Complexities of Minimalism

In 1855 Robert Browning wrote a poem (more of a monologue) in the voice of Andrea del Sarto, a Florentine painter from High Renaissance era, well known for his mastery in technique. There was one more aspect of his being that was very popular at the time- his lack of passion towards his work. Even though his techniques were much more refined than his contemporaries of the time like - Michelangelo, Raphael and Leonardo da Vinci. Due to his lack of emotional dedication to create something magnificent, his legacy got somewhat overshadowed in his time and in times to come. Almost 325 years after his death, when this monologue was written, in a blended tone of appreciation and criticism, Browning wrote ‘Less is More’ to portray Sarto’s acceptance for ‘mediocrity’ or attitude to settle for less and be contended with it.

Several decades later in 20th century, a modernist German-American architect, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe changed the entire narration attached with the expression to exactly opposite of what was intended by the original writer. When Mies said ‘Less is More’ it became a synonym for the gravity of minimalism. In a world obsessed with ornamentation and symbolism, during early 1900s, when ‘minimalism’ was a young concept in the world of architecture, this expression became a war cry for the people advocating minimalism or trying to achieve minimalism not just in architecture but in life.

What was so compelling about ‘minimalism’ that the phenomenon started spreading like a wild fire globally? It started getting popular and accepted as an ideology and a lifestyle.

Was it cultural shift or influence of architects like Mies or economic forces like industrial revolution and post WWII trauma. Was it philosophy behind or practicality attached to it?

Maybe it was both!

People started to understand that ‘everything is possible but not everything is necessary’. Soon it became a trend. Something to flex about.

There are always consequences of anything becoming a trend without being understood properly. People started to confuse its ‘visible’ simplicity and boldness with ‘easy to achieve’ or ‘cheap to implement’. What got overlooked was the effort and complexities involved to achieve that ‘simplicity’ and boldness of ‘visible nothingness’. A sense of something being ‘absent’ got attached to it where as in veracity it meant ‘presence’ of intentions, clarity and mindfulness. It is an art of identifying the ‘unnecessary’ so that ‘necessary’ can speak more clearly.

Minimalism, is not just a modern ‘trend’. It is deeply rooted in diverse architectural practices across the globe. Multiple cultures approached minimalism in their own unique language.  

Born from centuries-old traditions, for instance Japanese architecture reflected a spiritual and philosophical commitment to Zen Buddhism and Wabi-Sabi. A reverence for impermanence, silence, and restraint. In a culture that found beauty in emptiness and balance, architecture became a canvas of controlled simplicity. Minimalism here was less a design style and more a way of life. Valuing space, silence and the poetic beauty of what is left unoccupied.

In contrast, Scandinavian architecture focuses on functionality, daylight and warmth. With its large windows designed to capture the scarce natural light of northern climates and natural wood finishes that add a sense of quiet elegance and comfort, it creates spaces that feel both calming and humane. Beyond aesthetics, this architectural style was deeply shaped by post-World War II traumas: both financial and emotional. After the war, much of Europe, including the Nordic countries, faced severe economic constraints and a collective emotional exhaustion. There was a pressing need to rebuild not just homes but a sense of stability and optimism. This gave rise to an architecture that was modest yet thoughtful, rooted in functionality, affordability and dignity. The emphasis shifted to clean, simple forms, locally sourced materials and designs that prioritized human well-being.

With rapid industrialization came new materials like steel, reinforced concrete and large panes of glass. Mass production techniques grew and grew a need for efficient, affordable housing and infrastructure. Architecture responded by stripping away ornamentation and embracing function, structure and clarity. Minimalism in modern architecture soon gained momentum in the form of Bauhaus movement in post-WWII Germany, where a war-torn society needed to rebuild quickly, efficiently and affordably. The Bauhaus emphasized “form follows function”, eliminating decorative excess. This evolved into the International Style where glass walls, steel frames and modular structures defined a new universal language of design. Born in crisis, this minimalist approach became an advocate of evolving material manufacturing and construction techniques.

Industrial revolution changed the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of architecture and construction world.

Brutalism was, often misunderstood, also born from post-WWII reconstruction, particularly in the UK and Eastern Europe. It used raw concrete and monolithic forms not as a rejection of beauty but as a symbol of truth, honesty and consensus. The ‘brutal’ exterior often housed public institutions aiming to serve the many and not to impress a few.

Achieving volumes of straight lines and clean facades without any possibility of covering the flaws or errors with an added layer of ornamentation needed intense discipline, strategical planning and precision in execution.

As for the developing countries, one like ours, the adult India of 21st century grew up in houses where all the horizontal surfaces were cluttered with paraphernalia- some of it was utility but most of it was either decorative or an impulse purchase as a result of consumerist and capitalist mind set borrowed from western societies after industrial revolution made mass production easy and cheaper.

Back then, general idea of aesthetics included: how much one could put on display. Intricacy and embellishment signified affluence. Interior spaces were layered with furniture, artefacts, patterns, and visual drama, often without any order or restraint. Homes were museums of material accumulation and a montage of ever evolving consumption pattern of its users.

So, when the children raised in these environments eventually encountered the concept of minimalism, it felt like a breath of fresh air similar to stepping out of a traffic jam thick with smoke into a space of clarity and stillness.

In the late 20th and early 21st century, the philosophy of minimalism resurfaced as a response to overstimulation, consumerism and excess. Architects began to explore the idea of space as experience. Designing with silence, light and material honesty. In a world full of noise, the absence of clutter became a luxury and simplicity became a bold design statement.

