During the last quarter of the nineteenth century, many factors, such as greater emphasis on the importance of the home and its decoration, contributed to the separation of interior decoration from other similar vocations. By the early twentieth century, interior decoration as a profession and occupation had begun to gain acceptance in the market place and academic world. Print media attention focused on the interior decorator who was no longer merely a wall painter or furniture salesman but was a furnisher and marketer of art and good taste. Advances in formal education and a culture of professionalism contributed to the realization by practitioners and others that interior decoration required specialized knowledge so many began to push for training in newspapers, books, and magazines. This study discusses the origins of interior decoration education in the 1870s, when the first courses related to the home were offered at mid-western land-grant universities, to 1930, the year before the organization of the American Institute of Interior Decorators (AID) was founded. It covers the variety of training methods for decorators and the sometimes conflicting views of early advocates for the profession and for education. It points out tensions within interior decoration and conflicts with other similar fields. Finally, it looks at several university programs in different academic homes and the various course titles used in the curriculums. If training for interior decorators between 1870 and 1930 could be described in a single word, it probably would be diversity. This was reflected in the many means and places to acquire training, the institutions that offered it, and the opinions about it. The earliest training methods were those that were most readily accessible for most people, such as self-education or apprenticeships. They were soon joined by interior decoration courses and programs at various art, design, and industrial art schools; colleges and universities; teachers' colleges; and other institutions across the United States. Throughout this early period, institutional training evolved from a single course to complete programs. The first bachelor's degrees were awarded. This early period also established ties between interior decoration and the disciplines of fine arts, architecture, and home economics. Diversity was important to interior decoration at its inception because it permitted individuality, provided availability for more people, and accommodated the evolving definition and practice in the field. At the same time, it reflected and contributed to such challenges as a lack of identity and cohesion. In education, this diversity was evident in the variety of institutions offering study in interior decoration, its various academic homes, the assortment of course and program titles, and differences in program requirements. A lack of standards and consensus in education helped to create gaps and disparities in preparation, knowledge, and skill among practitioners. Interior decoration did not resolve these problems. As a result, they became the foundation on which interior design was built.

中文翻译：

---

多元化的教训：1870-1930 年美国室内装饰教育的起源

在 19 世纪的最后 25 年，许多因素，例如更加强调家庭及其装饰的重要性，促成了室内装饰与其他类似职业的分离。到 20 世纪初，室内装饰作为一种职业和职业开始在市场和学术界获得认可。平面媒体的注意力集中在室内装潢师身上，他们不再仅仅是一名墙壁画家或家具推销员，而是一位艺术和品味高尚的家具商和营销商。正规教育的进步和专业文化促使从业者和其他人意识到室内装饰需要专业知识，因此许多人开始推动报纸、书籍和杂志的培训。本研究讨论了 1870 年代室内装饰教育的起源，当时中西部的赠地大学开设了第一批与家庭相关的课程，直到 1930 年，即美国室内装饰师协会 (AID) 成立的前一年成立于。它涵盖了装饰师的各种培训方法，以及早期的专业和教育倡导者有时相互矛盾的观点。它指出了室内装饰内部的紧张局势以及与其他类似领域的冲突。最后，它着眼于不同学术机构的几个大学课程以及课程中使用的各种课程名称。如果可以用一个词来描述 1870 年至 1930 年间对室内设计师的培训，那可能是多样性。这反映在获得培训的许多途径和地方，提供它的机构，以及关于它的意见。最早的培训方法是大多数人最容易获得的方法，例如自学或学徒制。很快，他们加入了各种艺术、设计和工艺学校的室内装饰课程和课程；学院和大学；师范学院；以及美国各地的其他机构。在整个早期阶段，机构培训从单一课程发展为完整的课程。颁发了第一个学士学位。这一早期时期还建立了室内装饰与美术、建筑和家政学科之间的联系。多样性从一开始就对室内装饰很重要，因为它允许个性化，为更多人提供可用性，并适应该领域不断发展的定义和实践。同时，它反映并促成了缺乏认同感和凝聚力等挑战。在教育方面，这种多样性体现在提供室内装饰研究的各种机构、各种学术住宅、课程和课程名称的分类以及课程要求的差异。教育中缺乏标准和共识有助于在从业者的准备、知识和技能方面造成差距和差距。室内装修并没有解决这些问题。结果，它们成为了室内设计的基础。这种多样性在提供室内装饰研究的各种机构、不同的学术场所、课程和课程名称的分类以及课程要求的差异中显而易见。教育中缺乏标准和共识有助于在从业者的准备、知识和技能方面造成差距和差距。室内装修并没有解决这些问题。结果，它们成为了室内设计的基础。这种多样性在提供室内装饰研究的各种机构、不同的学术场所、课程和课程名称的分类以及课程要求的差异中显而易见。教育中缺乏标准和共识有助于在从业者的准备、知识和技能方面造成差距和差异。室内装修并没有解决这些问题。结果，它们成为了室内设计的基础。