Blablabla. More is certainly not more and this article demonstrates it very well.
Get to the point, provide value, readers can get hold of millions of novels if they want to read descriptive storie, and with a well crafted plot coming from authors who work on stories.
The same could be said about many articles posted here.
Personally I only read the first few paragraphs before closing the page.
Anyway, I upvoted it because it offers something interesting which I was not aware of, and made me curious as to its change.
(I didn't downvote you, but I assume it's because the comment doesn't really add anything. The complaint isn't that constructive, and is not aimed at the right people. I think most of the people here can figure out how to read which includes determining it they should continue reading something, and not fall into the sunk-cost fallacy of "I atarted reading this, so I have to finish.")
That actually has a certain kind of charm. The patterns fit together well and the accents support the overall feel of the room.
This can go awry very fast if done with less care, but then again, so can a minimalist room. Minimalist rooms can quickly start to look like a chipboard warehouse if no care is take to prevent it.
Of course, it helps immensely that this room has no "life clutter" in it. Imagine adding a few discarded Amazon boxes waiting to be recycled...
I actually really like the rooms in some of these maximalist photos, but that doesn't mean I'd want to buy the stuff in them, or design my living space that way. I've learned through experience that a lot of it is really appealing in the moment, but some things I change my opinion about relatively quickly, or I'm much more variable in my opinions of. If I know that about something, I don't want to have it.
I was with a significant other once who had really similar tastes as me, but we differed a lot in our buying preferences. They were a lot more maximalist, and I was more minimalist. I went along with many their purchases because I did like the stuff after all, and loved them, but I noticed over time we were much more likely to get rid of the items they wanted, the "maximalist" items, and keep the stuff that was more minimalist. It wasn't just because we kept what I wanted either -- they got tired of it and wanted to change it for something else. The minimalist stuff they didn't initially see as exciting or interesting, but they also never got tired of it.
Minimalism isn't just about reducing unnecessary stuff in some sort of purity ritual, it's about learning and focusing on what consistently and reliably works for you emotionally and functionally. Simple tends to work well a lot of the time, and even though it's not as fun and novel, it tends to stay loved. In this regard, I think something can be minimalist if it reflects something that will work for you over the long run, that you won't get tired of and will last.
It's much more green this time around. Plants are a must, escpecially succulents. Colors are green, gold and purple. Untreated wood is definitely not over but is associated with black iron.
The point to real minimalism isn't throwing perfectly good stuff out, but not buying unnecessary stuff in the first place. Everything else is just a fad.
So after throwing everything out, people now buy new stuff ? Great trick, great for the planet, slow clap!
> minimalism: Marie Kondo says that we should remove all the things that "don't spark joy"
> maximalism: our homes should be places full of stuff that sparks joy!
I'm no expert on interior design but that seems to be the same thing. Minimalism was co-opted by the very consumerism it initially criticized, with corporations telling us that we need more (white, square, lifeless) stuff. If your room only has a ornamental bed your inherited from your great-grandparents and a thrifted wardrobe in it, i would still consider that minimalist
TBH I never found the obsession over discovering if something brought joy to... spark joy. Once you realize that you'll eventually throw this out too... YOLO?
This article would benefit from photographic examples. I prefer simple and understated interior architecture. My mind feels better without high clutter but that isn’t to say I need minimalism. Again, without examples, I have a hard time visualizing both extremes.
> maximalism may be more about filling in a void of loneliness and isolation
This quote summarises the true intention - buying stuff makes you happy. We all get a kick out of this but that is not going to provide lasting happiness.
As others have pointed out, minimalism isn’t about the number of things you own. And in a way, if you’re “minimalistic” you are also “materialistic” - truly caring about the things you own.
The things I own enable me to enjoy long lasting and very fulfilling activities. I don’t have any shame in that. Try riding mountain bikes without having a mountain bike, or taking off-road trips without a 4x4 or playing computer games without a graphics card. I enjoy and appreciate my stuff very much.
you can research the best model of the things you use for those activities and get whatever the new best tech is, or you could go get a used one from someone and fix it up. You can get stuff and still minimize waste. Except for graphics cards, good luck, new or used...
