Grace O’Brien
Prof. Solmaz Mohammadzadeh Kive
History, I Arch 576
14 June 2025
Curating the Domestic Ideal: House Beautiful, Taste Regimes, and the Cost of Consumerist Design
Since its founding in 1896, House Beautiful has been more than a publication dedicated to interior design. It has been a cultural institution that not only helped define the aesthetic ideals of the American home but has also shaped the broader consumption patterns and gendered expectations associated with domesticity. House Beautiful stands out not only as a design authority but also as a subtle instrument of cultural governance. I will start by analyzing the way that the magazine has been instrumental in creating a “taste regime,” a concept developed by sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, referring to the certain aesthetics and lifestyle preferences that are promoted and normalized across society, particularly through media. This paper engages with the framework of taste regimes, drawing on Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of distinction, to analyze how House Beautiful acted as a cultural intermediary that normalized consumption practices aligned with bourgeois aesthetic values. Through its curated interiors, editorial choices, and prescriptive language, the magazine instructed readers in the performance of “good taste,” which in turn reinforced class distinctions and delineated social belonging. Building on this foundation, this paper explores how gender and class identities were not simply represented but actively constructed through House Beautiful’s vision of the ideal home. The magazine often positioned middle-class women as the primary agents of aesthetic labor, responsible for managing the home as both a moral and material space. Drawing on Michel Foucault’s concept of governmentality, I argue that this framing functioned as a form of disciplinary power—encouraging individuals, particularly women, to internalize norms of taste, order, and patriotic duty under the guise of personal style. This vision functioned as a form of cultural propaganda, particularly during the McCarthy era, when it stood in direct ideological opposition to communism. In its Cold War-era publications, House Beautiful extended these domestic imperatives to the national stage, aligning home styles and decor with ideological expressions of American identity. The home became a site of soft propaganda, where everyday choices—such as color palettes, furnishings, and even appliance brands—were framed as reflections of democratic values and national loyalty. Referencing scholars such as Lori Merish and Kristin Hoganson, I trace how the magazine promoted a moral-aesthetic imperative: the idea that to be a tasteful, responsible consumer was to be a good citizen. In doing so, House Beautiful participated in producing manufactured patriotism, naturalizing consumer capitalism as a lifestyle and civic duty.
In this essay I argue that House Beautiful was far more than a purveyor of style advice; it was a cultural technology through which gender, class, and national identity were disciplined and reproduced. By examining the aesthetics of domestic consumption within the ideological currents of the time, we can better understand how lifestyle media has contributed to and continues to contribute shaping the moral and political subjectivities of the American public. Given the magazine’s extensive history, this analysis will focus specifically on the World War II and post–World War II eras, between 1941-1954; a period in which I believe exemplifies the power of taste regimes in promoting a dominant aesthetic. House Beautiful is instrumental in crafting and disseminating a vision of the American Dream that supports capitalist values, and in turn lays bare the sociological tides that must change if we are to embrace true sustainability.
In his seminal work Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, Pierre Bourdieu argues that taste is not merely an individual preference, but a social construct deeply embedded in one’s position within the social hierarchy (6). According to Bourdieu, within society there are those who function as cultural intermediaries, a class of people who work “all the occupations involving presentation and representation” this class of course includes those who work in media, fashion, decoration, sales, marketing and so forth (359). During the years of 1941-1964 House Beautiful’s editor in chief and main cultural intermediary was Elizabeth Gordon, who according to Julie Loveline, a prominent New York times Journalist, Gordon was “a missionary of taste to the American Homeowner”. Under Gordon, the magazine’s readership exploded from 226,304 in 1940 to nearly a million at her retirement in 1964 (O’Neill 1).In order to contextualize social class associations during this time period it is notable that according to a 1939 Gallup poll 31% of American’s at the time self-described as being in a lower class, while 68% identified as middle class and only 1% replied with upper class; however according to a journal article published by Shila Webb in Studies of Pop Culture, 88% of those same people polled identified as being socially middle class (Webb 3). This aspirational middle class is a part of the growing demographic of readers under Gordons leadership.
