apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

I find it troubling that so many people's definition of "contemporary" is really period-room MCM. Too often, when I see something described as "new" and "fresh," it looks like my grandma's house.

I suppose there have been other historic-style revivals, especially in the Victorian era (Gothic revival, Egyptian revival, etc.), but an era without its own style is, by definition, conflicted.

I think it's an exciting mix really. The same is happening in fashion today too. There is no one trend or genre, they are all coming together to make something new.

You can have modern/vintage and victorian all in one room. From a design perspective, though some may believe it's easier to work with as there is more to work with, it's much more difficult to marry these genres into one new work.

It all boils down to confidence. If you know what you like and have the confidence to mix and match, then there's no conflict, no confusion. Who cares what a retailer calls a thing? I either love it or I don't, so I buy it or I don't.

I find it troubling that so many people's definition of "contemporary" is really period-room MCM.

I also see the term 'modern' used to describe contemporary interiors. I don't know if that reflects any kind of design conflict, or just lack of knowledge/care. I would say that eclecticism, in various recent manifestations, is probably its own style.

What's happening today, re mix and match, is no different than any other era, frankly. Why is this news?

Agree with readingglasses about mix and match. Europeans have been doing that for centuries.

What exactly is the difference between modern and contemporary?

i lived for 30 years in different parts of Europe, so what considered now "conflicting decor" in US is actually not conflicting at all in european interiors. It's not an issue.

What exactly is the difference between modern and contemporary?

To me, 'modern' [well, Modern, really] is a period style, which contemporary is of the present moment, whatever moment that happens to be.

"What exactly is the difference between modern and contemporary?"

Great question!

I was wondering the answer to that this morning as I was staring at an MCA billboard that read, "Not Modern, Contemporary."

Like others, I really dig the "mix-and-match aesthetic" (to borrow phrasing from the article) that prevails in home decor as well as fashion. I think eclecticism is a non-issue for most people, though it does make for interesting discussion.

I was really amused by the marketers in the article kvetching about the challenge posed by "new" furniture styles. I work in marketing, and learning how to package a new product or service, and researching the customer base for a product or service offering, is one of the most interesting parts of the job.

It's telling that the article is framed in terms of how these eclectic furniture styles are MARKETED - not how people buy or use them. To me, it makes the article smack of a savvy PR person getting under the skin of a NYT reporter, but perhaps that's just me.

I think the average (semi-savvy) consumer is only too happy to mix style X with style Y - many do it without thinking, as they pair an inherited piece with a new couch from Crate & Barrel, a midcentury table with a new lamp, etc.

The word "modern" has been with us for more than a hundred years (although how many hundreds I don't know).

The question about Modern versus Contemporary reminds me to the Fashionable versus Stylish question.

Fashionable has to do with something that kind of clicks into what the zeitgeist is at the moment.

Stylish refers to style which comes from some kind of root word that means something about a writing implement and or writing, and therefore handwriting, which is a very individual thing where no two people can quite do it exactly the same.

So... some of the most satisfying looks in apparel and in interiors are combinations of the two, where a person puts their individual stamp on the look by using at least SOME pieces that are in fashion and creating their own look, or style with them. That usually means combining them with things that are part of that person's style already. Sometimes it is merely the way that old things are combined that create the new style.

AND... in various eras, there are certain previous style eras of previous that become popular based on how those previous eras capture the spirit of THAT time. Napoleon loved Egyptian and Roman stuff, because it was being excavated, and he liked the idea of having an empire, so he created an Empire style. And since he was French, that style gets pronounced "ohm-PEER" instead of "empire". Art Nouveau graphics from the 1920's were very leafy and trippy, so that style became popular in the 1960's and 1970's. Etc.

I think that strolling through the House Tours and the contest entries here on AT you get a really good sense of how homes that were built in all kinds of past and present eras are updated to be very right-this-very-minute-looking.

People in this era have emotional reactions to different pieces from different genres and periods of furniture for an endless variety of reasons. If our homes are to express our personalities, they will typically be very eclectic. It is fun whether "conflicted" or not. Just another phenomenon in our world that makes it interesting.

"Modern" is considered a period style exemplified by the 1910s, 20s, and 30s with designers like Le Corbusier, Mies Van der Rohe, Walter Gropius and the like, who wanted clean lines stripped of excessive ornament, and things that could be machined and mass produced. Contemporary is just whatever is new and current. Of course, what is new and current might look like it came from the "Modern" era, or is "Modern" in style, hence the confusion. The funny thing is those Modernists wanted to design things that were not of a style, but that's exactly what they got. It really is all about marketing. Sort of like the brand new, suburban "loft" apartments and townhomes. Developers call everything a loft, so no one really knows what a loft is now. It's whatever sells. But I don't think there's anything wrong with culture changing the original meaning of things. I find it amusing that design purists get offended by people not knowing the difference between a table designed in the 1930s and any other table from DWR. They were probably both manufactured last year. People just like what they like. My prediction is that in 20 years, design historians will look back and call our era "Pottery Barn".

Or Elm Crate Barn. Amy, I'm loving that.

/\/\ Or Crottarnelmea.

For some reason the term "contemporary" gives me the douche chills. It recalls images of sponge painting, overstuffed velvet chaise lounges, glass block walls and Nagel lithographs.

Maybe it's just me...

hejiranyc-
Definitely agree. Contemporary actually seems to denote "stuffy" and "outdated" to me. It's a marketing buzzword. "Sleek" or "modern" tend to denote much better pieces.

I found the article to be rather ridiculous. If a particular design or collecion doesn't sell it is more likely due to the fact that that the design was poor/unattractive, not that it was marketed under the wrong name. Perhaps a name can initially grab your attention, but the success of the collecion will ultimately be based on its design, appealing or not. To blame it on the marketing of a product is just passing the buck to someone else.

I agree with ChrisToronto, most people (except for perhaps the very insecure) buy what appeals to them regardless of the name or marketing.