Perhaps I got carried away...

marcolo said:

Renovation and decoration is a supremely difficult process, especially because the industry requires you to make the second-largest purchases of your life without every seeing them first.

So "renovation and decorating" is the industry. I have been seeing a lot of posts about "what is in" and "what is not in" any more. And not wanting your kitchen to look dated as soon as it is done. And fear that we have done the wrong thing by choosing this or choosing that.

According to who? According to the industry who defines what the current fashion in kitchen and homes are.

This thread I know is about context and I am a believer in trying to keep your kitchen design in line with the context of your house. But sometimes it seems people are little too concerned with context or fashion. Sometimes they choose to do things for other reasons like function or comfort or just because you like it. Why shouldn't we open up the kitchen to the living room in an old victorian house if that is more reflective of the way we live now that we don't have maids or cooking has become easier and not such a chore? Why do we have to stay true to the way people lived in another era simply because the house was built back then. If people has continued to stay true to the past, I wonder if we might still be living in a cave.

"If people has continued to stay true to the past, I wonder if we might still be living in a cave. "

... Would the cave be made out of granite or quartzite or soapstone? Would the next people to live in the cave like the paintings I put in there? What about a vent? There's no ventilation in my cave!!! ;-) .........

I think this (these) thread(s) have discussed more about *not choosing to conform to fashion, but *not living in a time capsule or house museum, than it has about conforming to fashion or industry standards. I don't see where there has been any discussion about creating a kitchen that's a historical facsimile.

I started this thread, but its because of the worry that people exhibit about doing something that may be currently fashionable, but d----, or unfashionable, in the near future. (I won't even say the D word anymore). But, if you can show me a thread anywhere that I said you *should be worried about something being out of fashion--I'd really like to see that. Because I would retract it. I know I've never said that *I am worried about doing something that will look d----, because I am not.

But this is because I try to figure out what is right for the house. That doesn't mean that's what right is for the house is something that's not compatible with current ideas.

I wonder if cave people had designers or if setting up a new kitchen was ...so easy even a caveman could do it.

My apologies...I am probably "combining threads". And I am not reading everything.

But in melissastar's post above she says:

But I find myself wondering if I have gone off the rails on this. Have I turned a deaf ear to the directions my house has given me by tearing out the back staircase and opening the kitchen to the dining room, and installing an eat-at peninsula?

This struck me as someone worrying too much about context...

And I have to admit that marcolo's response to melissa's post seemed far to harsh to me. The bar is set too high. And I was wondering who set this bar up there? Why is wearing unfashionable clothes that you are comfortable in not okay with the world. Why must the world view you as "ugly" if you choose to do this. Why must someone show you how to dress so you can "be happier" and the world will be happier with you?

Anyway...enough from me. Sorry for the diversion.

Exactly. This thread is about not just caving to the fashion of the moment.

livefromtexas, any house with a number of residents carries inherent conflict. But a lot of people let conflict decay into chaos, and random events never make a good storyline. There are a couple of ways to approach this. One is preferred by a lot of architects. Expose the structure, eschew decoration and let the people and their things provide the ornament. This is indeed an intellectually defensible position. I'm not sure I agree with it. It would be one thing if everyone's "things" consisted of iPads and MoMA pen sets and coffee in vintage Haviland cups. Usually it's more like jackets with NFL logos and neon hockey masks and brightly-labeled bottles of ProActive. Which, IMHO, does not "ornament" make. The other way is to manage the chaos. I remember seeing one house where the rooms flowed together, but there was a clear demarcation between grown-up spaces and kids' play areas. The best feature, though, was a grouping of art in ornate gilded frames. Most were exquisite paintings. The other, also in a gilded frame, was a really bad kid's crayon stick figure. It was hilarious, and said so much.

The Tuscan kitchen in a '30s house? No. Italian influences, certainly; those would be OK. But Italian, not "Tuscan." Where did that word even come from? Nobody in Tuscany has a Tuscan kitchen. Few people in America came from Tuscany, outside Northern California. But "Tuscan" seemed more upscale than "Dago," I suppose. The entire style is the faddish invention of American cabinet manufacturers of a certain era. If you want to imagine an Italian heritage to a '30s house, start by imagining a woman of impeccable dress and chapped fingers, who acts like a lady but works like a maid. Don't start by imagining a sales pitch at a Plain & Fancy showroom in 1994.

If you want conflict to create drama, one important factor to consider is that we, the audience of your house, should not know who will win. That's the problem with completely over-the-top McMansions. They are the architecture of triumphalism, as boring as the Nuremberg stadium or a Leni Riefenstahl documentary. "I have won!" they scream. How tedious. No one wants to watch a movie where we already know the ending. By contrast, middle-class houses that are trying to be a little more upscale and "nice" are much cuter. They're aspirational, and we still don't know if their dreams will come true.

