208 thoughts on “Interesting, Boring & Indifference”
1. In the article titled ‘Boring,’ the author highlights a list of characteristics that
that makes an object or image “boring.” One of the words is “open-ended.”
Does art always have to pair up with a text that explains the content?
If so, is it considered good art or interesting art if there is no text
required?
2. In the NO. 5 Element House article, it is explained the simple, yet
specifically designed system to conduct this building. An intricate matrix of
ordinary shapes converts into a not ordinary shape. We are beings designed
with an organic shape, but we insist on create these geometric systems that
are based on simple measures. Why are we so intrigued by this format of designing?
3. In the article “Merely Interesting,” Sianne Ngai considered the meaning of interesting and
what type of content was considered intriguing vs. what is not. How do we consider
a situation where one deals with procrastination? Usually, tasks that are procrastinated
are actually extremely enjoyable to conduct or interesting, but why do we not complete the tasks?
1. In the photographs of Ruscha and Opie- specifically Opie’s freeway photographs- the photographs are “open-ended” by way of being blurred and fuzzy, is architecture that has no clear focus then too open-ended?
2. How is such a carefully designed geometric work of architecture such as Element House indifferent to both systems and shapes?
3. Ngai states that convincing someone of something as one aesthetic quality or another (cute, gaudy, attractive, unattractive, etc.) is to convince them to see the object as you see it, pointing out the nonaesthetic qualities that give it the overall aesthetic. But is it not the implication that something could or should be one way that ultimately changes the others’ view? Is it truly in pointing out the nonaesthetic that the aesthetic arises, or is it something inherent?
1) in “Boring” by Andrew Atwood, it is stated that “boredom is blurry because it is always in motion. It’s multiple meanings never fixed but always fluid, open-ended, and never stable over time.” However, open-ended art/architecture can lead to the mind coming to its own conclusions, and is giving people something to think about really creating boredom?
2) In the reading “Merely Interesting,” by Sianne Ngai, it is made clear that the word interesting is somewhat of a placeholder for words that better describe the object. Can boring and interesting have the same meaning at times? Boring is related to open-endedness, and interesting is an open-ended descriptor.
3) In the “Element house” article, the Museum of Outdoor Arts Element House is described as being “indifferent” to the categorization of shapes and systems. However at the beginning of the article it is also described as a “geometric system of growth.” It is geometric, and a system, so why is it called indifferent to those words instead of being called a combination of the two?
When looked at in the right perspective boring can become interesting. In the presentation looking at Catherine Opie’s photos made it clear that something considered boring (like a freeway) when studied in detail and seen from different views and perspectives can become something worth studying and appreciating. Boring can be a great thing to open up people minds to appreciation. We should not dismiss boredom. Creating a willful blur a Ruscha does let’s viewers form their own opinions and see the art in their own way while they make up their own reasons for why the art looks as it does, rather than forcing the artists own justifications for moves they made. Boredom can often lead to the very best something. The best ideas are born when a person is bored, if we are always taking in a constant stream of information and ideas from other to dissect and think about, we have no time to come up with our own ideas. Perhaps viewing boring architecture is the best way to cultivate great architecture.
1. In the article “Boring” the author makes the connection between boring and open-endedness. A work of art or architecture may sometimes not explicitly note its concepts, or its overall effect created, or it may not have enough of a strong presence for everyone to take away. Is a work of art or architecture automatically called boring even though its effects and details may be more subtle?
2. Working on the idea of architecture that may present its concepts in a more subtle way than others, isn’t architecture that is derived and made up of a lot subtle components and subtle elaborate well thought out concepts end up being the architecture that makes someone step back and really think about that piece of work much like any other artform rather than what is presented blatantly in front of someone? Isn’t that the type of architecture that ends up being what brings about new forms of radical architecture though thought and question?
3. Ngai implies the idea of how differing views among people can have influence over how something is viewed over another. What can the idea of differing views have n the arguments of aesthetic vs non-aesthetic and boring vs interesting? Doesn’t Ngai discuss in a way the idea that such arguments are truly in the eye of the beholder and that such ideas of interesting vs boring really come from ones interests and what intrigues someone? Does the idea of influence bring about this idea of abstraction being interesting?
Boredom, boring both bringing about negative connotation along with questions. The connection between boredom and question can very well go hand in hand as the quality of boredom and disinterest allows for the mind to not be absorbed by interest and intrigue to take things for what they are. Boring as discussed in the readings is tied and connected also with the idea of open-endedness. An object or piece of architecture which is open-ended is the very quality which leads to question because arguably something concrete is much harder to question than something that is open ended because it is or it isn’t.
Repetition in an open-ended object such as the cubes shown in lecture leads to another quality of intrigue and question due to its many variations. With the series of possibilities in a confined space the idea of obstruction and how the cubes morph the space could bring about many new conceptual ideas or being about a quality of space or shadow to take forward though a different medium of exploration. Therefore something inherently classified as boring by being open-ended in repetition as now become and idea of concept and intrigue and interest. The lines between the classification of boring and interesting in essence are very blended and blurred.
1. In the “Element house” the indifference attributed to the design in relation to shape and system is peculiar especially given the author separates them as different entities. Is shape or system dominant here? Or is there the implication that shape and system are composed of certain shared components.
2. In the article “Boring”, by Andrew Atwood, characteristics that make an object boring are discussed. Specifically, it is mentioned we can give things attention without being interested in them and that boredom is the first step in explaining this understanding. I wonder, if this is the case, whether or not the role of subjectivity v. objectivity can alter this understanding of boredom in ways that challenge distinctions enough to blur the lines between boredom, interest, engagement, attention ect..
3. In “Merely Interesting”, by Ngai states “To be sure, the application of interesting to objects is not always aesthetical; cultural interpreters are just as likely to find objects historically interesting, psychologically interesting, and so on.” The many facets that compose the subjective understanding of interesting are complex and I question whether context, and what kinds of context, call for a certain application to be dominant?
The aesthetic condition of boring used as a tool for stimulating a condition of interesting, ironically. The components of interesting and boring are broken can perhaps be broken down into subjective v objective understandings when observing aesthetic condition and impact. It is interesting to discuss, as was done so in class, whether this radicality of producing boring work is a worthwhile endeavor. Perhaps the rigor that is actually required in creating the mundane is necessary in pushing certain boundaries. Such as in the serial images of gas stations there is something, If not exactly profound, impactful in its imagery. Perhaps in this manner it is most successful as an aesthetic/design tool or for use in application that stimulates lack of stimulation itself thus forcing a certain thought process.
1. In the “Element house” the indifference attributed to the design in relation to shape and system is peculiar especially given the author separates them as different entities. Is shape or system dominant here? Or is there the implication that shape and system are composed of certain shared components.
2. In the article “Boring”, by Andrew Atwood, characteristics that make an object boring are discussed. Specifically, it is mentioned we can give things attention without being interested in them and that boredom is the first step in explaining this understanding. I wonder, if this is the case, whether or not the role of subjectivity v. objectivity can alter this understanding of boredom in ways that challenge distinctions enough to blur the lines between boredom, interest, engagement, attention ect..
3. In “Merley Interesting”, by Ngai states “To be sure, the application of interesting to objects is not always aesthetical; cultural interpreters are just as likely to find objects historically interesting, psychologically interesting, and so on.” The many facets that compose the subjective understanding of interesting are complex and I question whether context, and what kinds of context, call for a certain application to be dominant?
1. In “Systems and Shapes”, Meredith argues that the organization of the Element House is indifferent to the qualities of shapes and systems due to its independent design and location. To what extent can systems and shapes become unreliable and how can this independence be challenged for future projects?
2. In “Merely Interesting,” Ngai brings up the question of what is considered interesting and how the interesting is related to the discourse. If the interesting is becoming a vague interpretation of the discourse, should we hold back from using this term or should we continue using it as an initiative to creating abstract conversations?
3. According to the reading “Boring,” Atwood explains that boring architecture makes us aware of the obvious facts. If boring architecture involves the repetition of parts and strategies, is it necessary to keep creating boring architecture and what are the consequences to pursue architecture without its boring aspect?
One interesting concept presented in this week’s lecture was the question of how boring architecture can push boundaries. Boring architecture has various meanings. Boring architecture could be conceived negatively such as insignificant, generic, or open ended. It could also be interpreted positively. Boredom has no boundaries; it can be an interior or exterior. Sometimes, we use the term boring as an abstraction to start a conversation. An example to represent this statement is Atwood’s art installation. Atwood realized that minimalist, boring work allowed the viewers to critically analyze and identify details beyond what was directly given. We tend to perceive ‘boring’ as a negative connotation due to our culture nowadays where we become so narrow minded because of our surroundings specifically the use of social media. We have become so close-minded that we tend to forget the other side of possibilities. Thus, boring architecture is necessary in modern architecture as a way of pushing the boundaries for understanding what can the possibilities be for the future in architecture be.
1. In Andrew Atwood’s article “Boring,” he discusses how Ed Ruscha depicts specific views of Los Angeles as intentionally boring so as to view the subject as it is in a very calculated, intentional manner. However, to the eye of somebody not familiar with the work or the creator, the image must seem as mundane as any other image of the city, completely failing to recognize that it is actually as skillful as it is. To this extent, if this idea were to play itself into the world of architecture, would it make sense to make something appear willfully insignificant rather than intentionally interesting to all parties involved?
2. Extending on the previous question, how fine is the line that architects must walk that exists between creating something that only other architects like and creating something that captures the client’s attention?
3. In Sianne Ngai’s article “Merely Interesting,” Ngai talks about somebody who claims that the word “interesting” carries no significant weight in an argument over the quality of something. Should this idea stay true in architecture, would this opinion not be failing to acknowledge the importance of opinion in the field of architecture?
It seems that a lot of the architectural and artistic ideas that are based around the relationships between the Interesting, the Boring, and the Indifferent are trying to create a foundation on the basis that these are all quantifiable and rigidly identifiable based on a criterion rooted in fact. Unfortunately, these three terms are entirely a product of the observer, and therefore entirely rooted in opinion. In the act of trying to create something Boring, any architect or artist is exercising an act of futility, as they are simultaneously trying to create something that doesn’t attract interest while setting their work apart from the unintentionally boring i.e. trying to be of particular interest to the observers. However, the place where the idea of Boring exceeds the most is when a person of particular influence, who is well-renowned for their interesting work in the past, purposely creates a work that is extremely contradictory to their previous work. This inspires people that are familiar with the work of the artist/architect to research the purpose the creator had to create such a thing, exposing whatever message or statement the creator wants to convey to the public.
1. In Boring, Atwood states that “the best we can hope for is the inverse: that we might find things boring because they are interesting”. How does this apply to today’s architecture? Do we begin to find ourselves finding the previously interesting boring?
2. In Systems and Shapes, Meredith compares the aspects of systems versus shapes. What makes the claim that the project has none of the characteristics discussed true or false?
3. In Merely Interesting, Ngai discusses interesting and the perceptions that evolve over time on what is interesting vs. what is not. Is what we find interesting solely based on past influences or another’s opinion convincing you of the “fact”? Does what is interesting evolve over time?
Based on the in-class discussion and presentation it seems as though the subjects of boring, interesting, and indifference are caught in a paradox. Due to the definition of each of these subjects being based on the opinion of the observer and culture at large, there is no one size fits all answer to how we interpret architecture as one of the above. As culture evolves, what was once interesting becomes boring, what was boring submits to indifference and something new becomes interesting. It then begs the question as to the validity of designing with one of the aspects in mind. By designing something interesting today you might be designing tomorrows boring. That might imply that architects shouldn’t be caught up in such facile design focuses but rather on more significant criteria.
1. Meredith described the Element House in “Systems and Shapes” as being designed as a developmental pattern that can grow and adapt over time in an efficient manner. Does this method of building stay indifferent over time through the growth or changes of the modules? Should architects strive to obtain this notion of indifference in order to create sustainable designs like this project?
2. Boring, as described by Atwood, becomes creative been one confronts a subject and is, “actively working to create interest inside the work itself.” The audience must derive interest from the project itself rather than nearby sources. Is the determination of whether architecture is boring in the hands of the audience? Or is there a way for the creator to have the audience take the time to subjectively confront the work and construct their own interest without creating something objectively interesting?
3. In “Merely Interesting” Ngai states, “we tell people we find works interesting when we want to do criticism.” Despite finding something good or bad, if it poses a value or merit and is worth paying attention to it is found to be interesting. If boring architecture is criticized is it then by this definition interesting? How can the architect further promote criticism and critical analysis through design?