When we apply Bourdieu’s framework and contextual knowledge to the image below, we can analyze the way in which this September 1941, House Beautiful spread is positioning itself as leader of “good taste” acting vis-a-vis as a cultural intermediary
Figure (1) America’s Leading Furniture Designers Select These Smart Fashions for Fall
With the headline, America’s Leading Furniture designers select these smart fashions for fall, the viewer is being told many things at once. Firstly, there is an immediate hierarchy established in the prescriptive language used in the headline. Words such as Leading and Smart become key in understanding the self-importance of these items. Additionally, the use of Fall indicates to the reader that time is of the essence, and this is a fashion not to be behind on as these trends not only come and go with the seasons, but one is also expected to keep up with them seasonally, subtly encouraging continued consumption. Furthermore, the brand name of these furniture pieces is Imperial Furniture co. which indicates a particular bourgeoisie esthetic value in which the middle class is set up to aspire to. The surrounding tabloids in which aesthetically display said furniture arrangements serve to curate desirable and “tasteful” scenarios for the average magazine reader. Bourdieu posits that the dominant classes impose their tastes as the standard of “good taste,” thereby legitimizing their social position and perpetuating social inequalities (56). Those from lower social strata often internalize these standards, leading to a sense of inferiority and a desire to emulate the tastes of the elite. This process, which Bourdieu terms “symbolic violence,” illustrates how cultural preferences are instrumental in maintaining social distinctions and hierarchies (372). Class identity was constructed through this visual pedagogy: readers were taught how to ascend or maintain their position in the social hierarchy by mimicking the taste of the elite. Meanwhile, working-class sensibilities, alternative aesthetics, and non-white domestic realities were erased or framed as problems to be solved through consumption. To demonstrate this narrative below is an advertisement for Old Fitzgerald.
Figure (2) Old Fitzgerald
One of the only images found in House Beautiful between 1941 and 1954 that includes a nonwhite figure features an older Black man, depicted as a butler serving two young white men in front of a plantation-style home. The symbolic weight of this scene is unmistakable. The aestheticized evocation of a Southern plantation, combined with the subservient posture of the Black figure, reinforces a racialized social order in which whiteness is associated with leisure, ownership, and cultural refinement, while Blackness is relegated to servitude. Drawing on Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of symbolic violence, this image exemplifies how aesthetic forms can naturalize deeply unequal social hierarchies. Symbolic violence, in this context, is not overt or physically coercive; rather, it operates subtly through cultural representations that encode dominance into visual norms. The picturesque façade of the plantation home and the genteel behavior of the white subjects work to obscure the violence inherent in this racialized scene, presenting hierarchy as tasteful and tradition as beauty.
Such imagery reveals how House Beautiful’s taste regime was not just class-exclusive, but racially coded. By embedding white dominance into the very structure of aspirational design, the magazine helped to reproduce a social imaginary in which affluence, taste, and whiteness were inextricably linked. The inclusion of this Black figure, far from signaling inclusion or diversity, reinforces exclusion through a representational script that confines Black presence to the margins—both literally and symbolically. In doing so, House Beautiful participates in a broader project of aestheticized racial capitalism, where domestic ideals are built on the erasure and instrumentalization of nonwhite labor and history.
While House Beautiful marketed itself as a style and design magazine, it functioned as a powerful cultural force that actively produced and reinforced gendered and classed identities through its representation of the home. The idealized domestic spaces featured in its pages were not neutral or universally accessible; rather, they reflected and reproduced a distinctly middle-class, white, and heteronormative worldview. The magazine repeatedly addressed a presumed female readership, casting women as the central figures responsible for the moral and aesthetic tone of the household.
Figure (3) The Cellar now pays off as a Chore-Room Laundry,
As we see advertised in this spread from September 1949, women are directly addressed as the assumed reader, and joyous caretakers of the home. The article states “you can get more for your money if you make your laundry do more than wash and iron…make an all-purpose chore room for sewing, mending, flower arranging, photo-developing, weaving, rug hooking, or any hobby-riding.”(House Beautiful 105) This role was framed not as a burden but as a natural expression of feminine identity—what Pierre Bourdieu might describe as the internalization of a classed and gendered habitus (Bourdieu 170).
