Natalie writes in response to the previous post on interior design:  

I was interested in your thoughts on current interior design trends and the rise in minimalism. First, minimalism is a very masculine style, and one could say that the more androgynous the feminine ideal becomes (the ideal female figure and personality becoming increasingly boyish) the more our homes reflect the change. Also, like extreme thinness, minimalism is a class-based aspiration, the more people have the less they want to show, any kind of opulence is seen as bad taste. Why is this so? Perhaps there is a strong bias against femininity in design circles: a bias against the opulence of the traditional female form and against the female home. [Laura: That had never occurred to me! Fascinating.]

Secondly, I think there is a link between increased consumerism over the past decade and the rise of minimalism. There is a strange dissonance between the “patriotism” of buying more stuff and our minimalistic homes – we buy and then we chuck it out to make room and space. I also think it is important to note that the rise of minimalism coincided with the rise in esoteric spirituality in the West – many disciples of minimalism believe themselves to be cleansing their spirits in some unfathomable way. [Again, this is an excellent observation.]

Thirdly, minimalism is not a style conducive to successful family life, no matter how it has been sold to us. It is not comfortable; it requires extreme effort to maintain; you cannot close doors on mess if your house is on an open plan; and most importantly it is not child-friendly. [Amen!] It is a style which celebrates the rise of the consuming individual, an individualistic style and not one which can function at a family level. We have lost the sense that our homes are places of comfort, hospitality and nurture; they are simply reflections of individual taste and our monetary worth, homes are assets. 

However, it is my belief that minimalism is on the wane, particularly in Europe. The UK has seen the rise of the new domestic style, and a concurrent rise of many articles on “high flying” women choosing the domestic sphere over commerce. However, the new domestic style is very much sold to us a kind of vintage make-believe, a style which plunders a more domestic past for its inspiration, and as someone interested in design (it’s in my blood – a family business) I find this to be a little cowardly, and too tongue in cheek to be taken seriously. [Yes, this trend toward retro-chic is unserious and cynical.]  The only way forward is to bravely ignore trends and follow William Morris’ advice and buy only things which we consider to be either beautiful or useful.

Laura writes:

Thank you, Natalie!                                                                              

William Morris wallpaper

 A  female reader writes:

I love what Natalie pointed out about minimalistic design.

Thirdly, minimalism is not a style conducive to successful family life, no matter how it has been sold to us. It is not comfortable, it requires extreme effort to maintain, you cannot close doors on mess if your house is open plan, and most importantly it is not child friendly. [Amen!] It is a style which celebrates the rise of the consuming individual, an individualistic style and not one which can function at a family level. We have lost the sense that our homes are places of comfort, hospitality and nurture, they are simply reflections of individual taste and our monetary worth, homes are assets.

I have long lamented the trend of WHITE, off white and beige carpeting in homes that have people actually living in them – especially if some of those people are children. How does one keep these carpets looking clean? Are we not supposed to walk on them? Perhaps we are supposed to be so thin that we barely exist and therefore don’t leave footprints (goes along well with not wanting to leave a carbon footprint). That’s not living; that’s existing.

I can see where those seeking spirituality might not want to be encumbered by too many material things however, some of those things help bring comfort into the home. Things such as warm lighting (not flourescent), thick blankets, comfortable sofas with comfy pillows and warm rugs underfoot. Real spirituality seeks to give, rather than take away. Faith seeks to comfort rather than make a show. Minimalism is a false religion.

Kidist Paulos Asrat writes:

Yes, this minimalism – modernism – is in many ways an anti-human movement. Your reader Natalie has captured that really well. Of course, this is the only period in human history where richness is associated with guilt, and hence paring down and minimizing. The Victorians never thought so, nor any of the significant periods in history. In fact, great cities were built with beauty and luxe in mind to give the poor a reprieve as well.

I hate to dwell on homosexual designers (both fashion and interior). They are the most over-rated group in the whole of design history. Excellent clothes and fabrics have been designed by straight men (and still are). Women designers these days are the ones who are infusing color and fabrics into their work. (You might have heard of two shows “Color Confidential” and ‘Divine Design” which are hosted by two women. And Martha Stewart never skimps on colors and comfort).

I think this minimalist glitch in our history was taken full-on by homosexuals who were told they have an eye for color and form, and who thought they could get paid jobs acting out their pseudo-feminine fantasies. But they had no eye for or interest in family, humanity, femininity – in short everything that reminds them of who they are, and what they cannot have.

Dare I say that this field was temporarily hijacked by such a group so that until now we believe we have to look androgynous to be attractive, and that a box of a room with spiritless white and deathly black (and grays) is the house of our dreams? Perhaps for them, we might have passed this phase sooner.

Laura writes:

Yes, it’s important to remember those who have run counter to this trend and, as Kidist mentions, I think Martha Stewart has been a good influence on American middle class decor with her emphasis on color, objects from nature, vintage touches,  and homemade crafts.  

Hannon writes:

Just the other day I had a rather lengthy “walk-through” conversation with someone who is engaged in decorative design by profession. He is almost the stereotypical homosexual fashionista: impassioned, irrepressible, and flighty.

His work and matriculation background have led him to believe that his design ideas bring meaning to the viewer. I told him I doubted that viewers would “see” many of the concepts he was certain were a reality. What is missing in many of these professionals, and you’ve touched on it in your recent posts, is transcendent good taste, a sense of balancing shapes, depth and color combinations. There seem to be certain “classic” forms and designs that are appealing to most people. I don’t know if there is a universal aesthetic that resonates with the human brain, but it seems something like this is going on. So-called “primitive” art, especially where aniline dyes are absent, provides so many good examples in textiles, ceramics, beadwork, etc. It may be drab but it is rarely tacky or “off” visually. Some of it is simple yet stunningly beautiful. We can all recall examples that captured our attention.

I once heard an older lady say that there was no such thing as a “bad color combination” when it came to flowers. They are all beautiful. Yes, they are, but some combinations can be ghastly, like orange with certain other colors (like pink!), while others, like blue/yellow or red/yellow or black and just about any color work very well. Texture, shape, light refraction and actual tinting are all factors that can decide or break the appeal.

Perhaps it is the case that today too few people stop to even consider these things. We have our “cultural aesthetics” handed to us by sloppy and ill-trained people with professional titles that did not even exist a few decades ago. They are busily designing “interiorscapes” (love that word), architecture, gardens and public spaces. Most of them could be designing the soles of shoes and they would not be missed.

wild oxalis

Please follow and like us: