Internet is full of videos and articles on the theme of “if you had to take one camera and one lens and use it for the next ten years, what would it be”. Or it’s “if you had to have only one computer, watch, pocket knife, car, pen…, what would it be”.
It always implies some kind of a “less is more” situation – basically, when you’re forced to use limited tools, you compensate with creativity and the results tend to be better than if you subscribe to “more is better” paradigm. Sure, sometimes. However, for the most part that’s all nonsense.
When you actually have a limiting situation, it’s not a choice between three different macbooks, a desktop computer and a gaming Windows laptop, and deciding to keep just one. It’s a situation where you have the cheapest possible computer that has minimal functionality for your daily tasks, and when you have to do something harder, it all starts to crumble under your fingers. Ask me how I know.
I had minimalist setups because I was poor, not because I subscribed to some stupid post-modernist minimalist paradigm where you own nothing and are happy. I owned nothing because it was an actual situation, and not some bullshit for YouTubers. Extreme poverty introduces its own kind of minimalism, and trust me, it doesn’t make you happy. It doesn’t reduce mental clutter – on the contrary.
Having a Macbook Pro that connects to Apple Studio Display with a single cable, with clean wireless mouse and keyboard setups, isn’t a realistic minimalist situation. Not having a desk and instead putting the cheap bulky computer you got used on the flimsy kitchen desk you found in the apartment you’re renting cheaply, that’s realistic minimalism. Working with whatever camera and lens you could get for the least possible amount of money because you couldn’t afford anything better, that’s realistic minimalism. It’s not a choice between ten excellent lenses and artificially limiting yourself to one. It’s using the one you found for 25 EUR on ebay because you had 25 EUR plus shipping, that’s realistic minimalism.
Minimalism isn’t a choice of one watch; minimalism is when you only have one watch, and it’s cheap because cheap is all you could afford. And by cheap I mean 50 EUR. Any by 50 EUR I mean you had to save for several months to be able to afford a 50 EUR watch, and you think it’s unjustifiable luxury. Ask me how I know.
When you’re poor, minimalism means you can’t replace your jeans, which have holes on them, because you had to replace your shoes first, because they too have holes on them. True minimalism isn’t a clean desk setup because you are decluttering. It’s an empty flimsy desk with nothing on it because that’s what you have.
When I see how people justify their minimalist setups, I can’t believe the nonsense I’m hearing. Like, they are using single-task devices such as typewriters or dedicated computers with no networking and only minimal software, so that they aren’t interrupted by all sorts of notifications and social media while they write. Excuse me, but that’s a matter that requires mental training, and not different equipment choices. When I open a word processor and write something, I can have literally dozens of things open in the background and I don’t notice any of them. I actually don’t hear what my wife is saying to me in person, and I have to ask her to repeat it later, because when I’m concentrating on writing, nothing else exists. It goes to such extremes that I can freeze behind the computer and get sick later because it was cold and I didn’t register it, because what I was doing took literally 100% concentration, to the point that I don’t register pain, hunger, hot, cold, noise, earthquake or aerial bombardment when I’m working. I don’t care about minimalism because when I’m working, I don’t perceive anything on my desk, or on my computer besides the program I’m using for the work I’m doing. I don’t need to have a clean desk with the smallest possible number of items on it, because otherwise my mind would be cluttered. On the contrary – my mind works like a switch, because that’s how I trained myself. When I’m doing something, nothing else exists; not because it’s not there, but because selective concentration is not a matter of having less things. It’s about focusing on just one thing, despite being surrounded by the entire world of things.
There’s a word in Croatian, “izdrkavanje”, which would literally translate as a wank job, but which means performative actions, things you do so that the audience would perceive how awesome you are. That’s how I perceive the performative minimalism. Its purpose is convincing other people that you have an organized mind because you have a clean desk from Ikea, with just a laptop, monitor, a wireless keyboard and a wireless mouse on it, with a possible addition of fake grass in a pot from Ikea. People who have such setups usually have nothing better to do than waste time on such performative minimalism, where an actually focused person would have all sorts of stuff lying around, while they are focused on just that one thing they are doing, and they don’t have time and energy to waste on performative actions intended for impressing anyone.
They usually say that minimalism reduces the overhead of choice – for instance, you don’t have to think about which lens you’re going to use because you only have one. Oh, the agony of choice; you need to pick one for that day. How horrible. If choice is hard, I just take what’s already on the camera, because if it mattered, the choice would be simple. What pencil or pen to choose? The one that’s closest to the paper, usually. If it actually matters, then I go to the pencil cup and pick a more adequate one.
