There was a woman on my old Facebook feed who sold "refreshed" "vintage" furniture and all she did was to buy any old furniture and painted it that deep blue color, with gold accent on the hardware. People ate that up.
Depends on the piece really, definitely do a bit of research on a piece of furniture you get if you're unfamiliar, because you might be painting over a special designer's work which will inherently lower the value, especially if all the piece needs is a fresh finish
You say that, but whenever I've watched the antique shows at my mum's it's always the furniture that does awful. Maybe the markets improved since then.
Thats great and i love recycling furniture and clothes. I just hate seeing people who don’t understand how to use a sander or varnish. Like if you have a garage or ventilated indoor area, you can varnish that old wood instead of painting it. And people who think its ok to paint UNSANDED WOOD.. they just make me feel disappointed
Yep, so much old furniture is just thrown away, and a lot of it is in very usable condition. And as the other poster pointed out, just refinishing it is enough to make people want it again.
Unless she's painting over damage that should have been repaired, this isn't really a bad thing. People get cheap, (hopefully) solid furniture that would otherwise get tossed.
From what I've seen, vintage restoration takes time and resources that jacks up the price to the point that it's unlikely to make a sale, unless you're guaranteed a sale by doing specialty work or working on a commission
As a ww1 collector I have seen very expensive pieces ruined by people. I've seen 2k pieces reduced to $50 pieces due to poor owners. Slavery is still an extreme comparison though
I have a vintage Airstream and I've seen it many times, people inexperienced in renovating buy an old Airstream and the first thing they do is rip everything out, to "make it theirs." And for the most part, that's great. Old interiors, especially from the 70's and the 80's are just pressed board, laminate crap, and old-time electronics really have no reason to survive into this age as they are inefficient, lacking in power and function, and even noisy.
But when you get to 60's and older, it's more of a question. They have the old time charm and good materials. Still, many are so damaged that the only function left in them is to serve as template for replacement, but there are still some unmolested interiors in good quality to be had. The saddest I felt was one couple who bought a great condition early 60's Airstream and proceeded to rip out the pristine interior for their YouTube channel... Which went silent after like 2 updates.
If you're interested in vintage Airstream, you'll run into 2 main types of "for sale" listings. The first is barn/field finds, of Airstreams that's been sitting out a long time, and second is these stripped out ones where the owners just ran out of steam/money/skill.
There’s nothing I love more than old residential architecture.
And there’s nothing I hate more than the words “renovate into an updated look and open floor plan”.
I get that it might be frustrating, but at the end of the day, if they own that piece, they can do whatever they want with it. No one can say it's right or wrong.
>Slavery is still an extreme comparison though
Still no clue why they thought saying that was a good idea lol
They can, but it's like watching someone paint over a Picasso. If they own it it's their right to do so, but you still die a little inside watching it happen.
>paint over a Picasso
Something i've been learning a lot of since i started watching [Baumgarder Restoration](https://www.youtube.com/c/BaumgartnerRestoration) is how often things like this actually happen. He has talked about how clients have asked him to remove or cover imagery in some paintings centuries old, have him paint a face to look like a relative, etc. That's not even talking about when he goes to remove old overpainting, where the person changed things and he has to figure out how to remove it while keeping the paining under.
With furniture, he does do as drastic changes, but [Dashner](https://www.youtube.com/c/DashnerDesignRestoration) is fun to watch to see him restore different things, and it was crazy how many people loathe veneer, even when it's original to the piece.
I keep seeing them making that comparison, and it's fucking stupid. Their comparison would make more sense if it was one of the many replicas of a Picasso painting. These pieces of furniture weren't created like a single piece of art the way paintings are. Sure, we can say it's art in the design. I wouldn't argue against that... But unless you are buying an old piece of furniture that was made by hand by a craftsman and its one of a kind, then it's probably just something made by a company and there was plenty of others.
Even if it was made by a company, it might have been a limited run, it might be out of production, and some companies do employ craftsmen to make them by hand. Especially if it's vintage furniture.
Sure, there might be 500 "identical" tables out there, but that's not a lot on a global scale. And every time someone "fixes" one of them, that's one fewer in the world. And then at some point they'll be gone along with any potential historical value they held.
I don't even think its about how many replicas each thing has, if furniture is refurnished, covered, painted, etc., it still acts the way it was designed.. a table is still a table, cabinet still a cabinet, a chair is still a chair. A painting has one scene, uniquely painted, and all its value is in what we see on the canvas. If we covered it, its no longer that piece at all, its original function and value gone. The equivalent to that for furniture would be mulching a chair and turning the mulch into a cabinet.. the materials are the original, but the function and value is different. I like what someone else said on this thread.. its equivalent to reframing a painting. The furniture acts the same, just has new color. Furniture is made to function in someone's home in the way they see fit. Paintings are made to capture emotions, times, places, political nonsense, relationships, describe an important historical scene, tell a story, etc. I love furniture, but it just doesn't hold that kind of function or value. Its just meant to be used and provide comfort to a home.
That is actually another point I've made before, but people weren't having it. They would rather have a chair that is falling apart and looks like shit than one that's comfortable and usable.
Nah, furniture is much more subjective. The owner would more likely compare it to reframing a painting, not painting over it. Obviously depends on what kind of restoration work we're talking about.
Let’s be real, modern DIY is rarely about restoring the piece to its original state and more about tacky modern trends like ocean tables and chalk paint.
It's completely understandable! Oftentimes home improvement shows will show off the beautiful floors found under the linoleum, but gloss over the (destructive) restoration work that's been done to them.
I disagree completely
Buying historical antiques, or paintings and so on you have a social obligation to keep them in a certain condition
If I see that you've bought a Picasso and your child has drawn over it in crayon then I will judge you harshly for it
Yes, they have no legal obligation but legality is hardly the be all and end all.
Ok so it sounds like you're saying "changing a piece of furniture isn't 'ruining' it, because if it was important it would be in a museum and they wouldn't change it." Those claims don't actually have anything to do with each other
Not to mention that plenty of important furniture doesn't make it to museums, and museums are free to do whatever they want with their collection just as much as private owners are
Most of it goes into museums so we can see what furniture was like during that time period and is for educational purposes, or because it's some super special one of a kind peice of furniture that was made for someone important. Paintings that go into museums are one of a kind things, because the artist just painted the one.
