Wow. Reading this thread is more thought provoking than some entire books! I laughed at the end of your thread Suz - of course I made it to the end, it is such a pleasure to gobble up your thoughts I would have gladly read on!

Anyway, one thing that struck me is that the idea of minimalism in art has more to do with the outstanding design of the few elements present and less about the number of elements in the artist's entire oeuvre if you know what I mean. So a minimalist style does not require a necessarily small closet - although the cost of these outstanding pieces is a self limiting factor for most people. Gaylene's shortbread may require just a few ingredients but the kitchen might be stocked to the max.

I am also intrigued with the idea that this month made you realize you want to add more edge to your look (if I may paraphrase) and am going to be watching eagerly to see where that takes you.

Thanks for your thread Suz - a true pleasure as usual!

There is minimal style and minimal closet count. They are two very different things. One could have a very arty, not minimal style but a minimal number of clothes. In describing your WOW-est outfits, I thought they had an element of minimal style. Not too fussy, not too many visual distractions, not too many colors. I love this kind of style and especially like minimal color, tonal dressing because it is sleek and elongating. I wish I could better pull off minimal style but at best I can pull of tonal dressing. I take my cues from my own "look" -- longer, straight hair and a curvy figure. I just don't see minimal working that well on me, or maybe I just love accessories too much. A drapey minimal avant garde style would work better on me than a strict minimal style which works well on you and Angie.

I'm off to bed and haven't read the rest of the thread. But, wow, so much of what you wrote in the first post is exactly what's been bouncing around in my head lately, especially simple vs. minimal. I've been toying with 'uncomplicated' as one of my style descriptors. It seems to incorporate elements of simplicity and minimalism while being a bit less restrictive, somehow.

Will try to expand later after I've slept

Well, my house is still a mess, but most of my work is done, so I have a moment to comment properly.

When I reviewed your outfits, I was struck by how far you've come in the last few years. Fits are beautiful -- modern and flattering, and the items all work together so beautifully. You are beyond the broad experimentation phase and well into refining your personal style.

Some thoughts:

Jackets seem to be a favorite to build it structure and "presence." They bring the emphasis to your face, as do turtlenecks.

Your footwear is working for you beautifully!

I think your scarves and belts are drawing outfits together and adding interest without drawing too much attention to themselves. Brava!

Your use of color is both subtle and strong. You seem more neutral in colder months --- perhaps as a reflection of the world around you. Will you need a color infusion in, say, February, or do you like the calmer palette for now? As a colorphile, I don't look at the photos and crave more. It seems like you added lighter tones to keep things bright.

One of the hallmarks of great personal style throughout the ages has always been elegant restraint. I think this is what you've uncovered in your move to simplicity.

What a great read..a couple things resonated with me..the boredom factor, the issue with print, and the edgy. I definitely get bored quickly but don't want to be constantly shopping. Prints, love one day, argh the next. Edge - oh yes!

I have a tendency to pin your outfits because there are many that appeal to me but I definitely want more edge in mine. The moniker 'prince' has never stuck a cord (nor princess) because to me it does imply a certain amount of refinery that does not suit me. So edgy, I feel, is in some ways the opposite of refined. some get their hands dirty, some don't. And I am definitely one to be getting in the dirt! ANyway, style wise, I do feel I have been able to get edgy into my outfits and am happier and happier about that. In many ways the outfits are simple, usually a top and slacks. But the pieces themselves have a cool factor to them, zippers, extra pockets, studs, etc that makes the outfit edgy. The items are not simple or minimal. Pieces that I add, like belts and shoes, are definitely edgy. No refined delicate heels here.

I haven't distilled edgy more than that...but I thought I should throw it out there since you mentioned it as a way you feel you want to go. I used to think I wanted to be elegant but I found that it isn't really in me. I think you and Angie are elegant.

Of course I had to read to the end. You have a gift of words. I try to learn how to write better from you

I hear you on the minimalism. I so want to be that girl that looks good in the statement scarf, like Ornella, but it conflicts with my minimalism. Good insight. I do like you in your 1 and 2 piece outfits. I recall the David Meister dress you shot with a lot of different layering choices but the best IMO was simply the dress by itself. It lets you shine through. I crave minimalism in the respect that I like dressing in 1 or 2 perfect pieces but getting everything to mix and match like Claire that's a whole different story.

Of course we read it all! Still musing.... Thanks for writing & sharing with us.

Late to the party, but I made it to the end too! Fabulous reflections Suz and much to ponder. I need to think about some of your comments/findings for a bit.

The one thing that really stood out to me was your comment about possibly needing mid-season refreshers. I found last winter my purchases of a couple of sweaters in February really helped me get through that last, long stretch of cold, dark weather. I had originally wondered if they were too impulsive at that late stage but have since determined they were actually intelligent purchases. I will most likely be doing the same this year. Because those of us who have a long winter season, we're in those clothes from late October until March and boy oh boy, we are sick and tired of them by then, aren't we???

I will have to go back and read the comments, but here are my initial thoughts.

I was nodding my head with bullet 4, needing less variety. But only for variety in terms of remixing outfits. I have noticed from the DH challenge, that my "small" working wardrobe actually has a LOT of variety in it. I have printed bottoms, solid bottoms, and they are straight leg, skinny and bootcut style. I have blazers, sweaters/jumpers and cardigans as the toppers and my layering knits/T's are solids or prints. That's a lot of variety in only 40 or so items!

I am also very interested in "minimal" and "simple" wadrobes and follow The Vivienne Files and The Daily Connoisseur site (she does a 10 item per season wardrobe). The make it look so easy, just a handful of items and endless outfits. And while I consider these wardrobes minimal for item number, I do not consider them simple for ease of use, because you have to do a lot of remixing to end up with new outfits to have variety with these smaller wardrobes.

