To determine the most appropriate style for your home, it is necessary that you have at least a nodding acquaintance with the more important historical styles still in use. But first let us have a mutual understanding of what is meant by style.
Man has had furniture, chairs, tables, cabinets, chests, and so on, among his utilitarian artifacts for a]most as long as he has had history.
The chair, for instance, has consisted for an incredibly long time of three basic elements: a platform on which to sit, an arrangement to hold the platform between 15 and 17 inches off the floor, and a back. The variations that have been made on these three elements are endless. Chairs have been huge and very tiny; high-backed and low-backed; with or without arms, with wide seats or narrow, deep or shallow seats. They have been profusely decorated or completely undecorated. And all manner of materials from the animal, vegetable and mineral kingdoms, ranging through shells, hones, leather, stone, metal, wood, cloth, plastics and even cardboard, have been used in their construction.
It might seem odd, in view of the number of great minds that have appeared in the course of some 5,000 years of recorded history, that man hasn't achieved a reasonably ideal solution to the question of providing himself with a place to sit. He has solved the problem time and again, but only for a particular society, culture and technology.
Style
Man has changed very little physically during the entire period that we know anything about so the three basic elements of a chair haven't changed either. But the manner in which the function of a chair has been obtained has varied considerably with the needs and desires of different cultures, the materials available to them, and their technologies.
The chair in which Louis XIV of France sat had to be, not only a place to rest his weary bones; but an expression of his opinion of himself and his regal position. The desired effect had to be achieved in terms of the materials and skills of the artisans of the time, and furthermore, these were used by the designer in such a way that the resulting object was a universally under stood symbol.
This is an example of the real meaning of style in the best and fullest sense of the word. Style is an integrated expression of the culture, technology and philosophy of the time.
Unfortunately, this perfectly good word has become bastardized in recent years. Style has come to be used to refer to such things as a minor change in the tail fins of this year's car, or a change in the color name of a lipstick. Streamlining everything, from an automobile, where it may do some aerodynamic good, to an electrified egg beater, does not quite constitute style. Style refers to something with deeper roots.
In the field of furniture, looking back historically, we find a number of distinctive and distinguishable styles. Some of them are still in widespread use today while others have all but disappeared. A society can agree with and retain the values of its past or it can disagree with them, but it cannot wipe them out entirely and start over as though they had never existed.
A philosophical, religious, political or technical revolution often carries within itself the necessary definitions for a new style in the arts. At such times it is not unusual to see a new style of furniture emerge quite suddenly.
Something of the sort has been going on in our own time. It is our fatuousness as it has been the fatuousness of people at all times that our styles and tastes are "Modern". It is a safe bet that the American of 1860 considered himself "Modern" and thought of the American of 1760 as pretty old fashioned. By now a good many consider both rather quaint.
Fig. 401. A recent Modern unit. Wood grain and texture provide visual
interest rather than decorative detail. (Courtesy Herman Miller Furniture
Co.)
Students of economics, technology, history, politics and art all offer different explanations for the development of the thinking that has resulted in our modern style of design.
The chances are, too, that each of them would have a piece of the truth, but to discover how big a piece and how it relates to the others will require the perspective of a good deal more time.
In part this is because our "Modern" style is not yet fully developed and defined. A society that is well integrated and settled in its cultural, philosophic, and ethical values will produce a coherent iconography and concurrently integrated and well defined styles of art and design. In a changing society individuals seek in several ways for values around which to base their lives, and in exactly the same way artists and designers search for values.
Fig. 402. The exterior of a Modern cabinet often conceals a complex
internal division of space. (Courtesy Herman Miller Furniture Co.)
One method is for the designer to look to the past for a time and style with which he can identify, and to reproduce it in the present.
Another approach is to find in the past, elements of more than one style, and then recombine them. The result is an eclectic de sign that for lack of a better term is called Traditional.
What is called Contemporary is yet another kind of eclectic design, but it is arrived at in a different way. You can either take something that is basically modern and soften it with period elements, or you start with a period piece and modernize it by stripping off most of the period elements. In either event the results are similar. You have a thing that feels largely modern but yet smacks definitely of the past.