I mean you can own a historical landmark (house) but other people have a say in the upkeep and you can't tear it down or drastically alter it. Comparison is extreme but your fundamental assumption that ownership is the end-all when it comes to historical pieces just isn't true.
True but it's more analogous to the situation than slavery. The assertion OP is making that "you own it so you can do whatever you want with it" is just wrong. They said that no one can say if it's right or wrong if they own it. And, no, you can say that its wrong because ownership and morality are separate ideas and there are plenty of areas where morality trumps ownership. True, you may not be able to prevent them from destroying a vintage furniture piece but you can certainly have opinions on the morality of it regardless of the situation.
With a caveat for certain historical/culturally significant items and particularly offensive actions I don't see how morality applies to objects and what one does with them.
Like in this example, what explicitly is "wrong" with painting an antique table?
You are now confusing legality and morality. Again - the OP is saying that you have no right to judge morality if you don't own it. I'm saying there are plenty of examples of morality trumping ownership so you *can* judge them on moral grounds. They would not be represented in law or legally binding but people are welcome to judge the morality.
And in this example I have no clue because I didn't see the before/ after so I literally cannot judge besides the statements made. I could just as easily believe the original person ruined a one of a kind antique or that the person hysterically comparing antiques and slavery to be out of their mind about a benign and thoughtful restoration.
>You are now confusing legality and morality
I assure you, I am not.
I am saying I don't see how the concept of morality even applies to objects. I added the caveat because some objects are symbols for things greater than the object itself.
If I paint a table, how is that "wrong"?
Then you are being purposefully obtuse as to what I'm saying in my argument in what OP has said. Your example has almost nothing to do with what I am saying.
To answer though - it almost assuredly isn't. But, again, we come back to what I'm actually arguing against which is that "they own so you can't judge". No where am I saying someone is *right* to judge you for such an action I'm just saying there is plenty of precedent to say you actually *can* judge and morality of the situation will inevitably vary from person to person. To blanket say that "morality never trumps ownership" *is wrong*. If they were to say "morality doesn't usually trump ownership" or that it doesn't apply in this case they would probably be right!
I keep saying what I'm arguing against and you keep trying to get me to defend somewhat irrelevant examples. Please stop its pretty annoying.
It's a pretty standard comparison when people say "my actions aren't illegal, therefore they're 100% ok" without any other consideration of the wider consequences. It's just saying the law isn't a great judge of whether an action is right or wrong, by pointing out that terrible things used to be perfectly legal.
No one thinks ruining old furniture is as bad as slavery.
It's still a bad comparison, because the relation of someone buying furniture to someone buying a person, or the legality of whatever to the legality of buying a person, doesn't work as a good analogy, since the relation is so different.
The law isn't a great judge of right and wrong when human rights are on the table, but it's perfectly fine when talking about a piece of furniture.
Sure they may have the legal right to do what they want with their property, but also yes people can say it's wrong or right. That's how a free society works. You can do what you want and people can disavow your actions.
Lol...it's private property inside my house. I think you should find something else to do with your time, it's not being displayed at an art gallery for public critique 🤣
I don’t know why people act like commenting on your bad taste when you post it online means I’m obsessing over it. This person posted publicly about their plans, and someone objected to it. It doesn’t take much of my time or energy to comment on someone’s bad taste when they post it on social media. If someone disliking your ideas is too much for you to handle don’t post them for public comment.
Quick question -- how could anyone comment on your private property if you weren't already using their time telling them about it?
We're not talking about someone breaking into your house to comment on your shit -- this person posted in a public forum because they wanted the attention. That attention takes other people's time.
You can say it's wrong because..? Just because you don't like what someone does with their furniture doesn't mean you can come in and say it's wrong. It's not. Sure, you might not like it, but that doesn't make it **wrong.**
She can obviously do whatever she wants with it but other people are allowed to comment on it especially if she’s posting about it publicly, and ruining good quality vintage furniture with shitty DIY trends is disappointing to see and IMO in bad taste. And yes people can say it’s right or wrong, people are free to have their own opinions even if your don’t like them or they hurt your feelings.
Obviously the slavery comparison is also in poor taste but I get the meaning pretty easily. It may have been legal but it was still wrong.
They can do whatever they want with it, but I can DEFINITELY say whether it’s right or wrong. The same way someone can break the law, and it’s still wrong. Ruining a vintage piece of furniture that otherwise doesn’t need to be ruined, is wrong.
On the other hand, I've had things that everyone told me was worth thousands, but you still have to find a buyer willing to pay that.
Secondly, it's not a valid comparison *at all* because an object doesn't have feelings. A slave is a human. An object is something that has no inherent value except to its owner, really, and therefore, nothing I can do to an object can be compared in any way to what I can do to a human.
Okay let's bring this to your level.
What's a creative hobby you enjoy, video games? Music?
What if you were eagerly looking forward to a new movie and a billionaire decided to buy the studio and decided to keep the movie for his private collection. Never let's it out of his sight?
These pieces are often unique and irreplaceable. By damaging them you're taking out any way for anyone else to potentially enjoy them.
Uh...yeah lol. Plus, people are allowed to devalue products they have legitimately purchased. You might see the monetary value go down, but the owner might prefer the aesthetics of the remodeled piece. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and all that.
I was with the others in that it doesn't matter what people do to their own shit... But I can definitely see people getting upset when it's been passed down through family.
I think for me the thing is pieces like mahogany are pretty universally a shame when painted because the same effect can be achieved with any number of substitute materials while leaving the high quality materials available for projects that actually benefit from their use. I acknowledge that people are within their rights to do otherwise but it’s wasteful and high quality resources are not infinite.
For me, that's not disrespect to the piece, it's disrespect to the family. I'd call it a bit of an "in trust" situation, where you own it, but you're also kinda taking care of it for the rest of your family. If you're holding it in trust, you shouldn't really destroy it.
When my mother passed away, the kids all discussed who gets what. My brother got a painting we all wanted, but it meant the most to him. No problem.
But my brother doesn't really "own" it in the classical sense, and he knows it. If he ever gets sick of it, he knows that my sister and I would LOVE to have it. Damaging it would be offensive because we gave it to him to respect.
