208 thoughts on “Interesting, Boring & Indifference”
1. In Atwood’s “Boring,” he mentions that buildings can initially be boring, but later on can become interesting. If this is true, does this mean that the perception of something being interesting is tangible and able to be changed? Is there any way to quantify how interesting or boring a building is?
2. In Sianne Ngai’s “Merely Interesting,” she discusses how something that is interesting is then indefinitely interesting and also is interesting due to its aesthetic nature. How does this contrast with Atwood’s opinion of the timelessness and definition of what makes something interesting or boring?
3. One definition of interesting is that it comes back into light to be viewed later. After being viewed time and time again, can something lose its interesting appeal? Is there an expiration date on interestingness?
Through learning about the definitions of “boring” and “interesting,” it is very apparent that the classification of a piece of architecture being boring or interesting is extremely subjective. While one can believe that a building is boring, another may believe it is extremely interesting, due to the facts that it is subjective, and everyone is entitled to their own opinions. I think that over time, after viewing a building time after time again, the viewer may believe that the building has “grown boring.” Although they may develop this opinion, it is just a thought in one’s mind, and not a fact attributed to the building. If a building is interesting or boring from the initial interactions with the viewer, then it is inherently so, despite the viewers opinions that later on may grow and change
1. The museum of Outdoor Arts Element House is comprised of very simple forms which resemble the basic pitched roof, chimney, house silhouette. Yet through the organization of these shapes the design creates a dynamic interior space, and exterior qualities which respond to the environment efficiently. Should simpler designs not be over looked?
2. By using more basic or “boring” figures could more efficient design be accomplished through spacial organization?
3. “Boredom can be interior and exterior. This helps explain our own sustained interest in boredom despite the obvious and immediate contradiction between interest and boredom. Something can be intrinsically boring,” Why do you think humans are so interested in things that may be so simple or boring.?
1. In Systems and Shapes, Meredith eludes to the idea that “Form is a System” and that shapes are merely just shapes, but together they act like “frenemies.” But in previous readings we talked about how diagrams serves as the perfect architectural representations, and of these diagrams, the most effective ones are rather simple. Is there something to say about how they would react as separate entities?
2. In Boring by Atwood, he gives a list of criteria as to what is considered boring, such as generic and dull. Meredith explains that shapes suggest the same qualities and do not respond to their disruption. Yet these so called “boring” qualities attribute to some of the most brilliant architecture. Moreover, could anything really be boring, or is it all about perception?
3. Is it possible for architecture to be glorified by the system in which it operates no matter the form? Vice versa?
1. How does the element house react and respond to its environmental surroundings? Why was this specific site location chosen and how does is this site appropriate for this structure’s construction.
2. Is there a distinction between boring and mundane? If something is boring, does that make it mundane, and vise versa?
3. How does the scale of “interesting” apply culturally and aesthetically to architecture and are the subjective feelings of pleasure or non-pleasure a proper judgement of this?
1)Is it ‘possible to create interesting architecture through “boring” pieces?
2) In “Merely Interesting” Ngai mentions the word “interesting” in relation to its form as well as its style or aesthetic. How can a building seek to be interesting as the critia of design changes throughout time?
3) In addition, how can an architect seek to sublimate or recategorize their work to conform to a particular lense of interest?
The hotdog banana was freaking dope.
Ultimately our definitions of boring and interesting architecture is very subjective. The point about the google results creating a false sense of definitions. This touches on Kant’s definitions of analytic vs synthetic truth. The premise of the distinction is that analytic definition of an object is one directly involved in the definition, as opposed to synthetic where the object or premise is implied indirectly through the definition. The google results seeks to define an synthetic or even symbolic quality as analytic.
1. To compliment their ‘Element House’ MOS delivers an entertaining argument about systems vs. shapes, trivializing many of their respective classifications and disparities therein. The final statement affirms the house’s indifference to such an argument. What is the emblematic purpose for this indirect typification?
2. In the Excerpt from Andrew Atwood’s ‘Not Interesting: On the Limits of Criticism in Architecture,’ he explains the mundane effect of his ‘Pedestals’ installation, producing initial boredom which becomes intrigue as the viewer involuntarily searches for meaning or hidden significance. In what scenarios might this concept of individual search become useful in spacial design?