I care about materials as a minimalist in that I feel burdened by them.
Today, I’m donating a bunch of clothes that still fit me but I don’t wear them anymore. It doesn’t even take up much space but I feel like I’m shedding weight.
I know people who buy a lot of stuff that they don’t need and doesn’t make them happier. I’m not sure why people do that — probably a result of advertising.
I’m going insane because my kids are constantly getting toys. Not even from me and my wife, just people. My uncle, their grand uncle keeps coming over with literally moldy toys. He won’t listen to me because he’s dying of cancer and like, what am I gonna do? Tell him he can’t see the kids he loves to dearly? He’s a weird hoarder and I’m not gonna be able to change someone who is dying’s mind about anything.
I also just don’t have the willpower to deal with their screaming and crying when I toss toys or donate them. Our youngest daughter is special needs in a wheelchair and can literally die if she gets too upset.
Honestly writing this has made me resolve to fill some boxes and donate some stuff to Goodwill. I’ll just have to do it at night when they’re asleep or something. I wish I was as good a parent as I am an engineer.
> I wish I was as good a parent as I am an engineer.
From the information in your comment you seem like a great parent to me. Or maybe you are just a good parent, but an exceptionally great engineer ;)
You seem to be perfectly aware of things you need to take into consideration. And you have even come to a solution. Sometimes things are just hard, but that doesn't say anything about your parenting abilities.
Here was me thinking minimalism was a school of art, visual, music, architecture etc. John Cage 4′33″ anyone? Turns out it has become a form of (non) consumerism.
The good thing about minimalism is there is a nearby limit - zero. Not so with maximalism.
Fad cycles like this will never go away. When a guest comes to visit and they are impressed by the interior, there are several things going on. First, you signal that you know what's the hot new thing, so you are socially connected, regularly visit similar homes. Second you signal loyalty to the tribe by being willing to adjust your living space to ape the hot new trend. Third, you signal financial stability/wealth because you can afford to keep up, to throw away functional stuff every few years.
Just as predictable is the sneering and shaming of such behavior, decrying it as shallow etc. by people who can't keep up with this, or dislike the game. Then the most effective way to counter it is to make it about morality, to feel pride in not keeping up etc. But that won't solve anything, the fad may even temporarily follow that: see billionaires dressing in "normcore", rich people feeling kinda embarrassed by being seen rich. However there is still a big difference in Zuckerberg's normcore and the average person wearing cheap clothes. Just as there 8s a huge difference between a rich minimalist and a person whose apartment is almost empty because he can't afford to furnish it properly.
Welcome to life. Who has more money, better cars, fancier job title, house in a better neighborhood, more academic publications and h index, more attractive partner, more impressive bookshelf, bigger muscles, better vacations etc. Yes people care about such things well after high school. But many won't admit it.
Admitting caring about status is itself low status.
"Fad cycles like this will never go away. When a guest comes to visit and they are impressed by the interior, there are several things going on. First, you signal that you know what's the hot new thing, so you are socially connected, regularly visit similar homes. Second you signal loyalty to the tribe by being willing to adjust your living space to ape the hot new trend. Third, you signal financial stability/wealth because you can afford to keep up, to throw away functional stuff every few years."
> Third, you signal financial stability/wealth because you can afford to keep up, to throw away functional stuff every few years.
There are better signals of this than stuff in one’s house. For example, the location and recent sale price of comparable homes, which is public information. Or one’s source of income, hobbies, and travel.
There's also the desire to just see something new. Style is typically something that people like to change up every few years.
There's individual differences of course. Some people will live their entire life in a house that never changes, and like it that way. Others get bored and restless or a feeling of being trapped if they don't change their surroundings every two years. Most people are somewhere in between.