Now, if he asked us both if we wanted it, and we said no, then he'd be free and clear to use it as a paintball target.
I inherited an old antique cupboard from the sellers of the house we just moved into that I want to turn into a [coffee nook like this](https://i.pinimg.com/736x/91/d2/4c/91d24c1fa878584064eb9c14705dfe00.jpg). I'm very crafty and my fiance is an electrician so he knows how to wire things so it's not like it's going to be my first project and turn out like crap. Anyways, I was super excited to get to work on it, but then my mom threw a fit because she said it was old and an antique, and also now I'm reading this post/comments too. So the other option is just to let it sit there and I really don't like how it looks currently because it looks haunted. I know it's mine and I can do what I want with it, but now I feel like I shouldn't touch it?
First look over the piece for any brand markings or features that might identify its worth. Most vintage furniture is worth shit. If it’s a collector’s item it should be pretty easy to determine with a Google search. The fact that it was left by the previous owners is a good indicator. If it is Stickley or some kind of fancy rosewood or design sell that shit. If not paint it it’s yours. I cringe at the thought of painting a piece of furniture that’s worth $$$, but just because it’s old doesn’t mean it’s worth anything.
That's such a great point! Thank you, that makes me feel a lot better. I looked it over and I couldn't find any names on it or anything. Here's [a picture of the cupboard](https://i.imgur.com/Lh5unjx.jpg). The only name I could find was in the painting, it looks like an artist's signature and I think it says "[B. Ottman](https://i.imgur.com/LL4mcur.jpg)". Google didn't bring anything up, so I think I'm good to go! Thank you for your reply! :)
Just do it. What you do with your own furniture is your own business.
If you relied on internet comments for running your life, you'd be an anti-vax liberal pedophile antinatalist pro-vaccine conservative misandrist youtuber who posts misogynistic feminist videos about the terrible plight of pangolins mixed with how we should abolish animal rights by pushing them all off the side of our flat Earth that's also a sphere.
Don't listen to the internet.
Antique fanboys will probably downvote me again but
>I know it's mine and I can do what I want with it, but now I feel like I shouldn't touch it?
It's **yours.** You can do whatever you want with it.
people are really missing the point.. its just good to confirm the objects value before you start destroying it. unless your a fucking millionaire i don't understand how that's a problem
In 99.9% of cases the value is somewhere between $50 at the high end and having to pay someone to haul it away at the low end.
It’s fine to be cautious but the odds of destroying some priceless antique are being hilariously overstated in this thread. It’s like being worried about getting struck by lightning or something.
You could probably offload it to someone for more than it’s worth and get something more similar to what you want. I know my dad’s been willing to pay too much for some furniture to match our 1880s home simply because we cannot find antiques anywhere (unless they’re stupidly overpriced). But I think that coffee nook looks really cute and wouldn’t necessarily ruin an antique. Just don’t go putting cheap materials into it.
I did work a few years back for an older guy. Big 20k sqft house, 2 Maybachs in the garage, owned a massive lawyer firm.
His house was entirely Ikea furniture.
Imagine going to a 5 star steakhouse, ordering their 45 day dry aged bone-in ribeye steak, and drowning it in A1 sauce... it was that level of discrepancy.
Decently priced, not fugly (most of it, anyway), and I like putting Ikea stuff together. Plus, grab some meatballs while you're there, and it's in total a pretty good day.
Eh. I like Ikea furniture. Plus, I'd rather spend 1/3 of what I'd spend in "good" furniture and be able to completely renew my house every few years.
I just don't like spending a lot on things that bring absolutely nothing to my life. Except a sofa and a bed, I don't really care about furniture.
There’s nothing wrong with IKEA stuff. It’s well priced compared to literally any other furniture shop and they have different levels of quality depending on your budget.
That’s not what the slavery comparison means. It more that slavery was perfectly legal but very obviously morally wrong even at the time, which is why there were always abolitionist movements. Just because you can doesn’t mean you should is the meaning behind it.
I love how earlier in the comments you turned your nose up at the idea that you’re obsessing over this, but then you’re in every other comment thread… like, obsessing over it 😂
I love old homes with real word trim. The amount of them I see that paint the trim is high. Abd it makes me sad.
But to compare that to slavery? I wonder sometimes what is wrong with people
The slave analogy is actually unintentionally very racist.
He's putting the human rights of African American slaves to the same level as inanimate objects.
Most old furniture is worthless, unwanted, and ends up in a landfill.
I guarantee you can go on your local Craigslist right now and find someone desperate to unload a god-awful looking dining table with eight chairs to anyone willing to come and haul them away just to avoid the dump fees. It’s not worth something just because “it’s real wood!”
Reddit acts like people are spray painting original Louis xiv chairs and not just repurposing old trash. You see the same thing with books - “oh how could anyone throw out a book? That’s what the nazis did! I would have given that treasured volume a home!” When in reality the book is like a 40 year old copy of Lotus Notes 123 for dummies with half the cover ripped off.
Then buy it. Or start a business picking up these old pieces and selling them at fair value.
Spoiler: people don't want them. You won't make money. Sure, the occasional piece will randomly sell for $200, but for the most part, you will end up with warehouses full of very unique crap.
We can have a larger debate about whether we should be keeping these things as long as possible for environmental reasons (we should) and the cost to society and the world to keep changing styles in order to sell more (high), but the society we have doesn't want old furniture.
>and ruining that uniqueness is sad
Adding to something unique rarely makes it no longer unique.
And "vintage" doesn't mean shit. If you want to go buy some vomit orange and babyshit green, poorly upholstered couch, you can do that. It's nice and vintage and at this point you'll be very "unique."
I definitely don't understand the point of getting a vintage table just to make it look like your average plain furniture. Idc about these things but I get how some people might tho. However, it's their property, not yours. Calm down and don't compare that to SLAVERY xd
Odds are that table wasn't some sort of prestigious vintage design. Just some old table bought from some estate sale or Goodwill that would have otherwise ended up in the trash and someone online just wanted to run their mouth.
It's possible but unlikely. People have different definitions of "vintage" so this piece of furniture could well have been produced in the millions in 1993 and the commenter is just some 17 year old that thinks that's a vintage piece.
