Interesting post.

This post was edited by Fun2BHere on Wed, Dec 10, 14 at 19:02

"perhaps the people who did this room did not care much about trends or decorating. "

Were there trends in decorating back then? My knowledge isn't as extensive as yours, but seems to me there was a certain look that defined higher end homes. You can see it in the movies from the 30s to the 60s -- a certain posh, formal look that didn't change much.

I thought of you & your commitment discussion this weekend after seeing this picture (by Henri Cartier-Bresson) in the WSJ book review section. I couldn't take my eyes off of it. The furnishings are so understated, yet they ooze refinement and quality: a quiet oriental rug, a solid coffee table with stone top, a few tasteful knick-knacks (shells for ashtrays?), good woodwork, books with good bindings, a thick slipcover in a pretty texture with pleated skirt. And the Alsop brothers, power brokers extraordinaires, to boot. No identifiable style, can't tell what the colors were, but still a look of effortless, gracious understatement -- not much to go by in the picture, but you can still tell it isn't cheap, impermanent stuff.

I don't know that the trends were as fast to come and go or that the overall saturation of particular trends was so great, but I would say sure, there have always been decorating trends in America, and particularly after WWII and the building boom.

When they were planning this house, generally harvest gold or avocado were the appliances and fixtures that were most trendy and probably ubiquitous, but my parents went with white and stainless steel. They also built a colonial revival house that was typical of the period on the exterior but more typical of true colonial revival on the interior (old fashioned by trend standards)

I think the colors and fabrics in both iterations of the interior of the house were "of the period" that they were done meaning there was some trendiness to them but not much. I know that they disliked a lot of the trendy stuff, I remember them saying that some things "weren't going to last" or looked "cheap".

One of the things that I have noticed among my vintage design books and magazines is that there was a Lot of black and white photography, so you were focused upon the visual impact of the design rather than the colors. There would be entire spreads that the color was only indicated in the editorial content but not by any of the pictures. So it was up to the reader to "interpret" to some extent what those colors meant.

This is another topic, but I think we have become so dependent on Precise Visuals that some people can no longer even discern what something actually looks like unless they see an example In Person. People used to order things from Drawings, then black and white photos and then color photos and now one actually needs to Experience it first hand to understand what it really is.

I've had more than one client who did not even recognize Their Own Furniture in a picture taken outside the context of their own house. That's a little extreme but I think that's where we are headed.

Part of it is, I never see my stuff as dated. Doesn't mean it isn't, just that I don't see it. Why? Because I liked it when I did and and still like it. If I like it, why redo it? If I don't like it, why did I do it? I change only if I find I like something better than what I have now, or if what I did at the time was a compromise. Eg, in the old house, I did the LR with the eye that eventually the 50s window and the 70s paneling would go. So when it came time to finally remove the paneling, the whole room got a redo and much more to my taste.

Of course, availability is part of what drives trends. Unless you are willing to go used and shop vintage, you are stuck with what they are making now. Eg, when I was shopping for fixtures for the PR, it wasn't easy to find the antiqued brass finish I wanted. Same thing with colors. So when you redo a room, you are necessarily stuck in a trend that will date it to some extent. Trying to avoid that requires a lot of extra time and work and money.

I am by no means a hoarder, but I have a hard time getting rid of furniture and accessories because I do feel a strong attatchment to them and I assume that is because I still like them for what they remind me of and for what they intrinsically are. I have the first piece I ever bid on, that worked perfectly in my last abode but not so much here, in my attic waiting for a chance to maybe use it somewhere again. I am constantly thinking of where it might work because I actually miss it but it truly is not a piece that would enhance any space in my present home. So I wonder is it better to fully commit to a style or piece of furniture if it really is not the best ccommitment for your space?

I also have a hard time with rearranging layouts after years of use. This stems from my commitment to my orginal plan for a room. Last week, however, for entertaining purposes I did change the position of a sofa and chair and the new layout is much preferred by most who have seen both choices. My commitment was, infact, somewhat limiting that room's greatest potential perhaps. Same with my dining room. I do not want to let go of its wall color, rug or any of the numerous pieces of furniture because I loved all when I purchased them. I think in my mind I know the room would look more professional if I would let go of my choices and edit but my heart will not allow me to do so. Maybe too much commitment is as hindering to decorating as is too little.

