Some architects, especially those who are younger or consider themselves progressive, often display a certain unease or at least a misunderstanding about the term “interior” and the tasks related to the design of indoor space that does not directly meet existential needs. This unease is not new, but it waxes and wanes in cycles, as a result of the opinion that interior design is mostly done in a formalist way, in both the aesthetic and the functional sense, or that the subject is bourgeois, elitist, even politically incorrect, under too much pressure from the dominant taste. Also, such an aversion is a reaction to the inherited state of the scene, to the traditional rigid conceptualization of indoor spaces; it rejects the notion that an interior is a tightly composed, closed system of precise and self-sufficient “architectonic” solutions. Even though architects may show an enviable skill in handling design tools and space organization, the result can be devoid of identity, hard to distinguish from others, lacking the spontaneity of the real. Indications of the problem can be perceived in a sort of a “surplus of architecture”, in the impossibility to see interior design as the mise-en-scene of real life.