As for the sourpusses, I agree: they are predictable and boring. Unfortunately, also very prevalent on social media.
> When a guest comes to visit and they are impressed by the interior, there are several things going on. First, you signal that you know what's the hot new thing, so you are socially connected, regularly visit similar homes. Second you signal loyalty to the tribe by being willing to adjust your living space (...)
Or perhaps your guests just genuinely like the décor, and aren't playing some 4D Slytherin chess game. Some people just don't play the social signalling game.
I agree with you, though I’d like to point out that merely liking the new style and also implementing it for non-sociopathic reasons is itself a social signal
Being as honest as I can, I really sincerely think I'm most impressed with someone who's house reflects a thoughtful individuality. What I mean by that is, it's clear they've put some thought into what they like, done some research or looking around, and have some sort of taste. It could be maximalist, it could be minimalist, could be ultramodern, or ultraclassical, maybe even ultrafunctional and eschewing aesthetic considerations altogether, I don't know. But it's really more a sense that this person has put some kind of thought into it of some sort, that they're not just jumping on what's being plastered all over instagram at the moment.
Disliking the game means you don't like it. It's not interesting.
I agree. The article is practically an ode to consumerism. Much better to find the middle ground of making do with the things we already own, not throwing everything out a la minimalism, or buy buy buy a la maximalism so trumpeted here.
This is a bit of a strange critique. The publication is a long-form literary magazine, kind of like the Canadian Harper's. Neither of the writers is a brand person, they're both independent small scale writers, and if you check their past bylines none of them seem to overlap with the kind of thing you're talking about. No product is linked, this isn't like one of those GQ pieces where they want you to click through and buy the thing. Mostly it's sort of abstract and introspective, about processing feelings, and less about any kind of product.
Let's say, hypothetically, that Big Consumer Culture wanted to Give You Permission To Buy Stuff, does it seem like this is the venue and manner they'd use to present this idea? The article discusses coverage of minimalist house makeovers as fueling the minimalism they think is in decline: wouldn't the people trying to push consumer culture use the same coverage of maximalist house makeovers more effectively than a small long-form essay in a Canadian literary magazine? Wouldn't they have a thing they want to sell? Wouldn't there be graphics or pictures or video engagement? Wouldn't it be attached to some kind of promotion?
It's sort of hard to unpack the who, what, when, where, how of your pitch here.
I don't have any strong opinion on this, but the fact that you're arguing against the idea that all consumer culture got together and decided to exclusively advertise their new plan through this particular article is not an direct or productive reply.
"What are the true reasons why the purchaser is planning to spend his money on a new car instead of on a new piano? Because he has decided that he wants the commodity called locomotion more than he wants the commodity called music? Not altogether. He buys a car, because it is at the moment the group custom to buy cars.
The modern propagandist therefore sets to work to create circumstances which will modify that custom. He appeals perhaps to the home instinct which is fundamental. He will endeavor to develop public acceptance of the idea of a music room in the home. This he may do, for example, by organizing an exhibition of period music rooms designed by well known decorators who themselves exert an influence on the buying groups... Then, in order to create dramatic interest in the exhibit, he stages an event or ceremony. To this ceremony key people, persons known to influence the buying habits of the public, such as a famous violinist, a popular artist, and a society leader, are invited. These key persons affect other groups, lifting the idea of the music room to a place in the public consciousness which it did not have before... Meanwhile, influential architects have been persuaded to make the music room an integral architectural part of their plans with perhaps a specially charming niche in one corner for the piano. Less influential architects will as a matter of course imitate what is done by the men whom they consider masters of their profession. They in turn will implant the idea of the music room in the mind of the general public.
The music room will be accepted because it has been made the thing. And the man or woman who has a music room, or has arranged a corner of the parlor as a musical corner, will naturally think of buying a piano. It will come to him as his own idea."
