I think this is a good question. And of course, there is no real way to tell. There are so many things that come out in each year's release of new colors, textures, and styles.....most of them rehashed from some previous decade. Some like the ornate victorian style and would be thrilled if 2011 was the Re-emergence of Victorian. Some may have fond memories of the march of the ducks and geese and coyote bandanas of the early 1980's. They will be gratified to learn that their Mrs. Goose pillow pattern tucked away in a cedar chest can be brought out and recrafted with a 2013 vibe when we get there. So, there is really no clear yes or no answer since we don't know yet what's in store for us, right? And judging from my own responses, it does seem like I need a little time to come to terms with some of the latest colors and styles and trends before I embrace them; that is, if I embrace them at all. For example, I have never been drawn to gray as a color. And yet, I do find myself liking gray paint on the wall, as well as gray textiles. But not on every house style. Not on every kind of furniture. A beautifully tufted antique styled sofa looks wonderful in Classic Gray, but I don't love it in bed linens. A kitchen with warm wood floors and warm toned counters, that looks comfortable and homey and earthy, can look lovely painted soft gray. But the clean, modern, kitchen, with stainless counters and white tile.....not so appealing to me.
When Hollywood Regency first became a description that made sense to me, I generally hated it. I think it's those minimalist lines on furniture and lack of detail that bothered me. The gilt and the glitz didn't have any magnetic appeal either. But now, that it has had time to seep into my consciousness through mention here and magazine photos and the like, I do find myself thawing a little. Not a lot, mind you, but a little, in certain specific areas. I haven't bought anything though, because I suspect that the feeling is transient. I do think that I personally, am heavily influenced by what I see around me. I would love to tout myself as more unique and immune to peer pressure, but I don't think it's quite true.

On the other hand, I have always been drawn to well turned furniture legs, medium to dark wood tones, wood floors, velvets, heavy draperies, rich floral patterns, gilt-framed mirrors and paintings, watercolors, bronze dogs, white china, carved wood, old signs, warm colors, and botanicals. Whether they were featured in a Regency romance movie, or an elegant house in Traditional home, or seen in a booth at an antiques fair, I am drawn to these things. So if this future you speak of is a return to all things carved and only slightly ornate, with a nod to simpler lines on tables, possibly with a mercury glass lamp thrown in from 1949, then, yes, I may enjoy the future of design. But if you are asking if I would recognize a Frank Lloyd Wright chair, even now, as a valuable find and a decorating coup, if I saw it for $30 at a garage sale, then, I'm afraid not. It may have great bones and it may cause someone's heart to flutter, but not mine.

Red

I too was thinking that exposure was responsible for our collectively changing tastes. The aspect of this theory that has me puzzled is the divergence of styles we seem to be experiencing now. There are as many 'styles' as marketing ploys so I am hesitant to conclude that design even could take a step toward any particular direction.

Then again, perhaps it is a progression of design. At least that theory seems to be supported by the progression in culture, language, and the arts.

I have often wondered if women picking out their kitchen finishes in the 1970's would have prefered modern finishes over avacado and harvest gold if given the choice. Were their choices a product of exposure or of a progression in design?

Anyway, it is great fun to think about. :O)

Speaking as someone who was too young to be buying appliances in the 70s but old enough to be buying clothes and such, we mostly HATED this stuff, and bought what we did because it was all there was to buy. When I talk to women my age, a great many of us are absolutely mystified that these ugly things are back in style, only in even uglier colors, and people think they're cool!

I know it's popular to diss the 80s by focusing on the loopier things (never knew anyone who had a pumpkin skirt, myself), but one reason everyone snapped up the pastels was that we were so happy to be released from the earth-tone dungeon at last. :)

Hope Pal and Magnaverde sees this thread!

Yes, because homes will be going very high tech. with robots to do menial chores and solar to run it all...and I'm all for it!!! Luv it all..

Good point, Paint chips! If a woman in Sears in 1969 (I don't really know when Harvest Gold, Avocado, and Bronze hit the stores!) had had her choice of those or Stainless or Biscuit or the deep red in there now, would she have still gone for the Harvest? I never thought about that! With paint shades, I think it's more what you see in models or on t.v. or in your friend's homes, but with appliances and furniture and stuff, there are only limited choices. For example, my JCPenney HomeStore furniture all looks very much alike to me. I wonder how people go in there and make furniture decisions with such limited choices in style. That's actually one of the most appealing things about antiques or vintage---there are unlimited choices.
Writersblock made a point too, that resonated with me. I was a teen in the 70's and sometimes wished the clothes were cuter and in colors more flattering to me. So, maybe a lot of peoples home choices are more due to desperation?

