Combining

You often see antiques styled and combined, even repurposed in unexpected ways these days. How liberally do you combine antiques from different levels or backgrounds?

Would you feel like it's too historically inaccurare to take, let's say a painted country pine chest of drawers ca 1850 and put a ormolu bronze candelabra from the same period on it? Or plain faience plates on a inlaid, lacquered table? What about bringing garden furniture indoors?

If you'd do that, would you just think it's fine as long as it looks good, or is there a need for you to formulate a back story to make it seem more historically accurate?

 

Fine as long as it looks good. Think a home should look like it has evolved over time. Mix things up pretty liberally when decorating. Am not a fan of permanent modifications to antiques unless beyond salvage any other way.

 

Hi,
I had a friend in NYC who had a wonderful co-op in an industrial building.
She had 25ft ceilings and monstrous amt of space. She took 4 steel outdoor porch gliders from the late 40s to early 50s and had them stripped down to the basic steel, polished them and had them lacquered. They looked wonderful in the space. I on the other hand had some repainted forest green with white trim and have them in my yard. They are the same age only hers were stripped of all their paint and placed inside. Mine were repainted and placed outside. Who knows which looks better?
greg

 

Historical accuracy is for museums.

Debora

 

I guess that's true, as long as precious furniture is spared from extreme makeovers. Yet I find it to be a struggle when I think too much about what goes with what.

 

What goes with what you love and what pleases you.

Debora

 

True. But then there are those who are into a specific era and want everything to be from that time, collectors of a certain era.

 

If YOU like it and they mix well, then I think that's great!!! I wound up with TOO many Max Karp enamel 30" x 24" 'paintings'....most of which take up our wall space......along with our antique furniture.....but I do think they mix well.....if they didn't they wouldn't be hanging!!!!

 

Hi,
I am the same way my furniture ranges from 1840s to 1970. My MIL always says "it is not what you have it is how you have it." 99% of the people in my retirement community got rid of all of their stuff when moving down here. Everybody had 1970 new furniture and wall to wall carpeting. Everyone is afraid to hang something on a wall except for a huge factory painting over the sofa. I had porcelain tile in a sandstone mixed pattern put on every square inch of flooring, then put Oriental carpets on the floors and hall ways. I HATE wall to wall carpeting. I did not put wooden flooring down since I figured we were at the shore and sand would be everywhere and scratch the hell out of wood floors. I have paintings everywhere on all the walls as well as shelving to hold vases and pottery. Everyone down here has white walls. Mine are either red (dining room) the others are either gray or dark beige. The ceilings are a very very pale light blue instead of white. It keeps the cobwebs away. Insects see the pale blue and think it is the sky and do not stick around. Learned that from Thomas Jefferson in Monticello. The people down here are just in awe when they see my place. Although I have seen a few people start to paint their dining rooms red. It does make people hungry for food.
greg

 

Making things nice in general is worth it, at least 99% of the time.

 

As long as the things were made with skill and quality whenever they were made, I think it's fine to mix. I find a lot of mid century furniture people throw away around here and can't resist using it even though my tastes run to more rustic because I see the imagination and quality in it. It matches everything in that same category.

 

I've had this conversation with customers over the years. Young ladies come in and like something, but it doesn't go with the style they already have.

My response is buy what pleases you and you love. You have a tendency to pick things that have common lines, colors, and will blend together in the long run. A theme eventually evolves and becomes interesting. Just as you are interesting.

When I go into homes that are completely manicured and everything matches or carries the same theme, it is fascinating at first. However, it eventually becomes boring and so do the people sometimes.

If you are worried that things won't blend. You can theme one room differently than another.

Our homes are a mirror of our personalities. As we age, our tastes change. Some things we get rid of others we keep for whatever reason.

So if mixing things up makes you happy then do it.

 

The extreme of this is those homes from the past few decades where almost everything was bought at once, from the same furniture store. Everything from the dining set to the wardrobes to the sofa table is from the same line.

 

I call that "staging" rather than "decorating." A look promoted by many of the shelter magazines. Homes may be ready for a photo shoot but unlivable. To be a home rather than just a house, there must be evidence of a past or, at the very least, an engaged present (e.g. books, family photographs, personal art, a musical instrument, etc.) as well as the appropriate place for them. And -- to paraphrase Billy Baldwin -- comfort is the ultimate luxury. IMO.

Debora

 

And things should be good enough to use regularly, not something that falls apart if you move it.

 

I think that repurposing can be fine if an item no longer has a practical purpose, especially if it is in bits.

So we will sell glass clock domes for reuse as a clock dome or for display.

Likewise wall clock cases can be reused for wall clocks or for display cabinets

 

I repurpose broken bits liberally, especially jewelry. As for mixing old and new in the same room, go for it. Others have mentioned staged housing vs a home. The staging looks pretty and it's great for selling a house. For living? Not so much. I got a free year of Architectural Digest and Dwell, and while the interior shots are sometimes pretty, others have me thinking the homeowner hired some random decorator with no taste and then never lived there.

 

LOL! Two magazine photos stand out in my memory. One: a living room, stark and sharp and white, with a large bowl of oranges on the coffee table.

The other living room was a was lush display of sofa, chairs, draperies, etc., all swathed in an absolutely lovely, very busy, flowery upholstery material in reds, oranges, greens, pinks, blues, etc., etc.

My mother's comment on #1 - "I hope they have a spare pile of Granny Smiths available for when the oranges run out."

Mine on #2 - "Can't wear my pink sprigged dress in there...or any pattern...or anything too casual...or too formal...

My own rooms, like Greg's (although Very Different), are a mixture of an antique rope bed (3/4 size) to a pure white, metal card table from Ikea. (Gasp!)

My prints range from Raphael to Reynolds to Spy to a huge, gorgeous print of Evelyn Nesbitt pre-bath, to an 80-year-old adorable gentleman about to dine on a "joint."

And they all play nicely with each other!

 

I find it chilling when the wallpaper matches the upholstery.

That started back in 17th or 18thC, but back then if the upholstery was the same pattern as the wallpaper, the furniture was considered part of the decor and non-functional.

 

You've heard of Bence Bekonyi? The photographer gets people to dress up like backgrounds.