some other thoughts
As both Belk and Russell stated in 1988 in Possessions and the Extended Self, and Solomon in 1983 in The role of products as social stimuli, we cultivate, preserve and develop our identities through the symbolic use of possessions. That use is both inward, how we see ourselves and outward, how we want to be seen by others.
In that context, minimalism could be a number of things. The most obvious one is to show that we do not want anything to be known about ourselves by keeping the outward signs to a strict minimum. The other is that the minimalist choice is a way of expressing who and what we are. The first possibility is very unlikely because minimalism is to forceful a statement to serve as a social camouflage. So we could ask ourselves what is it that the person that is longing for a minimalist home wants to tell us, or simply wants to be.
Those who have studied the cluttered homes and extensive possession of kitsch have often come to the conclusion that these possessions are playing either the role of a barrier with the outside world or are demonstrating a need for control over once immediate environment. The first function is more spread among those people who are financially less secure; the second is not limited to that social group.
It minimalism is at the other end of the spectrum, one would come to the preliminary conclusion that people that can adopt minimalism have no need to create that barrier, in other words they find security in other ways (financial, political etc.) The Pawson designed monastery points in that direction. Minimalism in that case is not a stylistic choice, but is in accordance with the choices made by a religious,community to find security in their belief in God and their willingness as cistercians to express that believe in real but also symbolic poverty. As Pawson wrote in a 2004 essay: The whole point is that this is how I live, so this is what my house needs to be like. The architecture is the physical expression of a way of being: the form does not follow a particular fashion, it follows a particular life.
I have no doubts about his honesty in that statement on the contrary but the way things go in this world, the next minimalist expression might not have the same intentions. That is I think where original and honest intentions start to glide toward mannerism.
Can it
be denied that, at one level, a minimal solution to a design problem can be at once the most economical, logical and even elegant result possible ? If so, could not any one of these be reason enough for a person to make that choice -- irony, history, context, "style" or anything else external notwithstanding ? Can choices never be made simply for self-evident reasons ?
Perhaps I miss the point. Maybe it is assumed that no one ever acts entirely for pragmatic reasons -- or that something so obviously stylish as Pawson's church could possibly have been the result of unsophisticated decision-making ? Why do I have the ghost of a suspicion, that while we might credit ourselves with acting is such a way, we don't really believe that others do so. . .?
Believe me, I love some...
Believe me, I love some minimalist stuff ... especially classic stuff like the Farnsworth and the Glass House. There is something about today's minimalism that has been homogenized ... most all of it seems to say the same thing, with the same materials and aesthetic.
Beyond that, it can be considered "good" or "bad" design, depending on what it's used for and your personal design ethics.
For a house, I say quite a bit of it is "bad." Humans are sentimental creatures who enjoy family, comfort, coziness, warmth ... many people try to override their instincts with "intelligence." In the home, more than anywhere, it should be designed by humans for humans.
For a museum, perfect. Stunning architectural details that can be perfectly enjoyed or ignored, not taking away from the intent. It is the stage for fine art with something equally beautiful, without being distracting.
For a church, great ... a government building, sure ....
How about a mix in one space
like a LR that is ultra minimalist so that a perfect Eames chair can be fully appreciated without any visual distraction, then a den chock-a-block full of stuff to nest in, then a bedroom for sleeping that is somewhere in between, to impart peaceful uncluttered rest.
I agree that the overwhelming discipline for absolute minimalism is pretty tough to maintain. We strive for a balance at our casa.
A mix in one space could be...
A mix in one space could be cool, although many modernists feel the urge to make a whole residence a cohesive design. But, more and more, I think to hell with the rules. As long as they are broken in good taste. I have mentioned how I like disparate ideas in one design .... and it's trendy to do so these days. Designers usually rely on differing styles for this (modern + traditional). Using organized clutter vs. minimalism could create a nice tension somehow.
"This is how I live"
I really identify with the statement that Koen gave us from Pawson. I am a huge admirer of Pawson's work, the monestary is a masterwork and almost makes me belive in religion. The space is very spiritual, and I find most of Pawson's work gives me an i'ncredible lightness of being' when I look at it.
