Grandmillennial Style

[EyeCandyOP]

I just read an article in the Washington Post about grandmillennial style and wonder what people think of it. I like that we've seen some more traditional prints and furniture pieces coming back - I have to admit that I wasn't a huge fan of the more paired down looks that were popular for a while (the article mentions modern farmhouse, but I also think of the "West Elm" look).

This was the pretty picture at the top of the article.


In a way, I think it's just a traditional look that maybe some younger people are rediscovering...I'm all for it.

[Anonymous]

I like it but I can't reconcile it with the 80s decorating that they say they are referencing. I remember the Laura Ashley and the patterns and I'm not seeing the link.

[Anonymous]

I think that elements of fussier style will come back in as a natural swing away from the modern style that has dominate for the last decade or so. But that particular picture is a mess to me. The fringey, too-long table cover, the table covered in books and tchotchkes, the ugly chandelier, the matching side tables, the completely unnecessary sconce/mirror things on the side walls - the only think I like is the vase and the rug.

[Anonymous]

It looks like Southern Living Magazine to me. Too symmetrical and what’s the point of those 2 random chairs sticking out from the table?

[EyeCandyOP]

Anonymous wrote:It looks like Southern Living Magazine to me. Too symmetrical and what’s the point of those 2 random chairs sticking out from the table?

It's just a styled photo, not necessarily how the homeowner has things set up on a daily basis.

[Anonymous]

awful

[Anonymous]

The only thing I like about that is the rug. Way too frilly for my taste.

[Anonymous]

I think that's awful! I don't like the Westelm style either but this is so cluttered, frilly and heavy.

[Anonymous]

ugh

do they have to hashtag everything

[Anonymous]

Yeah, I have definitely swung more traditional although that particular photo doesn't do it for me.

I think a lot of it is about a decade or two of people buying much more from in stock choices at retailers like Pottery Barn and CB, so fabrics are almost all solid and in gray, beige, etc. West Elm can't get couches to you cheap and in six weeks unless they only offer a few stock fabrics. People used to use upholstery/drapery workrooms much more I think. So part of it imo is just millennials getting to the point where maybe they are working with a designer who can help them put together a fabric scheme and just that makes the room look more "traditional" on its own. And maybe it's also about Etsy and other online sellers figuring out how to connect people to workrooms.

Like, there was a point where everyone used skirted round tables because it was cheap to just use the plywood table and the cover was another chance to introduce or repeat a fabric in your room. But today, it would be much easier to buy an antique mahogany tilt-top table on eBay or Craigslist and many people wouldn't know where to start with picking a fabric and having a cover made.

Of course, Ballard has been offering more fabric choices direct to consumers for a long time but I think that was and remained a mostly regional phenomenon that was always more popular in the South, and the style reflected that. People here don't like things so bright.

What's good about the difference between now and the 80's, imo, is in the 80's lots of manufacturers were making replicas of what were very expensive antiques. Now, the antiques are cheap and easier to buy thanks to the internet, 1st Dibs, etc so one can put together a mix of authentic pieces from different periods instead of buying a cherry "colonial" dining room set from a department store. They're both "traditional" but very different. I still don't like the example photo, but what brings it to life is the deco mirrors.

Also, major negative points for the article allowing the use of the word "timeless," even in a quote. It's so not "timeless!" Sort of Victorian, chintzy 80's, etc. NOT "timeless." Only a rock is "timeless." It's so irritating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, I have definitely swung more traditional although that particular photo doesn't do it for me.

I think a lot of it is about a decade or two of people buying much more from in stock choices at retailers like Pottery Barn and CB, so fabrics are almost all solid and in gray, beige, etc. West Elm can't get couches to you cheap and in six weeks unless they only offer a few stock fabrics. People used to use upholstery/drapery workrooms much more I think. So part of it imo is just millennials getting to the point where maybe they are working with a designer who can help them put together a fabric scheme and just that makes the room look more "traditional" on its own. And maybe it's also about Etsy and other online sellers figuring out how to connect people to workrooms.

Like, there was a point where everyone used skirted round tables because it was cheap to just use the plywood table and the cover was another chance to introduce or repeat a fabric in your room. But today, it would be much easier to buy an antique mahogany tilt-top table on eBay or Craigslist and many people wouldn't know where to start with picking a fabric and having a cover made.