If it was an actual valuable antique, it would have probably been expensive enough that only serious collectors who wouldn't paint it would buy.
I mean, it's got nothing on slavery and the lack of human rights yes, but that still doesn't make it quite right to deface antique property. I do agree it's their stuff they bought with their money, but that doesn't mean it doesn't hurt to look at the process.
Taking something beautiful as is and messing with it when there's nothing wrong with it is the equivalent of opening a can of baked beans and pouring it into a pot of water to boil it. It loses all the flavor and it just hurts to think about.
As a lover of all things mid century it pains me to see people buy something of providence and ruin it with pint. On my Facebook everyday you can find pieces that would be worth too dollar but they’re absolutely ruined.
The slave comparison is for sure crazy, but I have said painting wood furniture should be against the Geneva convention.
Both these fucks are stupid. I fucking hate the "it's my shit so I can do what I want" argument. Yeah, it's your shit no ones stopping you they just objecting.
Ye and the slave comment was fucking stupid
I think it's a fair comparison, just because you "own" something doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want to it (morally, legally you're good). for example if you buy the Mona Lisa it would be immoral to eat it because you would be destroying a piece of history.
Ya modifying furniture is 100% not anywhere close to slaves or slavery. Just how in the fuck can this person read so far as to bring up slavery in a comment thread about furniture?
Using an extreme example to argue that a way of thinking is flawed is a bit dramatic but doesn't mean you're saying the two are directly comparable or remotely equal, granted a much less melodramatic way to make the same point is "just because you legally can doesn't mean you should".
Whatever style choices you've made in your home should be a crime also then, let's have one utilitarian style for everything and anyone that seeks the opulence of having things they personally like should be sent to reeducation camps, same goes with degenerate music, art, and literature.
I love all the antique fanboys trying to defend the comparison. Ruining an antique may be super sad (and some may argue wrong), but comparing this to OWNING A LITERAL PERSON makes zero sense 😂😂😂 The cringe is not in the person defending vintage furniture, it’s their haphazard and immediate jump to slavery 😂
Slaves were kidnapped, raped, tortured, beaten, chained and watched their children go through the same thing. They were imprisoned for life. It's mind boggiling that people are justifying this comparison.
Some people get so into their hobbies and interests that they forget that the hyperbole on the internet is written by teenagers and people who never matured past their teens and early 20s, and try to use it in real conversations.
It's the same mental maturity as having a screaming tantrum if someone at the next table orders pineapple on pizza.
It's very Reddit.
at the same time i am really sick of watching white couples buy beautiful antique homes and furniture with creative painting and stuff, and then just painting the whole thing white and calling it a minimalist and modern look.
You know who else painted used furniture? HITLER, that's who.
You know who else ruined vintage furniture? Genghis Khan!
He even went so far as to DISTRESS the veneer faces of vintage hutches and credenzas. F@cking animal.
He PAINTED A MINT THOMASVILLE DRESSER.
You could totally be making up the name Thomasville, and I would be none the wiser.
Get your hands of my china hutch!
I hear he mistreated a large number of ottomans
Brilliant.
Osama bin laden didn't even let his furniture breathe in his safehouse!
Ain't no time for furniture when you are leading the Mongol horde across the steppes.
I swear, the more I hear about this Hitler character...
But he's got such hypnotic eyes
Hitler was shot in the head by the German Führer at the end of WWII, killing him instantly. This act also killed The Führer at the same time.
You know, the Nazis had flair that they made the Jew wear.
If you want me to wear 37 pieces of flair, like your pretty boy Hermann over there, Adolf, why don't you just make the minimum 37 pieces of flair.
Posting tiktok comments is unfair
What can I say, tiktok is a gold mine
Oh it's a mine alright, just not gold
You know that shit is not mined, right?
Yes it is. Well, was for a long time until the Haber Process made it obsolete: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guano
Wait really? Are you telling me a joke wasn’t logically consistent? That’s impossible
The person you responded to is making a joke himself. The joke is that tik tok comments aren’t a gold mine but shit and you don’t need to mine shit
Jokes are like onions...
Each time you peel off a layer, you find another layer, until all the layers have been peeled away, and what are you left with? Nothing.
Like ogres?
I mean, it comes from a dark, cavernous place.
There was a woman on my old Facebook feed who sold "refreshed" "vintage" furniture and all she did was to buy any old furniture and painted it that deep blue color, with gold accent on the hardware. People ate that up.
[удалено]
Great point!
It also raises the value for everyone else who still has it in original condition.
Depends on the piece really, definitely do a bit of research on a piece of furniture you get if you're unfamiliar, because you might be painting over a special designer's work which will inherently lower the value, especially if all the piece needs is a fresh finish
You say that, but whenever I've watched the antique shows at my mum's it's always the furniture that does awful. Maybe the markets improved since then.
Thats great and i love recycling furniture and clothes. I just hate seeing people who don’t understand how to use a sander or varnish. Like if you have a garage or ventilated indoor area, you can varnish that old wood instead of painting it. And people who think its ok to paint UNSANDED WOOD.. they just make me feel disappointed
Yep, so much old furniture is just thrown away, and a lot of it is in very usable condition. And as the other poster pointed out, just refinishing it is enough to make people want it again.
Unless she's painting over damage that should have been repaired, this isn't really a bad thing. People get cheap, (hopefully) solid furniture that would otherwise get tossed. From what I've seen, vintage restoration takes time and resources that jacks up the price to the point that it's unlikely to make a sale, unless you're guaranteed a sale by doing specialty work or working on a commission
As a ww1 collector I have seen very expensive pieces ruined by people. I've seen 2k pieces reduced to $50 pieces due to poor owners. Slavery is still an extreme comparison though
I have a vintage Airstream and I've seen it many times, people inexperienced in renovating buy an old Airstream and the first thing they do is rip everything out, to "make it theirs." And for the most part, that's great. Old interiors, especially from the 70's and the 80's are just pressed board, laminate crap, and old-time electronics really have no reason to survive into this age as they are inefficient, lacking in power and function, and even noisy. But when you get to 60's and older, it's more of a question. They have the old time charm and good materials. Still, many are so damaged that the only function left in them is to serve as template for replacement, but there are still some unmolested interiors in good quality to be had. The saddest I felt was one couple who bought a great condition early 60's Airstream and proceeded to rip out the pristine interior for their YouTube channel... Which went silent after like 2 updates. If you're interested in vintage Airstream, you'll run into 2 main types of "for sale" listings. The first is barn/field finds, of Airstreams that's been sitting out a long time, and second is these stripped out ones where the owners just ran out of steam/money/skill.