The difference between traditional and Contemporary design is one of emphasis rather than approach. Both seek areas of inspiration in the past for adaptation to the present. The difference lies in the manner of adaptation.
America lacks a long and continuous cultural tradition in the sense that, say, England and France have one, and we have long tended to look to Europe for our esthetic standards. This has undoubtedly something to do with the popularity here of Traditional and Contemporary styles based upon English and French motifs.
Another approach to the problem of styling is that of the Modernist. He starts with an analysis of the present and tries to anticipate the future. He is the experimenter, the innovator, the developer of a new style. He is the one who will pioneer the use of a new material, a new use for an old one, or a different construction technique.
His experiments and innovations result in new lines and forms that quite often jar the senses of his contemporaries. But if his analysis of his society and its technology were sound to begin with, there will be inevitable logic to his work that will make it gradually understandable and acceptable.
Modern Style
Now let's sift through some examples of Modern, Contemporary and Traditional styling and try to reach a point where we can begin to tell which from another.
The single most obvious characteristic of Modern styling is the reduction and simplification of decorative detail. This factor alone does not constitute a full formulation of style, hut it is a characteristic that serves as a ready means of identification. For example, furniture of no prior periods exhibits as little decorative detail as the Modern unit illustrated in Fig. 401.
Although all Modern designs are not as chaste and stripped of decorative detail as this one, it is a good example of one of the main influences in the style.
Fig. 402 is a larger, more complex unit by the same designer.
Fig. 403. An example of the long low look which characterizes many Modern
pieces. (Courtesy Gordon Brothers)
Fig. 404. The use of the stepup setback record-player compartment adds
interest to this piece. (Design by the author.)
Fig. 405. Although this cabinet is raised, a basically horizontal feeling
is retained. This look has been encouraged by the current trend toward.
The base and the use of various materials produce a high interesting
effect. (Courtesy Herman Miller Furniture Co.)
While there is considerable interior subdivision of space, the exterior gives little hint of it. In both this and the preceding example the natural wood grain and overall proportioning are relied upon to provide visual interest. The simple door pulls on both units can hardly be called decorative and the leg treatments are simple and unobtrusive.
Another characteristic of Modern styling that, while by no means universal, is certainly widespread, is the emphasis on the horizontal line, the so-called "long low look." (Fig. 403).
This look has been encouraged by the current trend toward low ceilings in modern dwelling spaces. Standard ceiling heights nowadays range around 8 to 8 ½ feet, and in such surroundings the 6- and 7-foot high breakfronts, cupboards and highboys of former days look out of proportion. They were intended for rooms with 9-12-foot ceilings.
The same horizontal line emphasis is shown in Fig. 404. Here visual interest has been added by the step-up and setback of the record-player compartment at the left and the outside leg at the…
Fig. 406. The use of contrasting woods and a curved top gives this Modern
piece a look of lightness and warmth. (Design by the author.)
… same end. Again decorative detailing is conspicuously absent. The molding around the control panel could hardly be called decorative and the end leg, while emphasized, shows itself clearly as a structural element. The design relies entirely upon shape, pro portion and wood grain for effect.
A design need not necessarily be extremely low to retain the feeling of horizontality, as evidenced by Figs. 405 and 406.
In both instances a unit with a basically horizontal feeling has been raised well off the floor.
Fig. 407. Variation in surface texture is achieved in this piece by
the use of tambours on the speaker front in contrast to the smooth teak
sliding doors. (Courtesy John Stuart, Inc.)
Fig. 408. The rectangular form of this cabinet is softened by the use
of the curved corners and by some curved lines in the leg treatment.
(Design by the author.)
Fig. 406 gains variety by mixing different woods, walnut top and fronts with birch case and legs.
Again note the sparseness of decorative detail, but a new element has been included. In both cases additions to visual interest were attempted by variations in material or surface texture or both. In Fig. 405 the walnut case is varied by using white plastic and cloth on the front, and by the unusual base. The unit in The design in Fig. 407 introduces variation in surface texture too. Both cabinets are teak throughout, but this material is utilized in two contrasting ways on the cabinet fronts. The speaker front has a ridged texture produced by the tambours contrasting with the flat, smooth texture of the sliding doors over the equipment section.