3. David Hockney states he would rather his work be though beautiful than interesting because the former sounds final while the latter sounds ‘on its way.’ Do you agree and why? What solutions could be interesting yet devoid of beauty? Furthermore, can something be beautiful without being interesting?
The dichotomy of “interesting” vs. “boring” takes shape in the twenty-first century as a threshold of attention. Such attention becomes increasingly difficult to obtain as the digital age spawns countless new stimuli, on command, at the touch of a screen. The individual now has ultimate control over the stream of information entering and being processed by the brain; one is now capable of escaping to the digital realm at any appropriate moment, to a pocket-sized universe of infinite entertainment. To produce art– or even architecture– that is intentionally “boring” thus becomes an unavoidably controversial endeavor.
Ed Roche’s photography series’ from the 60’s and early 70’s epitomize the potential of the boring. By stripping his content of all dramatic, romantic, dialectic, and otherwise discernible forms of ‘meaning,’ Roche forces the viewer into his or her own personal investigation for latent significance. Perhaps this is a motivating appeal-factor for minimalistic architecture; by stripping a building down to its bare essentials, the personal experience gains a new dimension of mindfulness.
1. Ngaio states in the articles Merely Interesting that ‘the application of interesting to objects is not always aesthetical’. How can we understand it and is there any example could explain it?
2. In“Systems and Shapes”, Meredith indicates that systems and shapes are interacted with each other. And is it possible to separate them to make them independent?
3. In the reading boredom, Atwood states the argument of designs of boredom. But how should we design with boredom? Why are designing boring thing and how to define the boredom?
Boring or interesting are too subjective to talk about which one is right or wrong. It is meaningless to figure out whether it is boring if the goal is to be interesting. And boring or interesting shouldn’t be a way to reach goal. Modern architecture is always considered boring, however, there are reasons causing so called boring. Most of it is built cheaply. Modern architects need to deliver designs faster to meet demands. Architecture is also artistically influenced by social interests. We should dating back to the origin when judging boring or interesting. The times and society have responsibility for architecture. Because architecture is the creature of times and culture. Rather to judge boring or interesting, we need to reflect more on our intrinsic nature.
1. What constitutes a project to have an origin that is boring? Is it defined by the aesthetics of the finished product or is it an argument of how the building is established spatially?
2. The definitions used to describe Meredith’s systems and shapes is arbitrary. why does one characterize the two terms and subject them to multiple explanations that are either one or the other. Is it possible that in some cases a design can be a system or a shape? meaning that in some instances the system and shape can be the same?
3. It is also mentioned that most of the time in projects systems and shapes work together to create the design. Is it possible to have a scheme that is constructed purely from one of these ideas and not the other?
Ironically enough, A scheme that is criticized to be “boring” can reveal some of the most interesting relationships and notions. The purpose of categorizing a work as something boring signifies that the project is simple in the subject matter of shape ,form, or aesthetics but, when the simplicity of a project is identified as its own architectural language, the interesting side of boring is revealed. This brings me to the argument as to why configurations in architecture are either one or the other (shape or system, boring or interesting, form following function). I believe a project can be many things at once. As seen in The Element house, as long as a project clearly creates a fluid relationship of an idea that is viewed as a single entity, the scheme can be whatever it wants. Whether its one or the other or a multitude of things.
The mechanism of being interested in something is different from that of being happy about the matter. Although “interesting” sounds more like being into the thing, but indeed it is merely free of love, but full of desire for control. When someone is interested, this person will focus and put effort into the thing till the principle is figured out or the ownership is established. In the field of architecture, unfortunately the subject itself is losing all the interests, while the rest relay on technologies or aesthetic experiences outside of the discipline. What can become the new interest in architecture other than the situation where the architecture wears a makeup and becomes something else?
If yes, how can this experience of refreshing continue?
When the newness is gone, how does the matter remain interesting?