Was there the concept of 'a neutral' back then? Maybe there wasn't, which is how orange might have become the backdrop colour in one house, and green in another. Maybe the homeowner just picked their favourite colour and that became the backdrop for the scheme.

Actually seems to make sense to choose your favourite colour for a colour scheme...

I have never redecorated a home... we have usually moved often enough that I would wait until the next house to change things up abit... we bought several new homes, so I usually had a bare house to start with... we were in our last house for 12+ yrs and I was really sick and tired of our dining room... I had hung some paper in there soon after we moved in that I never loved after hanging it but didn't dislike it enough to remove and rehang- it was only below the chair rail and it just wasn't worth it to unpack the entire china closet, move heavy furniture, strip current paper, etc. lots of people would just hire someone to do it, but I am almost neurotic with DIY if I can do it myself...but I chose to leave it up. we bought our dining room set 25 yrs ago... I chose the fabric for the seats then and still like it ok--- they get so little use that the fabric still looks great... I thought about changing the chair fabric a few yrs ago for a change and thinking that might help me like the wallpaper more, but opted not to... decided next house... changed the rug on the floor instead and that actually helped a lot!

here we are in the next house and I still have the same seat fabric... i hung a wallpaper in the DR that we had left over from our old house foyer (hired out the foyer and the amt ordered by the wallpaperer was way too much!)... bought an inexpensive rug that worked with both the wallpaper and chairs because we needed a larger rug and are still raising puppies ... i went to cc to try to find a fabric for curtain panels, and it was very difficult to find a patterned fabric that had a shade of blue and/or goldish that would complement the chairs and the traditional furniture - having the rug already made it that much more difficult...
anyway, here i am again with a dining room with blues, golds and maroons based on 25 yr old chairs! it looks different than any of the other dining rooms i have had, but still the same color palette... i know most of my peers who have the means to change it up would have long ago!!!! with me it mostly is that i have a very hard time getting rid of perfectly good things- in this case the chair fabric- even if i don't love it anymore...

Annie, you don't see your stuff as "dated" because you are assessing the things you like divorced from the fact of whether you are seeing them featured in magazines or not.
Some people *only* like things they see in magazines and stores and *only* for as long as they see them in magazines and stores, and not before or after. This is more common with clothing, I think, but it can apply to anything.

As far as availability, I agree with you to some extent, but if you look hard enough and resort your searches so thing's aren't ranked by "most popular", you can find an awful lot of stuff that would be called "terribly dated".

As far as furniture goes, it's easier if you like very traditional furniture. I think it was a rare piece of furniture originally designed after about 1800 that my mother would even consider for most of the house (sofas designed in the early part of the 20th century made the cut). If everything you like is antique style, you don't feel must trend-pressure.

Roarah, the furniture in the house I grew up in was bought to fit in a specific place after the furniture plans were all worked out on paper and there the furniture stayed for 45 years, with few exceptions: A desk and dresser switched places in my bedroom. A recliner and a chair that helped you stand up got added to the library when my parent's became elderly. A couple things may have been added, but there was no such thing as rearranging the furniture at my house. And pictures only got rehung if the room got painted.

Hydragea:
Sure there were neutral palettes back then, but I think people still developed a palette, which is different from saying this piece and that piece have to be some sort of neutral because I already know I will be tired of it or hate it in a couple years.

Busybee, Me too. I've moved frequently enough that if any redecoration gets done it's because it's a different place.

What's interesting is, I just watched CL's you tube videos on the 7 layers of design which were done in the late 90s. He talks about "neutrals" for the big ticket upholstery items, but repeats often that neutral doesn't mean beige...instead he uses a celadon green, a deeper green, deep rust, he talks about plums and other colors. What he really means are solids and textures, not beige and brown. So color was built in in the basic pieces as opposed to today's brown/beige/taupe schemes.