I think I might be one of those persons who could live in a in a truly minimal space and be happy. I have a hard time feeling calm in the face of visual clutter. I clear everything off my kitchen counters and coffee table every night when I go to bed. Magazines are quickly recycled, paperbacks are donated and all other books are behind doors. My displays of my stuff are kept confined and often repeats shapes. As AzC talked about, I put things away and then pull them out (often seasonally) so I can keep things fresh to my eye. Also as much as I love color, I can't handle too much of it. My home has a tight color palette, with greys predominating for the main spaces. All of my bed and bath lines are white. And I don't have the collecting gene. I do have a small collection of japanese teapots (which I actually use), but I stopped collecting when I ran out of room on my existing shelves. In short I am very inclined towards 'minimal as nirvana'.
BUT...
Like Koen, I am wary of '-isms'. For me a truly minimalist space would be one where you simply didn't own much. You disciplined yourself in a monkish way to live with less, to consume less and to take up less resources/space. I don't think that as much as I love a Pawson-designed space, that it could truly be considered monastic. It likely cost a small fortune to build and consumed a large amount of resources. That is not minimal. It may look that way but I'd bet that monastery of his is going to be years and years overcoming it's embodied energy deficit. So much for a vow of poverty.
If I take the populist definition of minimalism and interpret it to mean a tightly controlled space with a limited color and material palette, a spare and careful arrangement of furniture and artifacts. Well, yes, that's a different bird altogether and it does take phenomenal architecture to acheive that perfect balance between sublime and sterile. The Kayne West place is sterile and ill-defined. The Pawson interior on that same thread is gorgeous to my eye...I sink right into that photo.
and again BUT...
I can't figure out how one lives in a space like that. I have so much less stuff in my space than most homes I've seen, even my other modernist friends. People come to my house all the time and want to know where my stuff is hiding. It's very peaceful and uncluttered here. However, I still have cat toys scattered on the floor, a tissue box on the counter, shoes kicked under the entry bench, magazines and books near my reading chair, tomatoes ripening on the window-sill and that annoying little piece of plastic something that I don't know what it goes to that I hesitate to throw away sitting near the sink. We LIVE here, clutter happens. I tend to doubt that the photos we see in magazines reflect a minimal interior as it *truly* is when it is being lived in.
I have a friend who is a principal at a large commercial architecture firm, one of the top 10 in the US, actually. She has told me many times about the photo shoots she has presided over and how they strive to make it look like someone has just left their desk or has just placed the table settings for the dinner crowd, when actually they have edited out close to 1/2 of the items in the space!
my motto is life isn't minimal. Life is messy and changes constantly. So I edit out what I can to keep myself sane and say the heck with the rest. I call that Practical Minimalsim...and that's an '-ism' I can live with!
If I mix some of Koen's...
If I mix some of Koen's ideas about an idea driving the look, add Olive's comment about energy and material usage, I see minimalism becoming something very different than the visual of clean white spaces with little in them. A minimalism for contemporary concerns would be the most self sustaining environment possible. It would be as self heating and cooling as possible. And it certainly would be small and functionally laid out for it's intended user. The finished look would be determined by these parameters. As an example, uninterrupted expanses of flat walls would be sacrificed if it was an unnecessary addition of materials for covering structure just for a look. So a contemporary minimalism might follow the modernist view of furniture, that showed the structure rather than covering it up with more stuff to have it look like less. It is as though minimalist architecture today is a very different thing with its finished look than minimalism the term would suggest, and has been expressed before in other areas of design as an economy of means.
Im reminded
Im reminded of an episode of AbFab, in which Edina brings a bottle of wine to her friends -"they're minimalists dahling!". The couple takes the bottle and uncertainly glances across an expansive white soundstage before very ceremoniously setting the bottle down on the ground.
I would love to be a minimalist, but I've got way too much shit. Minimalism, in the Pawson, clean-white-interior, description is something akin to monogamous relationships: committment - to a style, a very small amount of things, and a strong love of those things. And like monogamy I think humans are all wired very differently. Some can handle it, some cannot.
Practical minimalism is striving to reduce. Like all forms of expression there are those on the far edge -like Pawson - who create a zone in which the vernacular can flourish. I think what we'll be seeing in 10-20 years is a reduction in scale and quanity of consumption.
If you need any help, please contact us at – info@designaddict.com