Of course, Ballard has been offering more fabric choices direct to consumers for a long time but I think that was and remained a mostly regional phenomenon that was always more popular in the South, and the style reflected that. People here don't like things so bright.

What's good about the difference between now and the 80's, imo, is in the 80's lots of manufacturers were making replicas of what were very expensive antiques. Now, the antiques are cheap and easier to buy thanks to the internet, 1st Dibs, etc so one can put together a mix of authentic pieces from different periods instead of buying a cherry "colonial" dining room set from a department store. They're both "traditional" but very different. I still don't like the example photo, but what brings it to life is the deco mirrors.

Also, major negative points for the article allowing the use of the word "timeless," even in a quote. It's so not "timeless!" Sort of Victorian, chintzy 80's, etc. NOT "timeless." Only a rock is "timeless." It's so irritating.

Hmm. I get your point. On the other hand, the picture earlier this page is also a look that has carried through the generations. I grew up in houses that approximated this look (born in 1980). My grandmother's house was also very much like this and she decorated her house in the 1950s. People were decorating in this vein in the 1920s too. And hallmarks of this style goes right back to the 18th century. It's your English/American upper middle upper class look that's been around for so long and it's why many people consider it timeless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think that elements of fussier style will come back in as a natural swing away from the modern style that has dominate for the last decade or so. But that particular picture is a mess to me. The fringey, too-long table cover, the table covered in books and tchotchkes, the ugly chandelier, the matching side tables, the completely unnecessary sconce/mirror things on the side walls - the only think I like is the vase and the rug.

To you it's a mess, to me it's elegant, coherent, balanced with an excellent composition of furniture and decor pleasant to the eye. A lot of thought went to achieving that look. Having said that, upon second glance I don't think it's as expensive as some might think. The rug doesn't look special and the side tables could be 1980s knockoffs. But to me, it works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that elements of fussier style will come back in as a natural swing away from the modern style that has dominate for the last decade or so. But that particular picture is a mess to me. The fringey, too-long table cover, the table covered in books and tchotchkes, the ugly chandelier, the matching side tables, the completely unnecessary sconce/mirror things on the side walls - the only think I like is the vase and the rug.

To you it's a mess, to me it's elegant, coherent, balanced with an excellent composition of furniture and decor pleasant to the eye. A lot of thought went to achieving that look. Having said that, upon second glance I don't think it's as expensive as some might think. The rug doesn't look special and the side tables could be 1980s knockoffs. But to me, it works.

9 separate light sources in a foyer is elegant and coherent if you live in a cave, maybe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that elements of fussier style will come back in as a natural swing away from the modern style that has dominate for the last decade or so. But that particular picture is a mess to me. The fringey, too-long table cover, the table covered in books and tchotchkes, the ugly chandelier, the matching side tables, the completely unnecessary sconce/mirror things on the side walls - the only think I like is the vase and the rug.

To you it's a mess, to me it's elegant, coherent, balanced with an excellent composition of furniture and decor pleasant to the eye. A lot of thought went to achieving that look. Having said that, upon second glance I don't think it's as expensive as some might think. The rug doesn't look special and the side tables could be 1980s knockoffs. But to me, it works.

9 separate light sources in a foyer is elegant and coherent if you live in a cave, maybe.

elegant and coherent? oh sugarbear. this is gonna be a harder row to plow than you thought.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that elements of fussier style will come back in as a natural swing away from the modern style that has dominate for the last decade or so. But that particular picture is a mess to me. The fringey, too-long table cover, the table covered in books and tchotchkes, the ugly chandelier, the matching side tables, the completely unnecessary sconce/mirror things on the side walls - the only think I like is the vase and the rug.

To you it's a mess, to me it's elegant, coherent, balanced with an excellent composition of furniture and decor pleasant to the eye. A lot of thought went to achieving that look. Having said that, upon second glance I don't think it's as expensive as some might think. The rug doesn't look special and the side tables could be 1980s knockoffs. But to me, it works.

9 separate light sources in a foyer is elegant and coherent if you live in a cave, maybe.

I agree that there are maybe too many sconces but most people don’t have enough lights so, whatever. It beats one bright overhead light or rows of cans.