While I love the fact that threads like these promote "critical thinking skills" that my high school teachers used to love to drill into our brains, they also give me a headache.

They give me a headache because at times I feel like I am talking out of both sides of my mouth. I will again use my house as an example. I spoke of it yesterday as being a house that doesn't have a definitive style, i.e Tudor, Victorian, etc. So my design with a remodel could take me anywhere. I will choose to keep it simple yet still incorporate some Louisiana (Hayes Town) flair b/c I do believe my house can stand up to it.

By this I mean, I believe that it can handle New York or Pennsylvania Bluestone floors. I don't bellieve it is outside of the realm of possibility that one could have seen that type of floor in a house of the same era and style as mine. Yet for my sons' bedrooms I would like to use stripped reclaimed antique pine or cypress six panel doors juxtaposed to the painted trim that is mimimal in ornamentation. Are these original to the style of the house? No. Does this provide enough conflict? IDK. Does this provide to much conflict? IDK. Is my house ever going to be listed on National Register of Historic Places so that I have to worry about it? That is a definate no. So here again we are at a crossroads. Do we take the straight and narrow or find a path with a little bit of curve.

So easy a caveman can do it...LOL!

I think you raise valid points, so don't worry. We have also brought up that this tread probably isn't for the person who put the Tuscan kitchen in the in the Modernist glass box in Connecticut that could care less about context, and loves every minute of it. Its for people who are concerned about fashion/unfashion. There is a group in these forums that aren't concerned about other people's opinions about their house (or clothes) and a whole world out there that doesn't think about their kitchen at all, really, and that's fine. This thread is for people worried about making the "right" long-term decision for them, and in their cases it does seem to be linked into other people's opinions. And thats ok too...there's nothing the matter about caring about other people's opinions, as long as its not obsessive.

No question, go with the curve. Curves are much more exciting!

marcolo,

Your last paragraph in your last post summed it up beautifully as that is what I am trying to achieve.

Melissa, don't second guess yourself. You looked at your house, you thought this would go with it, and picked something you like. What more could anyone ask for?

In my home, conflict generates itself and doesn't need to be introduced. I'm comfy in my 1940s wing chair (complete with yellow roses and puke green fuzzy piping) looking out my 1950s giant picture window at the orange trees but the puppy throwing himself at the window in a vain attempt to find a playmate is more conflicting than the fact that I have a ridiculous Edwardian armoire full of crystal and giftwrap in my living room because my bedroom is too small for it.

Leni Riefenstahl boring? Those "documentaries" are a lot of things but boring?

Omigaw it's the Godwin thing!

If I do get what you're saying, then what's wrong with putting a Tuscan kitchen in a 1930's cottage? That's conflict, that's "drama", that's interesting. That's a crazy movie about an Italian war bride brought to America who creates superb regional cuisine and enlightens the neighbors about the world beyond. Meryl Streep would be cast, it would be a blockbuster.

"Mamma Mia, It's So Complicated Under the Tuscan Sun"?

Becky

I'm a little surprised that people who care a lot about style, would live in a house that they think doesn't have one. I wonder why they chose that house?

And I am not saying let them eat cake.

Ever since I got my first apartment, I have always lived in a space that had "character". Usually that meant it was historic. In one case it was actually a very contemporary Manhattan skyscraper. But never in a place that I felt lacked a style.

But these were not always expensive spaces. My first apartment was a studio where i slept on a glorified shelf (marketed as a loft). But i was at 10th and Pine in old brick rowhouse, accessed through a little courtyard. It had a brick fireplace in the middle of the living room, open on three sides. The bathroom was in a turret. There were also some uhh, critters in the terrible, tiny kitchen, it's true. And no parking and no insulation to boot.

My next apartment was a huge rambling gorgeous historic space, with juliet balconies and walk in closets, and an indoor 1920's swimming pool with a roll back roof ... in an iffy neighborhood, split three ways!

My point is, if you really care about style, you are usually willing to give up other features (size, location, and yes, price) to get it.

Becky, LOL!

Fori, I'll give you the plane shadow is cool, but did you ever actually watch Triumph of the Will in its entirety, start to finish? Thank God I had been drinking beers and had to go pee a lot. And I want to see that chair!

Transitional Kitchens will or should, inherently produce conflict. Transitional, despite what many would believe, is not a style, but a melding of two, hopefully complementary, styles. Which one will win, which one will triumph when you look at it.
When putting a kitchen into a house, regardless of the style of either, will again inherently produce conflict. We can't put a kitchen today, into a house built 10 years or 100 years ago that will "fit" because we don't know the original views or thought processes of the original designers. We can do research, and analyze and extrapolate on the ideas if we wish to be "true" to the house but conflict will still exist.
Hopefully, the visual or emotional conflict that is produced will not be jarring to the senses but will instead create an interesting mix of materials to be enjoyed and lived in.

