Seems difficult to reconcile, at least for me. Perhaps a basic misunderstanding of the terms used. To be minimalist, but to do it with a large-ish number of notes seems contradictory at best, and wasteful at worst. That is if one seeks minimalism as a way of life, a search for efficiency. If minimalism is in the imagery of the scent, that it smells like one, or very few things, then that does not seem to add value in an any particular sense. Go and smell the thing, what is the allure of having that one idea on the skin? And if it takes more than that one thing to recreate the idea but not the presence, then what was the accomplishment?
On the other hand, minimal ingredients involved does not really add any value to me, either. At that point it isn't an idea of protecting art, but just protecting copyright in what feelings are about purchase or existence of smell-alikes. This is where Helvetica doesn't bother me, at least no more than anything else. If Molecule 01 smells only of IES, yet is art for being so simple and reproducible, then Helvetica is really no different. It smells of nothing, and is a simple mix, but complexity and smell aren't the essence of the art. At least they don't seem to be if minimalism and reproducing or imitating a single odor are viable expressions.
It seems minimalism requires some learning, some knowing, so the item itself is made insufficient. Is it more impressive to have a bottle of water, or a bottle of numerous aromachemicals that somehow smell of nothing? Or of a dilution of IES alone, or a grand blend that smells like IES alone? If they smell the same, then they have the same value, imo. To smell like laundry musks does not come across as very noteworthy, no offense to perfumers or fans. Minimalism isn't something of material value for me. Eh, maybe I shouldn't have replied since that's the case.