Less is More, so Less is Good, so More is Good

In the mid-20th century, German architect Mies van der Rohe delivered one of the most enduring odes to minimalism with his iconic phrase, “Less is More.” This statement marked a radical departure from the ornate Art Nouveau movement, which, within just two decades, gave way to the pared-down purity championed by figures like Le Corbusier. It was an era of radical simplicity—where “less” became a guiding principle.

The Baroque and Rococo styles, once synonymous with opulence and extravagance, came to symbolize decadence and excess. In contrast, minimalism—defined by restraint and clarity—became the aesthetic of modernity. With its focus on clean lines, innovative materials, and advanced techniques, “less” rejected the historical and cultural layers that characterized “more.”

Some historians have analyzed these opposing styles through a gendered lens, attributing femininity to the curves and fluidity of Art Nouveau and masculinity to the sharp angles and rigor of minimalism. While there is merit to this perspective, I see these styles as representatives of their respective eras, each expressing the cultural and technological ambitions of its time. “Less” and “more” exist in perpetual opposition, thriving in their ability to challenge one another. Indeed, one cannot exist as extraordinary without the other acting as a counterpoint.

But let us return to Mies van der Rohe’s famous phrase: “Less is More.” If “less is more,” does it not also imply that “less is good?” And if *“less” equals “good,” then logically, doesn’t “more” also equal “good?” Can we not simply conclude that “more is good?” (Pause and reflect on this for a moment.)

This kind of analysis is an example of a logical fallacy known as a faulty analogy or invalid syllogism. The reasoning assumes that because « less is more » (a qualitative concept or principle), the inverse (« more is good ») must also be true. However, the conclusion doesn’t follow logically from the initial premise. The relationship between « less is more » and « more is good » is not valid unless further context or justification is provided.

Now, consider the present day. Design, more than ever, exists at the intersection of “less” and “more.” Look at Ora-Ïto, championing “Simplexity”—the art of combining simplicity with complexity—or Marcel Wanders, who invites us into his world of “Fantastic Dreams.” While these philosophies may seem like marketing slogans, they reveal a deeper truth: one approach removes excess while the other celebrates it. One strives for purity, while the other seeks beauty in complexity.

Yet, both coexist, often serving the same companies and catering to similar audiences. Doesn’t this demonstrate that in design—as in mathematics—the dichotomy of “less” and “more” can dissolve? Perhaps it’s time to move beyond these oppositions and stop using them as mere justifications.

Nota Bene

This article was originally written in 2011, I found it in some rescued archives, and thought it would be a good idea to work on it again and post it to this new blog.