Red

I agree with susieq.....
The colors are ALL rehashed.....but the technology is "NEW". If I could see the technology I could better plan my decorating. :0)

My neighbor just took out his self rimmed orange sink in his kitchen, while I added orange pillows to my livingroom. :0) It's how to wire the area above my fireplace so I can hang a flat screen that seems to be a problem. :0)

I will probably have more to say on this later, but briefly: right now I feel that when it comes to interior design we are in a stasis, and it will be so until there is a new technology that is applicable to furniture design and construction. The last cognitive leap, so to speak, in furniture design was in the mid-century period, when new technologies allowed designers to create wholly new designs--e.g. the Eameses and George Nelson and others who applied steam formed plywood splint technology and plastic embedded fiberglass (from aeronautical sources?) to create now Iconic plywood and fiberglass chairs, etc.

Expanded foam technologies lead to the gigantic foam furniture, such as the Ligne Roset Togo. And then people got experimental with blow-up furniture and bean bags.

AND --this is key-- they were all processes that allowed Inexpensive Mass Production.

The next major furniture movements, the Post-Modernist and Memphis Movements (see "Ruthless People") were cartoonish riffs on existing styles...a sure sign that there was nothing essentially new. Crooked shelves, slanted tables, and chairs made out of glass are interesting expressions, but they don't really add much to the vocabulary of good approachable pieces.

There are some high tech applications and materials used to make furniture currently (Graphite Fibers and such) but they are expensive and not accessible for mass production.
So, while we are surrounded by technological advances in the "envelope" of our houses (mostly artificial intelligence stuff), I think the interiors are going to be reiterations of what has come before, until an innovative material comes along.

Some may have fond memories of the march of the ducks and geese and coyote bandanas of the early 1980's.

That's a scary thought!

I don't know if I am even answering the question. But, in the eighty's mauve was the color, gosh how I hated that, still do.

And those dreadful ducks (which I call ducking your house up) not to mention "Precious Moments", gads. I wouldn't wrap my gifts in precious moments wrapping paper.

I am old enough to remember avacado appliances back in the sixty's, double yuck.

In the seventy's they has some of the worst colors and styles both in interior design and clothes, especially in clothes. Except for burnt orange which I still like today in spurts. Have you seen Ina Gardner's orange velvet drapes, simply gorgeous.

I have always loved white sofa's, still do, and had them in the mid seventy's and still have a couple in my house today, not the same ones of course.

I think if you stick to the classics either in interior design or fashion, it will always be in style.

The future Conan? Ask me in the year 3000'! (lol)

.....Jane

I would have loved it. I hated the 80s. First loved interior design in my lifetime with the emergence of hunter green and burgundy in the 90s, and then I hated the massive lines of the furniture. :-) It's like baby names. I'd decided on Olivia and Ethan in 1990 as my favorite names--everyone else seems to have decided that, too. (Too popular for me now!)

On reading your post I had an image of someone strolling into a 1920s furniture store and finding today's giant sofas and chairs. THAT would have been an interesting experience.

I got married in 1972 and had the gold harvest appliances and honestly I still dont mind the color of it. It would still have a place in my color scheme in my kitchen today. I still have two pieces of furniture that we bought in 1972, it had gold crushed velvet fabric on it. I have since reupholstered it but I still love the lines and shape even 38 years later. Here is one of the two pieces.

{{gwi:1581458}}

Wow, what a wide variation of opinions. Mostly it seems like people like what they like regardless of era. I don't know if that is true for me because a lot of current rooms and choices seem to grow on me.

Rosie, I got a chuckle out of your comment. LOL, they would probably think that people of the future were giants if they saw some 1990's oversized sofas.

We are the future giants, with the average US female at 5'4" and topping 160 lbs and the average male 5'10'' and 190. Thats significantly taller, and fatter, than 1920 averages.

paintchips, that was one thing now that you mentioned I never liked was those big overstuffed and oversized sofas. Being only 5'1" I felt lost sitting in those things!