In art, minimalism can refer to the kind of pictures you take, in which case, either you do it or you don't. Either way, how much do you care about the label? Also, some of your pictures may be "minimalist", while others are far more crowded. Again, what difference does the label make, unless a gallery is trying to sell the work or a critic is trying to describe it?
Letting everyone know, in no uncertain terms, that you consider yourself a minimalist is a bit like telling everyone loudly that you are an Artist-with-a-capital-A, viz., pretentious. In one sense, everyone is an artist because they want to be or because say they are or even simply because of the art they produce; in another sense, the labels have considerably more meaning and weight if they are attached to you by other people.
When it comes to equipment, minimalism is likely to be an inability to afford much; or a VERY clear idea of the kind if kit you need to take a (usually rather limited) range of pictures; or, distressingly often, a completely pointless bit of virtue-signalling self indulgence by those who like to pretend that they are in some way superior to those who have lots of cameras. The last seems to be especially attractive to the financially overprivileged. There's nothing wrong with having a minimum of kit, if that suits you, but equally, to preen yourself for your "minimalism" is ridiculous.
I've known great photographers who own lots of cameras, and other great photographers who own just a couple of bodies (one in case the other breaks down) and two or three lenses.
Cheers,
R.