Pretty much no one would consider my home minimalist, with my whole living room to the brim with lego and spaceship posters and plants and flowers, but I would buy them a new if they weren’t there, and there’s not a single thing in there that doesn’t make me feel better.
Like most things in life, “minimalist” it’s just a tag, a label because people like to form tribes.
I wouldn’t discount it as a mindset. I am a minimalist despite having decorations in my home. And if I’m part of a tribe, I’m pretty sure I’ve been excommunicated because I don’t make friends over this stuff.
What I do do tho is just keep things tidy. Dispose or donate things I don’t need anymore. Limit my material purchases to art I appreciate all the time and tools I use all the time. I just feel cleaner spiritually for it.
Are you saying that minimalism is weird because you don't value it?
I can't see any other point you are making.
To me, being an adult who has to plaster their rooms in printed images of children's toys to have a sense of well being sounds like a version of hell but I don't care much that you do it because I don't have to ever go inside your house.
So, I'm happy you like your Lego posters. I don't think many minimalists are too bummed out at the concept that some person somewhere likes a bunch of posters.
But it's not much of a critique of minimalism in general.
I feel like this article misses the true point of minimalism. It's not about having monochromatic houses and boring designs (fine if that's what you're into). Minimalism is about avoiding excess junk that you don't need. You can still choose to have multi colored rooms and decor and be someone that adopts minimalism. I agree that our homes should be expression of ourselves but we shouldn't accumulate for the sake of accumulating.
These are two different things. There's minimalism as a life philosophy, and there's minimalism as a design style. They go well together, but, as you point out, you can also have one without the other.
I think you mean sparse or unadorned rather than boring– boring minimalist designs miss the point of minimalism. The idea is to create beauty using the form of the objects themselves and how they interact with their surroundings rather than adding purely decorative elements. A picture of open ocean or desert can be beautiful, entirely unadorned, and a picture of a carnival can be boring as hell. I'd certainly call Gottfried Böhm's Brutalist church sparse or unadorned in contrast to St. Basil's Cathedral, but I'd call it anything but boring. (Personally, I find them both breathtaking.)
> Minimalism is about avoiding excess junk that you don't need
This is a very shallow heuristic. “Stuff you’ll need over a lifetime” has a very long tail that requires a balance in trade-off between just-in-time availability vs waiting two days of Amazon shipping; throwing things away once done vs inventorying them at home etc.
Turns out one is particularly shitty for the environment while being revitalizing for the current economy; throw-away-ism is not feasible at the planet scale; there is only so much raw material you can extract and process without paying attention to recyclability, very little of which is factored into pricing.
“The true minimalism” would be a lifestyle change that minimized throw-awayism too, while the popular minimalism is a petite bourgeois fashion that hinges on it.
A good example to this ideal is ISS; it looks cluttered but that's as good as a minimalist space can get when you have to inventory everything you'll need locally and have true constraints on bringing in useless mass of materials onboard.
I think there's confusion on "minimalism" the aesthetic choice and minimalism the life-style choice. Real minimalism is about reducing foot-print (both spacial and ecological) to just the necessities and things that bring you joy. "Throw-away-ism" is consumerism wearing a minimalism shaped mask, which is ironic because minimalism is at least partially a rejection of consumerism.
Not totally sure this belongs on HN, but it was at least informative and well written. It's not at all about philosophy, but about design trends. I was sort of vaguely aware that Scandinavian simplicity was getting long in the tooth and that vintage, humorous, and eclectic was back in. I think it would be interesting to consider if we could end up seeing this reflected in UI and graphic design.
Lots of website designs have featured this genre of “cluttered beauty” for many years already. Personally I hate it. It makes everything so difficult to read.
IMO it’s unlikely to be featured in interface design as I’m sure past the branding advantage, it’s just bad for accessibility.
First, there were Windows apps, with menus, entirely browseable by keyboard shortcuts for every menu, contextual help with F1 everywhere, universal and automatic support for Tab, Esc, Enter, speech support, applications were complex and as you grew better at them, you could browse them faster than a clerk buying an airplane ticket on Amadeus (the ancient text interface where each keystroke is a complex command).
