are not grand...but im sure many feel this way and that is why they are not shown on so many tv shows
janetc
What I would carry from my house, were it burning, is baby pictures. As beautiful as my children are, I do not consider the photo albums great design, they are merely badly composed photographs of priceless moments.
I read decorating magazines and watch decorating shows for inspiration. I do not feel envious or resentful at being unable to have a home like those depicted - I feel motivated! I feel lucky to live in a home as nice as the one I own and look forward to the possibility of making it even nicer. I lack the creative genius of the professional designers, but I can learn from them!
DustBunnyDiva!!! I am so proud to support such a well written, well articulated, article, developed not only from your own standpoint, but that addresses a very real need.
You should be writing for House and Home. you have translated what many of us feel is missing from the show and magazine. Bravo!!!
Janet.. I have never been to your home so to think that this was directed personally at you would be erroneous.
what i was saying in my opinion of this post....i feel the same way and i dont put down the folks who have grand homes as i would rather not have my home insulted by being called ho hum....just as i would not excpect to see just bungalows on the shows...they need to be geared to all audience members....im sorry this topic was a thorn to some, i just thought of it as a simple opinion
janetc...good luck with your designer career dustbunny...i hope someday to be one, when the funds are there
Now girl you have hit the nail on the head.....well written. ;)
I had better clarify something, in particular Redheron, when I made the statement about 'spoken like a designer'. I should have probably said I know it isn't all designers, but it is typical of 'designer' attitute whether it's interior or graphic or any other when the implication is they won't deal with the mundaine or with any limitations. I see it all the time.
I don't however think you can exclude yourself as you were the one who made the initial statement "I think the average ho hum home is not appealing in terms of inspiration." In this case you did state it as your own opinion. Perhaps that wasn't your intention, I did take it as it was written.
I also don't think anyone here is asking that all shows, articles, or whatever be tailored to the average home. I think it's stating that they should be represented in relation to the actual numbers of people who live in those homes. I think most of the comments (including my own) are directed at those who produce the shows and mags.
I do think Decorating Challenge hits the mark more often than Trading Spaces (same theme, different approach with Trading Spaces going more for drama and whatever might get someone to cry on camera than actual functional solutions. Then again, TS demographic is teenage girls and college aged kids hence the the more weird is wonderful approach for the most part. TS is no longer about design at all.).
I think to find out a budget is $2000 and then other things were borrowed is misleading to those who then try and achieve the same effect and can never do it on the same budget. It's completely frustrating. I want to see some imagination and getting the whole result within the budget. It's not valid when it's full of props and just shows how difficult it is to achieve a look within a budget. I don't want to see fiction. I don't want to be teased. I want to see solutions and they are out there, as some shows demonstrate. I just wish there were more real and less fantasy/fiction.
People want to know what can really be done and when the decorators aren't capable of it what are we supposed to surmise? The bedroom episode of the latest decorator contest was a perfect example. A $1500 budget but includes at least $8000 more in furniture and rugs and such. If that is quite typical, how on earth is this helpful to those watching to a show to see how a look can be achieved within budget? Cityline, the magazines, and other shows are pulling the same thing. Yes, we can get inspiration and ideas but generally they just don't fit anything I'm doing. Two dishwashers, a sub zero fridge, and a 15' island won't fit in my house. I will never have a house that big just because I have no need or desire for such a thing, and there isn't enough land around to support everyone having that either. My situation is more typical than having 5000 sq ft yet mine is rarely shown.
I know TV prefers larger spaces just so they can get the crews, lights, and cameras in. However it can and has been done and the British seemed to have mastered it. Magazines don't have the same space limitations (for cameras and such) so there is no good reason for them not to include great ideas for the average house configurations. It's been said a couple of times in this thread that the majority of clients designers have, do live in the ho hum, with budgets, so why isn't that reflected in the media we are seeing that presumes to offer information we all can enjoy? Why can't there be a good mix? Why, if there is a budget set, are props included? I think all we are asking for is some balance. It's worked for Bob Villa as he moves through different budgets, different stratas of income and home sizes yet in decor mags and shows it's as if everyone is trying to make the next rung down from Architectural Digest.
There is a market here. There are people who live in ho hum, who have lots of imagination and courage. They do take ideas from those shows but they also want to see something that is completely relevant to their situation.
To imply the average isn't inspiring, to call it ho hum, dampens any enthusiasm some people might have to improve their space as the impression is there is no point unless you have the sq. ft, the layout, and the budget to go full tilt. Seeing the results that can be achieved in middle class/smaller/more common spaces is the shot in the arm a lot of people want and need.
Sometimes I just don't have the energy or inclination to be wracking my brain to figure out how I can get a particular look to work in 25% of the space, I want to see it done. I don't want to be continually exposed to something I have to adapt, I want to see how my house would look, could change, etc. without taking into account that I don't have 20' ceilings, craftsman style trim, or windows in the ideal location. It's done for the high end without telling them to take the ideas and adapt, why not the rest of us? It's the high end who are being given the paint by number, so to be told that isn't what I might also like to see is a mistake. Sure I can get creative, but sometimes I just want a solution without having to wangle and struggle and adapt.
It's like a breath of fresh air to me to see Open Homes and many of the other shows that are aimed at selling property. Those shows are hitting the mark for people like me, in average homes. I'm not thinking of moving, yet those are the shows that are getting my attention. I could care less about loft spaces, they have nothing to do with my environment. They may be a growing market, they may be 'sexy', but they are not as large as the ho hum is and I wish more shows would 'get it'. For every bungalow idea shown, I see 30 loft's, so I'm not impressed. There is room for everyone, but the average tract home is basically being ignored or religated to the short 'ask a designer' segments (see mags, and shows like H&H and Cityline) which is I think all this thread is saying. I feel snubbed to realize our needs are not being addressed or are not considered to be inspiring.
