Making use of the diagnosis Eugenio d'Ors established for the Baroque, it could be said that minimalism is a wind without north. Suddenly everything becomes minimal: the present, of course, but also the past. As we know, each artist creates both his successors and his predecessors. The tag of minimal art -popularized in the 1960's- has extended to posterior art and to architecture- like a special turning point in the 1990's- and also to the architecture and art which along the first half of the 20th century applied a less expressionist abstraction language But the tale of that expansion is more a mystery than a love story. Has the extension of the term to fields other than sculpture implied a degeneration of its sense? At what point did we go from the minimal in singular to "the" minimal in plural? Is minimalism a rule or an exception? In opposition to what Frank Stella thought, what you see is not always -or almost never- only what you see.