The Damsel’s Files

^{Photo by Dima Mukhin on Unsplash}

Today’s society prides itself on its minimalist architecture, the pinnacle of simplicity and elegance. However, a growing number of studies point to how this decision might not be the perfect route.

Minimalism first emerged as a subtle means to offset what mainstream art has become.

Artists who started this movement favored simplicity, labeling it as the new cool and hip, compared to the dramatic style, which they thought had become stale. They went big on avoiding expression, highlighting a lack of biography and metaphors in their art styles. This birthed the creation of geometric works that deliberately renounced what was then conventional for everyone’s aesthetic taste.

But this was way back in the 1960s when people didn’t live by the less is more principle.

Although minimalism was its name, the style still embraced and elevated design. It incorporated various elements, only emphasizing the abstract and absence of the conventional usage of a focal muse. But over time, people’s definition of it evolved largely because of their desire to reflect it on lifestyle, home décor options, and architecture, paired with the heightened interest in the less is more principle. Instead of its original application of an abstract yet intricate route in art, minimalism became more of a movement following a simplistic way of living.

In terms of people’s lifestyles, there’s no denying the benefits of minimalistic living. It helps people appreciate the simplicity of life and find happiness in the simple things. A minimalistic lifestyle teaches people to live a more fulfilling life with fewer resources necessary.

Thus, less is more.

But can people claim the existence of this effect on architecture as well?

In the book Untold Architectural Black History of Tampa, Florida: My 36-Year Architectural Career in Tampa, readers see how different architectural design was back then. The book, celebrating author and architect Ronald Lee Harden’s hard work and contribution to black communities, highlights the projects the latter handled for 36 years.

Although these establishments were erected decades ago, one may claim how much more complex their designs are compared to architecture now. Without the context of minimalism, people might argue that there is a backward trajectory regarding design.

From the dynamic and elaborate details to the facile and oversimplified architectural styles now, society faces a reverse movement with how people handle architecture.

One would’ve expected that as technology progresses into a system built to handle more complex responsibilities, this would reflect on the construction and its influence on society. Devices have become more “high-tech.” Cars now run faster while carrying slicker and more advanced designs.

So, why don’t these apply to architecture?

Architecture’s complex and intricate nature has recently been swapped with safe-to-say, bland designs. Classic and vintage houses were donned with detailed patterns and compositions. But modern buildings are stripped of this elegance and are, instead, exchanged with a plain and under-embellished design people would label as “chic.”

Most would marvel at such blank canvases, but others will likely call these dull and lazy. It’s like looking at a blank piece of paper and marveling at its unadorned front. Modern architectural design can safely be labeled as progressing backward because of its “disrespect” to people’s desire for intrigue. They’re becoming too plain, and simple people walk past them without a second glance of appreciation.

In fact, research about this matter was conducted back in 2012. The study tested whether the architectural design influenced the pedestrian’s psychological state, and the results were astonishing and slightly predictable. When exposed to a more designed establishment, people reported feeling more engaged and lively. With their physiological levels stirred up, they defined the locations to correlate with words like lively, socializing, and busy. On the other hand, when exposed to the “blanker” façade, people were observed to have doubled their steps, walking quicker than the other.

This behavioral effect toward simpler designs isn’t something foreign. Logically, it’s obvious that people would likely bear down, walk past monotony, and marvel at an opposite setting. This behavioral pattern reflects what psychologists would contribute to humans’ need for experimental aesthetics. When exposed to two ends of a design spectrum, people will likely find an “overdesigned” building more intriguing and interesting than the contrary.

This brings us back to the discussion of whether minimalism works in today’s architecture.

Sure, some would find simplistic designs elegant and chic. However, when it comes to people’s interest in intrigue, they would prefer the more detailed, complex, and perhaps, historical route of architecture. These designs bring a unique look to every city without buildings looking uniformly.

Compared to if society prioritizes the minimalist approach, historical preferences can highlight the artistic touches and uniqueness of the times before. Hence, instead of walking forward and building more modern establishments catering to minimalism, perhaps, it’s time to preserve historic buildings.

By doing so, people might learn to appreciate a new perspective in life compared to how monotonous and passionless it is.