In the examples given thus far of Modern style cabinets, with one lone exception the outlines consist of unbroken rectangles.
The unit shown in Fig. 406 has a curved top that overlaps the sides, thus breaking up the strict rectangulation of outline, but the other cabinets illustrated aim at visual interest through means other than variation of outline. This uninterrupted rectangular outline is a characteristic that, like the long low look, is by no means universal, but at the same time it is certainly extremely widespread among examples of Modern cabinet styling.
Of the objections voiced against
Modern styling, a good percentage could be traced back to just this characteristic. It seems to give some people the feeling that Modern is "cold" or "harsh" or "severe," that it lacks the "warmth" of Traditional or period stylings. While this feeling may often be traceable in part to a lack of familiarity with good Modern styling, rectangles and more rectangles can be tiresome.
The cabinet shown in Fig. 408 is another attempt to break and soften rectangular lines with an overlapping top with curved corners and some curved lines in the leg treatment.
Another characteristic of Modern that is common but not universal is asymmetrical design. Fig. 409 is a strong example of this as are Figs. 404 and 408. Milder examples are Figs. 402, 405 and 410. The unit shown in Fig. 410 consists of two completely separate cabinets mounted on a single base ¾ inch apart. The speaker enclosure is shock-mounted to the base, isolating it from the equipment cabinet on the right.
To sum up Modern cabinet styling, we find very simplified decorative detailing, strong emphasis on natural wood colors and grains, use of contrasts in materials and surface textures, frequent use of strongly horizontal shapes and the common use of asymmetry. Modern cabinetry is often raised off the floor on legs to imply a feeling of lightness and airiness. Most finishes are of the matte or satin variety with considerable emphasis on natural wood colors. Staining and bleaching are largely avoided.
Contemporary
Fig. 409. This Modern unit is a good example of asymmetric design. (Courtesy
Cassard & Walker, Inc.)
Contemporary styling draws a good deal from Modern and is similar in many respects. In fact the dividing line between Modern and Contemporary is sometimes rather hazy. Contemporary cabinets carry more decorative detail than Modern units, the horizontal effect is generally not as pronounced, and asymmetry in design disappears. Contemporary units will run down close to the floor on 2-4-inch bases more often than Modern ones. Variation of colors by bleaching and staining is more common, and a high ...
Fig. 410.
Asymmetry is fairly subtle in this hi-fi unit. It consists of two separate
cabinets mounted on a common base (Design hy the author.)
... gloss finish is frequently used. But most important, Contemporary designs always include some reference to or suggestion of a period style. At times this reference may be very subtle; at others it will be obvious to an untrained eye.
Unfortunately some "Contemporary" design is just plain bad design. It too often tries to be "all things to all men" and succeeds only in producing a rather insipid effect.
An example of good Contemporary styling is shown in Fig. 411. It would appear to be based upon neo-Classic models from the early 19th century, and has retained a kind of grace and elegance.
Fig. 411. This example of Contemporary styling is based upon neo-Classic
designs from, the early 19th century. (Courtesy Charak.)
The cabinet in Fig. 411 was not made specifically to house hi-fi equipment, but can be adapted for this purpose. The same is true of many of the illustrations following. Very little good Traditional or period furniture is being made for hi-fi.
The wall unit in Fig. 412 is an example of good Contemporary styling. It exhibits an admirable subtlety of proportion and restraint in the use of decorative inlay. The period influence appears to be neo-Classic, probably late 18th- or early 19th century Italian.
In those whose tastes run toward more ornate styling Fig. 413 might strike a responsive chord. The design of this piece, though definitely Contemporary, is influenced by Oriental sources.
In contrast Fig. 414 is a good example of highly simplified Contemporary. This piece comes very close to the hazy border line between Contemporary and Modern, but in the author's opinion belongs with Contemporary even though it reveals no specific period source.