My SIL's parents moved frequently as her dad was transferred with his job. Each move, her parents built the same house from a plan they liked (minor tweaks along the way). Same house, same colors, same furniture, different location. How's that for commitment?

That's an interesting concept. I am not sure I would be able to built the same house over and over because I would probably find things I wanted to change with each iteration as well as maybe not thinking the house was suitable for every location. But it really saved a lot of worry, duplicating something you liked. There was a fairly famous interior designer who duplicated his living room, or maybe his bedroom, over and over in multiple apartments.

Some people *only* like things they see in magazines and stores and *only* for as long as they see them in magazines and stores, and not before or after.

I wish this could appear permanently on the top of this page.

It explains all those poor dears who are so quick to "tire" of everything except beige. I was going to suggest they get their thyroids checked.

Manufacturers and retailers have sure stumbled onto a great gimmick. It's no longer necessary to innovate actual new styles, as they did when Edwardian became Romantic Revival, or Art Deco gave way to modern. That's way too much retooling of everything. Now we just change a few utterly trivial details, like the color of the year, promote it everywhere, and then we can keep everything basically the same while still driving the flocks to the stores.

Which is why if you went back in time to 2002 almost nothing would look any different, but some people would still find things dated.

There were definitely trends in design & decor over the years, but embracing the latest concept in its entirety was seldom practiced in established households. Color was an essential component & there were accents but not pops. Only recall one childhood friend's home where the living & dining rooms were painted beige & the furniture was pale. The memory stands out because it was atypical in the Midwest & East during the 50's & 60's for social rooms. Interiors were very personal to each family.

By the late 80's seems the number of glossy catalogs & home magazines exploded. Some of the mags seemed glorified catalogs, with the design spreads interwoven with ads for those products & expanded indexes in the back with contacts & prices. Slick merchandising went fast track & became pervasive as the internet expanded. By the late 90's, even CL in his 7 layers approach interchanged accessorizing & merchandising a room. Exposure to what's available resale & new has never been greater in my lifetime. Many threads discuss various aspects of this phenomenon. Yet with such a plethora of choices both past & present, popular decor seems to have become homogenized to a startling degree.

This post was edited by vasue on Sat, Dec 13, 14 at 8:58

"If I like it, why redo it?"

Wise words.
There may be practical reasons to re-do a room. Number of visitors, ease of cleaning, children, and so on.
And I do think that perhaps one's taste might change with the years, for some, what they liked at 18 might be different than what calls to them at 60.
But to change just because magazine covers show a different color? Why?

I'm 40 years old so I've been buying furniture for about 20 years. AnnieD is spot on. There are some pieces that I still like even though they are no longer trendy. There are others that I never liked from the beginning. This is why I get so nervous when I purchase an expensive piece. I think I am getting better at predicting as I am getting more confident in my taste.

The biggest commitment we made is building our house. It's been only 4 years but so far I still pretty much love everything.

This post was edited by pps7 on Mon, Dec 15, 14 at 11:30

"The biggest commitment we made is building our house. It's been only 4 years but so far I still like pretty much love everything"

I think tastes in furniture tend to evolve as you get older, and I think it would probably be unusual to like the exact same thing at 27 that you like at 47.

But the first time I ever heard actual Architecture and houses discussed as "dated" --in the context of bothering someone enough that they would actually change the architectural details--was in these forums.

I'm excluding major shifts in architectural and cultural periods in this statement--of course Victorian architecture was Vilified by the generation that followed, and part of the generation after that.

But the whole concept of a house built in that basic post war "transitional/minimal-traditional/neo-eclectic" fashion being "dated" within a decade or two because the arrangement of the door panels or the finish of the door hardware, or the color of the brick was now "wrong" is something that I'd never heard of before I started frequenting these forums.

marcolo, totally agree with you. I'm mostly a lurker since once I set up a room, I rarely change it unless something wears out. I've been in this house for 18+ years, and my family room is set up with the same furniture, as it was when I built it onto the house 16 years ago.

I don't care about trends, that same room has been painted teal green for the past 12 years, because I like teal.

