The Gap Between the Magic and the Making
On the distance between the realities of design and the public's perception of it.
There’s a moment every designer knows—quiet, private, rarely spoken aloud.
It comes after all the anticipation.
After checking your inbox 700 times.
After you open the selects from the photographer.
It happens here: something inside you drops.
You feel a small ripple of disappointment.
The images are beautiful.
Technically perfect.
Publish-ready.
The kind of photos that collect “stunning!!!” and “obsessed!!” in your Instagram comments.
And yet, the feeling sits there.
Not because the photos are wrong,
but because they flatten what you lived—what the room felt like to move through, to inhabit.
It could also have something to do with two years of decisions, negotiations, revisions, tiny crises, friction that became breakthrough, and the persistent labor of holding the entire thing together—compressed into a single silent frame.
In that moment, the gap between what it is
and what it looks like
opens wide.
That gap is not just personal.
It’s systemic.
Interior design’s public story has long been distilled—by imagery, by lifestyle language, by the profession’s own habit of minimizing its technical spine. Designers now live inside the consequences of that understatement. Clients push back on fees. Architects step into your lane. You soften a boundary before anyone even asks.
These aren’t isolated moments.
They’re the surface-level symptoms of upstream narratives that shape how design is seen long before you enter the room.
Below are three of the most persistent—distinct, intertwined, and deeply felt.
01: The “Women” of It All
Cultural Undervaluation
Interior design carries the cultural residue of domestic labor, and that shapes more than most people consciously register.
For centuries, the work of tending a home—making it functional, livable, beautiful—was socially coded as feminine, instinctive, almost biological. Expected. Invisible. Not recognized as labor at all. That perception didn’t stay in the home. It attached itself to every profession adjacent to it, including this one.
So when a designer presents a fee, a scope, or a boundary, it enters a cultural field already primed to underestimate what it requires. Taste is assumed to be innate. Care is assumed effortless. Beauty is treated as a natural extension of femininity rather than the result of rigor, discernment, and discipline.
This is the double-bind designers move within:
The field is feminine enough to be minimized, but professional enough to be held fully accountable for outcomes that demand immense expertise.
You feel it when a client balks at your fees.
When a contractor treats your directive as optional.
When a collaborator oversteps with a confidence that outstrips their actual understanding.
Because many women are socialized to be agreeable and accommodating, the undervaluation cuts in two directions: externally, people underestimate the rigor; internally, designers anticipate that underestimation and work doubly hard to preempt it. Directives get softened. Boundaries get buffered. Recommendations arrive wrapped in justification.
The work is meticulous.
The world reads it as natural.
Designers absorb the difference.
This isn’t an individual failing.
It’s the inheritance of a narrative the profession never chose but still operates within—a narrative that continues to shape how design is valued today.
02: The “Instagram” Problem
Structural Misrepresentation
Interior design became publicly legible through imagery.
Images made design aspirational, accessible, rapidly shareable. In the process, they also made the discipline deceptively simple.
No photograph—no matter its beauty—can hold the dimensionality of design. It can’t show sequencing, coordination, negotiation, or the disciplined restraint that resolves a space. It can’t show what was rejected, reworked, or rebuilt. It can’t show the night you solved a problem no one else noticed.
In some creative industries, the making sits beside the beauty:
Film has behind-the-scenes footage and commentary tracks.
Fashion has ateliers and runway documentaries.
Design has almost none of that.
There is no documentary about resolving a millwork conflict.
No commentary track walking someone through a reflected ceiling plan.
No feature spread devoted to the rigor and restraint behind a perfect room.
The public sees the finished space, not the expertise beneath it.
And when the image becomes the whole story, the discipline becomes easy to misread:
The work looks like taste.
The expertise looks like intuition.
The rigor disappears behind an artifact the world believes it already understands.
Imagery gives design its reach.
It also narrows the frame—compressing a complex, technical profession into something that appears instantaneous and effortless.
03: The “Boundary Blur”
Experiential Fallout
If the first force shapes perception, and the second shapes visibility, this one shapes the day-to-day lived experience of designers.
Media accelerates everything.
An eighteen-month project becomes a 30-second reel.
A renovation unfolds in a week.
A home appears, fully realized, in a single swipe.
The pace of the story becomes the assumed pace of the work.
Clients arrive expecting answers as quickly as an edit, clarity without context, and decisions without the space required to think. Urgency becomes ambient—the low hum of a profession forced to outrun its own narrative.
Then comes access.
Because the work happens inside clients’ most intimate environments, the boundaries that protect other professions dissolve without announcement. Late-night texts. Weekend calls. “Quick questions” that carry the unspoken expectation of immediate attention. Proximity to the home blurs into perpetual availability—never formally agreed to, constantly assumed.
And beneath all of that sits the emotional layer.
Design touches identity—who someone is, who they hope to become, how they want to live. Designers absorb anxieties, indecision, conflict between partners, and the psychological weight of spaces that matter deeply to the people investing in them.
None of that appears in the scope.
All of it appears in the work.
These expectations don’t originate with individual clients. They stem from a narrative that privileges the reveal over the process, the finished space over the labor that created it. A narrative that compresses the story and inflates the demands inside your calendar, your inbox, and your nervous system.
Seeing the Pattern
Step back, and the through-line becomes unmistakable.
The undervaluation felt at the project level is built on narratives that sit far upstream:
gendered expectations that minimize the labor
image-driven interpretations that flatten the discipline
media-shaped expectations that distort pace, access, and emotional bandwidth
These forces don’t operate in isolation.
They braid together—reinforcing one another, narrowing the frame, compressing the perception of the work until its true depth becomes nearly invisible from the outside.
Which is why the selects land the way they do.
Why that quiet drop in your chest feels so familiar.
The gap you feel in the image
is the same gap the profession has been living inside.
This piece doesn’t prescribe a fix.
It isn’t a manifesto or a manual.
It’s a naming—
a recognition of the distance between the magic and the making, and the story that has never been large enough to hold both.
What comes next is the work of rebuilding the structures that can—inside the studio, inside the practice, and inside the systems that support the work.
There is more to say.
Much more.
Receive future essays, tools, and insights by adding your email below.