I have been lucky most of my life (7-18) (29-present) to live in places of completeness (my parents' house, that was not huge, not fancy, but a complete version of what it is they wanted. It has changed minimally in the last 25 years because what they liked about it in 1969 and 1985, they still like)...
and in places with character. The rentals were actually cheaper rentals because they lacked in amenities what they had in character. The condos I have owned started out inexpensive, and you can't beat 1838-1840 as a starting point.

But not everyone can make choices that allow them to live in a house that does much more than meets criteria. If I want to stay in my general neighborhood, I could not afford a 19th c. house with character. I don't have a car, I work in four places, I have lots of amenities nearby. If I drove I could afford a beautiful house for half the price, but it would complicate my life a Lot. So I completely understand people living in houses that are not their style.

"If you google A. Hayes Town (famous Louisiana architect), he was a master at combining all of these different elements into some amazingly beautiful structures. However, he was a master and many now are trying to recreate what he started on the cheap and it is just not special. His homes are truly masterpieces. He was one of the first to incorporate the use of old materials (lumber, bricks, etc.) into his designs. He was a visionary."

Oh yes! I bought The Louisiana Houses of A. Hays Town quite a few years ago. IMMEDIATELY totally fell in love with his houses. WANTED one so very badly.

I really wish I would have saved a picture of an Eichler we almost bought but decided it would be too hard to remove the "improvements" made by the owner. Just think Napa Valley winery kitchen (yes, grape stencils and all), Tuscan cabinetry, Fleur de Lys drapery ... and shutters added to the inner patio.

I'm sure the owner loved it - as the amount of attention applied to the work had shown. But it was a nonsensical mess for the target audience of an Eichler in today's market. In the end, the property sold for more than $100K less than un-"renovated" Eichlers.

And adding to Marcolo's "add a bit of ugly" theme -- one of the best pieces of design advice I ever heard involved views. Basically, the ideas is that when you have a special view you want to highlight, sometimes its better to make it "difficult" to access - so that it doesn't become commonplace. If you have to turn a corner to see it, it may in fact enjoy it more. Or rather than point the view in the room you sit at every day, put it at the back of the house, so you make time - and conscious effort - to walk to it. I bring this up, as it add to the subtly of good design - it often works best in gentle layers rather than a massive assault.

mtnrdredux, I suggest that you move to the Bay Area and see how easy it is to buy a house that is your style.

The advice concerning unfolding views from ZacsDaddy is frequently given in relation to garden design ("put a large shrub at the turn of the path, to draw people onward to see what's behind it" and the like) but I've never really heard it in the context of interior spaces. Interesting.

The idea of partial views and other ideas such as forced perspectives, senses of Entry or Arrival, compression and expansion, and shadow toward light are all very important ideas in interior design and architecture.

They are also elements that people regularly eliminate or destroy by blowing out walls and joining rooms together, and painting and overlighting each and every space in the house so it is "light and airy".

I am not sure I understand the point about "view." Inside or out? This house was built on the cheap by a retired Depression-era couple. They were able to live here for only 10 years before they had to move due to poor health, but it has a beautiful view and it was their lifelong dream to build here.

If I had saved the view for glimpses and slow reveals I would have spent all these years looking at the very cheapest building materials and trims available in 1976 instead of out the window. Maybe that is why I am getting such a kick out of my new kitchen - no plastic :)

In terms of context, I just have to honor the folks who built here, though they could not really afford to do so. They really loved the land.

I've been trying to formulate my thoughts in a coherent manner since Palimpsest started this thread. As the conversation evolves I keep tying myself in tangential knots. In many ways, I have agreed with Palimpsest in many threads about a lot of design culture, but with the discussion so far is that so many people are talking about a great many different ideas about context without having a context in common for the discussion so there are a lot of bits taken up and deconstructed along skew directions. There are a lot of partitial communications going on.

I finally figured out how to say what I want to say which I think may be communicative. I'm going to use analogies, which while not perfect, are easier to explain.

First off, I think some folks aren't understanding the "if you love it do it" response. This comes when a poster knows there's something kind of off with a choice she loves. Sometimes there's a way of making it work, and there will be good advice for how to do it. Sometimes the responses are pretty much "that's weird" said in a nice way that offers constructive alternatives. But "if you love it do it" isn't about saying that it won't look weird. Even the OP knows it's weird. It's about saying that it's okay to knowingly indulge one's desire for weird if it's going to make one happy. People may think it's tacky, anachronistic, mismatched, goofy, or bizarre, but it's okay not to consider their preferences when it gives you joy.

