A Sorry Search for Simple: In Defence of Maximalism
By Caoilfhin Foley
Photography by Elizabeth Hunt
The concept of minimalism emerged in the 1950s as an attempt to blend both beauty and utilitarianism seamlessly. This bore a mentality that could only resonate within a society that was overwhelmed by materialism, teetering on the centenary of the end of the Industrial Revolution. Minimalism has been described as, “a tool to rid life's excess in favour of focusing on what is important.” Maximalism, on the other hand, is a postmodern reaction to the reductionist philosophy, adopting slogans such as “more is more” to rival ideas of “less is more.”
Under the guise of the digital age, appearances are always in the forefront of social importance. Minimalism, unfortunately, is a lifestyle that dominates as a result of this- what is a foolproof and methodical elimination of clutter could only leave what is considered to be decent (and aesthetic) in its wake. If sentimentality and gentrification are far from compatible, what makes minimalism the attractive feat in this arrangement?
An inconspicuous contender against capitalism
Some arguments put forth in support of minimalism may propose that the concept is in implicit retaliation to capitalism. Although this may be true to some degree, I would argue that there is a substantial margin for error when considering supposed ‘minimalistic’ lifestyle choices in the 21st century. The most recognisable reincarnation of simple living is the “clean girl aesthetic” that routinely runs its course around the algorithms of social media. It’s a mode of subsisting that boasts discipline and demands structure in order to have any efficient pay-off. Minimalism has become highly evolved since its creation in the 50s, for better or for worse. What was once an existence that could be compared to monasticism in its implementation has now become more appearance based and less concerned with soul searching. A minimalist's wardrobe must consist of “staples”- beiges and whites that can be mismatched accordingly. The longevity of these items comes into question when a person makes the inevitable decision to reduce the quantity of their spending. The quality of apparel must increase to compensate for a decreased rate of purchasing. This is only common sense. However, a similar logic suddenly applies towards make-up, skincare, fragrances, self-help books and so on, until minimalism is not so anti-capitalist afterall. To participate in this late stage-minimalism is to engage in a constantly shifting trend cycle and “clean girls” are not exactly the figureheads they would like us to think they are. Furthermore, whilst minimalism may try to fight overconsumption, it is idealistic to portray the concept as being fundamentally opposed to the growth of materialism.
There is also something to be said about those who pioneer ‘minimalist’ financial gurus in order to accumulate wealth. Adopting the philosophy during some temporary pause in expenditure renders the notion of minimalism as obsolete; minimalism being defined as removed from the idea that happiness would be sought not through things (capital) but life itself. Marx famously said, “The less you eat, drink and buy books; the less you go to the theatre, the dance hall, the public house; the less you think, love, theorise, sing, paint, fence, etc., the more you save—the greater becomes your treasure which neither moths nor rust will devour—your capital.” Minimalism has a tendency to reject sentimentality in its execution and, whilst hoarding isn’t condoned, this can come across as a little extreme.
Maximilism picks up from where minimalism fails
Where the success of minimalism is seen merely in its implication because there is not much, if anything, to show for it; maximalism depicts itself clearly through its presentation (naturally). Minimalism follows a strict template yet still manages to lack assurance because of its absence of personality. Maximalism, for what it's worth, is sure of itself because it transcends classification. Although both stand at two opposing ends of the extremes, maximalism could be favoured on account of its allowance for expression, sentimentality and growth. While there may be a tendency for people to become overwhelmed by a maximalist lifestyle- excessive decor, saturated colours, ornamentation etc, it could be argued that this sensation is matched by the confusion associated with a reductionist's lack there-of.
Minimalists allow themselves to find meaning in discipline, routine and order. Whilst, admittedly, this may work for some, it is unrealistic to apply a “one size fits all” attitude to the lifestyle which is usually the case, sought in its popularisation across social media. Maximalism picks up from where minimalism fails in the sense that the philosophy embraces feeling and all things humane where minimalists are sterile, in search of a cleanse. Because of this, it appears only natural to adopt a maximalist lifestyle in the face of minimalism - and this is nothing to be ashamed of.
There are misconceptions about maximalism that make it appear glutinous and unruly but this doesn't have to be the case. Sentimental understanding gives way to sustainable consumption; maximalism doesn't have to be a capitalistic nightmare because it is associated with objects in abundance. Value is something found, more often than not, outside of a price tag. This is a conclusion minimalists strive to achieve but often end up falling short as previously discussed in the first section.
Minimalism, as previously seen in maximalism
There is a recycling tradition inherent to older generations that saw communities across the world maximising the use of their belongings in a manner which present society has lost. The image of my grandmother’s house is one that is synonymous with clutter yet all of the paraphernalia had a place within her cupboards. I’m sure I haven’t been the only one to stand, wearing ripped jeans, in the wake of someone my senior only to be told my trousers would have been patched had I grown up in a time that existed thirty years earlier. This is a blatant example of the sense of utility present in our culture that has the potential to once again be reclaimed. I mention these little conventions of a society that has passed because I think there is something to be learned from their customs. It is interesting that the people belonging to such a lifestyle could very often make do with what they had and very seldom went without - not quite leaning towards minimalism either to discover a sense of self. This is because the oneness of community reject the self-centred minimalist ideology.
Would it be ironic to ask that we start from a clean slate in the light of minimalism? Could it be possible to regulate our spending without the loss of our individuality to microtrends in the process? I don't know about you but I think that grey scale high rise architecture is a pitiful product of the capabilities of the human brain. For that reason, in the face of gentrification, could the desire paths of hope lead us astray in the most natural (and maximalist) way possible?
Sources:
https://www.theminimalists.com/minimalism/
https://www.strikemagazines.com/blog-2-1/maximalists-revenge
Le Corbusier and Amédée Ozenfant’s “Purism” (1921). (2011, August 31). Modernist Architecture.
Marx, K. (n.d.). Human Requirements and Division of Labour, Marx, 1844. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/needs.htm