The definition of the word “Interesting” is arousing curiosity or interest; holding or catching the attention. There are many interpretations about how one person can be interested in a matter. The main focus of being interested is not about being happy about a topic or idea, however it is how captivated you are by the level of curiosity you can attain from something. Now that architects understand the trends of peoples’ minds they attempt to keep people interested. This brings up the next topic from the readings, “boredom.” The concept about defining boring mentioned by Atwood can be well learned by contemporary architects. Boredom, in my opinion, is the polar opposite of being interested. Architecture can easily be considered boring if it does not captivate the viewing eye of the everyday human. But, today’s architects have learned to adapt to the changing eras of architecture and have easily steered away from the boring spectrum.
Although boring architecture appears to steer the viewer away from architecture, it instead locks the viewer into the project and requires them to study and dissect what is in front of them. An “interesting” structure has all of the information laid out for them without need for reflection. How do we differentiate something that is so called boring and something that is just unique? If boring is just a simplified design, perhaps modern is an example of architecture than can be perceived as boring. Many of the photographs from Ed Rusca may be considered boring because of their generic qualities. Rather than focusing on what could make a piece of art or architecture more interesting, we should be taking the time to understand what is directly in front of us.
Aesthetics is the branch of philosophy that deals with beauty. Any kind of positive or negative aesthetic quality that is possessed by something is processed by the viewer as an emotional reaction as opposed to a logical one. it is for this reason that it is so difficult to pinpoint what does or what does not spark an emotional sensory experience in the human mind. Many theories concerning aesthetics have been produced overtime in order to make sense of this phenomena. Emanuel Cant, a German philosopher, categorized our natural reactions to varying types / degrees of beauty into the agreeable, the good, and the beautiful. Throughout art history, countless efforts have been made to problematize beauty with great amounts of differentiation due to the forces of culture and society. Today in contemporary art some works attempt to entirely negate the idea of beauty being present in the artwork as well as any deeper meaning at all. Similar concepts can be traced back to artists such as Duchamp, Warhol, and Klein, who hailed from the eras of Dadaism, Pop, and minimalism.
During this week’s presentation, something that stood out to me was the meaningful analyzation of one of the readings, “Merely Interesting” that extended well beyond the reading itself. For example, one of the presenters spent time defining aesthetics using examples of the beauty standards held for all women in our society and applying that back to art and architecture – further exploring the connotations of the word interesting. Since aesthetic can essentially be defined as beauty and interesting can be correlated to aesthetic, does this then insinuate everything interesting is also aesthetic or beautiful or both? What is considered interesting? Or for that matter beautiful? If beauty is in the eye of the beholder can we truly even proclaim something to be any of the above as though it is a factual reality? Arguably, no. All of these interpretations are explicitly subjective, just as any architectural criticism, and should be recognized as such for the purity of art’s sake.
1. How are we supposed to draw the boundary between “novelty” and something “interesting”?
2. Is it possible that a non-repetitive sculptural like object to have an inherent “system”?
3. Is taking “boredom” to an extreme an act of being “interesting”?
The notion of “interesting” changes according to the viewer’s experience and knowledge and is something to be learnt. A pure aesthetic move that some African women wear multiple neck rings can be both interesting and radical to people outside of that culture. Thus, it’s almost impossible to categorize “boring” and “interesting”. Also, to be able to evaluate if a work is interesting, one has to be in a restricted field and learnt to observe. The “fountain” by Duchamp is interesting only if you are familiar with the background of art and how art works were presented at that time. Otherwise such work would only be an uncreative relocation of a mundane object.
Boring and interesting are subjective to each situation and person, difficult to define because of the varied interests of the human race. Similarly, the aesthetic appreciations of each culture vary, not only with location and influences, but with time as well. This week’s lecture emphasized how it is the context within which something is situated that gives or detracts value to the object itself.
1: If whether a piece of Architecture being either boring or interesting is a relative measurement, what categories are most relevant to it? In other words, what would be the best way to break down the boring/interesting measurement to obtain relevant information?
2: if the same piece of architecture can be seen as ‘boring’ in one environment, yet ‘interesting’ in another, what is the key part that would enable that difference?
3: Generally it is assumed that being interesting is a good thing and boring a bad thing, but sometimes its better to be boring than interesting. In what sort of situations would this be the case, and why?
