So Yvonne Eijkenduijn is probably one of the most influential DIY interior designers on the internet.
She purveys the popular northern Euro all-white aesthetic — well exemplified by Suki in Helsinki or Benita Larsson who also DIY it — of what is, I think, an essentially Gustavian Swedish style to offset long grey winters, where evening falls at 3 p.m., with glowing white or pastel interiors.
Eijkenduijn and her husband are meticulous renovaters and crafters; she adds minimal pops of floral color and hand-crafted or peeling vintage things to her white rooms, which makes them seem less twee than beautifully ordered and sculpted. I don’t know anybody who doesn’t like Eijkenduijn’s style. Essentially Eijkenduijn and Gustav solve the problem of how to make uncluttered modern interiors femme. It is the moral question of the 20th century: where is a girl supposed to sit, and concatenate the moral community home represents, in a Bauhaus living room?

Eijkenduijn’s kitchen. http://www.yvestown.com/archive/2012/05/kitchen-update.html
Eijkenduijn has been blogging for seven years and has made a design career from the success of her blog. It carries no ads, which seems to be a point of pride — and an Old School WELL-era internet campaign — among the professional DIY home design visionaries like Anna Dorfman, for example. Others, equally inspiring and creative, seek sponsors, like Morgan Sattersfield, for example, with her hard-core thrifted mid-century-modern Palm Springs Cali aesthetic, or suburban DIY nesters who have monetized their blogs and, in the case of John and Sherry Petersik, for example, do a terrific professional job.
Eijkenduijn has always seen the blog as a cottage industry marketplace to sell books or yarn, other peoples’ creations and, less often, things she has made. She solicits sponsors and swag in a way the Petersiks, who live off the income generated by their sponsors, do not. The Petersiks, for example, both of whom have creative backgrounds in advertising, clearly state they don’t accept products for review, and recommend only things they actually use. It is the foundation of their trustability and, I believe, their huge traffic.
But Eijkenduijn recently asked her readers to pay her back for all the time she’s put into the blog by contributing money to build her a new roof. Lots of readers are pissed off. I am slightly put off too, as if I had been lulled into thinking she’d invited me to dinner and then presented me with a check.
What do you think? Should we chip in for Yvonne’s roof? Has she made a faux pas? Is it a cultural thing that her American readers are pissed off and the Europeans aren’t? Are Americans, who generally believe that journalism is about hustling your music video, naive? What’s happening?
Update 5/22/12: Eijkenduijn has taken down her roof fund posts with strange rancor.
A roof, really? Isn’t that a bit much to ask readers? Who does that?!
I ask that, but at the same time I know that *many* do things like that. I remember watching some of the uni-aged social justice bloggers repost their friends’ calls for monetary assistance for whatever — to get out of an abusive situ, to fund an operation for their pet — or in fandom communities for much the same. In the latter case, though, there was a promise of something in exchange, e.g. fanart.
What is in exchange for contributions to her roof fund? I doubt that she’ll stop blogging should she not get contributions, so what do the contributors receive? At least with the social justice and fandom kids cited above, one either would get the “good feels” from helping out someone in need or some tangible fanart.
someone has mentioned that there’s no tradition of free reading for pleasure in europe, ie., newspapers or magazines entirely supported by ads. subscription by readers is the norm.
the other idea that’s floating around is the kickstarter one you suggest, whereby even rich people go online to ask microloans for indie projects.
i think yvonne comes from entirely another place however, that i still don’t quite understand. she’s asking for money in exchange for all the time she put into the blog over the past seven years, but it doesn’t make sense, really.
I don’t understand the free magazines and newspapers argument (we do have some free ones). I’ve never subscribed to a magazine.
I can’t believe she asked for a roof she can well afford. And because people question the need for it then they’re bullies. If she had have asked for people to buy things from her shop or her homemade goods then I probably would have. after reading her last post I think I’m done with her blog.
i’m kind of stunned too. it’s strange, isn’t it?
I, too, think there’s a bit of effrontery here. If she wants to change the future rules, she could pitch (in a discreet corner, please): “If you have enjoyed my blog, please consider helping me keep it ad-free in the future. We are struggling with some unexpected expenses … [&c].”
Retrospective nicking seems kinda resentful (“look at all I’ve done for you…”).
yes, there’s a grifter subtext i don’t like. not least because it contrasts so unflatteringly with the cream puff interiors (which are, please note, as spotlessly clean and curated as the most iconic corbu interiors).
We also have a European tradition to take care of our own businesses and finances. The governments make sure that all people have health care, tax funded education, roof over our heads and food on the table, if necessary. I guess that’s the reason that we don’t have the tradition to ask for money, have fundraisers for private people, have the whole neighbourhood to come together to build a new house for a neighbour.
Asking for money for a new roof like she does, flat out, is a huge faux pas in Europe and I was a bit chocked about how greedy she is. (I am a European reader.)
If she wants money she can have ads on her blog just like everybody else has. Begging is not cool.
I can’t afford to live in a house right now, or buy all that stuff from Cath Kidston. No way that I will donate money to someone who obviously is much better off financially than I am. And I have removed her blog from my Google Reader.
yes, i do think advertising the expensive goods — what marx calls commodity fetishism, which we’re all into — by carpeting one’s home with them and then asking us for money was pretty tone deaf. i still can’t understand it.