Traditional and period styles
At times Traditional and specific period pieces are a bit difficult to separate too. A Traditional design will contain elements of more than one period; it will not be an authentic reproduction of any specific period. For example, it may contain elements such as the legs and curved front of Hepplewhite, fluting at the sides which looks like Sheraton, and have doors and hardware which ...
Fig. 412. This wall unit exhibits late 18th-Century Italian neo-Classic
influence. (Courtesy Grosfeld House.)
Fig. 413. Oriental influences can be detected in this contemporary piece
specifically designed for hi-fi. (Courtesy John Stuart, Inc.)
... look like neither. It would be safe to say that a piece such as this is derived from late 18th century English styles, but you cannot be more specific than that-it is just Traditional.
Fig. 415, on the other hand, while simplified from the originals, would appear to be a direct descendant of Hepplewhite. So would you rather call it simplified Hepplewhite or throw it in the rather amorphous hopper labeled "Traditional"? The flat top cornice, the curve of the front and the inlay pattern of the doors are consistent. Hepplewhite would have used more surface decoration and considerably subdivided the glass doors, but this does not destroy the feeling that the piece has a specific style.
It is really a question of emphasis again-does a given piece seem to be pretty much of a specific style? If so, that is what you call it. Or does it contain period elements but is not consistent with a particular style? Then it is just Traditional.
It will take a while before you will be able readily to distinguish Traditional from the various individual period styles. To do so you will need first to become familiar with some of the period styles and their identifying characteristics. However, it is well beyond the scope of the present work to attempt anything resembling a full-scale history of furniture styles. We shall limit our discussion, therefore, to general trends from approximately 1700 to 1820. This will cover most of the styles in use today, and consequently most of the ones you are likely to encounter.
At the start of this period the hereditary royalty of Europe was at the height of its pomp and power. The furniture styles of the times were developed for and around the courts of the royalty and nobility. In France, Louis XIV reigned in complete autocracy at Versailles, surrounded by furnishings that fully expressed the authority of his throne. This was a period of pageantry and show, reflected in the heavy formality of the furniture and in its profuse ornamentation. This ornamentation was based largely on curvilinear floral motifs inspired in turn by Baroque Italian decoration.
Fig. 414. Although this piece exhibits no specific period source, it
is nevertheless an example of Contemporary style. (Courtesy John Widdicomb.)
Furniture of this type is seldom reproduced today, but one does occasionally encounter simplified reproductions of the somewhat lighter, more sophisticated styles of Louis XV and Louis XVI. Fig. 416 is an extremely simplified version of a design derived from Louis XVI models. By this time, the neo Classic influence that was to prevail in France through the remainder of the period being discussed had already begun to make itself felt.
Fig. 415. This piece, although simplified, would be considered as an
example of Hepplewhite. (Courtesy Grosfeld House.)
Although very little in the styles of Louis XIV, XV and XVI survives in reproduction at the present time, a great deal of reproduction is done in the French Provincial style that developed in the outlying districts during the early and mid-1700's.
Fig. 417 is an example based upon attempts of the bourgeoisie to imitate the court style, necessarily in simplified form. The compound curves of the cabinet tops, aprons and inset door panels as well as the reverse-curved cabriole type legs are typical of the court style from which they were derived. If you will notice particularly the curves of the lower apron and the manner in which its curves blend into those of the legs at the corners, you will not be likely to confuse this style with any other.
Although reproductions in this style are most often finished in medium amber brown colors, the surviving originals are quite as often painted cream, tan, gray or blue-gray with painted ornamentation that is usually omitted on reproductions.
With the abrupt demise of Louis XVI and the subsequent rise of the Directory to power as a result of the popular revulsion against the excesses of the monarchy, a new style of furniture also appeared. It contrasted sharply with that of the preceding periods. A style in keeping with the mood of the times developed that exhibits a classic simplicity, dignity and restraint in ornament and decoration that is quite at variance with frivolous, dainty and slightly effeminate court styles.
With the resurgence of French influence on the Continent this style, known as Directoire, became widespread not only in France but also in Italy and Germany.
Fig. 418 shows an example of current reproductions in Directoire style based on both French and ...