I’m not advocating for chaos and lack of organization and tidiness. I’m saying that a minimalist setup is performative nonsense that takes more time and energy to maintain than a reasonably cluttered setup, and shows that your energy goes into showing other people how minimalist, tidy and clean you are, rather than getting shit done as efficiently as possible.
Regarding this “if you could use only one” thing, I never saw that as minimalistic idea, but more like thought experiment “which you think is best” or “which you like the most”.
This is also prominent in hunter community “if you could choose one caliber” … but NO ONE really thinks anyone will have one caliber, idea is preposterous :-), so it’s basically always “which you like the most”.
I also never connected minimalism with poverty, but with reduction of unnecessary clutter, simple and clean lines, and space.
It’s often quite opposite to poverty which more often than not leads to clutter and small spaces.
What you describe in article is more in line with communist ideas which are prominent everywhere and mostly serve in building self-righteous facade of lies and bullshit which makes it extremely annoying.
But you can see it everywhere, it’s currently very prominent in EV communities, similar like it was in Linux communities 20 years ago.
Basically creating false idols and false religion where one can be important prophet or something.
I think the trend didn't start as some anti-consumerism revolt; it started because rents in New York and similar places are exorbitant, and even people with very good income can't afford a normally sized apartment, so they rent something so small, it literally can't fit anything extraneous. In order to fit a coffee cup on the desk, you need to remove the mouse. In order to fit a block of paper, you need to remove the keyboard. So, in order to have a bare minimum of functionality you have to constantly declutter everything, and then it turns into a worldview. I think this theory has merit based on the strong inverse correlation between apartment sizes and minimalism I noticed in lots of youtube videos. This explains how they can afford expensive gear, while at the same time having issues with space.
And then Japan turns cramped spaces into art 🙂
Honestly, it's not much different here – regular couples can get apartment 60-80m2 which will become cramped even before they have two kids and not to have clutter after that requires some serious dark magic 🙂
But that makes sense since proportion is similar – New Yorkers have higher income, but rent prices follow that and then rise exponentially in "luxury" areas.
Still, there are people who will cramp their living quarters which bunch of "decorative" thingies, almost like they can't stand empty space.
And money makes no difference, I know some people with lots of money and living quarters full of fake flowers, figurines, crystal snow balls and bunch of other stuff.
Then there are people who like empty spaces, clean and simple lines. It's not about tidiness either – you can have stuff around, but those are clearly not there for decorative purposes and you can remove them when cleaning.
But you can't clean cramped living quarters because stuff is there for decorative purpose and not because you are doing something for hours and don't care that cup from morning coffee is still on table among other stuff.
So, minimalism in living quarters seems to have more to do with mental state than money. Of course, you can be minimalist all you want, in 50m2 apartment with two kids, you can forget about it.
I definitely subscribe more to the "clean" line of thinking – don't clutter the place with extraneous crap, avoid things that don't actually improve your quality of life, and if something doesn't do anything good for you, it probably just drags you down. I had to move too many times, and that's a good way to learn that stuff that normally doesn't get in the way but isn't really useful either still needs to be packed and moved, and as such is a drag. However, there's a serious difference between that, and trying to get rid of almost everything. Sure, you can say you don't need winter clothing in the summer, but when the winter comes you're going to remember what you needed that heavy jacket/coat for. When I'm not doing heavy lifting with my computer, I think that Macbook Air is all I need, but then I get to import lots of pictures and a desktop machine with good cooling shows what I bought it for. One can say things don't make you happy. Sure, my car doesn't make me happy, but not having one would sure make me miserable. You don't get to be happy from things; however, believing that things are here to make you happy is stupid nonsense. Things are here to prevent hardship and misery. They are here to help you do something useful. If they serve some additional purpose, such as look good while being functional, the better. Having a sharp knife never made me happy. Having a dull knife, or not having an extra knife while they were all in the dishwasher sure annoyed me. But the difference between a perfectly functional knife, and some fancy Japanese $500 knife doesn't mean shit to me. I buy them cheaply in the local mall, and I have good sharpening stones to maintain them. As long as it's sharp and good, I don't care about it being fancy. Same with the dishes – they are all the cheapest, locally available brand, and if we break something, it's easily replaced. No fancy handmade porcelain and shit. We buy it either in Ikea or the local store. Cheap, simple, functional. That's how I perceive minimalism – don't waste money