Marcolo's What Not To Wear analogy was partially apt. It's not the entire wardrobe that's at issue. That would be the kitchen made of bits and pieces from Freecycle that haven't been integrated. It's more like the person with a perfectly acceptable wardrobe who just loves to wear the hand-knit poncho Great Aunt Ida knitted. It's a perfectly made, attractive garment taken by itself, but no one wears ponchos when they aren't right in style, and even in style they can make one look lumpy and baggy. Out of style, they're a little strange. But it's comfy, fits well over any jacket or coat, and gives the wearer a lovely feeling of connectedness with Ida whenever she puts it on. She knows it's a bit weird, but her husband doesn't care about her clothes (he thinks naked is sexy and any kind of clothes aren't naked), and she doesn't care if anyone else thinks she looks lumpy. Does that make her outfit stylish or magazine worthy? No. But does it matter? Not a whit.

As to context, there are many differences between the way people in different regions see houses, housing and architecture, and I see a lot of it in this discussion. Also, a lot of overlooking of the fact that working class people in North American often can afford free standing houses on a plot of land, in a way that isn't seen in much of the First World. One of the reasons they can is that land is still pretty cheap in a lot of places, and a similarly cheap house can be plunked on top of it. Trying to compare these to the architectural and design fancies of the elite is a losing battle. Many times the houses are "guy design" by the builders, with a strong eye on exactly how many materials and manhours it will take, and have no art in them at all. As has already been discussed, there really is no architectural context there, and it takes a great deal of discipline and vision to keep to the sociological context, especially as these houses age and become pricey rather than cheap.

In general, however, I see architectural context in a similar way to how I see food. You can serve fromages et fruits at the end of make your own taco night, but it's going to be pretty darned weird, and the flavors are going to fight with each other on your tongue. On the other hand, I've had French-Veracruz fusion tacos, where the components were chosen to harmonize, where the seafood was neutral, a soft corn tortilla took the place of a crepe, but the sauce was all South of France, with a little Mexican heat. In the hands of a great cook, the combination is surprising and wonderful, delicate and bold at the same time.

Similarly, I think one can combine styles harmoniously, and achieve a result that's more engaging and interesting than each style done classically might have been, but it takes a deft hand. A friend has a half timbered Tudor where the formal rooms like very Elizabethan in their bones, and the decor is pretty contemporary. It works. Anything Tudoresque in the furnishings would be totally kitsch, considering that this house is less than 100 years old. The kitchen and family room are separated and have nothing to do with the front rooms. There are glass walls, Saltillo tiles and comfort. This works too. The style is more contemporary than a Tudor conservatory would be (did the Tudors even have conservatories?) but the combination stepping from one to the other is pretty much that. It makes the house functional for actual people to live in and it looks good.

A lot of the specific examples given in this thread are right on. There are some unfortunate style combinations that go together like miso soup and banana splits. Sometimes seaweed and peanut butter can go together well (my Japanese friend does this--really unexpected, but delicious if you don't think about it too hard). It's about designing and combining with intention and understanding to deliver a whole that is pleasing in the end.

There should be unfolding views within a house even if the house is not an architectural masterpiece. You don't want to be able to size up the entire living space from the front door like its a basketball court. But people seem inclined to do this.

You also need to feel like you have arrived somewhere. I would much rather enter into a hallway or vestibule even if its a little tight and dark and *then be released into the larger space of the living room or kitchen. Frank Lloyd Wright intentionally crowded people at low ceilinged entryways to make them appreciate the relative e-x-p-a-n-s-e of his living rooms.

In many houses, there is a bedroom that shares a wall with a major living space, but do you want the door from the living space directly into the bedroom? No, you feel better going a bit of distance, even if it is mostly psychological.

There is nothing wrong with opening the front door and having the money shot of a view straight out the back, but you may want part of it to only reveal itself if you come closer.

-------

plllog, I think you *are differentiating, but one thing that I differentiate all the time, and I am not sure that people get it, is that a kitchen is not interior decoration. As a functional utility and as something that generally has to be attached to the house, it is architecture. Decorating can be ephemeral if thats what you want. I think you can fill a house with pretty much anything you want. If you wanted to put a Victorian parlor set by Daniel Pabst in Farnsworth house I would be down for that if you kept it to two chairs and a sofa, kinda like it is with the Barcelona pieces. I think there is a world of difference between what you put *in a house and try to stick *on it.

"Do what you love" is an appropriate response to someone who knows the consequences and needs only courage. Increasingly, though, I see some people shout it out like Tourette's, regardless of how bad the idea is. Some folks aways want to be seen as supportive, even if it means saying, "You're fine. You didn't really have that much" to a blind drunk as he climbs behind the wheel. And, too, we have people who think it's a matter of principle, that whatever a homeowner wants to do is per se art. That's not advice. That's Dada.

