This may or may not be a rant, but it must be done. Too many people are using these terms incorrectly, and it is time for an enlightenment.
First, this is how a company has defined a vector in graphic terms:
"Unlike JPEGs, GIFs, and BMP images, vector graphics are not made up of a grid of pixels. Instead, vector graphics are comprised of paths, which are defined by a start and end point, along with other points, curves, and angles along the way. A path can be a line, a square, a triangle, or a curvy shape. These paths can be used to create simple drawings or complex diagrams. Paths are even used to define the characters of specific .
Because vector-based images are not made up of a specific number of dots, they can be scaled to a larger size and not lose any image quality. If you blow up a , it will look blocky, or "pixelated." When you blow up a vector graphic, the edges of each object within the graphic stay smooth and clean. This makes vector graphics ideal for logos, which can be small enough to appear on a business card, but can also be scaled to fill a billboard. Common types of vector graphics include Adobe Illustrator, Macromedia Freehand, and EPS files. Many Flash animations also use vector graphics, since they scale better and typically take up less space than bitmap images."
(http://techterms.com/definition/vectorgraphic)
This means that if a person is using the brush tool, lasso tool, or other pixel-making tools to create vectors, he/she is not creating vectors at all. In fact, he/she is only creating very simplified images. In fact, even if a person does create a vector correctly, if that person is saving it as a .png, .jpeg, or .jpg, that graphic would still not be defined as a vector. *gasp*
Then we have minimalism. Minimalism is defined as "less = more" or "less is more" (same thing, expressed differently). This means that to create a minimalist graphic, one must be very minimal and conservative with "things," "objects," and "shapes" on his/her graphic to create something more or deeper in meaning. To clearly see what minimalism is, a google image search for "minimalism" or "minimalism graphic design" opens up a huge array of different examples on the actual thing and not what many people of the mdc are mistaking it for (ie. a "vector" on a plain background + text). In fact, most of these intricately designed "vectors" including precision on the hair, shading, etc. can barely support its minimalist approach. It can be considered minimal, but with many designs they're progressing from minimalist to the more accurate definition of drawing people over an image using lasso, pen, or brush tools. You want it to be simple, yet once again reinstating that less IS more. Less detail and intricate design gives these graphics more minimalism than one with said intricate details.
Here are a few examples of minimalism (not vectors) for those who are genuinely too lazy or somehow broke their fingers since the last paragraph:
Filipe Carvalho
Why are these good? Instead of drawing in all the details, only the important and essential details are used to discern the different characters. They didn't add any unnecessary details and used only enough to make a point.
Michal Krasnopolski
Why are these good? This person used only a couple lines and curves to create their graphic with some text for some clarification. Without adding much detail, the designer was able to express trademark ideas, and people are able to understand and interpret them. There are no indentations on the umbrella for "Singin' In the Rain" nor are there jagged lines around the basic line on "Superman". He doesn't use much, but is able to get his point across. No unnecessary details.
With that said and done, using vectors in minimalism is completely normal and common, but not to be confused with being the same thing. However, to make an actual vector, it should be done in either a vector based program or using tools that create paths, not pixels. "BUT WAIT THERE'S A PATH TOOL IN GIMP AND PHOTOSHOP!!!!!!!!". Yes, there is. congrats for noticing. Here, we'll explain it.
In Photoshop, we have the path selection tool which basically selects these path-based images. The key to vectoring is using tools that create paths which are shapes that can be re-sized however you like and not lose or gain quality. The GIMP paths tool can be used to create paths, but most people use it similarly to the lasso tool: creating pixels instead of paths (in design mode). However, when you open the Paths window located in Windows>Dockable Dialogs you can create vectors. This window has the previous paths you have created. Simply left click it and search for Export Path. This will let you save it as a .svg, meaning if done in this way it is a vector. Basically, Photoshop doesn't, but GIMP has a way to do so that isn't commonly used in the MDC.
While GIMP may have this option, most examples of people using this tool are not in the vector format. At the end of the day, a tool can only be used to make vectors if the tool creates paths that may be exported as a .svg or equivalent file, not pixels.
paths, not pixels
Paths, Not Pixels
PATHS, NOT PIXELS
Finally, what we have here as a trend in the mdc is simply another case of misinformation. Don't feel bad or stupid if you thought simplified images were actual vectors; this is very common, and we are only trying to re-inform people with the correct information. This is current mdc slang, so it is okay, in the mdc, to define these graphics as such. However please do remember that it is neither correct nor formal to use these terms in real life the same way you may use them in the mdc. If you are an aspiring designer, thinking about becoming a designer, or simply just want to be proper, please use the terms correctly as not only will it help you, but it will help this triggered meatball into becoming less triggered about this topic every time she visits. When you raise your hand in Graphic Design 101 saying you know what a vector is, but describe a minimalist graphic your professor then correct you. In front. of. the. entire. class. It's fine to make a mistake, but unless the slang catches on (not likely, but a possibility) you want to stick to the definitions.
If there are any further questions or complaints, feel free to comment in the comment section below, and Lauren and I will do our best to answer or guide you to the answer.
--------
Dedicated to @Distinctive for winning 1st place in our first ever graphic comp c: