If you have to try that hard (bull's-eye) to make a statement it seems to make a joke about the entire design. It is interesting to see decorating that I could never accomplish or live in, if only for enjoying the continuity that the design brings with small surprises. The art over the mantel does not seem to align with the architecture of the building, although I could see an interesting modern art painting or sculpture, or oriental painting, tapestry or chinoiserie panel and been very pleased.

Oh Annie that last picture you posted is disturbed. ItâÂÂs like a relative of Hannibal Lecter put that bullâÂÂs-eye up there instead of peeling his own skin off.

I guess there is good risk and bad and itâÂÂs all in the eyes of the beholder. On PalâÂÂs last example of playing it safe the room went downhill to very ordinary and where you noticed the haphazard seating more.

I don't really look at the room. I look at the people IN the room. That's pretty much all I care about. The people.

If nobody is in the room I don't like clutter, so I look at that.

I'm a zen, no clutter, no antiques, no drama. Simple, clean.

But really, If I come to visit you, I came to visit YOU, not your house, and if you ask me after I leave what your decor was, I won't know, but I will know about your smile, and everything you told me.

Suzi

Interesting, desertdance, in that my environment is very important to me and I spend a lot of time and effort making it so it is a reflection of who I am and what's important to me, so if you see my rooms, you are in fact seeing a facet of me, just as you are when you see how I dress. I would hope you want to see me too, but that is never guaranteed.

Annie, would you like to come and visit me in my really cool zen So CA home where there are no antiques and no clutter, but fresh figs from our trees and wine from our vineyard?

The rooms here are comfortable. NO CLUTTER! Simple, clean, comfy.

We are not into "decor." We are people people. I guess I comment because I disagree with all this whole decor thing. It changes yearly, like fashion. Who can deal with that?

Not me!

I glance at the overall look. I find a lot of times I'm really drawn to something and then when dissecting the image I think how I don't like that, would've never picked that, would not have looked twice at that... I find it really interesting. I seem to be very drawn to layered rooms, but I would not want to live in a house like that. Wow, I just said 'that' a lot.

Sure, desertdance, and then you can come to visit me, and I can show you all the "people" I have in my home who are no longer with me...the stained glass shade and bench my Dad made, the boat my grandfather made, the library full of books from my FIL, the pie crust table DH's grandfather made...and the people who are...like my cousin's painting, the watercolor a friend did, a dried flower arrangement gift from another friend...and my photography from places we've been reminding me of wonderful experiences we've had. And you can sit out on our deck and enjoy our east coast greenery.

It's not just about trends and fashion, it's about creating a comfortable environment for yourself and the people who are important to you. I find the physical environment can have a profound impact on how people behave themselves and with each other. So it's important too.

The other aspect of the room by Shapiro is quite different: I've seen the bullseye in a view more like this and it isn't as jarring. I still think it's the wrong painting in the wrong room though. Overall, the room is too heavily "curated" for my taste. I feel like the architecture should take precedence here. But it's diminished by all the "objet": even the books are displayed in a precious way.

I think it is pretty easy to create rooms that follow the rules, but to me that is like Ethan Allan Design 101 and once you are into design you want something more interesting, more unique.

So when I look at rooms in shelter mags, I am always noticing what they did that made the room more interesting. What did they do that was different?

I am also always looking for what I can steal. I stole an Apartment Therapy house for much of the look of my CT house. I stole a Windsor Smith room for the stonehouse. I stole the Mousehole rental kitchen for the beach house and a Verandah LR. I once even stole something subconsciously. I just finished redoing a bathroom when i went to dinner at a favorite bistro, and realized I had totalled channeled THEIR bathroom!

Just to approach this topic from a different angle...

"How do you look at a room?"... might be rephrased as, "How do you look at a PHOTOGRAPH of a room?"

Looking at a photoshopped, cropped and edited photo is entirely different than actually BEING IN a room. Looking at a photo engages very few of your senses. Actually being present in a room stimulates many more, including light, temperature, acoustics, odor...

And we've all noticed that interior photos never include people.... or TV sets.

Whenever I see a photo of a beautifully staged room, I imagine the photographer standing in a chaotic mess of unseen stuff that got temporarily removed for the photo shoot.

Okay, I'm done pontificating.

This is how I look at a photo of a room... would I disrupt the entire ambiance if I walked into this room carrying a bright red purse?

But that's just me.

Interesting discussion. The room in the Op looks empty with no mirror and silly with a plain one. The ornate mirror chosen is also hung high enough so that it doesn't compete with the busier space at eye level. As to staging, I thnk we all know that professional photos are always staged for obvious reasons. I know someone whose house was featured in Southern Living (admittedly not in the same league as shelter mags like Arch Digest or even Veranda) and it was changed and staged so thoroughly the homeowner didn't even like it!

Regardless of the accessorizing, the color palette, rug and quality of upholstery is a beautiful background. Maybe that means that if the foundation layer is very, very good, it can take outlandish or "wrong" accessories and still look spectacular?

Pal thanks for posting the rest of that room...it's even more awful than I thought. You're right that the architecture is fabulous. But please, ottomans with deer legs?? No thank you.

Patricia43 said:
Annie, I think I look at it like you and I love the room but when I go back and pick it apart, I will see things that I was told were wrong, but they really are not wrong.
If they had been wrong, we would still be looking at June Cleaver's house. That house was what we were told was right. Now I think that house looks so passe', but had some of the items we see in decor now been in that house when it was the iconic home, we would have REALLY noticed it (and not in a good light).

With time, decor has evolved and rules have been broken but the rule has to be broken in such a way that it is attractive and not jarring. Those broken rules have brought us to satisfying and exciting rooms, rooms that we treat at as a whole and find little no-no's on examination and we say "ah.

Mtnrdredux said:I think it is pretty easy to create rooms that follow the rules, but to me that is like Ethan Allan Design 101 and once you are into design you want something more interesting, more unique.

So when I look at rooms in shelter mags, I am always noticing what they did that made the room more interesting. What did they do that was different?

I am also always looking for what I can steal. I stole an Apartment Therapy house for much of the look of my CT house. I stole a Windsor Smith room for the stonehouse. I stole the Mousehole rental kitchen for the beach house and a Verandah LR. I once even stole something subconsciously. I just finished redoing a bathroom when i went to dinner at a favorite bistro, and realized I had totalled channeled THEIR bathroom!

Patricia43: Mtn says "ah," and she takes what she likes and incorporates into her own style and thus, she creates magic, much the way our mothers took the Cleaver home and it became the Ethan Allen style and it has continued to be "stolen" and transformed.

This post was edited by patricia43 on Sun, Aug 3, 14 at 10:06

kswl, I certainly have been attracted to rooms because of their light, their color, their architecture, their fabrics or windows/window treatments, but I don't remember ever being drawn to a room because of accessories alone....but maybe I'm mis-remembering. I suppose a fab piece of art or sculpture might do it.

Maybe it's why some of us work a room to get all the basics in place and then the accessorizing seems to never be done....it just goes on forever.

>>>"I don't remember ever being drawn to a room because of accessories alone ..."

The point about looking at photographs of a room, rather than a room itself, is a good one. I think I must be a sheep. At a friend's suggestion, I went on houzz and quickly made an idea book of images of interiors I liked based on gut reaction. Then we went through them trying to discern a style or common thread. The common thread was that every room, with the exception of some bathrooms, had a green plant. I have the same reaction to the photos above, but at least now I am conscious of this. Baaaaa.

This thread is interesting, I feel like I am learning a lot from all of you.

"Of course, the "right" things have to be "wrong" with it. That's the tricky part."
Brilliant...course I also love to break the rules.

Hmm, I think that being critical of a room because it looks pristine in a photoshoot is akin to being critical of someone for getting her hair done, wearing makeup and putting on good clothes for a formal portrait. Of course it usually (or s/he usually) doesn't look like that every day. But the point is it (s/he) *can*, if the occasion presents itself.

-----

In contrast to the Stephen Sills room, lets look at the Richard Shapiro room without the piece over the mantel.
Nothing special seems to be missing, does it? I don't think the painting is that important, whereas the mirror (love it or hate it) is key in the Sills room. But this room has better architecture and more going on in general.

Take a look at the same view of the room above *with* the painting: Does anybody know? It looks like a Kenneth Noland but I'm not sure.

Anyway, in this view I still don't care for it in the room, but it's not quite as emphatic in the overall view as it is in the very first shot Annie posted.

Without the Bulls-eye my eye stays up in the room and it's, for me, quite a dreary look. With the Bulls-eye I see the colours in the rug, the small light-coloured side tables, the fireplace. I see a much more interesting, multi-faceted room.

It may not make the entire space but it makes it much more interesting.

(But it's only 8:30 and I've only had 1/2 cup of coffee and I have a niece-wedding induced hangover)

Somehow I find that target especially jarring in the otherwise serene room. I could maybe see some colorful abstract art, but that target is, well off target.

I tend to look at the complete room, then start picking it apart! I notice what I don't care for right away. Furniture placement is a big deal in my 'world'~not everything should be shoved up against the walls, so that's one of the first things I notice. Too many bare spaces, where there could be a piece of furniture, plant, lamp, picture, bugs me, but that's cause I like 'stuff'. It can't be just stuff that's grouped together, it needs to be things that have a common theme, ie;pictures, tchotchkes, a collection, an odd number, and at least three. Everything centered or symetrical, in every room, bugs me too. It's interesting if a wall grouping is to one side of a table, with a lamp filling in the negative wall space on the other side. Too much color makes me 'nervous' and dizzy, as well as distracting from what could be a pretty space.

Does anyone still think about rules these days? Maybe schooled decorators, but IMO, most decorating is being done piecemeal, until it all comes together of what is in the 'minds eye', but I 'm way too visual for my own good, so that's easy for *me* to say, and may not apply to everyone. I know what I like and what I hate, and maybe it's because I'm stubborn and won't/don't deviate from it, or without a 'deep' discussion as to the why/ why not.lol

Like sheesharee, I dissect, but that's my analytical nature.

It's a fairly perfect room, even though there are a couple of things I would change.

As for the bulls eye OR the abstract, neither does any justice to a space that's so 'eloquently appointed'. Maybe an antique architectural piece could work, but nothing too fussy since there's enough eye candy.

I wonder if the colors were different. I think the pastels interact with the woodwork in a strange way.

Pal, it's bothering you to isn't it? You can't stop looking either, there is something about it...not sure but it's unsettling.

With the more saturated colours, ( as posted by Annie at 11:45) for me the balance of the room is thrown off. You lose the chandelier and the framing around the opposite picture.

Sorry I don't have any sophisticated software, but here's my poor attempt at putting the abstract art over the fp. It wouldn't be what I would go for if I were selecting it from scratch, but as a way to add the unexpected, I find it far less disturbing than the target.

What a great topic, Annie!

I agree with McClarke-- there is a huge difference (to me) between looking at a photo vs. being in a room. When I am in someone's home, I am usually just happy to be there (because I like the person), so I like the person's home . . .and I tell them. (I am a gusher!)

In a photo, it all depends. If I am looking at a photo with a purpose . . .to "solve" a design problem, then I look to see how others handled it. For ex., I look at end tables a lot since it's an issue for me in my LR. You mentioned the tables being too tall for the sofa, but I often see very tall tables next to sofas, so to me, it's OK. 99% of the time, these tall tables happen when the arms of the sofa are non-existent or very low, which is exactly what is going on in the pic. I've found that tall tables can create a sort of cozy feel . . .in the case of the photo, they are glass, which means they are more open, and the height gives them presence.

If I am just browsing photos, I don't usually study them unless I like them. I like many different styles, so it varies as to what calls out to me. When I stop and study, then I analyze what works. However, if I don't like the room because something feels "off," (style aside), then I DO look at it in more detail and try to figure out why. Photos that capture my attention are ones that don't look same old, same old. Those are safe and follow deco "rules," so I don't need to think about them too much.