Then we had apps and webapps. People loved them. They had no keyboard shortcuts, no menus, “tab” didn’t lead anywhere, colors were not uniform, concepts neither, and “usability” meant “fewer functions”. There was no way to write on your resume that you were expert at any of them. And they replaced each other fast.
Let’s hope we’ll reinvent advanced user interfaces.
> Marie Kondo, the decluttering phenom who encouraged millions to “spark joy” by throwing out heaps of perfectly good things, was met with substantial ridicule when she began selling “essentials” like silicone head massagers and $61 paperweights on her website.
I think this is a misquote of Marie Kondo. She says to get rid of things that don't spark joy. It's just permission and encouragement to part ways with things that you keep around but never use or enjoy.
So the $61 paperweight isn't a contradiction at all, not if it's owner really likes it. Especially if it replaces two other things that they didn't really care about.
My brother-in-law and his wife are so called minimalists who moved back east from California. Buying a 5 bedroom 750k house wasn’t minimalist to start with .But they had to go car free and so needed to be in a walkable and hip part of the city.Then they had a kid and kept asking me and my wife as well as my parents for favors and stuff just so they didn’t have to buy or do things. Meanwhile scoffing at me and my wife for thrift shopping since we were buying stuff we needed.
I am sorry but minimalism is re-using and not wasting stuff as much as you can . Collecting experiences by traveling every weekend contributes hugely to pollution by airlines . A 750k open design house , going car-less, not buying a used lawnmower but paying someone to mow your lawn is extreme American privilege and a fad . Minimalism is doing with what you have and trying to recycle and re-use and right to repair .
Something that's not mentionned: one of the nice thing with what we usually associate with minimalist spaces is that they are very easy to clean. Maximalist spaces are the opposite. Maybe that's not a concern for some people, but for me it weighs a lot in how I organize my space.
>Marie Kondo's decluttering dominance is over. Make way for maximalism, where the more stuff, the merrier
Apparently the dominance of fluff journalistic pieces, describing meaningless trends nobody really cares about [1], however, is not over...
[1] Both Kondo's method and minimalism is a 5%-of-the-population endeavor at most, mostly for Bo-Hos and the top/upper middle class those journalists belong or try to get to.
68 comments
[ 0.19 ms ] story [ 126 ms ] threadGet to the point, provide value, readers can get hold of millions of novels if they want to read descriptive storie, and with a well crafted plot coming from authors who work on stories.
Personally I only read the first few paragraphs before closing the page.
Anyway, I upvoted it because it offers something interesting which I was not aware of, and made me curious as to its change.
(I didn't downvote you, but I assume it's because the comment doesn't really add anything. The complaint isn't that constructive, and is not aimed at the right people. I think most of the people here can figure out how to read which includes determining it they should continue reading something, and not fall into the sunk-cost fallacy of "I atarted reading this, so I have to finish.")
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_mean_(philosophy)
In the limit, moderation and maximalism are identical. Half of infinity is infinity.
This can go awry very fast if done with less care, but then again, so can a minimalist room. Minimalist rooms can quickly start to look like a chipboard warehouse if no care is take to prevent it.
Of course, it helps immensely that this room has no "life clutter" in it. Imagine adding a few discarded Amazon boxes waiting to be recycled...
I was with a significant other once who had really similar tastes as me, but we differed a lot in our buying preferences. They were a lot more maximalist, and I was more minimalist. I went along with many their purchases because I did like the stuff after all, and loved them, but I noticed over time we were much more likely to get rid of the items they wanted, the "maximalist" items, and keep the stuff that was more minimalist. It wasn't just because we kept what I wanted either -- they got tired of it and wanted to change it for something else. The minimalist stuff they didn't initially see as exciting or interesting, but they also never got tired of it.