The idea of boring is contradictory as one designs with the intention of curating thought and criticism without attracting interest or attention to the subject. Boring demands engagement in a subjective manner where the viewer must question and critique the forms of expression. The question came up of how artwork can motivate interest. If people choose to find interest in certain moments or aspects of a larger work or create ambiguity through a back and forth engagement, then they can sustain interest. Interesting architecture can be more seen as more objective, creating something spectacular. In the discussion it was brought up that time, place and societal factors might affect what an individual finds interesting in a building. What may be interesting today might not sustain interest in the future. The experience of the boring and interesting must also be able to extend itself to all observers. As with Andy Warhol’s analysis of drinking a coke, there is an importance of mass production where wealth or status plays no role in the engagement of this type of experience and challenges this extension to architecture.
1: Atwood talks about boring architecture having much to do with minimalist art. I wonder what his perspective on minimalist architecture would be all things considered?
2: Meredith believes that system and shape are “frenemies”, due to how they usually interact. What could be a circumstance when they both compliment each other?
3: How can we use reason to justify our aesthetic judgements?
This week in particular seemed strangely interesting to me…which is funny considering its topic was “boring” architecture. The whole idea about architecture, a sculpture, or an art piece being boring or dull is entirely in the eye of the beholder. I would argue that there is indeed a set of characteristics that most people view as “interesting” or “exciting”, but those qualities can change or be altered depending on the situation given. Simply rotating something some degrees might give it an entirely new perspective and something that was considered boring and dull, could then be changed due to its new elevation. My point is, before labeling something based on how it’s currently be perceived, we should take into account all other factors that could be at play and re-evaluate our decision if necessary.
1. Indifference is explained for things that are having no particular interest or sympathy; unconcerned. The element house however is a complex system. So, what makes the Element house inddiferent?
2. In the topic of interesting, Sianne Ngai said that aesthetic is not the only thing that interesting. However, what is interesting often express itself through its special aesthetics. So, will it still be interesting or express what is interesting when we remove the aesthetic component?
3. For the Boring article, Atwood connects boredom to the open-endedness. So, are the boring architecture boring because its lack of details and uniqueness, or are they interesting in their own ways that we are ignoring because we only see the outside of it?
After listening the class, I learned that architecture is viewed in many perspectives such as systems, partitions, facades, cultures and the architects themselves. An interesting architecture can be a boring architecture with the minimized design strategies. A well built detailed structure however, could be very boring due to lack of communication with the surrounding environment or missing meanings behind the architecture. In conclusion, minimalist architecture could be interesting
1. Atwood’s “Boring” essay has an interesting title that seems to generalize architecture into the same term by making a direct assumption even before his point is made. Is the title “Boring” the correct label for Atwood’s essay? Is it to be assumed that an uneducated eye will deduce that architecture is nothing but “Boring”?
2. Sianne Ngai’s essay “Merely Interesting” discusses the meaning that the word Interesting carries to members in society. Should Complex objects be considered interesting? Do members of society misuse the word interesting for the word aesthetic?
3. “Systems and Shapes” by Meredith focuses in the Element house located in New Mexico. Questions about the houses shape, and the systems it uses come into play in the essay. How do Shapes and Systems word together in this case study to become a harmonious apparatus?
Architecture can be considered many things to the eye of the beholder. It could also be described as “Interesting, Boring and Indifferent” depending on who’s objective eye is judging the architectural work. These are terms that cover a full spectrum of objectivity in that those with ambivalent minds have the choice of whether to enjoy or reject a structure. Interesting on one end of the spectrum seems to have a tie with the word Aesthetic. Whatever the eye finds aesthetically pleasing can also be described as interesting. This seems to be an issue since aesthetic shouldn’t be a determining factor in the way architecture is judged. On the other end of the spectrum, we find the “boring” ideal. A strongly founded belief that could be fueled by disturbing and un-aesthetic shapes. The inbetween of the spectrum aims to please those who feel indifference towards the specific subject and are neither interested nor bored by a particular work of architecture.
All ends of the spectrum including the “Indifferent” has a certain level of radicality to it and doesn’t allow for judgment in a subjective form and more on an objective one. One person might favor a specific fashion model over the other, while some find pleasure in un-aesthetic images where uncommon elements come together to form a whole.
1. In the text “Boring” by Atwood, Catherine Opie’s work as a photographer is analyzed alongside Ed Ruscha’s photographs of the Sunset Strip in L.A. as a modern supplement. Atwood describes Opie’s MOCA installation as photographs of mundane subjects taken skillfully and professionally, presented confusingly with repeating titles and a generic numbering system. Clearly the action is not boring, or even the subject on some occasions. Is it fair to say that “boring” architecture as a terminology is deliberately left “open-minded”, i.e. having no specific definition to whatever it is describing, and is designed as a catalyst to “interesting” thought?
2. Michael Meredith’s paragraph of text pits system and shape against one another and declares that Element House is indifferent to the issue not only by its isolated location but also its plan. The plan is a geometric pattern of shapes. Adverse to “Systems are typically based in plan”. Yet the act that Element House takes is in opposition to the issue and isn’t necessarily indifferent. Can one be indifferent in architecture?
3. In Ngai’s Merely Interesting, she presents the question of why do we place value on “aesthetic judgement” and how do we justify it then? Essentially asking why or if we can say “interesting” critically. In her analysis, Ngai wrote, ”what counts as new is much more radically dependent on context than features…” Interesting aesthetics shift your perception via context for hope of evoking nostalgia/the expected. Therefore everything is aesthetically interesting; so how do you prevent oversaturation of the “feature”?
From the lecture and presentation, the idea of aesthetics in architecture was presented as subjective and meaning can vary from person to person. Interesting architecture, as depicted best towards the end of the presentation, is influenced by perceived beauty or other societal or cultural ideas. Interesting architecture depends on how its context is shaped by what people as a whole perceive as beautiful. Boring, on the other hand, doesn’t necessarily depend on beauty. Boring architecture in its mundaneness attempts to force people to search their subjective minds to find meaning.
1. We have discussed many times in this class the contemporary obsession in the field with being “interesting.” Inherently, this points to designing for the opinions of other people, threatening your own design objectives and aesthetics in the process. We know this to be true because “interesting” is such a vague term it can only truly be used to describe the thought process of the audience. If the author thinks of their own work as “interesting,” what does that look like? If “interesting” means merely that it appeals in some way- negatively or positively- to the senses, how can an author possibly use it as an accurate or meaningful measurement of their work?
2.Ngai quotes Schlegel in this piece, writing “If poetry is to become art, if the artist is to have a thorough understanding and knowledge of his ends and means…” Self-awareness is critical in design. The same cannot necessarily be said for the field of critique. Ngai describes the work of Stanley Cavell, who may find a piece “artistically praiseworthy (while, crucially, never saying so directly.)” What are the merits of maintaining a level of indirectness in criticism? Is it perhaps that, if the audience cannot pin down ones definition of what is subjective work, it is harder to poke holes in what is essentially educated opinion?
3.The Museum of Outdoor Elements House is described as a building “stripped down to basic components.” Can basic be interesting? Is there something to be said for its juxtaposition to, for example, the garish McMansions of the 1990s that were anything but basic? And, should you make that statement, would the inhabitants of either property agree? Does that matter?
In Merely Interesting, Ngai prints a dialogue held between David Hockney and Larry Rivers. Hockney asks Rivers if he would rather his work be thought of as beautiful or interesting, to which Rivers replies that he would prefer the former. “[Beautiful] sounds more formal, it sounds as if I did something. ‘Interesting’ sounds on its way there…” This is not a viewpoint necessarily held by the majority of the field today, as many contemporary architects have an obsession with being “interesting.” The result is paradoxical to the intent- the onslaught of “interesting” work simply gets lost with in itself, described in today’s presentation as the crippling production of “more of the same.” Our professor has advised us time and time again not to focus on being interesting, but on being good, advice seemingly lost on the field to date. It will be interesting to see whether or not our generation of architects will follow the paths of those directly ahead of us, or if we will revert back to overlooking “interesting” in favor of “beautiful.”
1) What Exactly is Meredith describing when they put designers into two catagories of shape and system? can how strict is this categorization, can people belong to both parties?
2) Ngai describes an aesthetic quality as something that is derived from logic. On what grounds can this be factual? who’s to say that aesthetic judgment derives from the subconscious?
3) “Someone who succeeds in convincing me of the rightness of her judgment of an object as cute or gaudy will have done so by getting me to perceive it as she does” -Ngai. Is there such a thing always possible, or is disagreement inevitable?
Q1: In the different readings for this week, interesting, boring, & indifferent all seemed to have a temporal factor that would change whether an experience fit into one of these categories. For example, excess time doing a certain activity may result in it becoming boring. The only true way to experience architecture is over a period of time, so how might that experience lend itself to one of the three categories listed above?
Q2: From Atwood’s “Boring” essay, there is a list of statements relating to the phrases boring and boredom. He writes, “Sometimes things are just bad. Bad is not the same as boring,” and yet to be described as boring tends to have a bad connotation. Is it possible to have a boring experience that is good? In what ways might boring be of a benefit for architecture?
Q3: In the Michael reading, the author states that the word interesting has become “a handy euphemism, filling the slot for a judgment conspicuously withheld.” This implies that people no longer want to take a stance on a particular subject, but would rather hold off on sharing their opinions upfront. Would you say that behavior like this improves an architect’s designs, or make them less compelling?
“The boring instigates questions.” As something that was said pretty early on in the discussion today, this simple statement provides a good summary of the topic from this week. These questions include, but are not limited to, what does it mean to be boring, how does boring fit into the world of architecture, and is boring the opposite of interesting, or can it actually fit into that category as well? In the same way that boring instigates questions, interesting invites a conversation. When using the word interesting as a response, you are making an open-ended statement that allows you to elaborate on your feelings, whether they are good or bad. In both cases, there is a critical analysis happening within the viewer. When presented with something boring, they grasp at certain moments that might give the piece more meaning. When presented with something interesting, they are trying to figure out what they are supposed to feel towards the work.
1. The topic of this week’s articles is about whether do we consider something to be interesting/boring. Apparently, about the factors of “being interesting”, Ngai says in the article “merely interesting” that “no non-aesthetic features ever specifically responsible for anything being interesting”. Corresponded with the author, Schlegel also suggests that “there can be no endpoint when it comes to the interesting”. In my opinion, interesting is a temporal word, also how do we make the comments like things being interesting/beautiful depend on various generators along the processes and the backgrounds. So, would there be permanent interesting in design?
2. The article of House No. 5, Element House, drew attentions about the similarities and distinguishments between “system” and “shape”. Playing with these two characteristics, the Element House is considered as an “indifferent” one, which aims to represent the independency and no additional components. So the project is back to the primitive meaning of “house”. However, rather than in the middle of nowhere, how do we iterate indifference in a city context?
3.In the article “Boring”, Atwood analyzed what and how do we label a project as boring. Among the various reasons he presented, “open-ended” is the most predominant one, which is rather generic and lack of concentrations. So, is boring referring to something lack of design and is it a negative word? Or is it true that the boredom is the uniqueness?
From this weeks lecture, we learned different thoughts on the categories of whether a building can be described as interesting or boring. In my opinion, I do not have an exact yes or no answer, since architectures have been created not only by the architect himself but by his life experience and his unique sense of beauty. Nowadays, architectures that mirrored each other might considered boring. But for some of the viewers, the use of curve and transparent glass might also considered boring, although these elements are the things that in contemporary times. For example, the Heydar Aliyev Center, it is almost wavy. However, the comments of the building are diverse. People develop their thoughts like the sense of beauty that probably based on their life experience. As a result, I do not acknowledge that there will be an universal standard of a boring architecture or an interesting architecture. The simplest answers is that it would be an interesting architecture if it makes your eyes bright.
1. Opie’s Freeways are described as having a “fuzzy style” in which they “appear more vague”. Do artists hope their work speaks for itself or do they want viewers to have to learn and discover?
2. The Element House, located in Star Axis, New Mexico is a great example of green energy and its implementation. Throughout the process of a structure, do we sacrifice some of the design elements in order to make the building more efficient?
3. Ed Ruscha said “I am interested in what is interesting”. In this passage, Sianne Ngais discusses the importance or lack of something being interesting. If the term interesting holds no meaning or value to an object or person, then why should we use it to describe these tangible structures in the first place?
1. In “Boring”, Atwood disagrees with the notion that architecture is “boring” because of the subject’s feelings or emotions but rather the qualities in certain architectural objects can be described as “boring”. How does architectural objects achieve a definitive association with “boring” without being affected by the bias of feelings and taste?
2. Ngai claims that to judge something interesting, you must find it interesting again. The object that is being judge is only considered interesting if you still find it interesting. Is there a way to continuously enjoy something interesting, without becoming familiar with it?
3. The Element house was built with a sustainable mindset and stripped down to basic components. In Atwood’s point of view, would basic components be considered inherently boring?