Without partial views, the dishonest person knocking on your front door gets to see everything you have.
With partial views, you reveal more of the house as you guide your guests farther inside.
A small piece of wall can hide a lot and then reveal a lot once you take another step forward.
A bikini does that too.

Yes, Palimpsest, I agree that a kitchen shouldn't be about decor, and should be part of the house, but a lot of people change their kitchens at the same speed as they change their living rooms, both at a speed which dizzies me! Like every ten years. Need a new oven? Let's redo the kitchen! Let's go Tuscan/Deco/Mission/Poggenpohl/Dada this time. At that rate, it IS decor. And when you get down to acanthus leaves carved in the fillers, bun feet, and a slew of other details, it's decor. I've had people argue to me that backsplashes are decor, whereas where I come from they're part of the architecture and function of the kitchen.

In my Tudor example, the kitchen and family room are more California Spanish Contemporary in their bones than anything else, whereas the front rooms include the timbers, massive fireplace, panelling, etc., that are consistently Tudor. Whereas, the bedroom wing is, um, normal. Not inconsistent with Tudor (other than some sliding glass doors), but could be in an older ranch house. The kitchen is what you might call "stuck on", but the combination of styles, where the kitchen and family room open into the garden and invite it in, in a very California standard way, and the front of the house is, architecturally, so true to the style, do work together.

What about creating context when building a new house, that's what I wonder? Then, you have no guide... so what do you do if you don't want a "builder" basic Passing. Temporary and devoid of character? For example, I'm trying to make my house "french influenced," and that is guiding most of my decisions and choices (like LL said- french manor). However, my house isn't in France and isn't a manor, so how do I keep it from being a cartoon-ized Disney version of Americanized French country? How do I introduce conflict, give my house character, make my house different from all the other houses on the block?

Oh dear... did I screw something up here? I recently removed the wall between my kitchen and dining room... to enlarge what was a very small kitchen.. and to make it light and airy..lol... I had been dreaming of this for years... but now I wonder..am I one of 'them'? Truly, I begin to see things from another angle now. Did I fail to conceptualize something?

Not necessarily:)

whatever you did is fine. You are great. It's wonderful. In this context.

Hmm, I had not heard of compression and expansion but unwittingly seem to be a proponent of it. In our case we have this oddly landlocked interior kitchen. It is has a low ceiling and the GC was really jonesing to raise it. But I felt it should be low, since it is the heart of the home, the literal hearth, warm and cozy and intimate and earthy, with the rooms that emanate from it opening up either literally with much higher ceilings or more figuratively with skylights, etc.

palimpsest, thank you for something you wrote. I feel like I just grasped something I never imagined and can use in the next phase. I love the idea of darkening, closing in the entryway in a purposeful way. It is already a little that way accidentally - the "money shot" is blocked by the loft stairs.

When I walk in from work I have a ritual of standing there and methodically putting down my briefcase and stowing my keys and sunglasses, hanging up my coat on a hook.....when I enter into the main room it IS like a little reveal. I usually notice the position of the sun on the water, the colors, sky, all of it. But until this minute I never realized that I do that, almost hiding myself from the view, and how much it adds to my enjoyment of my home. cool!

for what is it worth regarding airy open spaces, I raised my kids in what amounts to a great room with a small adjacent kids' br* (except the TV is in the basement - hate the noise). You could not have a private conversation in this house - you had to take a walk. I think they get along extraordinarily well with others, so am all for wall removal in the interest of togetherness, though ours came like this courtesy of a cheap floorplan!
*for obvious reasons we eventually added on a master br. When the township held hearings on variances they gave the 4 other couples who were ahead of us on the docket all kinds of trouble, and then rubber stamped ours.....it was a little embarrassing but apparently the town fathers wanted us to "get a room."

Ok... so now when I reveal our house, with its money shot visible from the front door, people will be horrified. We purposely love how there is a lot to take in from the beginning and as one walks further in, they have many directions in which to look. We do plan on adding an arched glass cab structure on the peninsula that is straight line of sight from the front door, so that will close the view slightly. That will take time because finances will dictate when that happens. After sending in our payment to Uncle Sam today, it may take longer than even I realized, lol.....