and mental energy on stuff that doesn't matter, because it's impossible to get it to be better with any kind of investment once you get past the basics. Essentially, get fancy coffee, serve it in the cheapest generic cups. Fancy coffee can improve things, fancy cups can't, because the basic cups are already really good. Also, there's minimalism in reducing the amount of overhead introduced by unnecessary fancification of things. Get stuff that you can easily service and replace. Get as much stuff from the same place as possible, because it simplifies delivery, maintenance and replacement. I'll get furniture from Ikea, for instance, not because I'm much of a fan, but because it makes it simple enough and it's good enough and once I'm done with it I can do something more important. Also, buying stuff from Apple simplifies things a lot – it reduces the amount of choices that don't actually contribute to anything, the stuff is well made, lasts long and so on. So, minimalism in a sense of reducing the amount of shit you have to deal with it is something I definitely subscribe to. That doesn't necessarily mean less things, but it means dealing with unimportant aspects of things less. For instance, trying to get things to be fancy, beyond the layer of functionality, is an incredible waste of energy, money and time. For instance, I don't have fancy shoes, I have generic Adidas sneakers that are comfortable and good, and I know the exact model and size so I order replacements online once I wear them down. Same with clothes – I get good generic stuff that's easy to find and replace. Basically, I like the Bauhaus concept of industrial design, form following function, and mass production reducing cost. Sure, I like fancy here and there, but for the most part, I prefer to have the most generic mid-range version of a thing, because that one is most likely to be good, easy to find, cheap to buy and replace, and so on.
Well, same here for the most part.
Also, "fancy" is a subjective thing, at least in area of expertise. For example, someone who only occasionally use computers might see MacBook as fancy while to you or me, it is the only choice.
You might see (more) expensive knife as fancy, but I do not want cheap hunting knife, because I really do not want to sharpen knife three times while dressing an animal and that requires more expensive steel which usually comes with nicer handle and you end up with 200$ knife – I actually buy these hand-made because I can choose steel and handle.
Sure, I do keep bunch of cheap 15€ knives all around (because stuff happens), but I also do not want to use a knife with bright orange handle on hunting brunch in the same way I do not want orange shoes – I could, but it's ugly – so, I use very nice, very sharp and durable, high-end steel, foldable and expensive Falkniven knife ( https://heinnie.com/fallkniven-gp-desert-ironwood-folding-knife/ – blog is adding stuff to the link so it does not work, needs copy-pasting ).
I use it all the time and this is once in a lifetime purchase. Is it fancy? Sure, I could easily get away with 50$ knife which I would have to sharpen once a year or so, but … I really liked this one and I bought it 🙂
What about rifle? Sure, you can get decent new rifle for 1000€ these days. But what if you want to hunt predators on longer distances? Well, then you need better trigger and heavy barrel to increase precision. You also need better, more ergonomic stock which make precision shots easier and more consistent.
Now you are in 3000€ territory. But then, you think – if I invest in better trigger and stock, wouldn't it be great if I could use it with other calibers as well so I have same experience all the time? Welcome to exchangeable barrels territory which also brings easier transport, straight-pull (faster repetition) and superb mounting system – but now you are in 5000€ territory.
Fancy? Ask average hunter with grandpas old M70 who never shoots beyond 50m where it has 10cm group and does not care occasional misses and wounded animals.
Well, I care, so I have "fancy" rifles.
So, how do we get from 5000€ to 50000€ rifle? Welcome to snob territory – basically same thing as expensive watches – gold triggers and handles, gold hand-carvings, high wood grade (wood alone can be 20000€ when moving from grade 5 to some exotic wood grades).
Zero function. Sure, it is more beautiful up to a point – nice grade 5 wood sure looks nicer than plastic stock – but thats about it. And after that, I do not even find some higher wood grades nicer to look at.
So, sometimes you get into "fancy" territory because you look specific function which simply isn't available in regular stuff and someone who does not need such function might perceive this object as fancy.
But then we leave "specific function" territory and land into "fashion" and/or "dick measurement" territory where "fancy" serves the same function as minimalism to communist assholes – because it is not even pretty, in fact, more fancy usually means more ugly these days. It's pure insanity, vanity and self-importance.
Yeah, it's the concept of "if it doesn't mean anything to me, I certainly ain't paying extra for it, but if it does, I might pay quite a bit of money". An example of this are computers and photo gear, but even here I will avoid "fancy" brands such as Leica.
Brand perception is also interesting, for example, Leica is generally avoided in hunting community as well – at least from people who actually want quality and will buy Swarovski – which is also super-brand, but a super brand which actually makes best hunting scopes on the market, period.