The idea of architecture being boring or interesting is very subjective and like anything it is about the content and how it resonates with the viewer/audience. Atwood claims that things can be boring themselves without having to evoke emotions from the audience but its difficult to separate interests and emotions, because something interesting will almost always evoke some kind of emotion. In a modern era of architecture, with provided programs and computer generative software, the goal is to create “interesting” architecture by creating something different and unique that would be considered a “wow-factor”. However, interesting architecture goes beyond that and simple shapes that create powerful spaces can be equally as interesting or even more so than a piece of elaborate architecture. Much is seen in today’s celebrity lifestyle where some celebrities are interesting because of their outlandish outfits and personalities while others are very plain but are interesting in other ways.
1. In “Boring,” Atwood talks about the reaction to the opening installation and describes it as boredom. He makes the suggestion that this is a result of expectation versus reality, and that although the spectale was boring, the reaction to search for a focal point which became “a series of individual searches, a free-floating and ongoing lingering.” Is anything acutally boring if it has the potential to spark various wonders in the perceptions of viewers.
2. On the subject of boring and interesting Architecture, I feel like many clients and people outside of the field sometimes don’t appreciate or understand architectural intentions. How does an Architecture balance abstraction and the comfort/needs of their client?
3. With respect to the article, “Merely Interesting,” the author talks about the concept of criticism, and that when we internally notice something enough to form an opinion on it, whether it be positive or not, it had enough potential to bring about some productive thought. If the point of criticism is to be constructive, to what extent does it have the ability to make something boring, seem or become interesting?
Today we saw boring’s ability to be compelling. Especially seen in Modern Architecture, buildings tend to be self-referential and loud and complex just for the sake of it. Even today with the advent of the computer and the mentality of a new architecture and somehow being inventive, we still see these projects that seem largely interesting to look at, but under the surface they don’t mean much. I would much rather have a relatively simpler design with fewer meaningful moves than a wacky thing that can’t control all its moves. In many cases, less is more, and while less may appear boring, if executed with intent and context, it can be extremely interesting.
1. In the reading “Boring” by Andrew Atwood he lists out terms that make art boring, one of which was “ambiguous”. How does the ambiguity of a design, one that ultimately makes the viewers think about the work, classify as boring? Wouldn’t it be more boring to look at art and understand it right away?
2. In the reading “Systems and Shapes” by Michael Meredith, he says that the Element House goes against the typical opposition between both systems and shapes. In what ways does this house achieve this?
3. In “Merely Interesting”, Ngai says that there are “no nonaesthetic features ever specifically responsible for anything being interesting”. How is that the case?
As discussed in this week’s class, our generation often finds the works of famous architects such as Le Corbusier or Mies boring whereas there are many other people who consider their work to be both beautiful to look at and interesting. While their work if often not as detailed or even as daring as what we enjoy to see or create today, they still present interesting qualities even if they are boring. Just because something appears less detailed does not mean we must classify it as boring. There are plenty of artworks that, at first glance, look both simple and plain, but we must see this as a blank canvas for our imaginations. We must use the ambiguity of projects in order to create something interesting for ourselves.
1) In the writing about House No. 5, the design is “stripped down to basic components” and made of simple raw aluminum material. Is the simple material the best choice to accentuate the design features and aid in passive heating and cooling? Or does it simply make the design boring?
2) In the reading Boring by Atwood, Scott Brown and Wall effectively compiled a list of terms that makes an object boring. Is it possible to create something interesting out of these boring terms, or should they be stayed away from entirely?
3) Something boring can be captured in a photograph without it being boring, however, can an object be captured in a dull or generic way but not result in a boring outcome? At what point (if at all) does a lack of energy and excitement render a photograph or exposition interesting again?
The presentation this week was on the topic of boring versus interesting. A statement that really stood out to me during the presentation was “boring isn’t unintentional and doesn’t have to be something that you arrive at”. This was especially intriguing because generally when someone thinks of boring they don’t imagine that it is intentionally so. However, the speaker went on to say that often architecture and other art forms are meant to be boring, or designed to be boring. This can have many different purposes and intentions. Often a lack of color for the interior of a building is meant to accentuate what is within said building, such as art museums, often the interior is mainly white, especially in areas where the art is being exhibited. This statement falls short however, when the exterior of the building is not boring and can be seen as art in itself. However, in the case of the Kukje Gallery by So-il, how can it be determined whether the building is boring or fascinating? The exterior is covered in chainmail, which is rarely seen. So it’s fascinating. But, chainmail is repetitive and one solid color, and fairly boring. The rest of the exterior is essentially a cube with small parts protruding outwards. How can the Kukje Gallery be defined as boring or fascinating? This is possible because the combination of the boring components creates an intriguing design. This is why boring is rarely unintentional.
1. If a photograph that is considered “boring” is just called this because the focus in it is off, would changing the focus but keeping everything else the same change the potential of this photograph and possibly make it not boring?
2. The terms “system” and “shape” can often be used interchangeably, even if used incorrectly, but is it fair to say that the start of a system can’t go anywhere without a shape to get the process of that system working?
3. Is it possible to have a piece of architecture that is so boring it becomes interesting?
1. The photograph could possibly change and become of interest if the focus changes, however sometimes the image that is beyond the screen of the camera just holds no value to any person that looks at it.
2. I believe that a shape is what creates a system and without a shape, you can never get a system. Even if the shape is or isn’t constantly repeated in that system, you have to start somewhere. This contradicts the reading because they are described as very different entities when in fact they are related.
3. I think that if a piece of architecture appears to be boring in the sense that it isn’t overly complicated, it might actually have a hidden logic behind it. Even though the physical design is boring, the logic behind that creation could be interesting which then would make the building interesting.
1) In Atwood’s ‘Boring’ he sites the work of photographers and their ability to photograph mundane things in a mundane way; or to reduce the interesting nature of something by editing the photograph poorly on purpose. There’s a bit of irony in the effort to create the boring or mundane in that if there was effort put forth and if that effort is put on display, whether in a museum or as a built project, the public questions both the abilities of the creator and of their ability to appreciate that which they do not know. Does the effort to appear boring give unwarranted credit to project that don’t deserve the attention?
2) Atwood also compares interesting and boring in that one gets attention when we want to know about something else vs when we want to know something more about ourselves. When an architect designs to be boring, does the architect embody themselves in their work more than they would if they’re designing to be interesting?
3) Element House is indifferent to systems and shape because it doesn’t neurotically obsess over its functionality or image. It’s site and purpose grant it immunity from having to be overly intricate or interesting. How do other projects with fundamentally different sites and stakes implement this indifference?
In an age where everyone is trying to be interesting, or to be the best, the architecture suffers. Being boring, or rather, intentionally making your project boring requires the client or viewer to look deeper into the project. Rather than the subject of critique being a spectacle, it becomes mundane and everyday. As humans, we like things that work and that are done well. Deep down we’re all a bit stupid sometimes when learning how to interact with everyday objects and spaces. It’s nice when these things are designed to feel normal, and a natural extension of our lives. In an age of fast-paced development and competition, architecture that’s willing to sit in the background and do good work without trying to be beautiful is a welcome change of scenery.
1. In “Systems and Shapes,” Meredith states that the Element House located in New Mexico is indifferent to all the characteristics of Systems and Shapes. What makes the Element House indifferent from a System or a Shape? Why can’t it be one or the other or even both?
2. In “Boring,” Atwood presents one of his architectural installations as “boring.” In describing the installation and the reactions of others as they observed his work, he explains almost everything in an unbiased and mundane matter, even saying that the reactions of the critics are mostly “bored,” but the term boring is obviously a subjective adjective. Most observers of the installation may have felt “bored,” but Atwood states that “there are many aspects of the project… that fail to bore me.” What is considered boring to one individual may be interesting to another – this brings in the point that what is boring can also be open-ended. Is there a way that works could be boring without the subjectivity of others?
3. In “Merely Interesting,” Ngai asks a question of “why is it that, when asked by others to justify our aesthetic judgments, we do so precisely by pointing out the nonaesthetic features on which that aesthetic quality appears to depend?” In this case, what could aesthetic features be considered as if we generally use nonaesthetic features to describe the aesthetic?
In yesterday’s lecture, we discussed the premises of “boring” and “interesting.” While both are subjective terms, they both invoke some sort of emotion when being used to describe something. Atwood’s “…And Pedestals” installation was essentially made for observers to be bored, but while most viewers were bored, they were constantly looking for pieces of the installation that could be used to explain the entire thing. They were still interested, even though they were bored. The term interesting isn’t exactly a descriptor that explains favorable nor unfavorable, but rather evokes emotion. The term bored is generally more connotative in it’s used, so while something may look boring, it can also be interesting. Andy Warhol’s art pieces can be a good example of boring, yet interesting. “Campbell’s Soup Cans” contains reiterations of the Campbell’s soups, where the only difference between each can is the name of the soups. Some can say that the piece is boring since it’s literally just the same can over and over again, but it provides interest from viewers. Why? I really don’t know, but it is interesting, whether I can explain it or not.
1. Do you agree with MOS, when they describe the Element House as indifferent to systems and shape? Do you believe that there is a system or shape within this building?
2. In Atwood’s text, he states that an open-ended image is boring. Can architecture be left open ended as well? Should every part of the building be given a purpose for it to be considered architecture or can architects leave elements out of the building to be left unresolved? Does open-endedness make a building boring?
3. Ngai states how the word interesting has no compelling meaning. Do you think there is a miss us of the word “interesting” giving it a negative connotation? Do you think we can still use “interesting” as adjective with the right intonation?
In during the group presentation, one of the students asked which pictures we found interesting. This opens up the argument of what is interesting. We can find the objects in the picture interesting but the poor photography skill of the object may not be interesting and vice versa. So is this picture interesting or is it not if there are aspects of it that we can appreciate but there is also parts about it that are not appealing to us? The word “interesting” is just a space holder. When you say an object is interesting, it is making you feel a certain way but you say “it’s interesting” so you can process how you feel about the object before you can fully convey it. I hate when critic describe my studio work as interesting because there is no real feedback. Yes, I know that my designs provoke emotions but interesting does not describe how you feel about it.
1. In the reading “Boring” written by Atwood they list aspects of archichitecture that they think are boring. But the aspects listed are the most effectively taken executed in these “boring” ways. How do you think that we can make these “boring” aspects not as boring without losing any of the effectiveness.
2. In the reading “Systems and Shapes” written by Meredith she talks about the creation and design House No. 5 Element House. As this reading and project are on the interesting side of things how do you think this building can be boring?
3. Based on the same premise of the previous question how do you think that the projects stated in the reading “boring” and interesting.
1.) Atwood talks about in “Boring” and how it describes a way objects receives attention. it seems that people have different perspective of “boring” are things really boring when there are different perspectives on what boring is?
2.) In “Systems and Shapes” It said that shapes don’t like anything that disrupts their shape, then how did that shape become the way that it is? is there a way to shape something without disrupting it?
3.) In “Merely Interesting,” What is universality to relativism???
In response to the presentation lecture given, first of all, it was interesting and eye catching. There are many different point of views on how people view architecture, it can be “Interesting, boring, and indifference.” People view boring as something that it is negative, like it does not excite them when they look at it. Now a days, architects are designing something that is not eye catching to the public view. Why? because why not. Not everything has to be pleasing to the eye. Boring can be the new aesthetic. Boring can be the concept that they are trying to achieve People view boring and interesting in different ways, it can be boring to one person and interesting to the other person.
1. In “System and Shapes”, Michael Meredith describes the opposition between systems and shapes, and how the Element House goes against this typical opposition. Can one really make this observation, with”system” and “shape” having such ambiguous meanings? However, if this is true and the Element House really does go against this opposition, is this the superior method of creating architecture, the ultimate goal being to strive against this typical opposition?
2. In “Merely Interesting”, Ngai discusses the meaning of “interesting” and what the criteria is for if something is interesting or not. However, such a big part of what we find interesting is subjectivity; in other words, “interesting” has a different meaning depending on the viewer. So, how can we actually place aesthetic judgement? How do we define anything as “aesthetically pleasing” or “interesting” when the criteria varies depending on the person? Is it counter-productive to call something “interesting” when this word holds many different meanings?
3. Andrew Atwood in “Boring” makes the argument that objects that are open-ended are considered “boring”. Is this a fair assessment; one could argue that a certain level of open-endedness is actually more thought-provoking then something that provides all answers and has resolved every problem?