I do find myself getting a little discouraged when I see rooms I like and analyze why they work . . .and if it's because they have perfect proportions or tons of fresh flowers, then I don't learn anything, really. For example, in my LR I absolutely cannot flank the FP with chairs (doorway is on one side of the FP), so when a room works partly due to the symmetry of flanking, I say, "Well, of course . . .but it wouldn't work for me." I learn the most from rooms that are a little awkward to begin with . . .

Anele, this is a really good point.

There is one big difference between the Stephen Sills room and the Richard Shapiro room. The Richard Shapiro room would look good empty. I've said before that a really great room looks good with nothing in it.

The Stephen Sills room may or may not look okay with nothing in it, but my impression is that the proportions aren't quite right--that it's a bit too tall. And it's probably "blank" with nothing in it. "Blank" can be okay with good proportions--look at minimalism--, but blank in typical new construction, not so much.

In contrast, even if the Richard Shapiro room was a ruin with a dirty mattress in the middle, you would have an understanding that it was a good room (or had been). That room started with so much more that it would be hard to ruin it by putting the wrong stuff in it. It would be easy to ruin the first room with the wrong stuff.

So Anele is right. From a learning aspect, the second room doesn't teach much to those starting with a typical plain drywall room.

This is so helpful to me. The lesson being it's important to parse the architecture from the decor....I'm not sure I often do that when I decide if I like a room or not...maybe if I want to use a specific room as direct inspiration...but more generally, I think I get the general impression and then look at the contents as the choices the decorator made in an existing room, rather than specifically analyzing what is decor and what is architecture...and how to add more architecture to a room. (Don't know why not as certainly Christopher Lowell spent a lot of time on his show doing just that! Doh!)

Can we play with another room as an example? (Also Stephen Sills, Bedford Estate) Now here architecturally you have the cove ceiling, the french doors...

But would you leave the mantel area as bare? Would you add a globe as huge? Would you put "beds" vs "sofas" in this room? Would you leave the floor bare? Lampless? Lightless?

Somehow the proportions of the room to the contents seems very off to me...

I would like to see the house to which this room belongs. The globe is fine with the two large-scale maps behind it but I do wonder if the owner is a map collector or a traveller.

This is a large-scale room and that is being celebrated but I wonder if it's being celebrated to the point of being overly played.

I would like to know what those two things over the fireplace are and they do seem to be out-of-scale.

When you have a room such as this, with high ceilings and large furniture (to me) are you supposed to balance the scale with smaller pieces? Especially in this case with height and width. I don't know that.

I donâÂÂt get this room at all. Does the designer decorate for self-promotion or does the designer do an interpretation of the owners psyche? Architecture aside I think I would have a better understanding if I knew where the designer was coming from on this one. Maybe the décor was done for a surgeon or someone famous in the medical field and thatâÂÂs why it looks so sterile and with designer hospital seating? If I were a decorator designer I would try to do an interpretation of the owner but is this how itâÂÂs unusually done? Where would you draw the line?

Ohh, Pal! You made my day. I don't feel right about a lot of things; it's nice to hear from you that I was in this instance. Thank you.

RE: the room you just posted, Annie. I like it. I like the way the width of the trims is echoed . . .look at the tables, the "beds," the mirrors (?-- whatever those are on the FP), the frames, the trim of the globe. All repeated, just like the circle/rounded theme. I like the bareness on the mantel. I feel like it's telling me, look here, but don't look for something expected, don't look for a big showstopper piece of artwork; the fireplace IS the art.

Would I want that room as my own? No. Do I think it's cozy and welcoming? No. But I enjoy it as art, to dissect and analyze, and to think about the thought process. (Art isn't always that way for me, but it is in this case.)

Like this-- do I love all of the elements? No. Wouldn't want this as my home. But I very much enjoy looking at all of the lines and textures in this room . . .so interesting to me.

Another view, same room

and another

and another

and a little one

I don't get this room either! The fireplace and arrangement looks like eyes and a big open mouth (with cheeks even!) And the bed-like pieces (called lounges?) are so odd. If people gathered there, wouldn't they have to move a lot of furniture around (to avoid having their backs to each other)?

