Going without is not wrong. But the look itself is most often at home in rooms with a European aesthetic. Sometimes, too, "clean country", as I like to think of it, is a look that can carry off no-rug appeal, without looking half-dressed. Both aesthetics lend themselves to a look that says, "I'm a room that's still being collected, and don't I look great while I await more treasures?" And the look works, and it is just that -- a look.
Each of the rooms below were done without a rug because that was the designer's intent. They make a statement. Confident. Anything but ordinary. Stylish. If you were designing these rooms, would you have been bold enough not to use a rug?
 |
| Designer: Eddie Ross |
 |
| Designer: Leslie Klots |
 |
| Designer: Martha Angus |
Imagine a rug in either room, above or below. Yes, they would look fine with one. But without, they have an intentional, successful edge...
 |
| Designer: Martha Angus |
 |
| Source: House Beautiful. Chairs: Steven Gambrel |
So, what do you think? I know you're out there reading, because I see the statistics every day! Please do me the favor of clicking on "comments" in the gray bar below each post, and share your thoughts from time to time. It's fun for readers to learn what others are thinking. Many thanks, in advance :).
Talk to you soon,
Carol
I think that if you have something beautiful underneath the rug, why hide it? It's like getting a new haircut and wearing a hat. A lot of people can look great in a classic fidora or an ivy cap, but why wear something you don't ALWAYS need?
ReplyDeleteI think that if the statement is made great enough in the other areas of design, the absence of a rug will augment the rest of the design elements in the room, a piece of art, vintage chair, or lighting element.
Thanks for the insightful comment, Matt! Love the haircut analogy. :)
ReplyDelete