The main idea that I took away from this presentation is the idea that architecture is an extremely subjective field. The readings and post-lecture discussed the differences between system and shape in architecture, as well as the debate of what defines something as interesting vs. boring. One thing I have been continuously questioning the past few weeks with these lectures is why do we always find the need to have to define architecture with phrases such as “interesting”, “boring”, “aesthetically pleasing”, etc. when we know that these phrases have varying meanings? One person’s definition of “boring” might mean another person’s definition of “interesting”. In addition, one could argue that something generally defined as “boring” might actually be more open-ended, thus sparking more critiques for it and thus creating a more interesting project with more possibility and greater future potential. Aesthetics are extremely subjective as we have come to learn, having much more to do with a person’s emotional response to a work of architecture sometimes then the actual architecture itself. Thus, why do historians spend years of their life trying to bring rationale into their opinions when it really just comes down to an emotional response?
The main idea that I took away from this presentation is the idea that architecture is an extremely subjective field. The readings and post-lecture discussed the differences between system and shape in architecture, as well as the debate of what defines something as interesting vs. boring. One thing I have been continuously questioning the past few weeks with these lectures is why do we always find the need to have to define architecture with phrases such as “interesting”, “boring”, “aesthetically pleasing”, etc. when we know that these phrases have varying meanings? One person’s definition of “boring” might mean another person’s definition of “interesting”. In addition, one could argue that something generally defined as “boring” might actually be more open-ended, thus sparking more critiques for it and thus creating a more interesting project with more possibility and greater future potential. Aesthetics are extremely subjective as we have come to learn, having much more to do with a person’s emotional response to a work of architecture sometimes then the actual architecture itself. Thus, why do historians spend years of their life trying to bring rationale into their opinions when it really just comes down to an emotional response?
1. The difference between interest and attention is that attention is subjective. Boring architecture can still grab attention for its lack of a certain quality. Interest is objective, often holding one common idea of a quality. How has architecture historically taken advantage of these differences? What movements or designs are only interesting due to their lack of objective?
2. “Aesthetic judgements are given and contained in the immediate experience of art.” How do the concepts appear to viewers in relation to the aesthetics? -Kosuth. How strongly can the exterior aesthetics influence a person’s immediate opinion to the point where the concept becomes a secondary element rather than the main element that inspires the aesthetics?
3. If aesthetic judgements are given first and retained afterwards, how much do shapes override forms in design? Shapes are described as graphics while forms are the means and technicians. How can shapes and forms work together to create a project where the aesthetics and conceptual ideas collaborate enough to create a balanced, “accurate” judgement?
The subject this week centers around perspective and how it’s affected. Graphics are important in architecture due to their hold on the critics. A great project can be overwhelmed by mediocre graphics. Similar to that, a well-thought out design can become “boring” if it’s not interesting enough; beautiful, but simple projects can grab more attention than a creative, but “uninteresting” one. Kosuth states in the readings that aesthetic judgements are given and contained in the immediate expression of art. Initial impressions are important. However, the presentation discusses how a project that’s interesting before may not retain the same concept in time. That raises the question of how a person’s perspective can change. Is it a closer analysis of the project or outside factors such as different trends?
1. In the article “Boring” there is a description between what it mean to design something boring. The discussion focus on the idea that maybe what we think might be boring, really just means that it has a deeper meaning, something more than what is shown. Does this mean that when designing a work of architecture, simplicity is automatically seen as boring, even if it conveys a larger meaning in the background?
2. In the article “Systems and shapes” Meredith tries to separate designer by the categories of shape and systems. While the two category have their own separate characteristics, both can come together to form something equally as harmonious. That being said, is it possible for a designer to belong to both categories at the same time?
3. Thinking back on the idea of what makes a work of architecture boring, or what bring about the larger meaning behind it. It seems as though the ideas that created an architectural work can sometimes be over looked or lost in translation from the perspective of the client in question. In what specific ways can an architect share his/her thought process with a client, without confusing them or making them miss the meaning behind that specific design?
When it comes to the definition of the word boring in relation to architecture, the meaning could be seen from many different perspectives. The lecture brought up an interesting point that sometimes it is the idea of making something boring the pushes the architect to create. I guess this comes from the ideal that all architects have, that there will always be room to better any work that you create. The problem with this way of thinking is how to explain it to the client, without saying that a project is boring, or that a project will always have more room to grow. Then there is also the problem of interpretation from the client when sometimes the design itself is portrayed very clearly, such in a sense that it might seem too simple, or overall boring. So it seems that the main goal that needs to be achieved here is finding a middle ground between making it clear to a client, but also a bit confusing, which will make it more interesting, because you are leaving room for things to be discovered and thought out.
1. Repetition is a characteristic of boring architecture, which allows for people to notice a city’s change throughout time. Therefore, isn’t boring architecture crucial to the history of architecture, or is it redundant since architecture is prone to repeat itself since there really are no new ideas?
2. The Element House is praised for being a product of thinking outside the ‘shape’ and ‘system.’ Yet, the building is an element house. A house built from basic components, or elements of systems and shapes. This bring to question: is the logic of shapes and systems unavoidable? Are we just stuck using the same shapes and systems to create “new” things? Is architecture not generative?
3. The notion of ‘being interesting’ is based on perception. Anything and everything can be interesting whether good or bad. Therefore, ‘interesting’ is just the adjective of the word ‘criticism.’ One word having a good connotation while the other bad. Therefore, does architecture really benefit from being called ‘interesting’ or it is more for the sake of the designer?
Both boring and interesting are perspective, opinion-based concepts that are gravely influenced by society. Student architects nowadays are striving for the notion of interesting, and rather obsess over the fame of architecture. The discipline of architecture is not their priority. However, what is the point of being interesting if the building does not meet program requirements, and please the client or culture? If it is weird, it is interesting. If it is cool, it is interesting. If it is the worst thing you have ever seen in your life, it is interesting. Interesting is a vague concept that usually implies nothing of the nature of the work, but just if it is the standard norm or not. ‘Interesting’ should not be a goal but rather a byproduct of good work. Perhaps ‘boring’ is the criteria one should meet if it means that the architect has designed properly and beautifully since boring simply just means that it is not a new “CRAZY BOMB ASS” innovation.
1. In the reading of the Element House, it is describes to be indifferent of shape or system and the obsessions of aesthetic and functionality that follow it. However, in the beginning of the reading one of the first things mentioned is the process of an additive geometric system of growth. Does this contradict the Element House’s supposed indifference to shape and specifically system, or not?
2. In Atwood’s writing “Boring” one of the things on the list is ambiguity. In architecture school specifically in the conceptual stages of a project ambiguity is often encouraged to discover and explore new things about a project. Is the ambiguity described in Atwood’s reading different from vagueness or does it edge more on the side of interesting from our view?
3. How can we as architects design something that is not only aesthetically pleasing to many individuals, but also interesting in its context? Do the factors that make a project interesting often rely too much on graphics or the physical aspects of the project?
The conversation held during class mainly focused on art and architecture and its capacity to evoke interest or boredom. Before reading the material given, one might hear about a boring building and immediately write it off. However, boring architecture might be more than what it seems. The thought process behind it, the meaning, the context, and all the inner works of the project are what enters our imagination when we see “boring” architecture. We aren’t distracted by architecture that is trying abundantly hard to be more than what its not. The word “boring” was given a positive connotation during class while the word “interesting” was given a negative one. We discussed how interesting is often used as a filler word for when people are at a loss of what to say. First semester studio reviews have a lot of “interestings” in their critiques. Interesting has become the new “um” or “uh” while boring has become the new interesting.
1. In Atwoods reading, Boring, he lists a bunch of terms that he would use to categorize something as “boring”. The first term on his list is “open ended”. Some might argue that having something be open ended makes it more interesting leading to new discussions or ideas on a subject that may not have been suggested prior. What is boring is all relative so, how exactly does Atwood justify his list of terms for what he says is boring?
2. In this quote by Nagi, “When asked by others to justify our aesthetic judgments, we do so precisely by pointing out the unaesthetic features…” he suggests that we don’t really know how to point out what makes something interesting. But again, what is interesting to one may be uninteresting to another and therefore it’s all relative. Is Nagi saying that it’s interesting how we talk about what we believe is interesting? Or is what’s interesting that fact that we don’t really understand why something is interesting to us?
3.Michael Meredith’s article “Systems and Shapes” he outlines the comparison between what is a system and what is a shape. Is he suggesting that shapes are the interesting and systems are the boring? Or vise versa?
How we distinguish what is boring from what is interesting is all relative. It depends on the viewer(s) and how exactly they perceive these differences. Typically the Interesting takes the attention away from the boring. It’s eye catching and will bring up new and intriguing conversation on the subject in question. When discussing the interesting and boring within architecture however, the distinguishing factors somewhat change. The goal of most architects is to create new, exciting and interesting buildings. Something that will take the attention of the passer-bys. The modern method of this goal seems to split in two directions. It’s done with some brutalist forms that appear very monolithic and seem to have nothing to it. To some this would be considered boring architecture, but interesting in how brutal the structure appears. Interesting architecture can also be done through truly outrageous and abstract designs. Designs that push the boundaries of architecture and create such a presence that they demand the attention of those surrounding it.
1. In “Boring,” different styles of photography are compared. How can boring be used to describe both a picture in which nothing is really going on as well as a picture in which there is a lot of information all at once?
2. In “House, #5, Element House,” if the goal of the the project was to create a building that doesn’t depend on public utilities as much by relying on the surrounding environment, why does the form seems to combat function in the sense that more practical geometries aren’t in use? Why use traditional shapes such as chimneys when the traditional function behind these shapes are not in use?
3. In “Merely Interesting,” Sianne Ngai talks about how the justification of calling something cute may be found in the identification of lesser yet constructive attributes of that object. Can the term interesting be broken down in this way? Can justification for one’s view be met through this method?
1. Boredom and laziness are both terms that define art and architecture. Laziness approaches architecture to preserve traditional styles while adapting new styles at the same time while boredom is linked to flexibility. In what ways can architects apply boredom and laziness to design? How does boring architecture maintain its boredom?
2. In “Merely Interesting” by Sianne Ngai, the term “interesting” is being discussed in relation to the changes of perspectives over time. When something is considered interesting, it needs to be confronted with criticism. Can boring architecture become interesting? Does being interesting strip the architecture of boredom?
3. Sianne Ngai inferred that people are easily influenced by the nature of aesthetics. They are able to change perception based on the outer appearance and everything aesthetic suddenly becomes “interesting”. Can non-aesthetic architecture be criticized/judged to point of boredom or interest?
Boredom under different perceptions can be viewed as interesting, the indifference nature of boring can become interesting. In the presentation, objects that fall under the category of “boring” are open-ended, generic, and non-judgmental etc. People would normally deem “boring” as something ambiguous, insignificant, and uninteresting because they only have one perspective of the object/structure. By changing the perception and studying the details of the object carefully, people learn to become aware that boredom has interesting traits. In order for boredom to be interesting, it must be open to criticism and be recognized as significant by open-minded people. In relation to laziness, boredom is another state of mind where creativity flourishes new ideas and in depth understanding of concepts occur. We live in a world surrounded by aesthetics, however people overuse the term “interesting” to describe objects and beauty that we don’t understand. This new generation of architects are considered to have a flawed understanding of aesthetics and non-aesthetics. There is no basis of general concepts because the teaching system does not expose designers to a variety of themes. To have a better understanding of our world, there must be an established system to training new designers/artists/architects. The system must focus on the process and progress while it is the architect’s job to formulate ideas.
1. In “Boring” Andrew Atwood writes about how ambiguity is boring. He feels that In photography, an image isn’t “interesting” unless there is an interesting focus. Can a photo be interesting if there is an unclear focus? Does this connection between ambiguity and “boring” also exist in design and architecture?
2. In “Merely Interesting” Ngai writes about how interest is subjective. An object can be both amazing and boring at the same time depending on the viewer. He also writes about how being interested in something goes hand in hand with being unfamiliar with it. Does the meaning of interesting change depending on how long something is observed?
3. In “Systems and Shapes” Meredith writes about the Element House and how it is basic and efficient. It is primitive in its design being as simple as possible. Should this house be considered boring because there are such basic ideas? Is it interesting because of them?
1-House, No. 5, Meredith – Systems and Shapes; The author goes over how the articulations of passive systems and on-site energy -generations with the use of simple components, became adaptable to the environment, why do you think by this little house became indifferent to all of the above articulations used in this project?
2-Merely Interesting Sianne Ngai talked over how interesting objects are more interesting for the historicism behind of it, Why the applications to object of interesting isn’t always aesthetical?
3-On Atwood Boring, the author goes over how people seem different installations in gallery as boring, and how the installations bored the person who is typically responsible for performing the final act organization in any installations, what do you think if the visitors have different paths of circulations will them experience it more interesting or will stay boredom?