Fig. 416. This design in Provincial style is
derived from the more ornate style of the contemporary French murt.
... Italian models. These, like other present-day reproductions, are simplified but carry on the feeling of the original style. The emphasis on straight lines and geometric shapes, the elimination of decorative moldings around the tops and the application of pilasters or fluting reminiscent of Greek columns alongside the doors are characteristic.
As the Directory evolved into the Empire, the Directoire style also evolved into the somewhat more ornate and pretentious Empire style. But although Empire style is more ornate, it retains the classical feeling of the Directoire in its basic lines and forms.
Fig. 417. French Provincial style developed during the early 18th century.
Note the use of compound curves. (Courtesy Grosfeld House.)
Ornamentation is added in the form of inlays and ormolu rather than molding and carving (Fig. 419). This is a serious and some what self-conscious and humorless style that remains at odds with the frivolities of the earlier court styles even as Napoleon, who in large measure gave rise to it, was a serious, self-conscious and humorless man. (Another example of Empire style is shown in Fig. 420.)
English Styles
Fig. 418. The rectangular simplicity of the Directoire style lends itself
to adaptation for hi-fi purposes. (Courtesy Charak.)
The English styles of the period under discussion at no time reach the excesses of the French court styles, nor do they at any time revert as sharply to classical simplicity. Although English furniture does not necessarily lack gracefulness and charm, the British in general do lack the decorative flair and sophistication of the French. The British are a stolid and serious people and their furniture, like their other arts, reflects their outlook.
The greatest English styles were developed by individual designers and are named after them. The three most important were Chippendale, Hepplewhite and Sheraton, with the brothers R. & J. Adam running them a close fourth. These, plus the neo Classic Regency style that followed them, constitute the important English styles for our purposes.
At the present time considerable Traditional cabinetry is being made based upon English motifs, but very little in the way of authentic reproduction is available. This would seem to be a result either of changing tastes or of mere fashion of the moment.
For many years reproductions in the English styles were in great demand here, but recently the demand has shifted to French
Provincial and the neo-Classic styles. French and Italian Directoire, Empire and Heidemeier, an early to mid-19th-century style developed in Central Europe, primarily Germany and Austria, and based upon the Empire style of France.
Fig. 419. The Empire style maintains the classic feel of the Directoire
in its basic lines. (Courtesy Grosfeld House.)
Furniture manufacturers are rather sensitive to such changes in taste, making authentic English reproduction rather hard to find at the moment, but this situation is not likely to continue for long.
Chippendale was the first of our important English stylists.
Actually, very little in the way of authentic Chippendale reproduction is being done today. Most of his style was rather heavy and a bit too richly carved for modern tastes. The cabriole leg with a carved ball and claw foot, richly carved aprons and imposing pediments on his high cabinets are identifying characteristics of Chippendale's style.
This heavy, ornate style is no longer being reproduced, but pieces such as Fig. 421, simplified but bearing a strong Chippendale influence, are being made.
Another style originated by Chippendale and having a strong Oriental influence is also still alive today. Fig. 422 shows a reproduction of this Chinese Chippendale style.
Far more important than Chippendale, in terms of their continuing influence today, are the Hepplewhite and Sheraton styles. In terms of refinement of proportion, delicacy and restraint in decoration, and richness of feeling without exaggeration,
Fig. 420. Another example of Empire style. Note the typical brass ornamentation.
Fig. 421. A highly simplified version of Chippendale.
Fig. 422. Many forms and variations of his basic ideas were produced
by Chippendale. This piece shows strong Oriental influence and is aptly
called Chinese Chippendale.
pretension or opulence, they are unsurpassed in the history of furniture making. They somehow express perfectly a feeling of the cultured English gentleman in his best aspects.
Fig. 423 shows an example of Hepplewhite; Fig. 424 is Sheraton. Here is the finesse and sophistication of the well-bred without the smugness and self-satisfaction that are so often corollaries. The quiet richness of the inlayed decoration, delicately refined moldings, simplicity of outline and nicety of proportion are the identifying characteristics of these styles.