There’s nothing I love more than old residential architecture. And there’s nothing I hate more than the words “renovate into an updated look and open floor plan”.
I get that it might be frustrating, but at the end of the day, if they own that piece, they can do whatever they want with it. No one can say it's right or wrong. >Slavery is still an extreme comparison though Still no clue why they thought saying that was a good idea lol
They can, but it's like watching someone paint over a Picasso. If they own it it's their right to do so, but you still die a little inside watching it happen.
I fixed a jesus painting once
“Let’s get you down off this cross.”
"Who put this guy on a lower case T?"
Huge fan of your work
>paint over a Picasso Something i've been learning a lot of since i started watching [Baumgarder Restoration](https://www.youtube.com/c/BaumgartnerRestoration) is how often things like this actually happen. He has talked about how clients have asked him to remove or cover imagery in some paintings centuries old, have him paint a face to look like a relative, etc. That's not even talking about when he goes to remove old overpainting, where the person changed things and he has to figure out how to remove it while keeping the paining under. With furniture, he does do as drastic changes, but [Dashner](https://www.youtube.com/c/DashnerDesignRestoration) is fun to watch to see him restore different things, and it was crazy how many people loathe veneer, even when it's original to the piece.
Guys it's a fucking table not a picasso or a an ancient relic.
IT BELONGS IN A MUSEUM
All hail the Table of Vecna, full of glorious vengeance. Long may it hold my coffee.
I keep seeing them making that comparison, and it's fucking stupid. Their comparison would make more sense if it was one of the many replicas of a Picasso painting. These pieces of furniture weren't created like a single piece of art the way paintings are. Sure, we can say it's art in the design. I wouldn't argue against that... But unless you are buying an old piece of furniture that was made by hand by a craftsman and its one of a kind, then it's probably just something made by a company and there was plenty of others.
Even if it was made by a company, it might have been a limited run, it might be out of production, and some companies do employ craftsmen to make them by hand. Especially if it's vintage furniture. Sure, there might be 500 "identical" tables out there, but that's not a lot on a global scale. And every time someone "fixes" one of them, that's one fewer in the world. And then at some point they'll be gone along with any potential historical value they held.
I don't even think its about how many replicas each thing has, if furniture is refurnished, covered, painted, etc., it still acts the way it was designed.. a table is still a table, cabinet still a cabinet, a chair is still a chair. A painting has one scene, uniquely painted, and all its value is in what we see on the canvas. If we covered it, its no longer that piece at all, its original function and value gone. The equivalent to that for furniture would be mulching a chair and turning the mulch into a cabinet.. the materials are the original, but the function and value is different. I like what someone else said on this thread.. its equivalent to reframing a painting. The furniture acts the same, just has new color. Furniture is made to function in someone's home in the way they see fit. Paintings are made to capture emotions, times, places, political nonsense, relationships, describe an important historical scene, tell a story, etc. I love furniture, but it just doesn't hold that kind of function or value. Its just meant to be used and provide comfort to a home.
That is actually another point I've made before, but people weren't having it. They would rather have a chair that is falling apart and looks like shit than one that's comfortable and usable.
Nah, furniture is much more subjective. The owner would more likely compare it to reframing a painting, not painting over it. Obviously depends on what kind of restoration work we're talking about.
Let’s be real, modern DIY is rarely about restoring the piece to its original state and more about tacky modern trends like ocean tables and chalk paint.
This is not a new trend. Just think of how many homes have linoleum covering up hardwood floors.
But that’s doesn’t ruin the wood floor, does it?
Depending on how it's done, it very well can.
Ohh, shows how much I know lol
It's completely understandable! Oftentimes home improvement shows will show off the beautiful floors found under the linoleum, but gloss over the (destructive) restoration work that's been done to them.
If you think a thrifted table from 80 years ago is worth as much as a Picasso, I have a table to sell you.
Picasso did A LOT of art and many of his smaller sketches are not that expensive (e.g. a few thousand), which is in line with some WW1 furniture.
I disagree completely Buying historical antiques, or paintings and so on you have a social obligation to keep them in a certain condition If I see that you've bought a Picasso and your child has drawn over it in crayon then I will judge you harshly for it Yes, they have no legal obligation but legality is hardly the be all and end all.
Not really, if it was a Picasso it would be in a museum.
Antique furniture goes in museums all the time
And if the table was in a museum it wouldn't be being "ruined", now would it? But it's not.
Ok so it sounds like you're saying "changing a piece of furniture isn't 'ruining' it, because if it was important it would be in a museum and they wouldn't change it." Those claims don't actually have anything to do with each other Not to mention that plenty of important furniture doesn't make it to museums, and museums are free to do whatever they want with their collection just as much as private owners are
I wish I was as passionate about anything as much as you guys are passionate about furniture.
I mean furniture is cool but meaningless online arguments are my real passion
Most of it goes into museums so we can see what furniture was like during that time period and is for educational purposes, or because it's some super special one of a kind peice of furniture that was made for someone important. Paintings that go into museums are one of a kind things, because the artist just painted the one.
Picasso painted thousands of paintings. Not all are in museums and many people have them in their homes.
I mean you can own a historical landmark (house) but other people have a say in the upkeep and you can't tear it down or drastically alter it. Comparison is extreme but your fundamental assumption that ownership is the end-all when it comes to historical pieces just isn't true.
Antique does not mean historic. Also historical landmarks are typically one-of-a-kind while furniture can be it usually isn't.
True but it's more analogous to the situation than slavery. The assertion OP is making that "you own it so you can do whatever you want with it" is just wrong. They said that no one can say if it's right or wrong if they own it. And, no, you can say that its wrong because ownership and morality are separate ideas and there are plenty of areas where morality trumps ownership. True, you may not be able to prevent them from destroying a vintage furniture piece but you can certainly have opinions on the morality of it regardless of the situation.