So, some people people buy Swarovski as a Rolex – it's fancy name and it's expensive – and those are only criteria for them – so some will go Swarovski, some Leica.
But people who actually know scopes will never go for Leica, they will go Swarovski or Schmidt&Bender, depending on their needs.
Very similar thing with rifles as well. Blaser created a super brand, so everyone who wants to "show off" will buy Blaser and wear Harkilla. You can spot them miles away 🙂
But, it also happens to be that Blaser is actually building very best rifles with exchangeable barrels, has developed best straight-pull system, has best and most consistent mounting system and they paired with Bix'n'Andy which makes best triggers.
And because they are super-brand, every third party manufacturer has all components for Blaser, like specific stocks, specific mounts – so it's good (but expensive) eco system to be in.
Yes, you risk sending wrong message when buying Blaser and Swarovski because you are automatically grouped with snobs, but get ready for compromise rollercoaster ride with alternatives, so I rather risk sending wrong message.
I'm thinking: would I buy a Leica or a Hasselblad camera? Yes, but on merit. It would actually have to be the best thing for what I want to use it for, and then I wouldn't mind paying the extra money. But no, I wouldn't pay extra for brand value only. To me, for what I need, Sony is currently the best, with Canon being close second. I would take either over Fuji or Hasselblad – on pure merit.
I am thinking about my hunting gear and I often think that I over did it by a huge margin, but as I am going through it, it very much reminds of photography – I know exactly what problem I wanted to solve with each piece – and equipment ranges from very low end gear to very high end gear for seemingly same thing.
But it's like saying that all lenses are same because they all do the same – take pictures. And yet, you might walk same path every day and take different lens because you have something different on your mind.
For example, I have 500€ rifle with 300€ scope on it and I have 5000€ rifle with 3000€ scope on it. They are both for hunting, so what the fuck? 🙂
First one I take on walks when I have no intention to hunt, but to observe or feed animals. So, why do I need rifle then? Well, because stuff happens. I find injured or sick animal and it's my job to put the animal out of misery. Or I run into a fox or jackal returning from village.
These are all rear situations, but they happened and best gear for that job is actually cheap, rugged, light, reasonably precise rifle with cheap scope since it's always daytime when I do this.
And if I drop it when going through water or clearing path I do not get heart attack. Expensive gear brings nothing into such situations but heart palpations 🙂
Week after, I might take exact same path, but this time I am hunting trophy roe buck. It's either dusk or dawn and most harvest happens in that twilight zone either few minutes after sunset or few minute before sunrise. It's not dark, but it's far from day either.
This is where I want the best scope I can afford (twilight is exactly where differences between cheap and expensive glass come to light, so to speak) – it's crucial I see every detail so I do not harvest wrong buck, for example.
Also I like having high-quality and precise enough rifle I am comfortable with in such situation because that's a shot I do not want to fuck up.
Seemingly same thing, very different gear.
What about night hunt on predators or wild boars? I have rifle just for that because I don't like taking thermal scope off rifle as they tend to be wonky and loose zero (even expensive ones) – and going to shooting range to re-check every time I take scope back on is beyond annoying – learned the hard way …
And since I hunt predators up to 300m, I needed precise rifle for the job.
Deer hunt? I like to take a bit more power, it's a big animal. So, there's rifle for that.
At one point I thought I will go on safari, so I bought used, but very nice rifle for that. It was not that expensive, but Safari never happened, so that one was kind of a miss. Well, happens to the best LOL.
But I am actually trying to sell deer rifle and use this one instead.
What about training? Well, small caliber .22LR rifle, but with heavy barrel for precision – it's very good and cheap for training and is also good for crows and rodents.
So yeah, gear best suited for the job with some hits and misses while learning and far from it that most expensive gear is always the best.
What about clothes? Most (80% or more) is from Decathlon – it's not expensive and it's actually quite good.
But winter jacket and trousers – higher end clothes, I don't want to fuck around in cold winter nights trying to figure out if cheap is good enough 🙂
Boots – all high end, I don't mess around with these.
Did I over do it? Well, probably. Sometimes I try to solve problem the wrong way, sometimes I buy gear that turns out it's bad or simply not good enough for what I needed it and so on.
But gear was mostly accumulated to solve specific tasks and I am using it mostly all throughout the year.
And since tasks are situational and ranges in importance, both cheap and expensive gear and everything in between found it's place as best gear for the job.
I'm certainly not in a position to tell you anything about overdoing it, considering my equipment list. 🙂