Unless you’re designing wallpaper, I would avoid it.

Even the simpler flowery as applied to writing is not a compliment. Poetry, maybe. Prose, no.

@ermanen: So far as I know, everyone in the Anglosphere has access to the AI linked to Google searches. When I search for is florid a compliment, before the actual results the AI says No, "florid" is generally not considered a compliment when describing someone's writing or speech, as it means excessively ornate or flowery, implying that the language is overly elaborate and potentially unnecessary, making it more of a criticism than praise. Being AI-generated, it'll be slightly different each time, but the question will always be meaningfully answered. And ELU isn't a dictionary!

Cambridge says "with too much decoration or detail", and Collins has "excessively ornate" as one if its meanings. I'd call those negative connotations. Though that's only a matter of opinion, IMO.

Everyone is forgetting that 19th c. favorite: a florid complexion. Tsk, tsk, tsk...:)

The OED definition quoted above says 'often in somewhat disparaging sense'. Somebody who sees that in a dictionary definition may reasonably seek an elaboration of the often and somewhat. Providing such an elaboration is well within the domain of this site.

Clearly, modern consensus is negative. A historical survey will show that wasn't always the case; has a bit to do with how "in fashion" ornamentation is to begin with. No surprise that in the baroque, "highly ornamented" was generally aesthetically validated. Then Classical came in and stripped things down, Romantic built them back up, and Modernists stripped it out again. "Florid" = "flowers" = "ornament" = aesthetics of ornamentation.

@AndyBonner Thus, it’s possible to write a detailed answer covering the word's history and evolution, possibly including both past and modern usage examples. I (and perhaps others) would appreciate it if you could post an answer.

(Hm; maybe it argues against me that I went looking for approving mentions of "flowery" writing in Shakespeare and found only Holofernes, whose aesthetics are surely being mocked.) @ermanen IMO it might be out of scope for the present question, unless the OP wants to edit to request it; questions about usage are generally assumed to focus on modern practice.

Good and detailed answer posts can include additional details, as long as it includes the required answer as well.