I guess we pass in other regards because we have the "conflict" of an open floor plan with a St Charles type kitchen vibe. We used vintage materials in a modern way. We also have mostly antiques from the early 1800s and on and the new furniture we intend to buy will have a 30s-40s modern vibe. Our house will look like a house that has evolved over time and/or the inhabitants' belongings evolved. I would hate for it to look like it was bought and furnished all on the same day. It is not a museum or a movie set. I'd love for it to have the vibe of an older lived in house, but with modern conveniences and neat details such as a great paint job or well maintained floors.
The exterior had an ever so slight cottage look with a prominent hip roof, so we played that up by adding an eyebrow window (not as sunk into the roof as I'd prefer, but what's done is done) and using older looking roof shingles. I am hoping that a cottage looking exterior will play well with a modest St Charles looking kitchen, even if our new kitchen is big and the floor plan is wide open.

I guess the beauty of our ugly builder's grade 1950 ranch house in the suburbs is we could choose from among most styles to infuse into it to our hearts' content and it would not conflict with any pre-existing style (since there was none).
Not everyone will love every aspect of it, or even the reno as a whole, but they don't have to live here. I smile when I come upstairs or walk in the front door. We will be waking up in our newly redone bedroom this coming week and expect to enjoy seeing it first thing in the a.m. as well. The true test will be how it functions and if it is pleasing to us years from now. I am sure expecting it to be because we tossed in many things that we love and tried to keep a sense of consistency without using many matching items or sets. Because we tried to stay away from the popular items of this decade, I hope its charm endures a little longer and its quirkiness is what keeps it interesting.
If we were to renovate a different house, we'd have had that design evolve differently as well. When we first started to plan, I wanted wood cabs and lots of traditional materials (as had always been my dream). Once we started to really visualize things, it was clear that while that look would work here, it was not the ideal choice for us working with this house's layout and age. Our choices have aged it to 10 years older than it was and our original vision would have pushed it even further back. I think by staying closer to when it was built, it looks more appropriate. Of course, no one will mistake our new kitchen for a truly original one, but we are not trying to pass it off as authentic. Just as our Corian has a marble look to it, no one will be fooled once they get within a few feet of it. One day, we may own a house where wood cabs and marble counters are perfect, but it wasn't this current one. It just wasn't the right context for it.

"There is nothing wrong with opening the front door and having the money shot of a view straight out the back, but you may want part of it to only reveal itself if you come closer."

Any particular statement can be taken out of the thought process and used as a positive or a negative. Its a process and as such it is relative.You say yourself that as you come in, there are other things to look at.

Its all about making informed decisions: If I keep it closed off the feel will be X, but if I open the spaces the feel will be Y. Either can be ok, to an extent--as long as you understand that with the positives, there are going to be some negatives.

There is a perfectly beautifully decorated house on the Decorating Forum, that someone is helping to stage for sale. It is a very open plan, and for *staging for sale* one of the objections was that the dining area was right inside the front door. The current owners love it all open...buyers or the realtor or someone feel that the lack of differentiation of space is a problem. I do, too. But its still a nice house--just if I were buying it, I would be tempted to put a wall somewhere, it would certainly make furniture placement a bit more intuitive.

Hmmm. Most of our neighbors with houses twin to this one have taken out the interior doors or other parts of the mayhem in this unique postwar ranchlet, but few have been really successful. Naturally I like ours better. Maybe our "grew like a sophisticated Topsy" additions aren't so screwy after all! With all our halls, we've got many of those "money shots." It's not a flaw, it's a plus! But if we weren't on a lake lot, I wonder if we'd still say they're a plus? Oh, yeah, I forgot...there's the bland CONTEXT! I can do a lot with this joint if I have enough taste and DIY skills.

I love using this term. It makes me feel so smart and sassy. Is it a real piece of jargon or just a GW one?

Once again, I get something new out of this thread. I had mentioned previously about a half wall made out of glass blocks that we want to take out of our dining room (Yes, I'm sure many of you originalist / preservationists are horrified that I will be taking out an architectural detail that is original to the home.) ANYWAY, we've had various opinions about closing that wall in since if you close it in, you lose "the view" from the front door.

I think y'all have sold me on partially obstructing that view. Maybe just with some more windows / french doors so I can keep the airy feeling and light but not so you can see all our bidness from the get go.

Oh - and just as a note, in Feng Shui world, it's not a good idea to have a straight line from any two entry doors (front or back or etc.) So ancient Chinese philsophers knew what they were talking about?? Maybe they were just architects who wanted their Chinese houses to unfold...

since every concept is related to every other concept in some way, the relationships between everything can be referred to as context.

other words about the same core notion are surroundings, circumstances, environment, background, settings, clarification, relationship, the whole which helps make sense of the parts, the gestalt, l'ensemble, pattern of interaction, liaison, linkages, the dynamics, the ambienTE, ambiance, Zusammenhang (how the parts all relate together),

and, just to give it a cute name, i call it peekaboo when reveals are partial at first and it takes a couple steps more in one direction to get another view that sees a lot more. Partially obstructing a view can be OK.