From lecture the System obsess over means, centrifugal (gravitate away from center), so in the house 5. The geometry and the shape became the strong methods to articulate passive systems and on-site energy -generations with the use of simple components. By located buildings away of the mountain, it became the gravitate away from community. Shape is how something is made, so system is why something is made, and its more physical while are more theoretical. Sianne Ngai talked over how interesting objects are more interesting for the historicism behind of it. So Historical precedent to unsurpassed in its integration of art and architecture, maintaining an aesthetic and programmatic unity. When the architects reinforced their project with a historical precedent make it more values and aesthetic fox example the Jewish Museum by Daniel Libeskind, using the repercussions of the Holocaust as inspiration to develop one of the most famous museum building in the last decades.
1. Atwood’s list about boring had some things that contradicted each other but brought up a few interesting questions. Something that is boring can be view in many ways depending on the person who is interacting with said thing. One thing for certain though is “There are two primary responses to boredom: avoidance and/or endurance. So when Atwood said “boring things are often blurry because they blend into their background.” and “… Boredom is creative only when one confronts and then endures the subjective limits of a boring experience by actively working to create interest inside the work itself.” So this brings in the contradiction between “ We give attention to interesting things when we want to understand them better.” And “We give attention to boring things when we want to understand ourselves better.” So question one is what does Atwood mean when he says “we want to understand ourselves better” if we’re examining someone else’s work why are we judging ourselves? The second question is if we’re enduring something that is boring, aren’t we technically trying to understand it better, even though we’re probably making our own assumptions to make it interesting?
2. If form and shapes are frenemies, what are some ways to make them work in harmony together? Is a modular system the easiest or the most successful way of making form and shape work together?
3. “Conceptual art “is interesting or it isn’t,” just as “one is informed or isn’t” or, from the side of the object, just as it “communicates itself or it doesn’t.” If something communicates itself, why do we need to give it a title or a description? It may still be open to interpretation but by giving it a title or description you’re essentially narrowing people’s interpretation. When it comes to a piece of art would you rather be informed about the art piece (meaning a description or title given) or would you rather make your own interpretation? Which is more interesting, being informed and then making your interpretation or not being informed and making your interpretation?
1. In “Boring” by Atwood, there is a list of what makes an image or object boring. Do all these reasons of why something is boring match with a person being lazy? Number 3 on the list say “Lack of Attention”. Wouldn’t that mean that that person is careless and lazy about their image or object? That these is no effort? Does an interesting/complex image or object have to be presented in order to prove that a person is not lazy?
2. In Meredith’s “Systems and Shapes”, it is stated that the building, “Star Axis” is stripped down to basic components. By comparing “Boring” to this reading, does that mean that it is boring? Because isn’t basic boring? Since it is basic doesn’t it mean that there is a “lack of attention”?
3. In “Merely Interesting” by Sianne Ngai, there is a lot of talk about “people(‘s) rightness of our aesthetic judgement”. Whether or not we find something aesthetic or non aesthetic is based upon our subjective feelings of pleasure or displeasure. Therefore isn’t everyone’s judgement on whether something is interesting or not is correlated to whether we believe it is aesthetic or non aesthetic and then that is correlated to a person’s personal opinion and experience? So then everyone’s going to find it an image or object interesting or boring based upon their personal opinion so there are no hard facts or way to prove an image or object is boring?
When you hear the word boring, it comes across you as a negative thing. The reason for that is because you only are intrigued by things that grab your attention. Therefore for something that doesn’t, it is not usually a good thing. Boring architecture can actually be good architecture though. Some people interpret it as going back to the roots of simple forms and seeing how it all started. Others are just amazed by simple beauty. Sometime things (especially in buildings) get over complicated and super complex. For some people this can give the impression of chaos. Therefore going back to simpler forms that can be found unaesthetic and boring to some people can actually be really nice to others. It’s not a paradox that something can be boring and interesting at the same time anymore.
“Systems and shapes” finds Meredith categorizing the aspect of the designer into systems and shapes. Each group possesses qualities that establish themselves, however they simultaneously couple into a design that works well together. With this in mind, can an architect find themselves working both system and shape simultaneously?
House Number 5 is described as a structure that has been “stripped down to the basic components.” With that being said, can a building that focuses on such minimal architecture still find time to incorporate some form of ornamentation into the piece? Why or why not?
Andrew Atwood’s “Boring” discusses the characteristics of what enables an object or structure to be uninteresting. Atwood explains that it is a part of human nature to occasionally focus on the mundane and that boredom is simply the first step of why we focus on it. Can it be thought, then, that as open ended as the work is, that people themselves might create that sense of boredom?
The interpretation of the word boring has always been up to interpretation, however it has never been more apparent than now that it is an item that finds high value in modern society. To come to the understanding of how an item can be classified as boring follows many specific strokes, culminating in a definition that proves the designer’s passage. The subject of excessive ornamentation is one that prompted many subjects of discussion throughout the course of the presentation. The general response given was insightful, stating that while ornamentation has many strong benefits when used appropriately, an excessive use of ornamentation might allow for the viewer to read the detail as a general field rather than the minute details that embolden the work.
1. “Shapes are elevations or silhouettes. Systems are conceptual.” It is possible to have shape without system, but is it possible to have system without encountering shape?
2. Michael Meredith states “This little house in the middle of nowhere is indifferent to all of the above.”, but what makes it indifferent? Is it all inclusive or all exclusive?
3. How can the way in which someone frames something “mundane” make it have the appearance of being important and interesting?
Does “boring” architecture mean that it is not complex or interesting? In many ways being “boring” forces the viewer to be more critical and ask more questions on the work. As stated by Mies van der Rohe, “don’t try to be interesting, just try to be good.” Through the design of the “good” and “boring” instead of the “spectacular”, the designer is able to obscure a deeper complexity in the work; if there even is one. Some people might consider the work of Jackson Polluck to be “boring” because they are merely looking at the formal qualities of the work, when in fact the complexity and design are born from the process of design instead of the final outcome. In that case the design of a “boring” building could just be the complexity of the index of the process, such as proportioning.
1 In the “Element house” article, the Museum of Outdoor Arts Element House is presented as indifference system compared with the characteristic of the system and shape. But it is introduced as a geometric system of growth. At which level can this building be described as a combination of the shape and system?
2 In the article “Boring”, Atwood discusses the relationship boring and open-endedness. An art work or an architecture may have explicitly noted concept. How to define ‘boring’ as in the artwork or architecture even if it is designed in an intricate way?
3 In “Merely Interesting,” Ngai brings up the discussion of which factor can be defined as interesting and how interesting relates to the envelope. Interesting is becoming a vague understanding and it gradually develops into a complex subject. Is there a way to consider interesting and boring as the same understanding?
Usually, boredom is related to something bad. Being bored actually relies on different perspective on the objects. Different object sometime will be perceived as boring, unpractical and not aesthetic. But it somehow may have its unique characteristic as a factor to develop a new style of architectural design. As an architect, we need to cultivate a sharp-eyed sensation of design or concept. A different quirky form or shape does not mean the design is boring. Every project has its features to present the potential concept development within themselves. What defines interesting or boring is becoming blurry at some extent.
1. Within “Systems and Shapes” by Meredith, It is stated that the building shown throughout, by being built in the middle of nowhere, is completely indifferent to the concept of shape and system. How can the building truly be separate from those aspects if the building contains said aspects: a defined shape and a system of circulation produced by the shape?
2. The reading “Boredom” by Atwood states that boredom is blurry due to seeing multiple forms of boredom, both different and sharing the same emotion. If there are many types of boredom, are there certain ideas or concepts that are just innately boring, or is it just the form of presentation that makes an idea boring?
3. “Merely Interesting” by Nagi talks about what is and isn’t interesting, and the meaning behind what it means to be interesting. Is there any way to tell through certain aspects or presentation that something can be seen as interesting by the majority, or are there too many possible interests for a person to find interesting for there to be a definitive idea?
There are many different variables to what makes something interesting or boring. What makes something intriguing to one person may be the same reason why another doesn’t care about it. There are some cases where having a simple design may be better for it can appear more unique in comparison to the many buildings that have excessive detail added to their design. It is also important to take effort into the simplest designs, even a cube can be seen as unique if it is presented in the right perspective. No idea is innately boring, rather it is how the idea is presented to its audience will dictate how it is received. Even something as simple as soup cans labeled as different soups can be declared interesting, having a small yet noticeable change each time. Different ideas seen as boring may seem to blur together for a person due to similar reasons for boredom, but that reason may be different for person to person.
1. I think the push for geometric shapes to be thought of as beautiful despite the fact that they are unnatural I think is because it provides a contrast with the natural world and distinguishes itself as something not natural and created by man.
2. Something being interesting is something that catches the eye makes you look at it and not just pass over it, but catches and holds your eye.
3. Whether or not something is boring depends on the viewer. What might be boring to one person can be interesting to someone else simply due to the fact that they have different personal experiences.
The student presentation was very good, and they presented many interesting and thought provoking aspects of the articles. They had many interesting pictures as well that really portrayed the meaning and theories of the articles.
1. In “Boring,” Atwood describes an installation he created which was intentionally boring so that the audience would be forced to pay further attention to details, both placed by the artist and pre-existing. In a world today where social media demands that people be interesting and the news constantly demands the attention of people, how can the “boring” be used? Is the boring an escape, a nuisance, etc?
2. In “Systems and Shapes,” Meredith discusses the difference between designers who work with systems – through plan – and with shape – through elevation and iconography. However, the case study presented, House No. 5 Element House, seems to possess qualities of both a system and a shape, or perhaps a system of shapes. Is there a problem in holding architecture to such a rigid dichotomy, or is there value in setting up a basic structure which architects can expand upon? How does this system relate to the postmodern dichotomy of Venturi’s duck and decorated shed?
3. In Atwood’s essay “Boring,” he discusses the value in art and architecture in creating what he calls boring, or intentionally blurry work. Do you think there is a difference between work that is intentionally boring versus not intentionally boring? Is it possible that our preconceptions about authorial intent are coloring our readings of these two types of work?
What I found interesting about the discussion and the discussion topic in general was the greatly varying, contradictory, and extremely personal interpretations of “boring” and “interesting.” There exist paradoxes where things which are designed to be boring can actually become quite interesting through authorial intent and careful viewership, among other factors. I think there perhaps exists a taxonomy of four types including: things which are designed to be boring and are boring, things which designed to be boring but are interesting, things which are designed to be interesting but are boring, and things which are designed to be interesting that are interesting. However, as much as you break these items into categories, personal preference always blurs and colors the clearer breakdown. I think this is why the topic of “boring” ironically captures our interest as designers so much; it resists clear categorization, and it especially resists objectivity.
1. Andrew Atwood in “Boring” examines how architecture bores the beholder and attempts pin-point the core reason for it. In his deliberation he concludes that there is no one reason for boredom and its fluidity is ironic for the phenomenon’s definition. Where does the architectural community draw the line in considering architecture boring? IS it left to be decided by the “non- architectural” observers, or are those who are knowledgeable in the field the sole true commentators of the work?
2. Sianne Ngai in “Merely Interesting” makes an observation of criticism and engagement. When architecture or any work can be criticized is inevitably creates a larger audience as the piece being discussed continues to stoke the flame of discourse. Is there a way to create architecture so that the main purpose is to create a conversation? If so, would it be possible with contemporary building and safety code restrictions?
3. Meredith examines the Element House in Star Axis, New Mexico and delineates the relationship between form and function. She introduces the notion that form can imply a certain relationship in terms of public interaction but she also brings up the reality of human interaction and how the architecture continues to subconsciously support it. Is modern architecture reduced to playing games of deception with its audience to create public engagement to strive off being remembered as “boring”.
Boredom is a multi-faceted, experience of this emotion from architecture is perceived as an ultimately negative one. However, the perception isn’t always true to the fact: “boring” architecture still engages the beholder due to the fact that the emotion is brought on by different reasons with each person. Architecture is an art, and art intends to engage the public – examination of “boring” architecture will lead to discovery of a language written throughout an object. Interpretation of the “intellectuality” of the language is to be further discussed by the observers, but, the existence of the language creates a discourse. Arguably, if a piece of architecture creates a conversation then it accomplished one if its chief goals of existence. Everything and absolutely nothing is boring, it is purely subjective and with any increasing sample size the grey area of boring and interesting increases. Architecture shouldn’t be a question of “is it boring” but a question of “is it engaging”, and if it is engaging, then it should know exactly how and why it is engaging if it desires to be perceived in the “intellectual” field as a true piece of architecture.
Is it possible to identify a truly boring object? The photographer’s search for some interest in Atwood’s installation itself becomes an object of interest; is selection itself interesting?
The Element House is described as indifferent to both system and shape which creates a collective that achieves distinction by ambiguity rather than definition. Can a neutral architecture be productive?
Is calling an object interesting a valid judgement, or has it become too much of a “no comment” that absolves someone of a more personal response?
