All of modern society operates this way. It's called division of labor. In order for there to be a software engineer, there have to be people working to feed him, clothe him, build his house, produce his computers, extract energy to power everything, etc.

I often wonder what these folks do with their time. It certainly isn't, say, painting canvases of artwork - these sorts of hobbies require stuff.

You can paint canvases if you find that fulfilling, you'd just be deliberate about what painting stuff you treated as a possession. Either you'd rent access to a stocked studio, or you'd buy paints and brushes but treat them as ephemeral, or you'd cherish them enough to count them towards your number, and use them frequently. What you wouldn't do is have a pile of painting stuff in your closet that you used five years ago, because that's how you end up lying to yourself - if you were ever going to use it again you'd be using it now, so either you keep using it, or you dispose of it without regret.

I think you might be missing something. Making art -some sorts more than others - simply requires equipment and stuff. I know this. I make art. I probably have more than some people because I work with different media: Watercolors, acrylics, ink, and so on. I'm prolific, and it all gets used. Just not all at once, you see.

This doesn't jive with the folks that brag about minimizing possessions - because it requires such. They might do digital art... maybe.

And rent a stocked studio? Most folks on earth aren't near such a thing nor is it something most folks can do. The few times I've seen any of this, you can't simply rent (and none have been near me). You have to apply to make sure you are good enough and do the right sort of art. At that point, you are representing the studio.

This goes for a lot of hobbies that requires a number of tools, supplies, and space, though. Simpy doing active work requires space and stuff - and some of it might go for months without use because you use different tools in different stages of work. (A woodworker might use a planer, but not every day and rarely if a piece takes a few months).

Actual, truthful minimalism accounts for this, but that wasn't what the topic in this thread was: It was the unobtainable minimalism that creates those that brag about having few possessions... and wind up having to rely on the labors of others to do sometimes basic things.

I think there's something even more than requiring equipment. Making art requires waste. You cannot be minimalist in creating, you have to be free with paper, paint and ink. The style can be minimalist, but over time you will end up with a library of sketchbooks and have probably burned through tons of supplies.

I do have all of that stuff myself. I figured that was covered by 'having supplies one uses'. It is hard to use up all the paint one makes: Watercolor and gouache lend themselves to not wasting paint, though, as you can reuse dried paint.

I suppose folks can give away their pictures, but I'd quickly run out of folks to give away to - hence my corner of finished art :)

That's actually fine though. You don't regard consumable supplies as possessions any more than you count the food you're about to eat as a possession. Minimalism is very compatible with waste - indeed I'd say it's probably more wasteful than not.

>You quickly find out that their minimalist existence is often propped by cheap third-world labour, or by a complete lack of financial planning

I don't get it. What are you talking about?