For myself, I prefer a "minimal" wardrobe in terms of number of outfits (I'm still deciding on that number but it looks like less than 14 per season so far) and a "simple" wardrobe in terms of outfit creation. I have one or two outfit combinations I like best and then I want to sport a different outfit, not remix again.

Before all of the great thoughts on the forum lately, I would have answered that a minimal wardrobe was based on clean lines, classic colors and shapes, no crazy prints, no trendy pieces. And a simple wardrobe would be a few pieces that remix endlessly. And for a while my shopping habits reflected those preferences. I have at least 4 black turtlenecks, 5 bootcut jeans, etc.

But now my thinking has changed. My small wardrobe does not have 4 black turtlenecks in it, actually I currently have none. Because I already have a black blazer, knit top and cardigan. And that's enough black for me.

Some fun pondering here, now I am off to read the rest of this thread, thanks for sharing your thoughts Suz!

Ha, reading right through, I think this may be where you and I part ways, Suz.

I completely get the minimal vs simple argument, though---only am headed in the opposite direction. I want less stuff in the closet a la Angie, more frequently refreshed; but unlike either of you, I don't think my style is essentially as simple and streamlined as either of you aim for. I tend to want a bit more colour/pattern/texture/drama though I was confused at one point when that need grew... not minimal but less maximal certainly.

I can't do a whole month of different outfits to save my life. Not only because my closet won't allow but because I really rely on my favourite formulas. However, I can't enjoy simple textures and shapes for long either... the same thing that strikes you with pattern. Instead, I have days of simplicity as a breather, but most days yearn for a little kick. The secret snap of rice flour in that shortbread, or a pinch of chilli, or a smattering of lavender flowers or orange zest... not all the way to millionaire's shortbread, mind you, as I haven't the patience and too much variety irritates and overwhelms, but for me the tightly edited closet/pantry (for reasons of sanity and budget) has to be not precisely simple staples either. Lest I get bored or feel bland.

So yes, completely understand where you are coming from, and approaching you from the other direction!

I've attempted to reply to this thread at least 3 or 4 times & each time delete what I've written, because I can't seem to express my thoughts coherently yet! But I loved reading it (and the marvelous comments), and it provided lots of food for thought, so I'm going to share my response anyway in case it's of any benefit to you.

As far as I understand it, you're aiming for simplicity as in 'less 'stuff'' in both your closet and outfits (stuff being colours, layers, etc.) but not minimalism as in tiny wardrobe or only neutral classics. For me personally, simplicity has better connotations than minimalism; I associate it with voluntary simplicity and a kind of William Morris attitude to life whereas the minimalism movement (in my brain only) almost seeks to disconnect emotions from objects, rendering it 'just stuff.' I aspire to the former but not the latter, and aside from my closet and bookshelves I do a pretty good job of 'just enough.' You strike me as already possessing a quite tightly edited colour palette and silhouette choices: which colours/silhouettes would you eliminate?

From a style perspective, minimalist style in my mind's eye conjures up a lot of black, white, and grey, structural/avant garde outfits. Lots of straight lines and sleek pieces, but not necessarily against layering/multiple pieces. I can't see minimalist style fitting in at a 50s themed party, say. Unless it opted for Buddy Holly glasses and a strict black suit with white shirt. Maybe. Whereas simplicity conjures up images of what the Amish and Victorian governesses might wear, if they suddenly found themselves in our culture. Still an emphasis on neutrals and nice, hard wearing materials, but somehow more of a timeless than futuristic feel and definitely fewer items of clothing at one time. Quieter, but a self-possessed kind of quiet. Simplicity is about letting the clothes fade a bit so that you shine more, while minimalist clothes make a statement and are more visible. Sometimes I enjoy dressing simply, but I can't imagine myself in minimalist styles (again, this is just my gut feel, so I hope I'm not offending anyone! I deeply admire people who dress in minimalist styles, it's just not for me).

I don't think I'd describe my everyday style as simple, and yet I do have a limited colour palette and a couple of uniforms I stick with. So my getting dressed process is fairly simple: do I want to wear a skirt or trousers (or a dress, which is a skirt subtype I suppose in my 'system')? Woven blouse or knit? Colour or neutral or a combination? Layer or not? And my answers to one or two of those questions automatically solves the others, so I very rarely struggle. I could probably make a flowchart of my outfit decisions, and it wouldn't be a very complicated on either! But I have so much variety within each category, and I love mixing things (colour/texture/etc.) so much, I never get bored. I often think I should probably cut my wardrobe down, but then it grew to the size it did because I kept wishing I had item X in colour/fabric/cut Y. So I've decided as long as I have the space, and don't feel overwhelmed in the morning/on laundry day/etc. to not worry so much about the numbers.

I am really late to the party, just catching up on the last few days' worth of posts, but of course I read all the way to the end of your post. Who wouldn't?

To me, minimalism used to imply nothing extra, nothing unnecessary. In other words, no frills, no embellishment, etc. These days though, it seems as if minimalism became the opposite of "more" (or "too much"), as in blogs where the writers express what comes across as contempt for material things. Sometimes to the point where there seems to be a competition to see who's "more minimalist" (and isn't that an oxymoron?), lives with less, etc.

In my opinion, the true opposite of minimalism is not "more", but rather "enough". But I think that concept is more readily associated with simplicity.

Personally, I don't want to live with the minimum necessary. I have things I don't truly need but that make me happy when I look at them or use them. Minimum necessary sounds like third-world country living to me. Maybe great for some, but definitely not for me.