1- In “Systems and Shapes”, Meredith describes how the Element House is developed in such a way that it can develop, adapt and grow as time goes on. Does building in such a manner create a work of indifference? Or rather a work of ever evolving interest? Furthermore what are the environmental implications of building in such a way?
2-Ngai describes the way which ideas are indicative of the individual in “Merely Interesting”. If ideas are held in the eye of the beholder so to speak, how then can we even have the arguments of “boring” vs. “interesting” or “aesthetic” vs. “non-aesthetic”? Is there some defining knowledge that should be held as a basis for thought to induce such arguments or is it meaningless to argue over something that pertains to an individual?
3-Atwood discusses what is boring in, “Boring”. He uses the term “open-ended” as a reference to what may define something as boring. Yet does being open ended mean a project is in fact boring? or that it could possibly open up new discussions/ possibilities for the project (scope wise, design wise, program wise). Does the project need to be defined by something like a text? Would defining the context in a open ended project limit its possibilities? Or perhaps take away meaning? Does it in fact create boredom or instead open up the means for deeper thinking and analysis?
Boring-ness is the most sublime architectural expression. What is boring to one is eye opening to another. What we consider boring or feel indifference towards for whatever reason that may be is not necessarily the same for the people around us. The maison domino is considered to be one of the most influential drawings in architectural history– yet I find it utterly boring. Influential, yes…. but spectacular? No. Yet it is considered to be to some. The argument of boring vs interesting is in some ways an empty one. There is no one set of rules to determine what is boring and what is not. Same with aesthetic vs non aesthetic. They are personal beliefs, ideas and emotions towards an architecture. Not the one architecture but a personal architecture held solely within the eyes of the beholder. Yes it is fair to say though that architecture that is “weird” or “new” or an architecture that may make one feel uncomfortable is much more attention grabbing than that of something we have seen before but that still doesn’t classify it in one category or the other. People will have their opinions on everything, and not everyone’s ideals will align to create one overruling idea about architecture. It is ever evolving, and very personal.
Contemporary Design Approaches 
1. In the article titled ‘Boring,’ the author highlights a list of characteristics that
that makes an object or image “boring.” One of the words is “open-ended.”
Does art always have to pair up with a text that explains the content?
If so, is it considered good art or interesting art if there is no text
required?
2. In the NO. 5 Element House article, it is explained the simple, yet
specifically designed system to conduct this building. An intricate matrix of
ordinary shapes converts into a not ordinary shape. We are beings designed
with an organic shape, but we insist on create these geometric systems that
are based on simple measures. Why are we so intrigued by this format of designing?
3. In the article “Merely Interesting,” Sianne Ngai considered the meaning of interesting and
what type of content was considered intriguing vs. what is not. How do we consider
a situation where one deals with procrastination? Usually, tasks that are procrastinated
are actually extremely enjoyable to conduct or interesting, but why do we not complete the tasks?
LikeLike
1. In the photographs of Ruscha and Opie- specifically Opie’s freeway photographs- the photographs are “open-ended” by way of being blurred and fuzzy, is architecture that has no clear focus then too open-ended?
2. How is such a carefully designed geometric work of architecture such as Element House indifferent to both systems and shapes?
3. Ngai states that convincing someone of something as one aesthetic quality or another (cute, gaudy, attractive, unattractive, etc.) is to convince them to see the object as you see it, pointing out the nonaesthetic qualities that give it the overall aesthetic. But is it not the implication that something could or should be one way that ultimately changes the others’ view? Is it truly in pointing out the nonaesthetic that the aesthetic arises, or is it something inherent?
LikeLike
1) in “Boring” by Andrew Atwood, it is stated that “boredom is blurry because it is always in motion. It’s multiple meanings never fixed but always fluid, open-ended, and never stable over time.” However, open-ended art/architecture can lead to the mind coming to its own conclusions, and is giving people something to think about really creating boredom?
2) In the reading “Merely Interesting,” by Sianne Ngai, it is made clear that the word interesting is somewhat of a placeholder for words that better describe the object. Can boring and interesting have the same meaning at times? Boring is related to open-endedness, and interesting is an open-ended descriptor.
3) In the “Element house” article, the Museum of Outdoor Arts Element House is described as being “indifferent” to the categorization of shapes and systems. However at the beginning of the article it is also described as a “geometric system of growth.” It is geometric, and a system, so why is it called indifferent to those words instead of being called a combination of the two?
LikeLike
When looked at in the right perspective boring can become interesting. In the presentation looking at Catherine Opie’s photos made it clear that something considered boring (like a freeway) when studied in detail and seen from different views and perspectives can become something worth studying and appreciating. Boring can be a great thing to open up people minds to appreciation. We should not dismiss boredom. Creating a willful blur a Ruscha does let’s viewers form their own opinions and see the art in their own way while they make up their own reasons for why the art looks as it does, rather than forcing the artists own justifications for moves they made. Boredom can often lead to the very best something. The best ideas are born when a person is bored, if we are always taking in a constant stream of information and ideas from other to dissect and think about, we have no time to come up with our own ideas. Perhaps viewing boring architecture is the best way to cultivate great architecture.
LikeLike
1. In the article “Boring” the author makes the connection between boring and open-endedness. A work of art or architecture may sometimes not explicitly note its concepts, or its overall effect created, or it may not have enough of a strong presence for everyone to take away. Is a work of art or architecture automatically called boring even though its effects and details may be more subtle?
2. Working on the idea of architecture that may present its concepts in a more subtle way than others, isn’t architecture that is derived and made up of a lot subtle components and subtle elaborate well thought out concepts end up being the architecture that makes someone step back and really think about that piece of work much like any other artform rather than what is presented blatantly in front of someone? Isn’t that the type of architecture that ends up being what brings about new forms of radical architecture though thought and question?
3. Ngai implies the idea of how differing views among people can have influence over how something is viewed over another. What can the idea of differing views have n the arguments of aesthetic vs non-aesthetic and boring vs interesting? Doesn’t Ngai discuss in a way the idea that such arguments are truly in the eye of the beholder and that such ideas of interesting vs boring really come from ones interests and what intrigues someone? Does the idea of influence bring about this idea of abstraction being interesting?
LikeLike
Boredom, boring both bringing about negative connotation along with questions. The connection between boredom and question can very well go hand in hand as the quality of boredom and disinterest allows for the mind to not be absorbed by interest and intrigue to take things for what they are. Boring as discussed in the readings is tied and connected also with the idea of open-endedness. An object or piece of architecture which is open-ended is the very quality which leads to question because arguably something concrete is much harder to question than something that is open ended because it is or it isn’t.
Repetition in an open-ended object such as the cubes shown in lecture leads to another quality of intrigue and question due to its many variations. With the series of possibilities in a confined space the idea of obstruction and how the cubes morph the space could bring about many new conceptual ideas or being about a quality of space or shadow to take forward though a different medium of exploration. Therefore something inherently classified as boring by being open-ended in repetition as now become and idea of concept and intrigue and interest. The lines between the classification of boring and interesting in essence are very blended and blurred.
LikeLike
1. In the “Element house” the indifference attributed to the design in relation to shape and system is peculiar especially given the author separates them as different entities. Is shape or system dominant here? Or is there the implication that shape and system are composed of certain shared components.
2. In the article “Boring”, by Andrew Atwood, characteristics that make an object boring are discussed. Specifically, it is mentioned we can give things attention without being interested in them and that boredom is the first step in explaining this understanding. I wonder, if this is the case, whether or not the role of subjectivity v. objectivity can alter this understanding of boredom in ways that challenge distinctions enough to blur the lines between boredom, interest, engagement, attention ect..
3. In “Merely Interesting”, by Ngai states “To be sure, the application of interesting to objects is not always aesthetical; cultural interpreters are just as likely to find objects historically interesting, psychologically interesting, and so on.” The many facets that compose the subjective understanding of interesting are complex and I question whether context, and what kinds of context, call for a certain application to be dominant?
LikeLike
The aesthetic condition of boring used as a tool for stimulating a condition of interesting, ironically. The components of interesting and boring are broken can perhaps be broken down into subjective v objective understandings when observing aesthetic condition and impact. It is interesting to discuss, as was done so in class, whether this radicality of producing boring work is a worthwhile endeavor. Perhaps the rigor that is actually required in creating the mundane is necessary in pushing certain boundaries. Such as in the serial images of gas stations there is something, If not exactly profound, impactful in its imagery. Perhaps in this manner it is most successful as an aesthetic/design tool or for use in application that stimulates lack of stimulation itself thus forcing a certain thought process.
LikeLike
1. In the “Element house” the indifference attributed to the design in relation to shape and system is peculiar especially given the author separates them as different entities. Is shape or system dominant here? Or is there the implication that shape and system are composed of certain shared components.
2. In the article “Boring”, by Andrew Atwood, characteristics that make an object boring are discussed. Specifically, it is mentioned we can give things attention without being interested in them and that boredom is the first step in explaining this understanding. I wonder, if this is the case, whether or not the role of subjectivity v. objectivity can alter this understanding of boredom in ways that challenge distinctions enough to blur the lines between boredom, interest, engagement, attention ect..
3. In “Merley Interesting”, by Ngai states “To be sure, the application of interesting to objects is not always aesthetical; cultural interpreters are just as likely to find objects historically interesting, psychologically interesting, and so on.” The many facets that compose the subjective understanding of interesting are complex and I question whether context, and what kinds of context, call for a certain application to be dominant?
LikeLike
1. In “Systems and Shapes”, Meredith argues that the organization of the Element House is indifferent to the qualities of shapes and systems due to its independent design and location. To what extent can systems and shapes become unreliable and how can this independence be challenged for future projects?
2. In “Merely Interesting,” Ngai brings up the question of what is considered interesting and how the interesting is related to the discourse. If the interesting is becoming a vague interpretation of the discourse, should we hold back from using this term or should we continue using it as an initiative to creating abstract conversations?
3. According to the reading “Boring,” Atwood explains that boring architecture makes us aware of the obvious facts. If boring architecture involves the repetition of parts and strategies, is it necessary to keep creating boring architecture and what are the consequences to pursue architecture without its boring aspect?
LikeLike
One interesting concept presented in this week’s lecture was the question of how boring architecture can push boundaries. Boring architecture has various meanings. Boring architecture could be conceived negatively such as insignificant, generic, or open ended. It could also be interpreted positively. Boredom has no boundaries; it can be an interior or exterior. Sometimes, we use the term boring as an abstraction to start a conversation. An example to represent this statement is Atwood’s art installation. Atwood realized that minimalist, boring work allowed the viewers to critically analyze and identify details beyond what was directly given. We tend to perceive ‘boring’ as a negative connotation due to our culture nowadays where we become so narrow minded because of our surroundings specifically the use of social media. We have become so close-minded that we tend to forget the other side of possibilities. Thus, boring architecture is necessary in modern architecture as a way of pushing the boundaries for understanding what can the possibilities be for the future in architecture be.
LikeLike
1. In Andrew Atwood’s article “Boring,” he discusses how Ed Ruscha depicts specific views of Los Angeles as intentionally boring so as to view the subject as it is in a very calculated, intentional manner. However, to the eye of somebody not familiar with the work or the creator, the image must seem as mundane as any other image of the city, completely failing to recognize that it is actually as skillful as it is. To this extent, if this idea were to play itself into the world of architecture, would it make sense to make something appear willfully insignificant rather than intentionally interesting to all parties involved?
2. Extending on the previous question, how fine is the line that architects must walk that exists between creating something that only other architects like and creating something that captures the client’s attention?
3. In Sianne Ngai’s article “Merely Interesting,” Ngai talks about somebody who claims that the word “interesting” carries no significant weight in an argument over the quality of something. Should this idea stay true in architecture, would this opinion not be failing to acknowledge the importance of opinion in the field of architecture?
LikeLike
It seems that a lot of the architectural and artistic ideas that are based around the relationships between the Interesting, the Boring, and the Indifferent are trying to create a foundation on the basis that these are all quantifiable and rigidly identifiable based on a criterion rooted in fact. Unfortunately, these three terms are entirely a product of the observer, and therefore entirely rooted in opinion. In the act of trying to create something Boring, any architect or artist is exercising an act of futility, as they are simultaneously trying to create something that doesn’t attract interest while setting their work apart from the unintentionally boring i.e. trying to be of particular interest to the observers. However, the place where the idea of Boring exceeds the most is when a person of particular influence, who is well-renowned for their interesting work in the past, purposely creates a work that is extremely contradictory to their previous work. This inspires people that are familiar with the work of the artist/architect to research the purpose the creator had to create such a thing, exposing whatever message or statement the creator wants to convey to the public.
LikeLike
1. In Boring, Atwood states that “the best we can hope for is the inverse: that we might find things boring because they are interesting”. How does this apply to today’s architecture? Do we begin to find ourselves finding the previously interesting boring?