Minimalism isn't just about reducing unnecessary stuff in some sort of purity ritual, it's about learning and focusing on what consistently and reliably works for you emotionally and functionally. Simple tends to work well a lot of the time, and even though it's not as fun and novel, it tends to stay loved. In this regard, I think something can be minimalist if it reflects something that will work for you over the long run, that you won't get tired of and will last.
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/522558363009051596/
So after throwing everything out, people now buy new stuff ? Great trick, great for the planet, slow clap!
You can chick away half your things but your home could still look cluttered and ‘terrible’.
> maximalism: our homes should be places full of stuff that sparks joy!
I'm no expert on interior design but that seems to be the same thing. Minimalism was co-opted by the very consumerism it initially criticized, with corporations telling us that we need more (white, square, lifeless) stuff. If your room only has a ornamental bed your inherited from your great-grandparents and a thrifted wardrobe in it, i would still consider that minimalist
This quote summarises the true intention - buying stuff makes you happy. We all get a kick out of this but that is not going to provide lasting happiness.
As others have pointed out, minimalism isn’t about the number of things you own. And in a way, if you’re “minimalistic” you are also “materialistic” - truly caring about the things you own.
Today, I’m donating a bunch of clothes that still fit me but I don’t wear them anymore. It doesn’t even take up much space but I feel like I’m shedding weight.
I also just don’t have the willpower to deal with their screaming and crying when I toss toys or donate them. Our youngest daughter is special needs in a wheelchair and can literally die if she gets too upset.
Honestly writing this has made me resolve to fill some boxes and donate some stuff to Goodwill. I’ll just have to do it at night when they’re asleep or something. I wish I was as good a parent as I am an engineer.
From the information in your comment you seem like a great parent to me. Or maybe you are just a good parent, but an exceptionally great engineer ;)
You seem to be perfectly aware of things you need to take into consideration. And you have even come to a solution. Sometimes things are just hard, but that doesn't say anything about your parenting abilities.
The good thing about minimalism is there is a nearby limit - zero. Not so with maximalism.
Just as predictable is the sneering and shaming of such behavior, decrying it as shallow etc. by people who can't keep up with this, or dislike the game. Then the most effective way to counter it is to make it about morality, to feel pride in not keeping up etc. But that won't solve anything, the fad may even temporarily follow that: see billionaires dressing in "normcore", rich people feeling kinda embarrassed by being seen rich. However there is still a big difference in Zuckerberg's normcore and the average person wearing cheap clothes. Just as there 8s a huge difference between a rich minimalist and a person whose apartment is almost empty because he can't afford to furnish it properly.
Admitting caring about status is itself low status.
Which cities is this most common/prominent in?
There are better signals of this than stuff in one’s house. For example, the location and recent sale price of comparable homes, which is public information. Or one’s source of income, hobbies, and travel.
There's individual differences of course. Some people will live their entire life in a house that never changes, and like it that way. Others get bored and restless or a feeling of being trapped if they don't change their surroundings every two years. Most people are somewhere in between.
As for the sourpusses, I agree: they are predictable and boring. Unfortunately, also very prevalent on social media.
Or perhaps your guests just genuinely like the décor, and aren't playing some 4D Slytherin chess game. Some people just don't play the social signalling game.
Disliking the game means you don't like it. It's not interesting.
I call BS. Consumer culture is a cancer; best to excise it.
Let's say, hypothetically, that Big Consumer Culture wanted to Give You Permission To Buy Stuff, does it seem like this is the venue and manner they'd use to present this idea? The article discusses coverage of minimalist house makeovers as fueling the minimalism they think is in decline: wouldn't the people trying to push consumer culture use the same coverage of maximalist house makeovers more effectively than a small long-form essay in a Canadian literary magazine? Wouldn't they have a thing they want to sell? Wouldn't there be graphics or pictures or video engagement? Wouldn't it be attached to some kind of promotion?
It's sort of hard to unpack the who, what, when, where, how of your pitch here.
