“As long as architecture remains in dialogue with the human being – with the body, perception, and way of life – it is possible to speak of measure.”
What is “Too Much” and what is “Enough” (in Architecture)? Where exactly does the boundary between these two extremes lie in the contemporary era? And is it possible to clearly recognize, define, and determine it?
These questions have accompanied architecture almost since its origins.
Every historical period, in accordance with its technological capabilities, cultural values, and social needs, attempts to establish a relationship between the necessary and the superfluous, between function and expression, between rationality and symbolism.
What was considered a proper measure in one era is often interpreted in another as excess – or, conversely, as insufficiency.
With the development of digital technologies, and particularly with the rapid emergence and application of artificial intelligence in recent years, contemporary civilization has entered a phase of intense acceleration. Today, architecture evolves not only through built space but also through an enormous production of digital images, visualizations, and conceptual projects.
The vast flow of information and imagery frequently exceeds the human mind’s capacity to absorb, comprehend, and critically evaluate it within a reasonable time.
In such an environment, the boundary between “too much” and “enough” becomes even more indistinct, as architectural value is often assessed through the speed of production, visual impact, or media visibility.
“Too much” is not “enough” when architecture ceases to be a space for human life and instead becomes primarily an object of spectacle, technological demonstration, or visual consumption. Conversely, “enough” does not necessarily imply minimalism or impoverishment, but rather that which succeeds in establishing a balance between function, space, material, and human experience – a logically structured system.
For this reason, it is necessary to return to the original meaning of the ancient dictum Omnium rerum mensura homo – man is the measure of all things. This idea, rooted in ancient philosophy, reminds us that the value of architecture is not measured solely by its formal innovation, technological complexity, or visual strikingness, but primarily by its relationship to the human being.
In an increasingly accelerated contemporary age, the meaning of the human being – both intellectual and physical – must not be lost as the fundamental unit of measure for all values in architecture. The human body determines the proportion of space, while the human mind and experience determine its meaning. When these two principles disappear from architectural thinking, a space may emerge that is impressive but not truly inhabitable.
The boundary between “too much” and “enough” can probably never be determined with complete precision. It is neither static nor universal, but constantly reexamined through practice, thought, critique, and the lived experience of space. Nevertheless, one criterion remains relevant: as long as architecture remains in dialogue with the human being – with the body, perception, and way of life – it is possible to speak of measure. Otherwise, the very essence of architecture is at risk of being lost.
If measure itself disappears, then not only does the boundary between “too much” and “enough” vanish, but architecture itself disappears in its most original and essential sense.
Goran V. Anđelković, PhD, architect, interior designer, independent researcher, photographer, architectural critic, and theorist
Serbia
This contribution is part of our ongoing survey “TOO MUCH? What is just enough?” where we collect personal reflections on excess and balance in life, architecture and design. We are gathering diverse, thought-provoking answers that will help shape future discussions and content.
Powered by