I know my taste is way off at the far end of the bell curve, but the only room I like in this thread so far is the funky one anele posted at 11:18, the first one, blah, the second one, brown, the third one, bizarre.

Interesting discussion, though and I too study details, even in rooms I'm not crazy about. For instance, we have a large, vintage globe with stand (not as large at the one in room #3), and after viewing that room, I will probably never put it in a corner, just doesn't look right IMO.

sandyponder

Again that room has great architecture.

As for the furnishings, I think the idea behind it is based on how people furnished rooms up through about the first quarter of the 19th century.

In the 18th and 19th century (before that most people didn't really even Have furniture): Basically most rooms were multipurpose and not identified as having a singular purpose. Furniture was put in the room, mostly against the walls, and moved around the room to fit whatever the function was at the time. The best bed in the house was often in the best room in the house, so the "living room" might be where the owners slept at night, too.

SInce this room looks different in every picture, I wonder if the way it is furnished is an outgrowth of that: there are lots of seating pieces and some surfaces to set things down on and it all gets moved around on a regular basis.

The other thing that I thought about this room is that to some degree it acts as a museum for objects because the objects seem to change. The Shapiro room also has a "museum for objects" sort of thing going on, in a more traditional sort of way. (Although ironically "traditional" in the sense of what has been around longest is more like the Sills room; and "Formal" furniture arrangement is like the 18th century model, pushed against the walls and set up for use and "Casual" furniture arrangement is furniture kept in position all the time, which seems backwards.)

I would not feel comfortable napping on the lounge next to the globe.

I crudely unfurnished this room. As you can see it doesn't really need furniture, much.

This room becomes really amorphous, only partly because of the weird mottled effect from removing the contents. It's not just that it's monochromatic, so is the room above:

How do I look at a room? Pretty much at first glance, quickly for an overall impression, tending to look at the big things first. In other words, the first thing that has grabbed my attention (like that big mirror or the 'target'), furniture items of interest, then windows, draperies, rugs and probably last being acessories or smaller items unless they have really stood out.

Like Sue, I tend to notice the color, and even if it isn't my color preference, I allow myself to like it because of the way the overall room is presented. Believe me, my rooms are not magazine-worthy, but if a room is well put-together and the room draws one in and has a comfortable feel with personal touches, it shows in the photographs. In the room Sue posted, I love the chest on the right and some of the accessories, but something about the overall room doesn't feel right to me.

Pal--" a museum for objects." Wow. I am going to hold onto that thought. I think that is what some perceive the role of a house to be, albeit unintentionally so. Also interesting about the seating/objects being fluid as needs and stock (so to speak) vary.

I don't like the 3rd room as much now that I see more photos. Or, I should say, I only like certain of its incarnations.

My sister's last house was a Tudor from the mid '30s. The LR had the original, beautiful floor-to-ceiling paneling with built-in bookcases and a fireplace that was a dream for me. She took really good care of her house and cared about her decor, but her sofa was awful. (I think I posted it here back then to help her win a contest for a new one!) It was used (from my mom) and 6 kids climbing on it didn't help. But you know what? That LR still looked absolutely gorgeous, trashed couch and all. Even when she got a new sofa, it didn't make "all the difference" in the room, because the room was lovely on its own.

Annie, I thought the room belonged to Stephen Stills but did not realize he designed it as well. I have to say I am very impressed---his living room has it all over the Shapiro room in every particular, IMO. I'm not sure how it would be possible, though to analyze, or "parse," the architecture from the decor? I'm not getting that as a lesson here at all. If anything, what we are seeing is that the decor of many rooms is independent of the architecture, which sometimes works and sometimes doesn't.

Kswl, to me, it's the opposite...the decor is separate from the architecture and they can be supportive of each other, ignore each other or clash with each other. When architecture is poor, the decor can offset that, and vice versa. But the ideal is when both work together to create a cohesive whole. IMO, you should walk into a room and say what a great room, not necessarily great architecture or decor. Of course the lines blur...an architect can inject more style into a room, or a decorator can inject architecture into a plain box....

