Referring back to the design cycle of revolution, I feel like majority of the concepts of the cycle where relevant in both periods. As I carefully viewed furnishings from each period I noticed the rebirth of some ideas. Like mentioned in Montgomery’s article, very old furniture was still used around 1770 and very plain however Samuel Prince’s “new patterns” reflected the designs of Thomas Chippendale in a way. This would be an example of cycle. I noticed a lot of cycling with these furnishings but you could clearly tell there was a change in period around the time these pieces were created.
Also mentioned in Montgomery article, the shape of the high chest and feet were in the Queen Anne style however the interpretation was new. The interpretation was of rococo ideas of grace, delicacy and vitality. I would view this change as a revival; coming again into activity.
Just like when we look back into history and get a better understanding of past furnishing and their functions, we often noticed a change in the furniture but sometimes it can be for the better. As I analyzed furnishings between the 3 periods I noticed some furnishings seemed to be recreated, or updated but for better usages. Details and materials such as new patterns, more details in moldings, and extra accessories like wheels where added, and color as well, were introduced and put to use after the American War of Independence. I like to see this as a rebirth as well because certain furnishings never actually went away or the use was put to rest, but they were used and created differently.
Transition was another aspect that made me feel as if these furnishings were revolutionary. Montgomery talked about how in Abraham Swanson’s 1745 design was acceptable in 1775 in Philadelphia along with pre-Chippendale form furniture forms. Americans just didn’t want to give up the old-style forms. This was a transition of sort and I feel like the furnishings before the war has a different feel to it compared to the period after the war.