It is not always easy to distinguish the cabinets of these two styles from each other, particularly in Modern reproductions where characteristic details may have been simplified and thus obscured. There are characteristic differences in the inlay patterns used by the two designers. Hepplewhite tended to use the oval motif in inlays more often than Sheraton, who rather preferred the rectangular. Sheraton liked somewhat more contrasting figured woods in his inlays than Hepplewhite and leaned toward more ...
Fig. 423. Another English style named after its originator is the Hepplewhite.
... elaborate pediments on his high pieces. Also, his proportioning tended to be somewhat narrower, giving his pieces more of a feeling of verticality.
The work of the brothers Adam never achieved the popularity of the preceding English designers. They were actually architects rather than furniture men and their furniture reflected a formal architectural approach that it not as livable as the others and perhaps explains why it was not as popular.
Fig. 424. Hepplewhite and Sheraton are sometimes hard to distinguish. Note
the curvature of this example of Sheraton as compared with that of Fig.
423.
An example of their style (Fig. 425) shows this approach quite clearly. They were notable because they introduced classical decoration into English furniture design and also because, being architects, they thought of and designed furniture as an integral part of architecture.
The only other English style of importance to us is that of the Regency. This followed those previously mentioned and was greatly influenced by the Empire style of France. Compare Fig.426, an example of Regency, with Fig. 424, of Sheraton. Dis-regarding the shelves added on top, Fig. 426 seems to have lost some of the carefully refined grace of the Sheraton and picked up traces of the pomposity of the Empire. This is typical of Regency as compared with the Hepplewhite-Sheraton styles.
Fig. 425. The Adam brothers were architects first and furniture designers
second. This piece shows the introduction of Classical decoration into
English furniture. (Courtesy John Scalia, Inc.)
Regency never approaches the heights of pretentiousness reached by the Empire style, but it does reflect the neo-Classic influence that was so widely felt throughout Europe at the time.
American Styles American furniture is for the most part not as original and distinct in style as our national pride would lead us to believe.
Through most of our history our styles have followed English ones some 10 to 20 years after they had become popular in England.
In the very early days of this country we did have a Colonial style that, while drawn largely from English prototypes, became sufficiently distinct to constitute almost an American Provincial style, although it is never called that. By about the 1720's we had become enamored with aping English styles as quickly as we could and our own Early Colonial style pretty much disappeared.
Fig. 426. The Regency style shows the neo-Classic influence felt through
out Europe during the Napoleonic period.
Fig. 427. Early Colonial style.
When it originated, our Early Colonial style was derived from the Jacobean English style current in the home country at the time the early colonists left. It was considerably simplified as much by necessity as by intent, and it was further altered by the functional needs of the colonists. New pieces were developed and old models altered to meet the needs of frontier living.
The colonists had neither the tools nor the materials that had been available in England nor, for that matter, had they the time for the niceties of furniture craftsmanship. They built their furniture solidly so they wouldn't have to do it twice, and they made it simply because they had other things to do and could not afford to dally over time-consuming details.
Early Colonial is perhaps crude, but at the same time it has a charm in its simplicity, directness and functional ingenuity that is not to be found in the more sophisticated styles. A few pieces in early Colonial style that could be used to house hi-fi systems are shown in Fig. 427. The short heavy curved legs, plain rectangular inset door panels, simple straight cabinet lines, scroll sawn sides and shelf aprons in the upper shelf sections of sideboards and cupboards, and the typical knotty pine material are characteristic of this style. Other commonly used woods were cherry and maple.
Pine was probably favored because, in addition to being in plentiful supply, it is soft and therefore easily and rapidly worked with the simplest of tools.
From the time that the Early Colonial style faded away into a Late Colonial style based on slightly belated copies of current English models, little original appears in America until Duncan Phyfe at the end of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th. Until modern times Phyfe was the only American furniture designer and style setter of any real importance. His early work was largely derivative from Sheraton and Hepplewhite. Later however, he was considerably influenced by the French Directoire and Empire pieces then being imported from Paris. He discarded or changed much of the ornament of the French models, but retained the neo-Classic feeling of the originals. Phyfe's own originality shows more in his tables and seating pieces than in his cabinets, which stayed rather close to Sheraton.