For example, as much as I like Sarah Susanka and her use of design principles to build smaller homes that live large, all of her homes were heavy on architecture and light on decor. Part of it is, when you're building small, you do built-ins to save space so there's less room/need for furnishings. But still, there are no window treatments and little softness in her spaces, but there are lots of lines and trim and cabinetry.

I think you can separate architecture and decor because many rooms-- particularly in standard issue new houses-- have very little "architecture" at all. I think Size, and Ceiling Height have been substituted for actual good proportion in many cases.

The Shapiro room doesn't really need the furnishings to still be interesting as a room, but the first Sills room has very little going for it except a high ceiling (which may be too high) and fireplace around which to organize things. And many rooms are even more of a "blank" without furniture. If anything all the things in the Shapiro room may add up to too much in the room itself.

One of the things that I have always found a little unsatisfying about the Susanka houses is that they don't really allow much room for personal expression with interior design--they are designed as a complete package. Frank Lloyd Wright houses are often the same way.

The houses above strike me as too "woody" and a bit impersonal. It's all millwork. I think this is a bit different than having a strongly architectural room that acts as an envelope or container for the interior design.

I blanked out the Bedford Estate property on the inside because it is a complete different white box than the first Sills room. If this is Bedford Estate in London, these are Regency period townhouses.

In this room I think the fluted plaster with the deep cove on the ceiling is worth the price of admission all by itself.

Interesting question--and having read a lot of responses, I think I look at the structure, first--do the walls look thin/narrow or do they look solid; is the ceiling height proportional to the room size and/or its style? (cottage different from palace)
Does the craft/do the materials have quality and substance. That's it, for me: basic structure well designed and well built, good finishes suitable to the style. There are so many little "tells"--how wide are the windowsills, are the windows handsome and suitable--and are there enough of them?
Then, of course, the "decoration" also has to be appropriate for the room and of quality appropriate to the space.

I can't like a room if the basic structure looks cheap in any way. Log cabins are solid--so it isn't about style particularly. The house has to be a HOUSE.

Overall, I think I look at the sense of warm or cold tones of a room (which could be caused by color, surface materials, textures, or number of items), then balance of visual "weight," then individual items and working my way to the details.

Annie, I think we are talking about two different things. When you said "The lesson being it's important to parse the architecture from the decor...." I thought you meant it was, literally, important to analyze the architecture by the decor it contains," but your later comments indicate that you mean that architecture and decor are two separate elements and should be considered separately when analyzing a room. Of course I agree with that.

I also agree that ideally decor should be selected with the architecture in mind---- everything from colors to vignettes to the heights of chairs and sofas and the overall esthetic on the 'spare to baroque' scale should be informed by the ceiling height, room proportions, fenestration (or lack of it), even the directional siting of the structure on the lot.

As Pal points out, many houses are either devoid of architectural details or else elements like volume ceilings and stacked (sometimes mismatched) windows are mistaken for them. In wonderfully decorated rooms, that carefully chosen decor of shapes and sizes and textures and fabrics framing views can substitute for architectural interest--- and do it well. Not everyone can own an architecturally significant home, but everyone has some control over what they put in it. Even modest homes decorated with the right esthetic can look and feel--- and live--- as architecturally "literate." Which, for all practical purposes, is the same thing for the inhabitants. IMO that is the point Susanka tries to make about size.....if it "lives" large, it doesn't t have to be large,

kswl makes many good points. I think, though, that we all have choices--many times it comes down to square footage. If we have x number of dollars to spend on housing, in the right neighborhood and so on, we sometimes can choose between a house with character and something that lacks character. I think that is the first choice--do we go with the bigger, newer house with very little architectural interest, or seek out something that has some details of quality. We've all seen examples of huge, new houses that are really impossible to "decorate" because the underpinnings are so unattractive. Frequently, there is something of the "Potemkin Village" about how they are decorated. They resemble a movie set in their sense of impermanence. Great Yiddish expression: Gornist helfen....nothing helps.