I like traditional furniture and have been very lucky to inherit many family antiques.

I mostly read this section to see what other people's home look like in other parts of the country, because I'm nosy! LOL!

I was talking to someone today about the area I grew up in, and as a small town a number of people were at least loosely related.

Among my parents' friends there were a number of related families who had similar aesthetics even though they were technically in different socioeconomic classes. ( I could not really discern much of a lifestyle difference between the sister married to a factory worker and the one married to a bank president, at least when I was younger.

All of off them married between 1947 and 1955, and all of their houses were heavy on the Jacobean Revival/Spanish Revival medieval looking carved case goods. One of them had a dining room that was baronial in scale. They all had layered oriental rugs, they all had one room with genuine wood paneling, All of them had something upholstered with maroon plush and gold tassels. One of them had a Knole sofa.

This was not typical 1940s -1950s furniture at all, to my knowledge, and yet in my town there were a number of people who had bought New furniture like this in the 1940s and 50s. And they still had it all in the 1970s when I was young.

I grew up in an area that is technically part of Appalachia, mountainous, and some towns were actually isolated from each other until almost WWII because of the poor roads. One could get between them by train, or by going circuitously through other towns. (It also happened to be an economically booming part of Appalachia, but it still had a certain characteristic isolation. There were people still left when I was growing up who'd only ever been out of the county when they enlisted or were drafted).

I am sure there were other areas that had very distinct styles that were common in the region, because they were isolated from other areas and didn't get the constant exposure to the homogeneous "United States" style of the moment.

I am old enough to remember (a little) life before we were all immersed in color magazines, color internet, color TV. My guess is, people did feel more free to find their own way with color, with less worry about "doing it wrong."

As a rough parallel, years ago, the physical appearance of political candidates was not as important as their words. (Abraham Lincoln really wasnâÂÂt much of a looker!) Now, how a candidate looks is as important (or more so) than who they are, because appearance can no longer be separated from the complete package. We can't learn about the candidate's opinions without also learning how they look.

It's possible people feel pressure to choose "the right colors" because we never see anything in the absence of color, anymore; itâÂÂs predetermined as part of the complete package, and presented as a whole. We can't see finished rooms without also seeing the colors the designers chose, so maybe people start thinking Color Choice is another area best left to the professionals.

So maybe all candidates must now be Pretty, and all rooms must now be Tasteful. That's fine, but we'll miss some remarkable opportunities that way, on both fronts.

Maybe the earlier prevalence of black and white TV, photography, and books is why Frigidaire could sell appliances in pink, blue, yellow, and poppy red, years ago, but they canâÂÂt do so now? Possibly we gave ourselves more permission back then, to just buy what we happened to like, instead of worrying about resale or whether it might go out of style.

I think it's also harder to commit to bold colors or strong styles because of the pace and volume of visual info on the internet. It's impossible to read all the blogs, all the websites, all the magazines, all the time, but it's easy to fall into thinking that you should, to do a Really Good Job. The pace of the available information might cause people to feel like they must always be ready to leap to the next mini-trend. (Which will be here in about fifteen minutes, and youâÂÂd better not miss it, or you might embarrass yourself by picking something that is no longer "current"!) Good grief.

Maybe a lack of self confidence, for some of us, is part of the current lack of commitment to strong colors. If we all trusted ourselves a bit more, we could probably surf the ocean of incredibly rich resources we have today, pick what we like, and not be worried by the rest.

(I love conversations like this.)

I live with a red green colorblind spouse. To him a red and green wall adjacent to each other would look very different (and rather pleasing.)

My Father was also colorblind, and he and my spouse both really liked a particular shade of intense blue. They never knew each other.

Sometimes the answer to Huh? might be in the eyes of the other beholder.

Someone earlier mentioned Christopher Lowell's Seven Layers of Design - so I went to check it out.

I found it strange:

1. First I was trying to decide if he was a parody of a gay man. But no, I think its his real personality.

2. I watch the second reiteration of the living room first. He talked a lot about neutrals as the basis for the walls and upholstered pieces. He kept saying that neutral doesn't mean beige. But yet, mostly all he choices were colored versions of beige. (Like the club chairs: they were barely green - more like a muddy beige green.)