Ultimately, the measurement of ‘boring’ and ‘interesting’ rests completely on the expectations of the viewer. Subverting expectations creates surprise, surprise then turns to curiosity, and curiosity is built off of interest. Subverting expectations relies on the ability to deal with extremes and opposites. For instance, extreme repetition of an otherwise simple shape can make it interesting. This ‘interesting’ aspect relies on the difference be quantity and quality. The quality of the geometry is low, but it is hidden behind the sheer number of that geometry. One of the is the normal, the expected, the ‘boring.’ The other is something that has been elevated to an extreme level, something that could easily be considered overwhelming or even an annoyance depending on the situation. Juxtaposing these two things reveals their opposition and creates a result that is considered ‘interesting.’ there are many things that can be juxtaposed: Scale, quantity, systems, patterns, geometries, mass, material, but above all the environment is most important. The surrounding environment sets the standard for expectations. A steel, spiraling tower will be considered much more standard in a metropolis environment than an average City. Complex geometry would be a considerable detraction for a camping cabin in the woods, where the goal is not to focus on the cabin, but rather the nature outside the cabin.
I was recently watching Breaking Bad on Netflix, and in this particular episode Jane and Jesse went to the Georgia O’keeffe museum together. When they were leaving Jesse made a comment saying how boring the exhibit was because the artist painted the same door multiple times. Jane began to explain how its not the subject of the painting that is interesting it is the result. Each painting is slightly different through this repetition, Jane explains that every day is full of different factors, like emotions and experiences, and the changes between the interpretations of the same subject is what makes the work meaningful. I believe this idea can be translated to the practice of architecture, for example, the use of simple shapes or designs, like O’keeffe’s door, in repetition can result in interesting projects. Using a similar form and subjecting it to different contextual factors and manipulating it accordingly, (similarly to each situations affect on the door paintings) can possibly convey a meaningful relationship between each project and its location and etc and in doing so create a product that will no longer be considered boring.
Contemporary Design Approaches 
1. In Atwood’s “Boring,” he mentions that buildings can initially be boring, but later on can become interesting. If this is true, does this mean that the perception of something being interesting is tangible and able to be changed? Is there any way to quantify how interesting or boring a building is?
2. In Sianne Ngai’s “Merely Interesting,” she discusses how something that is interesting is then indefinitely interesting and also is interesting due to its aesthetic nature. How does this contrast with Atwood’s opinion of the timelessness and definition of what makes something interesting or boring?
3. One definition of interesting is that it comes back into light to be viewed later. After being viewed time and time again, can something lose its interesting appeal? Is there an expiration date on interestingness?
LikeLike
Through learning about the definitions of “boring” and “interesting,” it is very apparent that the classification of a piece of architecture being boring or interesting is extremely subjective. While one can believe that a building is boring, another may believe it is extremely interesting, due to the facts that it is subjective, and everyone is entitled to their own opinions. I think that over time, after viewing a building time after time again, the viewer may believe that the building has “grown boring.” Although they may develop this opinion, it is just a thought in one’s mind, and not a fact attributed to the building. If a building is interesting or boring from the initial interactions with the viewer, then it is inherently so, despite the viewers opinions that later on may grow and change
LikeLike
1. The museum of Outdoor Arts Element House is comprised of very simple forms which resemble the basic pitched roof, chimney, house silhouette. Yet through the organization of these shapes the design creates a dynamic interior space, and exterior qualities which respond to the environment efficiently. Should simpler designs not be over looked?
2. By using more basic or “boring” figures could more efficient design be accomplished through spacial organization?
3. “Boredom can be interior and exterior. This helps explain our own sustained interest in boredom despite the obvious and immediate contradiction between interest and boredom. Something can be intrinsically boring,” Why do you think humans are so interested in things that may be so simple or boring.?
LikeLike
1. In Systems and Shapes, Meredith eludes to the idea that “Form is a System” and that shapes are merely just shapes, but together they act like “frenemies.” But in previous readings we talked about how diagrams serves as the perfect architectural representations, and of these diagrams, the most effective ones are rather simple. Is there something to say about how they would react as separate entities?
