[wptpa id=”9″]<\/p>\n
Writer, theoretician, filmmaker, poet and revolutionary Guy Debord drew inspiration from a French philosopher who deserves more readership today, Henri Lefebvre, whose Critique de la vie quotidienne II, Fondements d\u2019une sociologie de la quotidiennet\u00e9<\/em>1<\/a><\/sup> (Critique of Everyday Life, volume II) defined the concept of \u201ceveryday revolution\u201d, which almost instantaneously became a landmark aspect of the Situationist International. Lefebvre\u2019s idea was to observe everything that could be changed in society not by addressing the macro, but by rethinking daily life, which anybody is capable of doing, and at little expense. The question is still pertinent: Why does the everyday have so little appeal? Why is it mainly boredom and numbness? Can that be changed?<\/p>\n The Minimalists, an American movement founded in 2010 by Joshua Fields Millburn and Ryan Nicodemus, offers a very contemporary response to this question: to create a more passionate everyday life, one that\u2019s creative, personal and more satisfying on every level, you have to subtract. Get rid of the junk and fill up on real quality, reconnect with something fundamental. In sum, the Minimalists work to clarify their daily lives. They throw or give a lot away, avoid taking on useless responsibilities, limit their consumption.<\/p>\n It\u2019s nothing new if you think back, for example, to their theoretical correlate, French thinker Henri Zisly and the naturists from nearly a century ago, around 1900.<\/p>\n Let\u2019s examine what Millburn and Nicodemus have to say about the Minimalists: \u201cAt first glance,\u201d they write, \u201cpeople might think the point of minimalism is only to get rid of material possessions: Eliminating. Jettisoning. Extracting. Detaching. Decluttering. Paring down. Letting go. But that\u2019s a mistake. True, removing the excess is an important part of the recipe\u2014but it\u2019s just one ingredient. If we\u2019re concerned solely with the stuff, though, we\u2019re missing the larger point. The Minimalists address topics like retirement, career, fake friends, debt, property, or romance.<\/p>\n They take a methodical approach that can be criticized for often being too down-to-earth but also rejects the notion of system. So it is important here to understand that Minimalists aren\u2019t about establishing yet another repetitive system, based for instance on an anthropology of daily life, rather they immediately act upon everything that clutters life, point by point, detail by detail, without frowning at any trivial reality. The two cohorts have so thoroughly integrated this attitude that they can even be seen for several podcasted minutes on their website discussing their choice of socks and underwear.<\/p>\n Because, they tell us, \u201cthis is also something important.\u201d<\/p>\n The hypothesis is a bit risqu\u00e9, but it is also relevant.<\/p>\n Deep down, aren\u2019t the Minimalists, from the standpoint of the minutiae, putting into action the very ambitious aforementioned Situationist project of an \u201ceveryday revolution\u201d?<\/p>\n Let\u2019s hear from Henri Lefebvre:<\/p>\n \u201cIn this everyday life, which confronts the social and the individual through challenges and problems and contradictions that find more or less resolution, the \u2018human being\u2019 becomes a \u2018person\u2019. What to say? For us, it is a cloud of possibility slowly condensed by choices\u2014by acts\u2014until it is exhausted and depleted: until death sets in. It is a drama, one of personalization in society, of individualization, and not some calm script to follow toward a predetermined outcome. [\u2026] The critical study of daily life reveals this conflict: maximum alienation and relative disalienation.\u201d<\/p>\n Choosing underwear, dropping a fake friend, packing light\u2014of course, from the point of view of Big Art, this may all seem rudimentary. But weren\u2019t the geometric forms of American minimalism by artists like Robert Morris or Dan Flavin also atrociously rudimentary when they were first shown in New York? And what about the extremely pared down happenings by American artist Allan Kaprow, whose works consisted of crossing a street or brushing his teeth?<\/p>\n Let\u2019s conclude this chronicle with the following comment: In 2019, doesn\u2019t the practice of art need a change of scale? Shouldn\u2019t it relinquish even more emphasis, its separation from society, to \u201ccreate the space\u201d that Minimalists speak of? And also opt for less? An illusion?<\/p>\n
\nMinimalists don\u2019t focus on having less, less, less. We focus on making room for more: more time, more passion, more creativity, more experiences, more contribution, more contentment, more freedom. Clearing the clutter from life\u2019s path helps make that room. 2<\/a><\/sup>\u201d<\/p>\n