In this schema, homemaking became a form of unpaid but valorized labor, where the woman’s mastery of style and cleanliness signaled not only her taste but also her worthiness as a mother, wife, and citizen. The magazine’s portrayal of modern appliances, orderly kitchens, and “well-appointed” living rooms naturalized the gendered division of labor and cast domesticity as a site of modern progress—so long as it aligned with dominant cultural expectations. This editorializing can be read in the lens of Michel Foucault’s concept of governmentality—a form of power that operates not through coercion, but through the shaping of individual conduct via norms, discourse, and self-regulation (Foucault 95).
Figure (4) Satisfaction Renewed Each Day
The above image, figure 4, visually demonstrates that all arenas related to the home are under the “power” of the homemaker. Although the foreground image frames the children washing dishes at a Kohler Sink, the background image of the homemaker visually indicates that the entire purview is under her domain. This of course includes the children, the garden, and centrally the kitchen. By presenting homemaking as a personal and even pleasurable choice, House Beautiful encouraged women to internalize cultural standards of beauty, cleanliness, and consumer discipline. These aesthetic norms served as subtle mechanisms of disciplinary power, teaching women to monitor themselves and their homes as signs of moral virtue and civic responsibility.
In House Beautiful women are often centered in the advertisements in which take place within the context of the home, men however are visually centered only in reference to, lawns machinery, home exteriors and structure; elements that can be argued as “more masculine.” Below is a product placement for Aluminum Windows in which men are centered visually but when reading the text, it becomes instantly apparent that the reader is assumed to be female.
Figure (5) For Smart Appearances… Aluminum Windows
When reading the opening line “My husband is so proud of our aluminum windows…” (House Beautiful 148) The reader is positioned to identify with the women in the bottom left of the frame. These Editorial features, product placements, and decorating guides in House Beautiful often encouraged women to adopt refined, coordinated aesthetics that mirrored elite preferences, and make one look “smarter,” thereby perpetuating Bourdieu’s notion of cultural capital (47). To fail at homemaking, or to reject its visual standards, risks not just social embarrassment but moral failure.
It is worth emphasizing that the ideological messaging embedded in House Beautiful—both subliminal and overt—was directed exclusively toward white, middle-class women. These women were positioned as the moral and aesthetic stewards of the American home, responsible for safeguarding national values through taste, consumption, and domestic order. Within Michel Foucault’s framework of governmentality, this represents a form of self-regulation: women internalized social expectations not through coercion, but through the disciplining force of normative aesthetics and patriotic domesticity. This ideological formation cultivated a sense of individualized virtue and cultural authority that often obscured the structural privileges white women benefited from. As a result, many white women, shaped by Cold War domestic ideals, became unwitting agents of exclusion—both racially and economically.
These dynamics had a profound impact on the women’s liberation movement of the 1960s and 1970s. The values instilled through postwar taste regimes—rooted in self-betterment, consumption, and nationalist virtue—contributed to the fragmentation of feminist solidarity. Bell hooks argues that white women often refused to confront how their racial privilege aligned them with the same systems they claimed to resist, noting that “the absence of a sense of accountability in white feminist thought allowed white women to ignore or dismiss the role they played in the oppression of women of color” (Feminist Theory 56). Similarly, Kimberlé Crenshaw’s theory of intersectionality reveals how race, class, and gender must be considered together to understand how some women were marginalized within movements that purported to speak for all (Crenshaw 1244). While Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique (1963) famously critiqued the domestic confinement of white suburban women, her analysis ignored women of color and working-class women, thereby reinforcing the white, middle-class normativity promoted by publications like House Beautiful. In this light, the magazine’s aesthetic regime did more than shape mid-century taste—it helped inscribe racialized power structures into the feminist imaginary. The legacy of these exclusions underscores the need to interrogate how domestic ideology has not only disciplined women’s behavior but also constrained feminist coalition-building across difference.
During WWII, House Beautiful ran articles linking support of the war to fashion trends, consumerism, capitalism, and morality. These stylistic preferences communicate as symbolic acts of loyalty to American democratic values. In this way, the magazine served as a form of soft propaganda, using the language of taste and decor to communicate political alignment. According to O’Neill, Elizabeth Gordon herself proclaimed “I used House Beautiful as a propaganda and teaching tool—to broaden people’s ‘thinking-and-wanting’ apparatus, (01)” This very ‘thinking and wanting” propaganda was crucial in selling the American public the notion of the individualized American Dream. The page below is from a 1942 issue of House Beautiful. Interestingly this page is not a blatant advertisement, and it is not overtly about the war, although subtly, it communicates as such as it is red, white, and blue. What makes this stand out even more is the fact that most pages in this early publication are not made with color, so this page really grabs one’s attention as you are flipping through the publication.
Figure (6) Patriotic Woman
Although it is important to note that there were many overt adds and stylistic tips geared towards the war, it is often these more subtle and subliminal nodes to American patriotism in which permeated the American zeitgeist
In its Cold War-era publications directly after World War II, House Beautiful extended domestic imperatives beyond private life, transforming the home into a site of ideological expression and national identity. This positioning can be seen in the everyday small aesthetic choices—color schemes, furniture arrangements, and even preferred appliance brands— but also in the way homes are designed and constructed. Starting with the larger structural and architectural design elements, in 1947 House Beautiful presented phased construction to its audience. This was a method that enabled returning war time veterans to easily become homeowners through their G.I. bill.
Figure (7) Why these 12 houses are revolutionary
Funded by the War and influenced by racism and white flight from cities, the construction of suburbia became the default methodology in creating the notion of the perfect American dream home. As suburban development accelerated in postwar America, domestic architecture underwent a significant transformation—one that redefined not only how homes functioned, but how individuals related to one another. In House Beautiful, a 1947 article observes: “Today the streets of most American towns are lined with rows of facing houses on rectangular lots… but the coming of the automobile age has turned what once was a pleasure into a menace” (81). The proposed solution was to reorient the home away from the street and toward the backyard: “What had once been a desire to be close to the street, to see and be seen, and to make a big show with a fancy front facade has changed into a desire to get away from the street, to shut it out for privacy, quiet and peace” (81). This architectural reorientation was framed as progress—a revolution in lifestyle that offered peace and security. Yet one of its lasting consequences was a weakening of communal life.
The spatial typology that had once emphasized front porches, sidewalks, and visibility gave way to designs that prized seclusion and individualized retreat. What appeared as a choice for tranquility was, in effect, a kind of designed isolation—a material manifestation of Cold War-era anxieties about privacy, containment, and self-sufficiency. Homes were no longer embedded in a neighborhood fabric; they became self-contained units, turned inward, both physically and ideologically. In this way, House Beautiful not only participated in reshaping aesthetic preferences but also subtly promoted a mode of living that discouraged collective interaction. Again, drawing from Michel Foucault’s notion of governmentality, we can read this shift as another form of disciplinary design: the home was no longer just a place to live, but a carefully structured space that shaped the environments, and find fulfillment in curated privacy rather than civic engagement.
Figure (8) Chevrolet Puts Double Ease in Automatic Driving
By the early 1950’s car advertisements had become much more prevalent within House Beautiful with ads for Ford, Chrysler, and Chevrolet within pages of one another. As roadways and suburbs expanded everyone was encouraged to get a car and experience the open road, real American “freedom.” Through the lens of scholars such as Lori Merish and Kristin Hoganson, it becomes clear that House Beautiful was not merely a taste making publication, but a cultural apparatus that embedded national ideology into the most intimate aspects of American life. By promoting a moral-aesthetic imperative, the magazine linked domestic style to civic virtue, suggesting that to be a tasteful, responsible consumer—especially as a middle-class woman—was to be a good American. As Lori Merish argues in Sentimental Materialism: Gender, Commodity Culture, and Nineteenth-Century American Literature, sentimental and material culture often intersect to produce gendered moral authority, particularly in domestic spaces where emotional labor is fused with the consumption of goods (Merish 2).