Selection of style
Let's see how you might apply this knowledge of styles to some useful end in your own living room. Let us assume that a room X will accommodate an equipment cabinet of between 3½ and 4 feet in length, 18 to 20 inches deep and 30 to 35 inches high. Due to a low ceiling, a cabinet of greater height will not look well in the room, and because of other existing furniture the length is restricted. Because of the size of your equipment and the fact that you want to include as much record storage as possible in the cabinet, you have no desire to reduce the dimensions, so they are settled, and with them you have also settled the basic shape of the design. It must be a horizontal shape overall. The next question, then, is to determine the predominant style of the existing furniture to decide on the most desirable styling for the cabinet.
This is merely a matter of looking over the present furniture and comparing it with the styles we have discussed. In the majority of cases it will be one of them. If it should be in a style that has not been mentioned or if you are in doubt, perhaps a friend versed in these matters or the dealer from whom you purchased your furniture can identify it for you.
To achieve a pleasing and satisfactory overall room arrangement from both the visual and functional points of view, it is not at all necessary that all of the furniture in the room he of a single style.
Fig. 428. A Contemporary cabinet. (Courtesy Widdicomb Mueller Corp.)
Often pieces of varied, but similar, styles are blended with excel lent results. Hepplewhite, Sheraton, Duncan Phyfe and perhaps even Chippendale could be mixed without visible conflict. Then again the neo-Classic styles could be mixed, Directoire, Beidemeier, Empire and perhaps Regency or Adam. And appropriate Contemporary can be mixed with any of them. Mr. Emerson's statement that "consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" is perfectly true of interior decoration.
Another trick that requires a bit more thought, care and taste but which, when well done, produces extremely interesting results is a restrained mixture of strongly contrasting styles. Some very distinctive and sometimes delightfully humorous effects can be achieved in this way. One Modern room of the strictest and most severe character was "made" by the incongruity and frivolity of one large Louis XV cabinet. By itself it was an absolute fright but so was the room without it. However, the combination of these two extremes in the same room lent a subtle touch of humor to both, and a happy, comfortable atmosphere to the entire room.
Unless you are sure of yourself, you will probably not want to try contrasts quite as strong as this. Just remember the main point of the story: if you use contrasts instead of blends, be sure the contrasts are strong enough to leave no question in anybody's mind that you intended a contrast, not a blend that didn't quite come off.
Unfortunately, very little guidance can be given as to whether contrast or blending is the right solution. It is primarily a matter of individual taste. There is, however, one good bit of negative advice. If you already have a mixture of styles, the chances are that the contrast technique won't come off well. It works best when the rest of the styling is quite consistent.
To get back to the hypothetical case of the cabinet mentioned earlier, let's see how this might be worked out in a few different styles. The cabinet in Fig. 428 is an excellent piece of Contemporary styling that also fits within the range of the dimensions we have allowed. By going to the limit of our permissible length, while staying under the height limit, the long low Modern effect is achieved while the heavy front molding adds the slightly softer feeling of Contemporary.
To get a Sheraton styling in the same space change the dimensions, within the given limits, to conform to Sheraton proportioning. This time the length can be cut back to the minimum and the height raised to maximum, and the piece would then be detailed in a manner characteristic of Sheraton's style.
In step by step order it is really quite simple to adjust style, room space and equipment requirements to each other.
First: determine the minimum space required by your equipment.
Second: determine the maximum space you can allow in the room, and be sure that this maximum exceeds by a little all around the minimums required by the equipment. This should leave a range in all dimensions within which you can, Third: adjust your final dimensions to conform to the pro portions that would be correct for the style you wish to use.
Fourth: add the correct characteristic detailing (legs, moldings, inlays, hardware or what have you) for the chosen style, and your basic design will be complete.
Your design, at this point, will lack only one thing before you can proceed to build it. Until you have worked out such things as what types of joints are to be used where, material specifications, finish specifications, types and locations of fastenings in other words the details of how the unit is to be built, you'll still have only a pretty picture but not quite yet a complete design.