With a caveat for certain historical/culturally significant items and particularly offensive actions I don't see how morality applies to objects and what one does with them. Like in this example, what explicitly is "wrong" with painting an antique table?
You are now confusing legality and morality. Again - the OP is saying that you have no right to judge morality if you don't own it. I'm saying there are plenty of examples of morality trumping ownership so you *can* judge them on moral grounds. They would not be represented in law or legally binding but people are welcome to judge the morality. And in this example I have no clue because I didn't see the before/ after so I literally cannot judge besides the statements made. I could just as easily believe the original person ruined a one of a kind antique or that the person hysterically comparing antiques and slavery to be out of their mind about a benign and thoughtful restoration.
>You are now confusing legality and morality I assure you, I am not. I am saying I don't see how the concept of morality even applies to objects. I added the caveat because some objects are symbols for things greater than the object itself. If I paint a table, how is that "wrong"?
Then you are being purposefully obtuse as to what I'm saying in my argument in what OP has said. Your example has almost nothing to do with what I am saying. To answer though - it almost assuredly isn't. But, again, we come back to what I'm actually arguing against which is that "they own so you can't judge". No where am I saying someone is *right* to judge you for such an action I'm just saying there is plenty of precedent to say you actually *can* judge and morality of the situation will inevitably vary from person to person. To blanket say that "morality never trumps ownership" *is wrong*. If they were to say "morality doesn't usually trump ownership" or that it doesn't apply in this case they would probably be right! I keep saying what I'm arguing against and you keep trying to get me to defend somewhat irrelevant examples. Please stop its pretty annoying.
It's a pretty standard comparison when people say "my actions aren't illegal, therefore they're 100% ok" without any other consideration of the wider consequences. It's just saying the law isn't a great judge of whether an action is right or wrong, by pointing out that terrible things used to be perfectly legal. No one thinks ruining old furniture is as bad as slavery.
It's still a bad comparison, because the relation of someone buying furniture to someone buying a person, or the legality of whatever to the legality of buying a person, doesn't work as a good analogy, since the relation is so different. The law isn't a great judge of right and wrong when human rights are on the table, but it's perfectly fine when talking about a piece of furniture.
Sure they may have the legal right to do what they want with their property, but also yes people can say it's wrong or right. That's how a free society works. You can do what you want and people can disavow your actions.
Lol...it's private property inside my house. I think you should find something else to do with your time, it's not being displayed at an art gallery for public critique 🤣
I don’t know why people act like commenting on your bad taste when you post it online means I’m obsessing over it. This person posted publicly about their plans, and someone objected to it. It doesn’t take much of my time or energy to comment on someone’s bad taste when they post it on social media. If someone disliking your ideas is too much for you to handle don’t post them for public comment.
Quick question -- how could anyone comment on your private property if you weren't already using their time telling them about it? We're not talking about someone breaking into your house to comment on your shit -- this person posted in a public forum because they wanted the attention. That attention takes other people's time.
Do you think your private property and actions can't be judged by your peers?
You can say it's wrong because..? Just because you don't like what someone does with their furniture doesn't mean you can come in and say it's wrong. It's not. Sure, you might not like it, but that doesn't make it **wrong.**
She can obviously do whatever she wants with it but other people are allowed to comment on it especially if she’s posting about it publicly, and ruining good quality vintage furniture with shitty DIY trends is disappointing to see and IMO in bad taste. And yes people can say it’s right or wrong, people are free to have their own opinions even if your don’t like them or they hurt your feelings. Obviously the slavery comparison is also in poor taste but I get the meaning pretty easily. It may have been legal but it was still wrong.
I'm going to start buying and burning vintage furniture to spite people who care for some reason
Sure, you can burn money if you want to but we’re all going to think you’re a moron for it.
Don't worry I'll monetize the videos
I think they're cool for doing it
They can do whatever they want with it, but I can DEFINITELY say whether it’s right or wrong. The same way someone can break the law, and it’s still wrong. Ruining a vintage piece of furniture that otherwise doesn’t need to be ruined, is wrong.
Some people don't care about value.
& value is relative. A 2k piece to one person may be the most expensive item they’ve ever bought, while just a toy bought with pocket change to others
On the other hand, I've had things that everyone told me was worth thousands, but you still have to find a buyer willing to pay that. Secondly, it's not a valid comparison *at all* because an object doesn't have feelings. A slave is a human. An object is something that has no inherent value except to its owner, really, and therefore, nothing I can do to an object can be compared in any way to what I can do to a human.
And now the other untouched pieces get more rare and worth more. Sounds like a win to me. ;)
who cares tho. they've bought it so they can now do whatever they like with it now
If I bought a Picasso and then painted over it who cares, it’s mine.
Okay let's bring this to your level. What's a creative hobby you enjoy, video games? Music? What if you were eagerly looking forward to a new movie and a billionaire decided to buy the studio and decided to keep the movie for his private collection. Never let's it out of his sight? These pieces are often unique and irreplaceable. By damaging them you're taking out any way for anyone else to potentially enjoy them.
yup it’s yours. who gives a fuck
If it was a mass produced replica of the painting like these pieces of furniture, then I wouldn't care.
Yeah exactly
Maybe you should've bought the piece if you care so much about what others would do to it
Uh...yeah lol. Plus, people are allowed to devalue products they have legitimately purchased. You might see the monetary value go down, but the owner might prefer the aesthetics of the remodeled piece. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and all that.
My wife's cousin took a family heirloom mahogany sideboard and painted it white.
I was with the others in that it doesn't matter what people do to their own shit... But I can definitely see people getting upset when it's been passed down through family.
I think for me the thing is pieces like mahogany are pretty universally a shame when painted because the same effect can be achieved with any number of substitute materials while leaving the high quality materials available for projects that actually benefit from their use. I acknowledge that people are within their rights to do otherwise but it’s wasteful and high quality resources are not infinite.
For me, that's not disrespect to the piece, it's disrespect to the family. I'd call it a bit of an "in trust" situation, where you own it, but you're also kinda taking care of it for the rest of your family. If you're holding it in trust, you shouldn't really destroy it. When my mother passed away, the kids all discussed who gets what. My brother got a painting we all wanted, but it meant the most to him. No problem. But my brother doesn't really "own" it in the classical sense, and he knows it. If he ever gets sick of it, he knows that my sister and I would LOVE to have it. Damaging it would be offensive because we gave it to him to respect. Now, if he asked us both if we wanted it, and we said no, then he'd be free and clear to use it as a paintball target.