2. In Boring by Atwood, he gives a list of criteria as to what is considered boring, such as generic and dull. Meredith explains that shapes suggest the same qualities and do not respond to their disruption. Yet these so called “boring” qualities attribute to some of the most brilliant architecture. Moreover, could anything really be boring, or is it all about perception?
3. Is it possible for architecture to be glorified by the system in which it operates no matter the form? Vice versa?
LikeLike
1. How does the element house react and respond to its environmental surroundings? Why was this specific site location chosen and how does is this site appropriate for this structure’s construction.
2. Is there a distinction between boring and mundane? If something is boring, does that make it mundane, and vise versa?
3. How does the scale of “interesting” apply culturally and aesthetically to architecture and are the subjective feelings of pleasure or non-pleasure a proper judgement of this?
LikeLike
1)Is it ‘possible to create interesting architecture through “boring” pieces?
2) In “Merely Interesting” Ngai mentions the word “interesting” in relation to its form as well as its style or aesthetic. How can a building seek to be interesting as the critia of design changes throughout time?
3) In addition, how can an architect seek to sublimate or recategorize their work to conform to a particular lense of interest?
LikeLike
The hotdog banana was freaking dope.
Ultimately our definitions of boring and interesting architecture is very subjective. The point about the google results creating a false sense of definitions. This touches on Kant’s definitions of analytic vs synthetic truth. The premise of the distinction is that analytic definition of an object is one directly involved in the definition, as opposed to synthetic where the object or premise is implied indirectly through the definition. The google results seeks to define an synthetic or even symbolic quality as analytic.
LikeLike
1. To compliment their ‘Element House’ MOS delivers an entertaining argument about systems vs. shapes, trivializing many of their respective classifications and disparities therein. The final statement affirms the house’s indifference to such an argument. What is the emblematic purpose for this indirect typification?
2. In the Excerpt from Andrew Atwood’s ‘Not Interesting: On the Limits of Criticism in Architecture,’ he explains the mundane effect of his ‘Pedestals’ installation, producing initial boredom which becomes intrigue as the viewer involuntarily searches for meaning or hidden significance. In what scenarios might this concept of individual search become useful in spacial design?
3. David Hockney states he would rather his work be though beautiful than interesting because the former sounds final while the latter sounds ‘on its way.’ Do you agree and why? What solutions could be interesting yet devoid of beauty? Furthermore, can something be beautiful without being interesting?
LikeLike
The dichotomy of “interesting” vs. “boring” takes shape in the twenty-first century as a threshold of attention. Such attention becomes increasingly difficult to obtain as the digital age spawns countless new stimuli, on command, at the touch of a screen. The individual now has ultimate control over the stream of information entering and being processed by the brain; one is now capable of escaping to the digital realm at any appropriate moment, to a pocket-sized universe of infinite entertainment. To produce art– or even architecture– that is intentionally “boring” thus becomes an unavoidably controversial endeavor.
Ed Roche’s photography series’ from the 60’s and early 70’s epitomize the potential of the boring. By stripping his content of all dramatic, romantic, dialectic, and otherwise discernible forms of ‘meaning,’ Roche forces the viewer into his or her own personal investigation for latent significance. Perhaps this is a motivating appeal-factor for minimalistic architecture; by stripping a building down to its bare essentials, the personal experience gains a new dimension of mindfulness.
LikeLike
1. Ngaio states in the articles Merely Interesting that ‘the application of interesting to objects is not always aesthetical’. How can we understand it and is there any example could explain it?
2. In“Systems and Shapes”, Meredith indicates that systems and shapes are interacted with each other. And is it possible to separate them to make them independent?
3. In the reading boredom, Atwood states the argument of designs of boredom. But how should we design with boredom? Why are designing boring thing and how to define the boredom?
LikeLike
Boring or interesting are too subjective to talk about which one is right or wrong. It is meaningless to figure out whether it is boring if the goal is to be interesting. And boring or interesting shouldn’t be a way to reach goal. Modern architecture is always considered boring, however, there are reasons causing so called boring. Most of it is built cheaply. Modern architects need to deliver designs faster to meet demands. Architecture is also artistically influenced by social interests. We should dating back to the origin when judging boring or interesting. The times and society have responsibility for architecture. Because architecture is the creature of times and culture. Rather to judge boring or interesting, we need to reflect more on our intrinsic nature.