Also, he commented to make sure you tone down the accessories so there isn't a lot of color. Then they showed a room filled with over-sized urns and vases straight from Home Goods: on every available surface. The room looked instantly like a home decor catalog. Does he collect vases? Are these heirloom pieces? Why those specific items?

Overall, I didn't think the room was dated at all; just profoundly boring.

3. Then I watched the first part of the Seven layers. This is when I was wondering if my eyes were wrong. He did use some colors as neutrals in this space (rust and -supposedly - chartreuse). But none of them seemed to go together. The chartreuse was more of a mint that clashed horribly with the rust. And the white painted wood pieces looked very out of place with the long traditional drapes. I thought is was a hot mess.

But neither of these rooms looked dated. (I thought) they just looked bad. Most dated color combinations are technically compatible - we've just been over stimulated by their over abundance in our society. These rooms were decidedly non-date-able (does that make them timeless???) but at the same time, lacking in any interest.

Of course, these are all my personal opinions. ;)

Also, has anyone watched the British show on design principles? Great info; very entertaining and some of the rooms he showcases are interesting. But good lord, some of the 'designs' that he does as the episode progresses are just sad sad spaces. Is there inherent difference in what Americans find appealing in contemporary design and what the English find appealing?

Here is a link that might be useful: Design Rules - BBC

Christopher Lowell's background, as far as I understand is theater and visual merchandising. On his shows he often referred to placing accessories in the room as "Merchandising" the room. It's a different sort of approach.

When I was in design school we started by trying to design a room that looked good without furniture. It has the right proportions, it had some period-appropriate detail, it was going to be the right sort of room for the function it needed to have. Then we worked on furniture placement. So the room also had to look good just with furniture in it and no accessories Finally the room could be accessorized.

Unfortunately we seem to be dealt a lot of rooms that are awkwardly proportioned and very difficult to actually place furniture in, whether it be lack of walls or definition, window and door placement --or the worst, rooms that have the above problems and then aren't even a definable shape with angles and ceiling lines that go off in all directions and bleed into other spaces (you can't really call them rooms).

So these rooms tend to get accessorized to death to make up for lots of shortcomings.

"Unfortunately we seem to be dealt a lot of rooms that are awkwardly proportioned and very difficult to actually place furniture in, whether it be lack of walls or definition, window and door placement --or the worst, rooms that have the above problems and then aren't even a definable shape with angles and ceiling lines that go off in all directions and bleed into other spaces (you can't really call them rooms).

So these rooms tend to get accessorized to death to make up for lots of shortcomings. "

That's an interesting observation. Now that you mentioned it, I see what you mean. Pal, you need to write a home design book. I'd buy a copy for sure.

Back to the Black and White theory. I totally buy this theory.

This is a Typical Architectural Digest layout circa 1964. There's not a color picture shown for this entire house, and this is obviously a colorfully-decorated house with an Aubusson rug, scenic wallcoverings, Coromandel screens, and floral fabrics. A number of the layouts have a single color shot of one room or one part of a room and the rest is in black and white.
The other thing about the editorial content is how modest many of the houses are, considering how well-heeled the owners are. Not a castellated 10,000 square footer in the bunch. But that's another topic.

Selcier, I'm sorry you didn't like CLs room. I certainly liked CL's rooms at that time, but with age, I find them over crowded and over done. Yet the design principles he talked about are timeless. Interesting that you didn't find his design style dated. He was one of the early guys showing you not only what to do, but how to do it, focusing on making interior design accessible to non- IDs. I owe him a lot for so much of what I've learned about design...the information that is largely unavailable to the average tv viewer today. He certainly helped me design my new home...so many of his lessons live well in our home, from built-ins to colors to lighting. He also showed how to add drama, the way the pros do.

His background was in theater and retail design so it's no wonder if that comes through in his finished rooms.