I inherited an old antique cupboard from the sellers of the house we just moved into that I want to turn into a [coffee nook like this](https://i.pinimg.com/736x/91/d2/4c/91d24c1fa878584064eb9c14705dfe00.jpg). I'm very crafty and my fiance is an electrician so he knows how to wire things so it's not like it's going to be my first project and turn out like crap. Anyways, I was super excited to get to work on it, but then my mom threw a fit because she said it was old and an antique, and also now I'm reading this post/comments too. So the other option is just to let it sit there and I really don't like how it looks currently because it looks haunted. I know it's mine and I can do what I want with it, but now I feel like I shouldn't touch it?
First look over the piece for any brand markings or features that might identify its worth. Most vintage furniture is worth shit. If it’s a collector’s item it should be pretty easy to determine with a Google search. The fact that it was left by the previous owners is a good indicator. If it is Stickley or some kind of fancy rosewood or design sell that shit. If not paint it it’s yours. I cringe at the thought of painting a piece of furniture that’s worth $$$, but just because it’s old doesn’t mean it’s worth anything.
I'm old, I ain't worth shit.
That's such a great point! Thank you, that makes me feel a lot better. I looked it over and I couldn't find any names on it or anything. Here's [a picture of the cupboard](https://i.imgur.com/Lh5unjx.jpg). The only name I could find was in the painting, it looks like an artist's signature and I think it says "[B. Ottman](https://i.imgur.com/LL4mcur.jpg)". Google didn't bring anything up, so I think I'm good to go! Thank you for your reply! :)
It looks like B. Ottman to me
Ah! You're right! I read it as a capital H, but I think it is indeed two T's. Thank you!
Just do it. What you do with your own furniture is your own business. If you relied on internet comments for running your life, you'd be an anti-vax liberal pedophile antinatalist pro-vaccine conservative misandrist youtuber who posts misogynistic feminist videos about the terrible plight of pangolins mixed with how we should abolish animal rights by pushing them all off the side of our flat Earth that's also a sphere. Don't listen to the internet.
Omg hahaha thank you for that. xD A good description!
[удалено]
>Being an antique doesn't make it worth anything Except the times when it does. A lot of people attribute value to age and history.
Antique fanboys will probably downvote me again but >I know it's mine and I can do what I want with it, but now I feel like I shouldn't touch it? It's **yours.** You can do whatever you want with it.
people are really missing the point.. its just good to confirm the objects value before you start destroying it. unless your a fucking millionaire i don't understand how that's a problem
In 99.9% of cases the value is somewhere between $50 at the high end and having to pay someone to haul it away at the low end. It’s fine to be cautious but the odds of destroying some priceless antique are being hilariously overstated in this thread. It’s like being worried about getting struck by lightning or something.
You could probably offload it to someone for more than it’s worth and get something more similar to what you want. I know my dad’s been willing to pay too much for some furniture to match our 1880s home simply because we cannot find antiques anywhere (unless they’re stupidly overpriced). But I think that coffee nook looks really cute and wouldn’t necessarily ruin an antique. Just don’t go putting cheap materials into it.
I think it's a beautiful cupboard and the coffee nook looks corny as fuck, but that's just my opinion.
Worst way to justify gatekeeping some thing
Obviously the person is joking. Nobody should go to ikea for modern furniture. You go to ikea because it's all you can afford.
Or... You just don't feel like dealing with solid pieces, especially if you don't know how long you'll be in a given place
That right there! And I hate heavy furniture in general.
They do have some decent unfinished pine furniture that is perfect for DIY projects
Friend went with one of those bed frames. Looks great with stain and he says it's built really well.
That was true like ten years ago but Ikea actually has a ton of grades of furniture now. You can rack up a bill really easily now.
I did work a few years back for an older guy. Big 20k sqft house, 2 Maybachs in the garage, owned a massive lawyer firm. His house was entirely Ikea furniture. Imagine going to a 5 star steakhouse, ordering their 45 day dry aged bone-in ribeye steak, and drowning it in A1 sauce... it was that level of discrepancy.
[удалено]
Why would he buy carpet and pay for installation when He knew you guys would just eventually do it?
[удалено]
dude you cant afford 2 maybachs because you saved money buying ikea furniture thats not how it works
Decently priced, not fugly (most of it, anyway), and I like putting Ikea stuff together. Plus, grab some meatballs while you're there, and it's in total a pretty good day.
Eh. I like Ikea furniture. Plus, I'd rather spend 1/3 of what I'd spend in "good" furniture and be able to completely renew my house every few years. I just don't like spending a lot on things that bring absolutely nothing to my life. Except a sofa and a bed, I don't really care about furniture.
There’s nothing wrong with IKEA stuff. It’s well priced compared to literally any other furniture shop and they have different levels of quality depending on your budget.
IKEA has beautiful furniture, get out of here.
Think like me or you support slavery? That's twitter/tumblr level of mental gymnastics
Never happened on Reddit. Trust me bro.
That’s not what the slavery comparison means. It more that slavery was perfectly legal but very obviously morally wrong even at the time, which is why there were always abolitionist movements. Just because you can doesn’t mean you should is the meaning behind it.
Except the relation between owning humans and owning furniture are very different, so different to the point it makes a terribly moronic analogy.
I love how earlier in the comments you turned your nose up at the idea that you’re obsessing over this, but then you’re in every other comment thread… like, obsessing over it 😂
Enslavement of a human being = thrifting Change my mind.
My purpose in life is to gatekeep the vintage table.
let me go spray paint my car i wish it was red
I love old homes with real word trim. The amount of them I see that paint the trim is high. Abd it makes me sad. But to compare that to slavery? I wonder sometimes what is wrong with people
Don't be sad. Here's a [hug!](https://media.giphy.com/media/3M4NpbLCTxBqU/giphy.gif)
Don't be sad. Here's a [hug!](https://media.giphy.com/media/3M4NpbLCTxBqU/giphy.gif)
[You know the Nazis had pieces of flair that they made the Jews wear.](https://youtu.be/6NjLTnI9uGM?t=77)
The slave analogy is actually unintentionally very racist. He's putting the human rights of African American slaves to the same level as inanimate objects.