This thread is absolutely enlightening for me!!! I always wondered why I HATED it when I walked in to our first house (you know - the little one we totally opened up into virtually one large room) - opened the front door and you were right there - in the living space looking at the kitchen in the back of the house, right out through the back window!! I never felt right about it. Actually, I never quite felt right about it even before our reno 'cause we always walked right into the living room (no foyer) and could see through the opening into the kitchen. I personally have just never liked to see my kitchen from the front door.

I also have to admit that I love to really WORK in my kitchen and while I try to keep it neat and tidy, I absolutely MUST have the ability to keep it off limits to guests if I so desire. I definitely want people to join me in my beautiful new kitchen, but I also want to be able to kick them out and keep them out if I want to.

I do have to say, though, I really truly think this is all just a matter of "taste" and it's not my place to say who has the good taste and who has the bad taste. (I know alot of people disagree with that - but isn't "good" taste really just "more accepted" taste? How can someone's opinion of how something looks really be better than someone else's? I just don't get that.) Anyway, if someone loves a totally open floor plan, and wants to see their kitchen from the front door, more power to them. I've been in houses like that and I think it can look absolutely beautiful - just not for me. I'm sure there are tons of people out there who think I'm crazy NOT to open up my space more. Yup - we have a living room that very rarely gets used. I don't care. I like to look at it; walk through it; every once in a while sit with a friend and have a glass of wine in it. If we have enough people in the house, eventually they migrate there. If it's not a large group, they stay more in the kitchen and family room.

Bottom line is that when we were looking for our forever house, I knew it had to be an older home because that's what I loved. I knew I would never want to open it up and take away what I personally consider its charm. I've got my fingers crossed that everything I do in my new kitchen looks good to ME and continues with the feel of our home.

Personally, I think everyone is free to do what ever they want to their own house. I am a true believer in if it looks good to "you" that's all that really matters. Really. Here it is: if YOU are personally happy with the context of what you've done, then the context really isn't missing. SQ

I think that when it all comes right down to it many people really worry if their house/kitchen is going to look "show room magazine worthy" toward the end after all the layout problems are dealt with and products are on order. It's all a lot of money for these sorts of renovations and when much money is involved people worry more. To me show rooms are not as much fun to be it in and are usually not as interesting when you've hung there for awhile. I think it was Marcolo who said every house needs a bit of ugly, and I couldn't agree more.

There is a gal down the street from me whose home interior and kitchen is a fine example of magazine worthy. It would not surprise me in the least to see it plastered across the whole front page of a top interior design magazine with interior pages oozing with compliments. Yet it was so impersonal with all the exactly matching art that exactly matched the throw pillows which exactly matched the area carpets, to me it just felt cold.The word lobotomy kept coming to mind.
After only being in that beautiful home for half an hour it all started feeling very dull and not at all "wow" that the first impression gave.

So, back to do what you love! This is where the tricky fine line is. This is where it all can look kooky or brilliant. Historical homes aside, all and all I think we all just need a pinch of courage sometimes to cross over from dull but beautiful livable to beautiful and interesting livable. However, to further complicate matters what's beautiful livable to one is weird to another.
At some point you just have to stay true to yourself, it's your money and where you live. You will never make everyone happy so make yourself happy.
Don't be afraid!

I had mentioned previously about a half wall made out of glass blocks that we want to take out of our dining room (Yes, I'm sure many of you originalist / preservationists are horrified that I will be taking out an architectural detail that is original to the home.) ANYWAY, we've had various opinions about closing that wall in since if you close it in, you lose "the view" from the front door.

It isn't good to see everything at first glance, which is one reason why people looking for dates don't usually walk around naked. However, l think it is good to see natural light when you enter a house, and that can be accomplished without making everything completely open concept.

It's one of my goals in my kitchen remodel--if my damn fridge weren't in the way, you'd be able to see the small window in my back door as soon as you walk in the front door. While you will never be able to see the whole first floor at once, you eventually will be able to see daylight from every direction when you enter--front, back, and both sides. It's important to see that in a smaller house.

I know alot of people disagree with that - but isn't "good" taste really just "more accepted" taste? How can someone's opinion of how something looks really be better than someone else's? I just don't get that.

No, no, no. This is the anti-fashion thread. We are speaking against what is acceptable, because what is acceptable is often wretched, and only seems beautiful because it currently has the approval of the crowd.

One test of good taste--not the definition, just a handy rule of thumb--is how long it looks good. How (I hate this word) "timeless" it is. You can see photos of rooms from the '40s, '60s, '70s, '80s that look laughable today, while other rooms still look wonderful. That won't tell you what is in good taste today, unless you have a time machine, but it does prove that there is something objectively different there, beyond whether somebody happens to like it.