Figure (9) A Symbol of What We’re Fighting For… A Fine Home and a Beautiful Garden
Here in Figure 9, we see just that happening. Notably the title of the article uses the phrasing of “…we’re fight for” indicating the performative emotional labor in which is occurring, signifying the self-importance of the consumption of goods and material culture. Visually we see the color photo evoking America through the table settings of Red, White, and Blue. Furthermore, the text states that “The scene at the right epitomizes “the good life” to most Americans, whether they are fighting in a war theater or on the home front… sense of security and peace that comes from owning your home is a symbol of all the good that is inherent in the American way of life. (30)” Property exploitation, colonization, and patriotic indoctrination sure is the American way. As Kristin Hoganson argues, domestic life has long been a site through which nationalist ideologies are produced and maintained, often through mundane acts of consumption and household management (Hoganson 8). An analytical look back at House Beautiful reveals how domesticity has historically functioned as a vehicle for nationalist sentiment, where homemaking becomes an act of allegiance. In aligning bourgeois aesthetic standards with American values, House Beautiful helped cultivate a form of manufactured patriotism—one that relied not on overt political rhetoric but on the quiet regulation of taste, order, and gendered responsibility. This fusion of consumerism and citizenship transformed the home into a site of soft power, where democratic ideals were expressed through the choice of wallpaper, appliances, or living room layouts. Ultimately, House Beautiful magazine participated in a broader ideological project: the normalization of consumer capitalism as both a lifestyle and civic duty. By aestheticizing patriotism and domesticity, House Beautiful helped shape the moral and political subjectivities of its readers—proving that even the most “beautiful” spaces are never ideologically neutral.
This paper has examined how House Beautiful—particularly between 1941 and 1954—functioned as a cultural agent in shaping domestic ideology, promoting a taste regime that intertwined aesthetic norms with capitalist values, gender roles, and nationalist sentiment. Through the lens of theorists such as Pierre Bourdieu, Michel Foucault, Lori Merish, and Kristin Hoganson, we have seen how domestic style operates not merely as a personal expression, but as a mechanism of social control and symbolic power. These carefully curated ideals of taste and home were curated toward white, middle-class women, reinforcing a sense of moral authority and civic responsibility through consumption and decor. As explored, this process not only upheld systems of racial and class exclusion but also contributed to the fragmentation of feminist solidarity in the decades that followed.
Yet, the influence of these mid-century taste regimes has hardly disappeared. In the modern era, aesthetic norms continue to be shaped and circulated through digital platforms that frame personal style as identity, moral virtue, and social capital. What once appeared in the pages of House Beautiful as aspirational domesticity now manifests in the curated grids of Instagram, Pinterest, and TikTok. These platforms reproduce many of the same hierarchies—centered on whiteness, affluence, and Western standards of beauty—but under the banner of “authenticity” and “individual expression.” The neoliberal project of self-regulation has simply migrated from the printed page to the algorithmic feed, where taste remains a coded language of inclusion and exclusion, dictating who is legible, influential, or aspirational in a global marketplace of images.
This digital aesthetic regime does not operate in a vacuum—it is deeply enmeshed in the politics of neoliberalism and neocolonialism. The global circulation of Western lifestyle imagery, fashion, and interior design trends often repackages colonial hierarchies as aspirational aesthetics, commodifying Indigenous, African, and South Asian design elements while erasing their historical and cultural specificity. Terms like “boho,” “tribal,” or “minimalist luxury” frequently mask the appropriation of non-Western forms for Western consumption, reducing rich cultural practices to surface-level style. In doing so, these visual cultures sustain neocolonial power dynamics, where the Global North consumes the aesthetics of the Global South without engaging in the material realities—extraction, labor, and exploitation—that make such aesthetics available.
Meanwhile, the rise of so-called “ethical” or “sustainable” consumerism offers a new moral-aesthetic imperative that mirrors mid-century domestic ideology. Individuals are encouraged to signal virtue through “green” purchases, zero-waste design, or curated minimalism, rather than engaging in collective political change. The level of systemic change required today cannot be achieved by diffusing blame and responsibility onto isolated individuals. This strategy—central to neoliberal ideology—frames injustice as a matter of personal choice rather than structural design. It encourages citizens to act as self-managing subjects who “vote with their dollar,” rather than as collective political agents capable of transforming the systems that perpetuate inequality, ecological destruction, and neocolonial exploitation. By reducing structural crises to lifestyle decisions, we risk mistaking aesthetic virtues for meaningful resistance, and personal optimization for political change. These practices often center on affluent, white consumers and ignore the global supply chains and labor conditions that sustain them, further alienating sustainability from racial and economic justice. In this way, the ideological work of taste regimes continues, obscuring systemic inequalities under the guise of “good design” and personal ethics.
To confront this legacy—and its current mutations—we must critically engage not just with what is beautiful, but with who defines beauty, whose labor is hidden, whose histories are erased, and to what scale we are attempting to create for. Recognizing the political life of aesthetics allows us to resist taste as a silent vehicle of domination and reimagine it as a space for decolonial and collective expression.
