I feel Wearstler must have been so weary of being typecast as the Queen of Hollywood Regency, that she drifted into this realm of renewed 70s with the sort of flagrant devil-may-care attitude that only someone supremely confident in their marketability has (not that that's a bad thing.)
A year ago, Apartment Therapy stated that Wearstler's "new" design aesthetic had yet to take off....
The latest issue of Metropolitan Home featured her Malibu beach house, and it appears she's still pushing this 70's redux "moment."
But Wearstler's attempt to "move on" from the peak of 30's glamour leads me to a larger issue: That some designers, who have become well-known for a particular "look" chose one of two paths.
They may, in an effort to stay fresh (among the design glitterati), resort to bizarre aberrations of their seminal style. Alternately, they chose to look to that huge goddess in the sky known as "branding," and become parodies of their own work.
I feel Jonathan Adler is a prime example of the latter choice. I really like his work, so this is not coming from a crabby place, but must we be inundated by "Adler-isms" in all his designs? Chinoiserie - check. His own pottery - check. Graphic patterns - check. It all seems rather predictable.
So I ask, if we were to hire a famous designer, would we want everyone (or, at least our design-junkie friends) to be able to walk into a room and declare, "Oh, so-and-so did this room?"
Is a designer in fact chosen on the basis of his or her tried-and-true aesthetic, and expected to carry it out without straying from his particular formula - even if it turns out being the interior design equivalent of an overused logo?