2. In Systems and Shapes, Meredith compares the aspects of systems versus shapes. What makes the claim that the project has none of the characteristics discussed true or false?
3. In Merely Interesting, Ngai discusses interesting and the perceptions that evolve over time on what is interesting vs. what is not. Is what we find interesting solely based on past influences or another’s opinion convincing you of the “fact”? Does what is interesting evolve over time?
LikeLike
Based on the in-class discussion and presentation it seems as though the subjects of boring, interesting, and indifference are caught in a paradox. Due to the definition of each of these subjects being based on the opinion of the observer and culture at large, there is no one size fits all answer to how we interpret architecture as one of the above. As culture evolves, what was once interesting becomes boring, what was boring submits to indifference and something new becomes interesting. It then begs the question as to the validity of designing with one of the aspects in mind. By designing something interesting today you might be designing tomorrows boring. That might imply that architects shouldn’t be caught up in such facile design focuses but rather on more significant criteria.
LikeLike
1. Meredith described the Element House in “Systems and Shapes” as being designed as a developmental pattern that can grow and adapt over time in an efficient manner. Does this method of building stay indifferent over time through the growth or changes of the modules? Should architects strive to obtain this notion of indifference in order to create sustainable designs like this project?
2. Boring, as described by Atwood, becomes creative been one confronts a subject and is, “actively working to create interest inside the work itself.” The audience must derive interest from the project itself rather than nearby sources. Is the determination of whether architecture is boring in the hands of the audience? Or is there a way for the creator to have the audience take the time to subjectively confront the work and construct their own interest without creating something objectively interesting?
3. In “Merely Interesting” Ngai states, “we tell people we find works interesting when we want to do criticism.” Despite finding something good or bad, if it poses a value or merit and is worth paying attention to it is found to be interesting. If boring architecture is criticized is it then by this definition interesting? How can the architect further promote criticism and critical analysis through design?
LikeLike
The idea of boring is contradictory as one designs with the intention of curating thought and criticism without attracting interest or attention to the subject. Boring demands engagement in a subjective manner where the viewer must question and critique the forms of expression. The question came up of how artwork can motivate interest. If people choose to find interest in certain moments or aspects of a larger work or create ambiguity through a back and forth engagement, then they can sustain interest. Interesting architecture can be more seen as more objective, creating something spectacular. In the discussion it was brought up that time, place and societal factors might affect what an individual finds interesting in a building. What may be interesting today might not sustain interest in the future. The experience of the boring and interesting must also be able to extend itself to all observers. As with Andy Warhol’s analysis of drinking a coke, there is an importance of mass production where wealth or status plays no role in the engagement of this type of experience and challenges this extension to architecture.
LikeLike
1: Atwood talks about boring architecture having much to do with minimalist art. I wonder what his perspective on minimalist architecture would be all things considered?
2: Meredith believes that system and shape are “frenemies”, due to how they usually interact. What could be a circumstance when they both compliment each other?
3: How can we use reason to justify our aesthetic judgements?
LikeLike
This week in particular seemed strangely interesting to me…which is funny considering its topic was “boring” architecture. The whole idea about architecture, a sculpture, or an art piece being boring or dull is entirely in the eye of the beholder. I would argue that there is indeed a set of characteristics that most people view as “interesting” or “exciting”, but those qualities can change or be altered depending on the situation given. Simply rotating something some degrees might give it an entirely new perspective and something that was considered boring and dull, could then be changed due to its new elevation. My point is, before labeling something based on how it’s currently be perceived, we should take into account all other factors that could be at play and re-evaluate our decision if necessary.
LikeLike
1. Indifference is explained for things that are having no particular interest or sympathy; unconcerned. The element house however is a complex system. So, what makes the Element house inddiferent?
2. In the topic of interesting, Sianne Ngai said that aesthetic is not the only thing that interesting. However, what is interesting often express itself through its special aesthetics. So, will it still be interesting or express what is interesting when we remove the aesthetic component?
3. For the Boring article, Atwood connects boredom to the open-endedness. So, are the boring architecture boring because its lack of details and uniqueness, or are they interesting in their own ways that we are ignoring because we only see the outside of it?
LikeLike
After listening the class, I learned that architecture is viewed in many perspectives such as systems, partitions, facades, cultures and the architects themselves. An interesting architecture can be a boring architecture with the minimized design strategies. A well built detailed structure however, could be very boring due to lack of communication with the surrounding environment or missing meanings behind the architecture. In conclusion, minimalist architecture could be interesting
LikeLike
1. Atwood’s “Boring” essay has an interesting title that seems to generalize architecture into the same term by making a direct assumption even before his point is made. Is the title “Boring” the correct label for Atwood’s essay? Is it to be assumed that an uneducated eye will deduce that architecture is nothing but “Boring”?
2. Sianne Ngai’s essay “Merely Interesting” discusses the meaning that the word Interesting carries to members in society. Should Complex objects be considered interesting? Do members of society misuse the word interesting for the word aesthetic?
3. “Systems and Shapes” by Meredith focuses in the Element house located in New Mexico. Questions about the houses shape, and the systems it uses come into play in the essay. How do Shapes and Systems word together in this case study to become a harmonious apparatus?
LikeLike
Architecture can be considered many things to the eye of the beholder. It could also be described as “Interesting, Boring and Indifferent” depending on who’s objective eye is judging the architectural work. These are terms that cover a full spectrum of objectivity in that those with ambivalent minds have the choice of whether to enjoy or reject a structure. Interesting on one end of the spectrum seems to have a tie with the word Aesthetic. Whatever the eye finds aesthetically pleasing can also be described as interesting. This seems to be an issue since aesthetic shouldn’t be a determining factor in the way architecture is judged. On the other end of the spectrum, we find the “boring” ideal. A strongly founded belief that could be fueled by disturbing and un-aesthetic shapes. The inbetween of the spectrum aims to please those who feel indifference towards the specific subject and are neither interested nor bored by a particular work of architecture.
All ends of the spectrum including the “Indifferent” has a certain level of radicality to it and doesn’t allow for judgment in a subjective form and more on an objective one. One person might favor a specific fashion model over the other, while some find pleasure in un-aesthetic images where uncommon elements come together to form a whole.
LikeLike
1. In the text “Boring” by Atwood, Catherine Opie’s work as a photographer is analyzed alongside Ed Ruscha’s photographs of the Sunset Strip in L.A. as a modern supplement. Atwood describes Opie’s MOCA installation as photographs of mundane subjects taken skillfully and professionally, presented confusingly with repeating titles and a generic numbering system. Clearly the action is not boring, or even the subject on some occasions. Is it fair to say that “boring” architecture as a terminology is deliberately left “open-minded”, i.e. having no specific definition to whatever it is describing, and is designed as a catalyst to “interesting” thought?
2. Michael Meredith’s paragraph of text pits system and shape against one another and declares that Element House is indifferent to the issue not only by its isolated location but also its plan. The plan is a geometric pattern of shapes. Adverse to “Systems are typically based in plan”. Yet the act that Element House takes is in opposition to the issue and isn’t necessarily indifferent. Can one be indifferent in architecture?
3. In Ngai’s Merely Interesting, she presents the question of why do we place value on “aesthetic judgement” and how do we justify it then? Essentially asking why or if we can say “interesting” critically. In her analysis, Ngai wrote, ”what counts as new is much more radically dependent on context than features…” Interesting aesthetics shift your perception via context for hope of evoking nostalgia/the expected. Therefore everything is aesthetically interesting; so how do you prevent oversaturation of the “feature”?
LikeLike
From the lecture and presentation, the idea of aesthetics in architecture was presented as subjective and meaning can vary from person to person. Interesting architecture, as depicted best towards the end of the presentation, is influenced by perceived beauty or other societal or cultural ideas. Interesting architecture depends on how its context is shaped by what people as a whole perceive as beautiful. Boring, on the other hand, doesn’t necessarily depend on beauty. Boring architecture in its mundaneness attempts to force people to search their subjective minds to find meaning.
LikeLike
1. We have discussed many times in this class the contemporary obsession in the field with being “interesting.” Inherently, this points to designing for the opinions of other people, threatening your own design objectives and aesthetics in the process. We know this to be true because “interesting” is such a vague term it can only truly be used to describe the thought process of the audience. If the author thinks of their own work as “interesting,” what does that look like? If “interesting” means merely that it appeals in some way- negatively or positively- to the senses, how can an author possibly use it as an accurate or meaningful measurement of their work?
2.Ngai quotes Schlegel in this piece, writing “If poetry is to become art, if the artist is to have a thorough understanding and knowledge of his ends and means…” Self-awareness is critical in design. The same cannot necessarily be said for the field of critique. Ngai describes the work of Stanley Cavell, who may find a piece “artistically praiseworthy (while, crucially, never saying so directly.)” What are the merits of maintaining a level of indirectness in criticism? Is it perhaps that, if the audience cannot pin down ones definition of what is subjective work, it is harder to poke holes in what is essentially educated opinion?
3.The Museum of Outdoor Elements House is described as a building “stripped down to basic components.” Can basic be interesting? Is there something to be said for its juxtaposition to, for example, the garish McMansions of the 1990s that were anything but basic? And, should you make that statement, would the inhabitants of either property agree? Does that matter?
LikeLike
In Merely Interesting, Ngai prints a dialogue held between David Hockney and Larry Rivers. Hockney asks Rivers if he would rather his work be thought of as beautiful or interesting, to which Rivers replies that he would prefer the former. “[Beautiful] sounds more formal, it sounds as if I did something. ‘Interesting’ sounds on its way there…” This is not a viewpoint necessarily held by the majority of the field today, as many contemporary architects have an obsession with being “interesting.” The result is paradoxical to the intent- the onslaught of “interesting” work simply gets lost with in itself, described in today’s presentation as the crippling production of “more of the same.” Our professor has advised us time and time again not to focus on being interesting, but on being good, advice seemingly lost on the field to date. It will be interesting to see whether or not our generation of architects will follow the paths of those directly ahead of us, or if we will revert back to overlooking “interesting” in favor of “beautiful.”
LikeLike
1) What Exactly is Meredith describing when they put designers into two catagories of shape and system? can how strict is this categorization, can people belong to both parties?
2) Ngai describes an aesthetic quality as something that is derived from logic. On what grounds can this be factual? who’s to say that aesthetic judgment derives from the subconscious?
3) “Someone who succeeds in convincing me of the rightness of her judgment of an object as cute or gaudy will have done so by getting me to perceive it as she does” -Ngai. Is there such a thing always possible, or is disagreement inevitable?
LikeLike
Q1: In the different readings for this week, interesting, boring, & indifferent all seemed to have a temporal factor that would change whether an experience fit into one of these categories. For example, excess time doing a certain activity may result in it becoming boring. The only true way to experience architecture is over a period of time, so how might that experience lend itself to one of the three categories listed above?
Q2: From Atwood’s “Boring” essay, there is a list of statements relating to the phrases boring and boredom. He writes, “Sometimes things are just bad. Bad is not the same as boring,” and yet to be described as boring tends to have a bad connotation. Is it possible to have a boring experience that is good? In what ways might boring be of a benefit for architecture?
Q3: In the Michael reading, the author states that the word interesting has become “a handy euphemism, filling the slot for a judgment conspicuously withheld.” This implies that people no longer want to take a stance on a particular subject, but would rather hold off on sharing their opinions upfront. Would you say that behavior like this improves an architect’s designs, or make them less compelling?
LikeLike
“The boring instigates questions.” As something that was said pretty early on in the discussion today, this simple statement provides a good summary of the topic from this week. These questions include, but are not limited to, what does it mean to be boring, how does boring fit into the world of architecture, and is boring the opposite of interesting, or can it actually fit into that category as well? In the same way that boring instigates questions, interesting invites a conversation. When using the word interesting as a response, you are making an open-ended statement that allows you to elaborate on your feelings, whether they are good or bad. In both cases, there is a critical analysis happening within the viewer. When presented with something boring, they grasp at certain moments that might give the piece more meaning. When presented with something interesting, they are trying to figure out what they are supposed to feel towards the work.
LikeLike
1. The topic of this week’s articles is about whether do we consider something to be interesting/boring. Apparently, about the factors of “being interesting”, Ngai says in the article “merely interesting” that “no non-aesthetic features ever specifically responsible for anything being interesting”. Corresponded with the author, Schlegel also suggests that “there can be no endpoint when it comes to the interesting”. In my opinion, interesting is a temporal word, also how do we make the comments like things being interesting/beautiful depend on various generators along the processes and the backgrounds. So, would there be permanent interesting in design?
