Vitra's Greg Lynn Ravioli chair--please comment...  

The Lynn chair aside...
you've opened an interesting issue by assigning mannerism as the end punctuation to design phases/periods/movements/styles.
This notion had not occurred to me and while it makes some sense of things, it raises another question in my mind. Yes, pointillism is now categorized to have been the last phase of impressionism, but was it? I've often thought lumping pointillism in with impressionism was unsound art criticism.
Impressionism, as I have understood it, was an attempt to paint not the object exactly, but the features, light, and especially the colors of an object, given the effects of distance from the eye.
Pointillism never seemed, at least to me, an attempt at that. It seemed instead simply another paint application technique of painting with figurative abstraction.
Pointillism came along on the heels of impressionism, as post modernism came along on the heels of modernism. Do we say post modernism is mannerism punctuating the end of modernism? Perhaps we should, but I actually thought post-modernism ended was a step onto the next thing--an emphasis of surface and ornament overlain on the post modern form language.

The Lynn chair aside...pt2
Pointillism does not seem a deconstruction of impressionism. It seems a simple abandonment of brush strokes entirely--a paint brush equivalent of silk screening, an atomizing of the image, of color, of light, of features, not because it portrays any organic perception of the object in the distance, but simply to use the effect of atomizing the object to express a psychological perception of the object.
Impressionism paints what we see, given the constraints of our eyes and the distortions of distance.
Pointillism is essentially portrays the look of objects filtered through what we think of objects. Pointillism is essentially symbolic, even proto surreal perception of the object.
Pointillism seems a parallel track of painting that showed up a little late, maybe because the impressionists showed you COULD deconstruct what you see.
Impressionists paint their impression of what they see.
Pointillists paint what they see as an atomization that symbolizes what they think of what they see.
Impressionists could not really have given birth to surrealism like Magritte and Dali and others that followed.
Pointillists seem the predecessors of the surrealists.
Can pointillism then be considered mannerist end punctuation to impressionism, or is it just a proto surrealism coincidentally freed up by the deconstructive streak in impressionism?
And I pick out pointillism as an example thinking that maybe the other end punctuation mannerist periods might be argued to have a similar independence from their predecessors.
Your point may still hold regardless; that there usually isn't much good that comes on the heels of some of these sterling periods of authentic vision (like impressionism) that are all it and not about it (and pointillism surely was all about it and not it), but I thought the causal link you ascribed was at least worth a exploration. Not sure if I have muddled things, or added clarity, but I tried.