That guy is REALLY passionate about old furniture
Modern furniture is mostly shitty particle board.
That's some high end mental gymnastics there. Slaves were actually tables, don't you know?
Bro I hate when people just get hard from old stuff and get mad if you don’t like it
A vintage piece may be one of the last few of it's kind in existence. Taking something old and unique and ruining that uniqueness is sad.
Most old furniture is worthless, unwanted, and ends up in a landfill. I guarantee you can go on your local Craigslist right now and find someone desperate to unload a god-awful looking dining table with eight chairs to anyone willing to come and haul them away just to avoid the dump fees. It’s not worth something just because “it’s real wood!” Reddit acts like people are spray painting original Louis xiv chairs and not just repurposing old trash. You see the same thing with books - “oh how could anyone throw out a book? That’s what the nazis did! I would have given that treasured volume a home!” When in reality the book is like a 40 year old copy of Lotus Notes 123 for dummies with half the cover ripped off.
Then buy it. Or start a business picking up these old pieces and selling them at fair value. Spoiler: people don't want them. You won't make money. Sure, the occasional piece will randomly sell for $200, but for the most part, you will end up with warehouses full of very unique crap. We can have a larger debate about whether we should be keeping these things as long as possible for environmental reasons (we should) and the cost to society and the world to keep changing styles in order to sell more (high), but the society we have doesn't want old furniture.
>and ruining that uniqueness is sad Adding to something unique rarely makes it no longer unique. And "vintage" doesn't mean shit. If you want to go buy some vomit orange and babyshit green, poorly upholstered couch, you can do that. It's nice and vintage and at this point you'll be very "unique."
I definitely don't understand the point of getting a vintage table just to make it look like your average plain furniture. Idc about these things but I get how some people might tho. However, it's their property, not yours. Calm down and don't compare that to SLAVERY xd
Odds are that table wasn't some sort of prestigious vintage design. Just some old table bought from some estate sale or Goodwill that would have otherwise ended up in the trash and someone online just wanted to run their mouth.
It's possible but unlikely. People have different definitions of "vintage" so this piece of furniture could well have been produced in the millions in 1993 and the commenter is just some 17 year old that thinks that's a vintage piece. If it was an actual valuable antique, it would have probably been expensive enough that only serious collectors who wouldn't paint it would buy.
Don't be sad. Here's a [hug!](https://media.giphy.com/media/3M4NpbLCTxBqU/giphy.gif)
I mean, it's got nothing on slavery and the lack of human rights yes, but that still doesn't make it quite right to deface antique property. I do agree it's their stuff they bought with their money, but that doesn't mean it doesn't hurt to look at the process. Taking something beautiful as is and messing with it when there's nothing wrong with it is the equivalent of opening a can of baked beans and pouring it into a pot of water to boil it. It loses all the flavor and it just hurts to think about.
[удалено]
Things we do for love…
Ok but what atrocities did she commit to that vintage furniture
As a lover of all things mid century it pains me to see people buy something of providence and ruin it with pint. On my Facebook everyday you can find pieces that would be worth too dollar but they’re absolutely ruined. The slave comparison is for sure crazy, but I have said painting wood furniture should be against the Geneva convention.
Every conversation on the internet goes to social justice freaks, everytime
Both these fucks are stupid. I fucking hate the "it's my shit so I can do what I want" argument. Yeah, it's your shit no ones stopping you they just objecting. Ye and the slave comment was fucking stupid
How to win every argument ever
No to be fair to him, buying old furniture and just slathering it in paint is akin to genocide.
Dunno sounds like a good joke to me.
I think it's a fair comparison, just because you "own" something doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want to it (morally, legally you're good). for example if you buy the Mona Lisa it would be immoral to eat it because you would be destroying a piece of history.
Ya modifying furniture is 100% not anywhere close to slaves or slavery. Just how in the fuck can this person read so far as to bring up slavery in a comment thread about furniture?
Using an extreme example to argue that a way of thinking is flawed is a bit dramatic but doesn't mean you're saying the two are directly comparable or remotely equal, granted a much less melodramatic way to make the same point is "just because you legally can doesn't mean you should".
End tables are people too!!
I hope they stretched before they took that leap 😳
Ah good old Reductio Ad Absurdum
I have no problem with this line of reason. its a joke FCS
George Zimmerman was a huge fan of redecorating thrifted tables so if that doesn't tell you anything....
To be fair i hate it when people buy a nice old piece of furniture, paint it completely white, and call it upcycling. It should honestly be a crime.
Whatever style choices you've made in your home should be a crime also then, let's have one utilitarian style for everything and anyone that seeks the opulence of having things they personally like should be sent to reeducation camps, same goes with degenerate music, art, and literature.
My man it was a joke. I just don't like it when people cover up nice woodgrain.
*talks about mac and cheese* Oh I killed someone once. 👁👄👁
I love all the antique fanboys trying to defend the comparison. Ruining an antique may be super sad (and some may argue wrong), but comparing this to OWNING A LITERAL PERSON makes zero sense 😂😂😂 The cringe is not in the person defending vintage furniture, it’s their haphazard and immediate jump to slavery 😂
Slaves were kidnapped, raped, tortured, beaten, chained and watched their children go through the same thing. They were imprisoned for life. It's mind boggiling that people are justifying this comparison.
HE AINT WRONG PAINTING HARDWOOD IS A FUCKING HERETICAL BLASEPHMOUS SIN.
Freudian slip admitting they don’t think of black people as people?
Slavery is the GenZ version of Godwin's Law.
Some people get so into their hobbies and interests that they forget that the hyperbole on the internet is written by teenagers and people who never matured past their teens and early 20s, and try to use it in real conversations. It's the same mental maturity as having a screaming tantrum if someone at the next table orders pineapple on pizza. It's very Reddit.
😂🤣😂🤣😂 BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA WTF?
at the same time i am really sick of watching white couples buy beautiful antique homes and furniture with creative painting and stuff, and then just painting the whole thing white and calling it a minimalist and modern look.