The idea quickly got acceptance. This is where the irony begins to unfold: what was once a rebellion against excess, slowly started morphing into an aesthetic of surface-level simplicity. The idea that “less” could be done with less effort became the common misreading. Whereas, in principle, minimalism demanded more. More rigour, more clarity and more discipline.

In architecture, it is a celebration of structure and materials used in the process. In minimalism, structure is a part of aesthetics and aesthetics are a part of function. Nothing is added without purpose and nothing is left unresolved.

The process starts from paper itself. Simplifying the grids in a manner that no structural member is peeking through corners or stealing the focus in volume. There should be no need to hide the structural members with layers of false facades or decorative finishes. There is no scope to hide the execution flaws when the entire structure is on display. Flushing the elements like skirting or wardrobe handles may look ordinary to common eye but it demands not only strategical planning from very inception of design, intense coordination and detailing on drawing level but also mastery of site execution as well.

In modern Indian context where the plot sizes are shrinking and desires are ever expanding, ensuring the services run efficiently and silently in the masonry and through the structure without occupying any foot print in form of shafts/ ducts on these small parcels of land is again a prowess much critical to the entire process. Planning and placing the sleeves and stacks (horizontal and vertical pipes) at the time of casting and masonry work ensuring there is no wear or tear to the structure after completion to conceal the services and hence there is no requirement to put layers of finishing materials to hide that interference.

Minimalism asserts itself not only through structure and construction techniques, but reaches its full expression when the material palette is also kept deliberately minimal. For instance, use of same flooring extending from indoors to outdoor or semi-open areas like balconies not only creates an illusion of larger carpet area but also helps in reducing the wastage, hence reducing the cost and finally eliminating the chaos created by multiple materials placed together.

Repetition of finishes/ materials creates a visual rhythm to guide the eye from one volume to another without getting disrupted by any sudden change of colour or texture.

Smartly eliminating the repetitive elements creating a cleaner geometry is another principle creating the core of this philosophy. Take example of projections over openings. They can be eliminated as an individual element and be replaced by extending the main slab for a bolder and more confidant massing. A design intervention that is not only efficient function wise but also cost wise.

This philosophy also redefines ornamentation as something that emerges when non negotiable components are highlighted with wit. A simple groove tracing the junction between R.C.C. members and bricks walls, be it horizontal or vertical, is a powerful design move to address the aesthetics of the any space not by hiding but through highlighting what exists functionally. Instead of concealing structural realities, minimalism embraces and elevates them.

The discipline lies in treating every element as a design opportunity, rather than a compromise to be masked.

It follows an order. Order follows design principles. A decision as simple as not placing anything above the lintel level. Be it electrical points or curtain rods. There should be an order in every design decision made. How the tiles are laid, how jambs are created, size of the dead walls next to a wide opening accommodating un-drawn curtains or alignment of fixtures. There should be an order even in randomness.

We need to look at minimalism not as merely a design language but a lifestyle and a mindset. How much we consume every day, how we keep our wardrobes and mind un-cluttered, clarity in our vision when it comes to our spaces or our life goals. Where we invest our energy and from where we redirect it towards something more relevant. Whether we fill our volumes and soul with sun light or dullness- everything is a part of decision making- part of minimal lifestyle. The way we are careful in choosing real life battles, we need to be similarly cautious in choosing our architectural battles. Whether we want to achieve functional clarity giving birth to aesthetical calmness or we want to live inside a layered space the core of which is dull with execution and design flaws.

It took us decades but finally we have acknowledged that beauty is a derivative of fitness. A human body is at peak of its beauty when it is fit from inside. A fit body does not need layers of rouge to outshine a crowd.  But achieving a body that fit needs consistent discipline, effort and dedication. It is a consolidated result of simple daily life choices. Similarly, a building’s aesthetic appeal resides in its structural and functional fitness. It is not dependent on decorative distractions but the boldness of its massing, functional relevance of every element used and precision in execution.

Just like physical fitness, this kind of architectural integrity is not accidental. It is a result of countless decisions based on rationality.

This quiet beauty, born from fitness and minimalism, doesn’t scream for attention-it holds it.

It acknowledges the idea that experiencing more often comes from choosing less. Less clutter, less distraction and more clarity, intention, and meaning.

Every time you make a design or lifestyle choice- ask your self- is it really necessary? Will it solve any functional need? Can the purpose be achieved in some other manner which might be more efficient? Be honest in listening to the answer that the logical lobe of your brain is giving you.

This should reflect in not only the spaces we create but also in our everyday lifestyle- the print on our bed covers, the shape of our crockeries, the fabric of our curtains, the number of toiletries we keep on our bathroom shelves, the art we choose to hang and even the apps on our phones.

Minimalism, when embraced as a way of life, extends beyond architecture into the smallest details of daily living. Conscious consumption, thoughtful selection and the courage to let go of excess.

When we truly understand the philosophy behind ‘minimalism’ we might will read the Browning’s monologue in a different tone. We will be able to understand that maybe Sarto was not settling for mediocrity. In fact, he was never craving for more. Maybe he believed in perfection of a few rather than achieving many with flaw. Maybe Mies was the first one to understand him. Decades later, we are a whole generation now trying to trace the footsteps. In doing so we must learn from Sarto about the quiet grace that lies in restraint, discipline and order. About the grandness in perfection and precision. The greatness and freedom that minimalism offers- in design and in life!