There are people who care/don't care what their homes are like in all stratas but to assume that those of us in the 'ho hum' aren't interested or open to great design is insulting. In sheer numbers we hold the cash the stores, manufacturers, etc. are trying to get and it's about time some more producers/editors picked up on it. Loblaws/Superstore has picked up on offering stylish furniture. So has Ikea. Maybe it's not top quality but it speaks volumes in how much average home owners with budgets do want some style.
If the average designer gets their bread and butter from the ho hum, apparently there is a need, and it should be reflected in the media. We are out here and we want to see things for us and our situations in addition to all the others. I don't see millions of tract homes being demolished, so they are here for awhile and it's time their demographic was reflected.
"True Design is what you would carry from your house if it were burning down". (Marco Pasanella). I can't think of anything more true than that.
I think a variety is completely necessary. We need to look at beautifully decorated homes in a variety of styles to inspire us. I love to look at shows that show the trends, simply, because, although I may not follow them I like to see what is new and fresh in the design world. I may take bits and pieces that I like and use them in my house and I may just chuck the whole idea.
I'd like to see more of the process of design - Design Inc. is good as it shows the idea that the whole process is not a piece of cake but rather a long and sometimes troublesome ordeal. I'd like to see the COSTS outlined more. Why doesn't someone come up with a show that interestingly tells REAL costs and not just the costs of the makeover less the labour. Some of the programs are ridiculous when it states the costs. $125.00 for all the paint for the whole house!! WHAT?
Get rid of the silly shows with silly ideas - they are a waste of time.
I sometimes get the feeling that there are still thousands of former convenience store owners out there looking for vengeance...
You know what that is called, don't you - disarming! No wonder I like you! I may not believe you, but I sure like you!
you mean you could get those crates for free? i am getting flashbacks of a group of girls from a dorm running into back alleys wearing black at night to "borrow" some milk crates from convenience stores!
i totally have to disagree with you...
your home is completely interesting enough to be on tv! look at the fab makeovers you have done so far on your dd and ds's rooms! and the manner in which you went about redecorating them are stories in themselves!
i would tune in! :D
from the starting point of this topic, I do want to add that I agree with all of the posters who say that decor is not all about spending vast amounts of money. When I was a university student I used sheets from the Army and Navy to recover the second hand sofa and as drapes. I made swags from fabric bought from the discount table, trimmed with dollar store ribbon. I spent hours painting the frame of a thrift store mirror, but did NOT feel I could afford to "splurge" on paint for my thrift store end tables - instead I just gave them a good scrub.
I did pretty well, too, on my dime. I received many compliments. Even now, when I can afford to buy new things, the cost of an item never dictates my desire for it - I have $60.00 metal patio tables as end tables in my living room, with a $1500.00 coffee table. I like the end tables just as much as the coffee table and have no plan to replace them.
Still, I am well aware that my home is just not interesting enough to be the subject of a TV program, and my projects would not inspire a penny of advertising support. Fortunately, there is the forum, where those who are interested in my make-overs can see as much as they wish (and others can skip that thread), where I can harvest the ingenuity of dozens of forum members, and where I can admire many ordinary homes decorated with extraordinary inspiration.
i have seen large/luxurious homes that are designed/furnished/styled horribly. do a search on $1MM+ homes on MLS and you'll see a lot of those. then i've seen apartments that were done on low budgets, high creativity and looked amazing. i think there are many shows that reflect this (ie. home to go, design on a dime).
for me personally, when i am about to embark on a decorating project/reno, i like to look at magazines with "highly styled" top of the line looks. as someone put it earlier, raising the bar high. there are always methods to try and achieve the same look for less. besides, it's always nice to dream.
the type of design tv show i can't stand is the gimmick show (ala trading spaces). it was fun for awhile, but has me flipping the channel these days.
atleast you're just blue...my kids would be saying ''look mommy is blue..uh oh now she's turning red...and i see fire''...lol
watch design shows to be entertained, that's what sit-coms are for. I watch design and reno shows based on their educational value, and for DIY inspiration. I'll get plenty of "entertainment" while I'm DIYing, and most likely my family will too (like when I trip on a toy and land on the floor-with the paint I was carrying now spilled all over me- and my kids howl because "mommy's turned blue".
The blue milk crates - you just took me back in time! Thanks for the light moment! :)
Even when my budget only allowed me to use free blue milk crates as furniture, I've always preferred the decorating shows that feature unconventional homes with larger budgets.
I generally like to see how others live, regardless of socioeconomic factors. I find it very inspiring when a show can take me outside of what I'm used to seeing everyday.
The reason for preferring the bigger budget make-overs is because I've seen very few decorating shows, featuring the more conventional homes, where they've done something that really "shakes things up", is out of the norm or really moves me.
That's coming from someone whose greatest decor inspiration used to come from shows like "Extreme Homes".
Different strokes for different folks!
but I think you have strayed far from the point, at least the originating point of this debate. Of course, most of us have "ordinary" homes. The question was why the TV programs elected to depict either extraordinary homes or extraordinary decor. In other words, the transformations usually seem priced out of our league or ridiculous - hay on the walls being our favorite example. I maintain that a television show about a pedestrian make-over would bore us, or, if not us, the "market". I am about to get my new dining room furniture (I hope). I am going to repaint a wall or two in that room. Would you watch a show about me exchanging my furniture and painting my wall? I think you might, but only to put yourself to sleep. However, this IS the sort of make-over we ordinary folk do. Television is supposed to entertain, not to be mundane.