5 ms·
I'll take a gander at drawing the distinction. Minimalism as an aesthetic is certainly luxurious. It implies that it was well thought out and contains only the
by MAGZine 10y ago
I'll take a gander at drawing the distinction.
Minimalism as an aesthetic is certainly luxurious. It implies that it was well thought out and contains only the necessary elements for a high-standard of living. It doesn't necessarily require you to be very wealthy, it just requires you to own less stuff than you could otherwise.
Living with the only pair of clothes that are on your back could indeed be minimalist, though in the case of homeless, it's less minimalism and more survivalism.
So yes, minimalism is luxury. It's a conscious decision in the face of people who don't have the time/money/energy to begin thinking decluttering.
- jacquesm 10y agoNo, Minimalism is a fad cooked up by people who were all-out consumers until they realized they didn't need all that crap who now have found permission from their guru (cited in the article) to get rid of their crap. Aka: common sense. Real minimalism is the life of a monk, and is not generally something compatible with functioning in society, and even monks live in places that take care of their needs by offloading some of their burdens on others. A friend of mine - who is a declared minimalist - always wants to borrow my stuff (especially tools), go figure.
- MAGZine 10y agoIf it were common sense, then why is the idea so radical, shocking, and/or controversial?
- jacquesm 10y agoBecause (1) common sense isn't common and (2) it isn't but there is money to be made from fads like these. Which is why HN has a Mari Kondo advertorial like this one posted every second day.