The modern propagandist therefore sets to work to create circumstances which will modify that custom. He appeals perhaps to the home instinct which is fundamental. He will endeavor to develop public acceptance of the idea of a music room in the home. This he may do, for example, by organizing an exhibition of period music rooms designed by well known decorators who themselves exert an influence on the buying groups... Then, in order to create dramatic interest in the exhibit, he stages an event or ceremony. To this ceremony key people, persons known to influence the buying habits of the public, such as a famous violinist, a popular artist, and a society leader, are invited. These key persons affect other groups, lifting the idea of the music room to a place in the public consciousness which it did not have before... Meanwhile, influential architects have been persuaded to make the music room an integral architectural part of their plans with perhaps a specially charming niche in one corner for the piano. Less influential architects will as a matter of course imitate what is done by the men whom they consider masters of their profession. They in turn will implant the idea of the music room in the mind of the general public.
The music room will be accepted because it has been made the thing. And the man or woman who has a music room, or has arranged a corner of the parlor as a musical corner, will naturally think of buying a piano. It will come to him as his own idea."
-Edward Bernays, Propaganda
Pretty much no one would consider my home minimalist, with my whole living room to the brim with lego and spaceship posters and plants and flowers, but I would buy them a new if they weren’t there, and there’s not a single thing in there that doesn’t make me feel better.
Like most things in life, “minimalist” it’s just a tag, a label because people like to form tribes.
What I do do tho is just keep things tidy. Dispose or donate things I don’t need anymore. Limit my material purchases to art I appreciate all the time and tools I use all the time. I just feel cleaner spiritually for it.
I can't see any other point you are making.
To me, being an adult who has to plaster their rooms in printed images of children's toys to have a sense of well being sounds like a version of hell but I don't care much that you do it because I don't have to ever go inside your house.
So, I'm happy you like your Lego posters. I don't think many minimalists are too bummed out at the concept that some person somewhere likes a bunch of posters.
But it's not much of a critique of minimalism in general.
Same thing with minimalist lives, ideally!
This is a very shallow heuristic. “Stuff you’ll need over a lifetime” has a very long tail that requires a balance in trade-off between just-in-time availability vs waiting two days of Amazon shipping; throwing things away once done vs inventorying them at home etc.
Turns out one is particularly shitty for the environment while being revitalizing for the current economy; throw-away-ism is not feasible at the planet scale; there is only so much raw material you can extract and process without paying attention to recyclability, very little of which is factored into pricing.
“The true minimalism” would be a lifestyle change that minimized throw-awayism too, while the popular minimalism is a petite bourgeois fashion that hinges on it.
A good example to this ideal is ISS; it looks cluttered but that's as good as a minimalist space can get when you have to inventory everything you'll need locally and have true constraints on bringing in useless mass of materials onboard.
(for some items, perhaps - and communal item libraries don't necessarily solve the waiting-time concern, sure)
IMO it’s unlikely to be featured in interface design as I’m sure past the branding advantage, it’s just bad for accessibility.
Then we had apps and webapps. People loved them. They had no keyboard shortcuts, no menus, “tab” didn’t lead anywhere, colors were not uniform, concepts neither, and “usability” meant “fewer functions”. There was no way to write on your resume that you were expert at any of them. And they replaced each other fast.
Let’s hope we’ll reinvent advanced user interfaces.
I think this is a misquote of Marie Kondo. She says to get rid of things that don't spark joy. It's just permission and encouragement to part ways with things that you keep around but never use or enjoy.
So the $61 paperweight isn't a contradiction at all, not if it's owner really likes it. Especially if it replaces two other things that they didn't really care about.
Apparently the dominance of fluff journalistic pieces, describing meaningless trends nobody really cares about [1], however, is not over...
[1] Both Kondo's method and minimalism is a 5%-of-the-population endeavor at most, mostly for Bo-Hos and the top/upper middle class those journalists belong or try to get to.