LikeLike
1. What constitutes a project to have an origin that is boring? Is it defined by the aesthetics of the finished product or is it an argument of how the building is established spatially?
2. The definitions used to describe Meredith’s systems and shapes is arbitrary. why does one characterize the two terms and subject them to multiple explanations that are either one or the other. Is it possible that in some cases a design can be a system or a shape? meaning that in some instances the system and shape can be the same?
3. It is also mentioned that most of the time in projects systems and shapes work together to create the design. Is it possible to have a scheme that is constructed purely from one of these ideas and not the other?
LikeLike
Ironically enough, A scheme that is criticized to be “boring” can reveal some of the most interesting relationships and notions. The purpose of categorizing a work as something boring signifies that the project is simple in the subject matter of shape ,form, or aesthetics but, when the simplicity of a project is identified as its own architectural language, the interesting side of boring is revealed. This brings me to the argument as to why configurations in architecture are either one or the other (shape or system, boring or interesting, form following function). I believe a project can be many things at once. As seen in The Element house, as long as a project clearly creates a fluid relationship of an idea that is viewed as a single entity, the scheme can be whatever it wants. Whether its one or the other or a multitude of things.
LikeLike
The mechanism of being interested in something is different from that of being happy about the matter. Although “interesting” sounds more like being into the thing, but indeed it is merely free of love, but full of desire for control. When someone is interested, this person will focus and put effort into the thing till the principle is figured out or the ownership is established. In the field of architecture, unfortunately the subject itself is losing all the interests, while the rest relay on technologies or aesthetic experiences outside of the discipline. What can become the new interest in architecture other than the situation where the architecture wears a makeup and becomes something else?
If yes, how can this experience of refreshing continue?
When the newness is gone, how does the matter remain interesting?
LikeLike
The definition of the word “Interesting” is arousing curiosity or interest; holding or catching the attention. There are many interpretations about how one person can be interested in a matter. The main focus of being interested is not about being happy about a topic or idea, however it is how captivated you are by the level of curiosity you can attain from something. Now that architects understand the trends of peoples’ minds they attempt to keep people interested. This brings up the next topic from the readings, “boredom.” The concept about defining boring mentioned by Atwood can be well learned by contemporary architects. Boredom, in my opinion, is the polar opposite of being interested. Architecture can easily be considered boring if it does not captivate the viewing eye of the everyday human. But, today’s architects have learned to adapt to the changing eras of architecture and have easily steered away from the boring spectrum.
LikeLike
Although boring architecture appears to steer the viewer away from architecture, it instead locks the viewer into the project and requires them to study and dissect what is in front of them. An “interesting” structure has all of the information laid out for them without need for reflection. How do we differentiate something that is so called boring and something that is just unique? If boring is just a simplified design, perhaps modern is an example of architecture than can be perceived as boring. Many of the photographs from Ed Rusca may be considered boring because of their generic qualities. Rather than focusing on what could make a piece of art or architecture more interesting, we should be taking the time to understand what is directly in front of us.
LikeLike
Aesthetics is the branch of philosophy that deals with beauty. Any kind of positive or negative aesthetic quality that is possessed by something is processed by the viewer as an emotional reaction as opposed to a logical one. it is for this reason that it is so difficult to pinpoint what does or what does not spark an emotional sensory experience in the human mind. Many theories concerning aesthetics have been produced overtime in order to make sense of this phenomena. Emanuel Cant, a German philosopher, categorized our natural reactions to varying types / degrees of beauty into the agreeable, the good, and the beautiful. Throughout art history, countless efforts have been made to problematize beauty with great amounts of differentiation due to the forces of culture and society. Today in contemporary art some works attempt to entirely negate the idea of beauty being present in the artwork as well as any deeper meaning at all. Similar concepts can be traced back to artists such as Duchamp, Warhol, and Klein, who hailed from the eras of Dadaism, Pop, and minimalism.