{{gwi:2141439}}

{{gwi:2141440}}

I started watching the BBC show... definitely will watch the rest, though some of what he says, I disagree with. And from what his "after" room looked like, I wasn't impressed. But he does express and refresh a lot of design principles which I appreciate.

I agree that if you love something, it will not ever be dated to you. And I also agree that I never even knew that something be dated was something I was supposed to be concerned about until I started reading GW. It's a strange concept to me. Unless someone has totally redecorated their room or entire home in a fad, how could it really look dated?

We were in our last home for over 20 years. Once I got the main living areas decorated that way I wanted them, I never redecorated. That doesn't mean the room didn't evolve. Sure, I did things like changing to new lamps that I liked better, or different throw pillows, or maybe even a new accent rug, and such.

But even these changes weren't due to keeping up with a fad or trend but, rather, because the first garage sale lamps I bought were never quite right. Not bad but not great either. When I found some that were great and worked with the room better, then the old ones were replaced. Pillows replaced because of wear (probably from kids using them for pillow fights and such). Accent rug replaced due to numerous spills (kids, again).

I'm totally in the "if you love something, why replace it" crowd. Unless, of course, it's worn out or you find something else you love better. I guess I'm saying you should only change something if it's because you want to or need to. Not because some magazine, website, blog, or GW post says your look is dated.

I think people who design their home or their outfit in a way that bucks trends but fits their personality are much more interesting than those who follow trends. Let your personality shine through your choices.

And what's up with this awful greige trend anyway? I'm not a fan of beige but I'd sure pick it over greige anyday.

funkycamper, I have to say that I agree with you 90%. I believe that the room designs that evolve and are lived in are the most authentic and end up being the best designs. However, most people can not escape trends no matter how traditional or classic they believe their style is. In fact, it is often easier to date a traditional designed room.

There is often a knee jerk reaction to concepts like 'trend' or 'in style', like a pouty, emo teen scribbling poetry in the cemetery -we all are under the illusion that we are somehow completely unique and original. And yes, every snow flake is different, but every snowflake has 6 points, is white, etc. Trends, to a certain extent, are inescapable. The placement of a couch, coffee table and two side chairs, at one time (1920 after 1830) could have been called a tend but now has become obligatory for many.

Trends do serve a purpose for consumers who want something pretty, or a change, but don't want to think about it. Trends are almost always an imitation of something that was at once original and attractive. A hair style worn by an actress might have been an original design of a stylist at first, but when it takes off it becomes a trend. For the most part, I think that trendy decor is an attempt to impress others, not satisfy yourself.

There is nothing inherently wrong with trends, but with blindly following them. So, if you love turquoise, you are probably happy when it comes into style, and even more happy when it goes out of style because of all the deals you find.

If a decor is datable and still very nice, I think most folks think of it as 'classic'. And no, you don't need to decorate an entire room in a fad for it to look dated. To me 'dated' means sad, like a plant you forgot to water or run-down heels. Still, some folks don't see the dead plants in their rooms, and that is fine, if that's what you want. But you can't be offended when someone points out that the plant is dead.

btw, there are no bad colors, only bad color choices. Greige is just a name, it is in fact raw silk. Even neutral colors do come and go in style, sometimes cooler neutrals sometimes warmer. But marketing dunces know that the slaves to fashion will not buy last seasons 'Taupe', but will buy this seasons 'Greige', even if it's the exact same color.

This post was edited by Lilylore on Thu, Dec 25, 14 at 4:34

Good points, Lilylore. I have to say I only agree with me about about 90% now, too.

Trends are definitely impossible to escape completely because sometimes that's all you can find to buy at a price-point you can afford in the time you have to find something.

And I guess some would say I'm trend following right now as I'm trying to bring my MCM house back to its original bones. I'm not doing it because it's currently trendy. Those styles just fit the house. And I've inherited a lot of good furniture from that era that fits the style (although, for the most part, not what you think of when you think MCM furniture). But the fact that it's a trend right now makes it much easier to find what I'm seeking, whether it's a reproduction or the MCM items filling vintage and antique shops right now.

I guess the difference is that once the trend is over, I'm not going to redecorate to keep up with the next trend.