Here's the reason why "do what you love" is wrong, except in the context plllog mentioned.

Human beings are bundles of many different things. One thing is appetite. Another is reason. Often they conflict, and are in tension with each other. Sometimes they can be reconciled.

To say only, "do what you love" is an appeal to pure appetite. Pure desire. It is completely subjective, fleeting, and frankly, not very elevated or important. After all, animals are always "doing what they love," whether it's peeing on your carpet, mating, or eating your cats. Children like to "do what they love," all the time, without regard to consequences. Some love to scream. Some love to pull boiling pots of oil down from the stove. Appetite is self-centered, which is why it always amazes me when people boast about doing whatever they like, damn everyone else's opinions. They talk as if selfishness were a virtue. Also, appetite is known only to the self, and cannot be shared.

Reason is a whole nother ball game. It is a higher function than appetite. It can be shared, because 1+1=2 for you as well as for me. Sharing means even if people don't agree, they can still reason together. You can still pick out logical flaws in my arguments. I can still follow your arguments and perhaps eventually agree with them. There is a conversation there that goes well beyond "I want this," to which no one else ever has anything to say. Except maybe, "So what?"

Aesthetics is the union of appetite and reason. It is like an educated palate, that learns and understands at the same time it appreciates and enjoys. It can be shared and discussed, and new ideas can come of it. If an oenophile gives you a wine that you like, and then says, "Taste the chocolate," guess what? You actually can taste it. You learn to taste it in other wines that have that note, as well. That doesn't happen if all someone says is, "I like this." That's nice, but I can't taste through your tongue, so your subjective feelings are not really of interest to me. I can't share them.

All sorts of arts--painting, sculpture, music, garden, architecture, drawing, design, new media--all of them have a long history of people writing about them. Those writings do not consist of people saying "Don't like it. Like it." They talk about form, and color theory, and references, and technique, and common themes, and on and on. In other words, they reason about them, objectively. Vincent Scully changed the way people think about classical Greek architecture by discovering objective relationships between ancient buildings and the surrounding landscape. He did not write a book saying, "I like it." Or, "It makes me think of birdies." He looked at something of beauty, and reasoned about it.

Because aesthetics involves appetite, it can never be purely objective. There are no formulas to which all must agree (although, surprisingly, the "ideal" face does involve a formula, as does the Golden Rectangle). But because it involves reason, it is not purely subjective either.

That is why I have no truck for the statement that, because I like it, therefore it is good. Where is the reason in that?

The unexamined design is not worth living in.

Marcolo, I think you are confusing or insinuating that all "do what you love" is not examined and reexamined before choices are made. There is a big difference in thought out "do what you love" to the instictual mating of dogs.

I feel like I'm taking a college course in Context 301. (Not 101. We've taken this waaay beyond a 100-level course.)

Marcolo, I love your definition of aesthetics. Achieving it, however, is quite a feat. I used to be a matchy-matchy type person. Over the last few years, I've really been embracing the concept of mixing, coordinating, letting textures/colors play off each other. Letting that "little bit of ugly" in. Embracing the tension rather than seeing it as a deviation from a plan. It's not instinctive, though, and I often get it wrong. Still, it's more fun to TRY than to play it too safe.

Dangit. Just when I thought I was ahead af the game, I learn my house is NAKED! No mystery at all once inside the front door. UNCLEAN!! But then I thought again . . . the mystery actually begins outside. One enters from the low end of the gable alongside a brick wall - fairly intimate. Then once inside you have the great room. So, the mystery is sort of there, in a Better Homes and Gardens mid-century plan book kind of way. I can rationalize myself into acceptability at the drop of a hat.

As for the "little bit of ugly", my planting beds and yard will serve that purpose nicely.

All joking aside, I have enjoyed this thread and its tangents. I think there ought to be an extension of the Hippocratic oath to decorating: "First, do no harm". Once that's out of the way, most of the remaining choices are all palatable.

I don't think the "more accepted" taste is "good taste" at all, or fashion magazines would be full of overweight women in leggins and faded oversized t-shirts, and men with horrible teeth whose pants give a good view of dingy underwear. Or maybe I just live in the wrong place.

And houses would be full of pretty generic matching sets of furniture all less than 5 years old and giant TVs.

That may not be the generally accepted taste in a forum like this but its the generally accepted taste in the world I walk in every day.

Beagles- Your house is going to be beautiful! I was curious, if you were designing a french manor home, by looking at your kitchen. When I saw your house plan, I knew your kitchen would look amazing...and flow completely, with your new home.

As for Disney-esque, first of all what's wrong with that (LOL) and second...no, your home doesn't look that way at all, but my backsplash tiles probably will!

moderators can do something to let a thread go beyond 150 posts. I saw it happen in another GW forum.