LikeLike
During this week’s presentation, something that stood out to me was the meaningful analyzation of one of the readings, “Merely Interesting” that extended well beyond the reading itself. For example, one of the presenters spent time defining aesthetics using examples of the beauty standards held for all women in our society and applying that back to art and architecture – further exploring the connotations of the word interesting. Since aesthetic can essentially be defined as beauty and interesting can be correlated to aesthetic, does this then insinuate everything interesting is also aesthetic or beautiful or both? What is considered interesting? Or for that matter beautiful? If beauty is in the eye of the beholder can we truly even proclaim something to be any of the above as though it is a factual reality? Arguably, no. All of these interpretations are explicitly subjective, just as any architectural criticism, and should be recognized as such for the purity of art’s sake.
LikeLike
1. How are we supposed to draw the boundary between “novelty” and something “interesting”?
2. Is it possible that a non-repetitive sculptural like object to have an inherent “system”?
3. Is taking “boredom” to an extreme an act of being “interesting”?
LikeLike
The notion of “interesting” changes according to the viewer’s experience and knowledge and is something to be learnt. A pure aesthetic move that some African women wear multiple neck rings can be both interesting and radical to people outside of that culture. Thus, it’s almost impossible to categorize “boring” and “interesting”. Also, to be able to evaluate if a work is interesting, one has to be in a restricted field and learnt to observe. The “fountain” by Duchamp is interesting only if you are familiar with the background of art and how art works were presented at that time. Otherwise such work would only be an uncreative relocation of a mundane object.
LikeLike
Boring and interesting are subjective to each situation and person, difficult to define because of the varied interests of the human race. Similarly, the aesthetic appreciations of each culture vary, not only with location and influences, but with time as well. This week’s lecture emphasized how it is the context within which something is situated that gives or detracts value to the object itself.
LikeLike
1: If whether a piece of Architecture being either boring or interesting is a relative measurement, what categories are most relevant to it? In other words, what would be the best way to break down the boring/interesting measurement to obtain relevant information?
2: if the same piece of architecture can be seen as ‘boring’ in one environment, yet ‘interesting’ in another, what is the key part that would enable that difference?
3: Generally it is assumed that being interesting is a good thing and boring a bad thing, but sometimes its better to be boring than interesting. In what sort of situations would this be the case, and why?
LikeLike
Ultimately, the measurement of ‘boring’ and ‘interesting’ rests completely on the expectations of the viewer. Subverting expectations creates surprise, surprise then turns to curiosity, and curiosity is built off of interest. Subverting expectations relies on the ability to deal with extremes and opposites. For instance, extreme repetition of an otherwise simple shape can make it interesting. This ‘interesting’ aspect relies on the difference be quantity and quality. The quality of the geometry is low, but it is hidden behind the sheer number of that geometry. One of the is the normal, the expected, the ‘boring.’ The other is something that has been elevated to an extreme level, something that could easily be considered overwhelming or even an annoyance depending on the situation. Juxtaposing these two things reveals their opposition and creates a result that is considered ‘interesting.’ there are many things that can be juxtaposed: Scale, quantity, systems, patterns, geometries, mass, material, but above all the environment is most important. The surrounding environment sets the standard for expectations. A steel, spiraling tower will be considered much more standard in a metropolis environment than an average City. Complex geometry would be a considerable detraction for a camping cabin in the woods, where the goal is not to focus on the cabin, but rather the nature outside the cabin.
LikeLike
I was recently watching Breaking Bad on Netflix, and in this particular episode Jane and Jesse went to the Georgia O’keeffe museum together. When they were leaving Jesse made a comment saying how boring the exhibit was because the artist painted the same door multiple times. Jane began to explain how its not the subject of the painting that is interesting it is the result. Each painting is slightly different through this repetition, Jane explains that every day is full of different factors, like emotions and experiences, and the changes between the interpretations of the same subject is what makes the work meaningful. I believe this idea can be translated to the practice of architecture, for example, the use of simple shapes or designs, like O’keeffe’s door, in repetition can result in interesting projects. Using a similar form and subjecting it to different contextual factors and manipulating it accordingly, (similarly to each situations affect on the door paintings) can possibly convey a meaningful relationship between each project and its location and etc and in doing so create a product that will no longer be considered boring.
LikeLike