Works Cited
Arsel, Zeynep, and Jonathan Bean. “Taste Regimes and Market-Mediated Practice.” Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 39, no. 5, 1 Feb. 2013, pp. 899–917, academic.oup.com/jcr/article-abstract/39/5/899/1795003, https://doi.org/10.1086/666595. Accessed 10 May 2025.
Berger, Bennett M. “Taste and DominationDistinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste.Pierre Bourdieu , Richard Nice.” American Journal of Sociology, vol. 91, no. 6, May 1986, pp. 1445–1453, https://doi.org/10.1086/228430.
Crenshaw, Kimberlé Williams. “Intersectionality, Identity Politics and Violence against Women of Color.” Kvinder, Køn & Forskning, vol. 43, no. 2-3, 23 June 2006, pp. 7–20, https://doi.org/10.7146/kkf.v0i2-3.28090.
Friedan, Betty, et al. The Feminine Mystique : Contexts, the Scholarship on the Feminine Mystique. New York, W.W. Norton, 2013.
Hooks, Bell. Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center. 1984. London, Pluto Press, 2000.
“House Beautiful : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive.” Internet Archive, 2025, archive.org/details/housebeautiful86jannewy/page/n35/mode/2up. Accessed 17 May 2025.
“Internet Archive: Digital Library of Free & Borrowable Texts, Movies, Music & Wayback Machine.” Archive.org, 2025, archive.org/search?query=House+beautiful. Accessed 8 May 2025.
Iovine, Julie V. “Elizabeth Gordon, 94, Dies; Was House Beautiful Editor.” The New York Times, 17 Sept. 2000, www.nytimes.com/2000/09/17/nyregion/elizabeth-gordon-94-dies-was-house-beautiful-editor.html.
Merish, Lori. ““The Hand of Refined Taste” in the Frontier Landscape: Caroline Kirkland’s “a New Home, Who’ll Follow?” and the Feminization of American Consumerism.” American Quarterly, vol. 45, no. 4, Dec. 1993, p. 485, https://doi.org/10.2307/2713307. Accessed 11 June 2025.
O’Neill, Brooke . “House Beautiful Editor in Chief Elizabeth Gordon, PhB’27, Fought for “Good” Design in the Cold War Era.” The University of Chicago Magazine, Aug. 2019, mag.uchicago.edu/arts-humanities/house-beautiful-editor-chief-elizabeth-gordon-phb27-fought-good-design-cold-war-era.
Szakolczai, Arpad, et al. “The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, with Two Lectures by and an Interview with Michel Foucault.” Contemporary Sociology, vol. 22, no. 2, Mar. 1993, p. 279, https://doi.org/10.2307/2075812. Accessed 26 May 2025.
Webb , Sheila . “The Consumer-Citizen: “Life” Magazine’s Construction of a Middle-Class Lifestyle through Consumption Scenarios.” Studies in Popular Culture, vol. vol. 34, no. no. 2, 2012, p. pp 23-47, www.jstor.org/stable/23416397. Accessed 9 June 2025.
Image Source
(Figure 1)
America’s Leading Furniture Designers Select These Smart Fashions for Fall, House Beautiful, September 1941. Pg, 2-3
(Figure, 2)
Old Fitzgerald, House Beautiful October 1949, Pg. 257
(Figure 3)
The Cellar now pays off as a Chore-Room Laundry, House Beautiful, September 1949, Pg. 104-105
(Figure, 4)
Satisfaction Renewed Each Day, House Beautiful, September 1947, Pg. 19
(Figure,5)
For Smart Appearances… Aluminum Windows, House Beautiful, September 1949, Pg. 148
(Figure, 6)
House Beautiful, September 1942, Pg. 37
(Figure, 7)
Why these 12 houses are revolutionary, House Beautiful, September 1947, Pg. 80-81
(Figure, 8)
Chevrolet Puts Double Ease in Automatic Driving, House Beautiful, August 1954, Pg, 41
(Figure, 9)
A Symbol of What We’re Fighting For… A Fine Home and a Beautiful Garden, House Beautiful, January 1944, Pg, 30-31