2. The article of House No. 5, Element House, drew attentions about the similarities and distinguishments between “system” and “shape”. Playing with these two characteristics, the Element House is considered as an “indifferent” one, which aims to represent the independency and no additional components. So the project is back to the primitive meaning of “house”. However, rather than in the middle of nowhere, how do we iterate indifference in a city context?
3.In the article “Boring”, Atwood analyzed what and how do we label a project as boring. Among the various reasons he presented, “open-ended” is the most predominant one, which is rather generic and lack of concentrations. So, is boring referring to something lack of design and is it a negative word? Or is it true that the boredom is the uniqueness?
LikeLike
From this weeks lecture, we learned different thoughts on the categories of whether a building can be described as interesting or boring. In my opinion, I do not have an exact yes or no answer, since architectures have been created not only by the architect himself but by his life experience and his unique sense of beauty. Nowadays, architectures that mirrored each other might considered boring. But for some of the viewers, the use of curve and transparent glass might also considered boring, although these elements are the things that in contemporary times. For example, the Heydar Aliyev Center, it is almost wavy. However, the comments of the building are diverse. People develop their thoughts like the sense of beauty that probably based on their life experience. As a result, I do not acknowledge that there will be an universal standard of a boring architecture or an interesting architecture. The simplest answers is that it would be an interesting architecture if it makes your eyes bright.
LikeLike
1. Opie’s Freeways are described as having a “fuzzy style” in which they “appear more vague”. Do artists hope their work speaks for itself or do they want viewers to have to learn and discover?
2. The Element House, located in Star Axis, New Mexico is a great example of green energy and its implementation. Throughout the process of a structure, do we sacrifice some of the design elements in order to make the building more efficient?
3. Ed Ruscha said “I am interested in what is interesting”. In this passage, Sianne Ngais discusses the importance or lack of something being interesting. If the term interesting holds no meaning or value to an object or person, then why should we use it to describe these tangible structures in the first place?
LikeLike
1. In “Boring”, Atwood disagrees with the notion that architecture is “boring” because of the subject’s feelings or emotions but rather the qualities in certain architectural objects can be described as “boring”. How does architectural objects achieve a definitive association with “boring” without being affected by the bias of feelings and taste?
2. Ngai claims that to judge something interesting, you must find it interesting again. The object that is being judge is only considered interesting if you still find it interesting. Is there a way to continuously enjoy something interesting, without becoming familiar with it?
3. The Element house was built with a sustainable mindset and stripped down to basic components. In Atwood’s point of view, would basic components be considered inherently boring?
LikeLike
The idea of architecture being boring or interesting is very subjective and like anything it is about the content and how it resonates with the viewer/audience. Atwood claims that things can be boring themselves without having to evoke emotions from the audience but its difficult to separate interests and emotions, because something interesting will almost always evoke some kind of emotion. In a modern era of architecture, with provided programs and computer generative software, the goal is to create “interesting” architecture by creating something different and unique that would be considered a “wow-factor”. However, interesting architecture goes beyond that and simple shapes that create powerful spaces can be equally as interesting or even more so than a piece of elaborate architecture. Much is seen in today’s celebrity lifestyle where some celebrities are interesting because of their outlandish outfits and personalities while others are very plain but are interesting in other ways.
LikeLike
1. In “Boring,” Atwood talks about the reaction to the opening installation and describes it as boredom. He makes the suggestion that this is a result of expectation versus reality, and that although the spectale was boring, the reaction to search for a focal point which became “a series of individual searches, a free-floating and ongoing lingering.” Is anything acutally boring if it has the potential to spark various wonders in the perceptions of viewers.
2. On the subject of boring and interesting Architecture, I feel like many clients and people outside of the field sometimes don’t appreciate or understand architectural intentions. How does an Architecture balance abstraction and the comfort/needs of their client?
3. With respect to the article, “Merely Interesting,” the author talks about the concept of criticism, and that when we internally notice something enough to form an opinion on it, whether it be positive or not, it had enough potential to bring about some productive thought. If the point of criticism is to be constructive, to what extent does it have the ability to make something boring, seem or become interesting?
LikeLike
Today we saw boring’s ability to be compelling. Especially seen in Modern Architecture, buildings tend to be self-referential and loud and complex just for the sake of it. Even today with the advent of the computer and the mentality of a new architecture and somehow being inventive, we still see these projects that seem largely interesting to look at, but under the surface they don’t mean much. I would much rather have a relatively simpler design with fewer meaningful moves than a wacky thing that can’t control all its moves. In many cases, less is more, and while less may appear boring, if executed with intent and context, it can be extremely interesting.
LikeLike
1. In the reading “Boring” by Andrew Atwood he lists out terms that make art boring, one of which was “ambiguous”. How does the ambiguity of a design, one that ultimately makes the viewers think about the work, classify as boring? Wouldn’t it be more boring to look at art and understand it right away?
2. In the reading “Systems and Shapes” by Michael Meredith, he says that the Element House goes against the typical opposition between both systems and shapes. In what ways does this house achieve this?
3. In “Merely Interesting”, Ngai says that there are “no nonaesthetic features ever specifically responsible for anything being interesting”. How is that the case?
LikeLike
As discussed in this week’s class, our generation often finds the works of famous architects such as Le Corbusier or Mies boring whereas there are many other people who consider their work to be both beautiful to look at and interesting. While their work if often not as detailed or even as daring as what we enjoy to see or create today, they still present interesting qualities even if they are boring. Just because something appears less detailed does not mean we must classify it as boring. There are plenty of artworks that, at first glance, look both simple and plain, but we must see this as a blank canvas for our imaginations. We must use the ambiguity of projects in order to create something interesting for ourselves.
LikeLike
1) In the writing about House No. 5, the design is “stripped down to basic components” and made of simple raw aluminum material. Is the simple material the best choice to accentuate the design features and aid in passive heating and cooling? Or does it simply make the design boring?
2) In the reading Boring by Atwood, Scott Brown and Wall effectively compiled a list of terms that makes an object boring. Is it possible to create something interesting out of these boring terms, or should they be stayed away from entirely?
3) Something boring can be captured in a photograph without it being boring, however, can an object be captured in a dull or generic way but not result in a boring outcome? At what point (if at all) does a lack of energy and excitement render a photograph or exposition interesting again?
LikeLike
The presentation this week was on the topic of boring versus interesting. A statement that really stood out to me during the presentation was “boring isn’t unintentional and doesn’t have to be something that you arrive at”. This was especially intriguing because generally when someone thinks of boring they don’t imagine that it is intentionally so. However, the speaker went on to say that often architecture and other art forms are meant to be boring, or designed to be boring. This can have many different purposes and intentions. Often a lack of color for the interior of a building is meant to accentuate what is within said building, such as art museums, often the interior is mainly white, especially in areas where the art is being exhibited. This statement falls short however, when the exterior of the building is not boring and can be seen as art in itself. However, in the case of the Kukje Gallery by So-il, how can it be determined whether the building is boring or fascinating? The exterior is covered in chainmail, which is rarely seen. So it’s fascinating. But, chainmail is repetitive and one solid color, and fairly boring. The rest of the exterior is essentially a cube with small parts protruding outwards. How can the Kukje Gallery be defined as boring or fascinating? This is possible because the combination of the boring components creates an intriguing design. This is why boring is rarely unintentional.
LikeLike
1. If a photograph that is considered “boring” is just called this because the focus in it is off, would changing the focus but keeping everything else the same change the potential of this photograph and possibly make it not boring?
2. The terms “system” and “shape” can often be used interchangeably, even if used incorrectly, but is it fair to say that the start of a system can’t go anywhere without a shape to get the process of that system working?
3. Is it possible to have a piece of architecture that is so boring it becomes interesting?
LikeLike
1. The photograph could possibly change and become of interest if the focus changes, however sometimes the image that is beyond the screen of the camera just holds no value to any person that looks at it.
2. I believe that a shape is what creates a system and without a shape, you can never get a system. Even if the shape is or isn’t constantly repeated in that system, you have to start somewhere. This contradicts the reading because they are described as very different entities when in fact they are related.
3. I think that if a piece of architecture appears to be boring in the sense that it isn’t overly complicated, it might actually have a hidden logic behind it. Even though the physical design is boring, the logic behind that creation could be interesting which then would make the building interesting.
LikeLike
1) In Atwood’s ‘Boring’ he sites the work of photographers and their ability to photograph mundane things in a mundane way; or to reduce the interesting nature of something by editing the photograph poorly on purpose. There’s a bit of irony in the effort to create the boring or mundane in that if there was effort put forth and if that effort is put on display, whether in a museum or as a built project, the public questions both the abilities of the creator and of their ability to appreciate that which they do not know. Does the effort to appear boring give unwarranted credit to project that don’t deserve the attention?
2) Atwood also compares interesting and boring in that one gets attention when we want to know about something else vs when we want to know something more about ourselves. When an architect designs to be boring, does the architect embody themselves in their work more than they would if they’re designing to be interesting?
3) Element House is indifferent to systems and shape because it doesn’t neurotically obsess over its functionality or image. It’s site and purpose grant it immunity from having to be overly intricate or interesting. How do other projects with fundamentally different sites and stakes implement this indifference?
LikeLike
In an age where everyone is trying to be interesting, or to be the best, the architecture suffers. Being boring, or rather, intentionally making your project boring requires the client or viewer to look deeper into the project. Rather than the subject of critique being a spectacle, it becomes mundane and everyday. As humans, we like things that work and that are done well. Deep down we’re all a bit stupid sometimes when learning how to interact with everyday objects and spaces. It’s nice when these things are designed to feel normal, and a natural extension of our lives. In an age of fast-paced development and competition, architecture that’s willing to sit in the background and do good work without trying to be beautiful is a welcome change of scenery.
LikeLike
1. In “Systems and Shapes,” Meredith states that the Element House located in New Mexico is indifferent to all the characteristics of Systems and Shapes. What makes the Element House indifferent from a System or a Shape? Why can’t it be one or the other or even both?
2. In “Boring,” Atwood presents one of his architectural installations as “boring.” In describing the installation and the reactions of others as they observed his work, he explains almost everything in an unbiased and mundane matter, even saying that the reactions of the critics are mostly “bored,” but the term boring is obviously a subjective adjective. Most observers of the installation may have felt “bored,” but Atwood states that “there are many aspects of the project… that fail to bore me.” What is considered boring to one individual may be interesting to another – this brings in the point that what is boring can also be open-ended. Is there a way that works could be boring without the subjectivity of others?
3. In “Merely Interesting,” Ngai asks a question of “why is it that, when asked by others to justify our aesthetic judgments, we do so precisely by pointing out the nonaesthetic features on which that aesthetic quality appears to depend?” In this case, what could aesthetic features be considered as if we generally use nonaesthetic features to describe the aesthetic?
LikeLike
In yesterday’s lecture, we discussed the premises of “boring” and “interesting.” While both are subjective terms, they both invoke some sort of emotion when being used to describe something. Atwood’s “…And Pedestals” installation was essentially made for observers to be bored, but while most viewers were bored, they were constantly looking for pieces of the installation that could be used to explain the entire thing. They were still interested, even though they were bored. The term interesting isn’t exactly a descriptor that explains favorable nor unfavorable, but rather evokes emotion. The term bored is generally more connotative in it’s used, so while something may look boring, it can also be interesting. Andy Warhol’s art pieces can be a good example of boring, yet interesting. “Campbell’s Soup Cans” contains reiterations of the Campbell’s soups, where the only difference between each can is the name of the soups. Some can say that the piece is boring since it’s literally just the same can over and over again, but it provides interest from viewers. Why? I really don’t know, but it is interesting, whether I can explain it or not.
LikeLike
1. Do you agree with MOS, when they describe the Element House as indifferent to systems and shape? Do you believe that there is a system or shape within this building?
2. In Atwood’s text, he states that an open-ended image is boring. Can architecture be left open ended as well? Should every part of the building be given a purpose for it to be considered architecture or can architects leave elements out of the building to be left unresolved? Does open-endedness make a building boring?
3. Ngai states how the word interesting has no compelling meaning. Do you think there is a miss us of the word “interesting” giving it a negative connotation? Do you think we can still use “interesting” as adjective with the right intonation?
LikeLike
In during the group presentation, one of the students asked which pictures we found interesting. This opens up the argument of what is interesting. We can find the objects in the picture interesting but the poor photography skill of the object may not be interesting and vice versa. So is this picture interesting or is it not if there are aspects of it that we can appreciate but there is also parts about it that are not appealing to us? The word “interesting” is just a space holder. When you say an object is interesting, it is making you feel a certain way but you say “it’s interesting” so you can process how you feel about the object before you can fully convey it. I hate when critic describe my studio work as interesting because there is no real feedback. Yes, I know that my designs provoke emotions but interesting does not describe how you feel about it.
LikeLike
1. In the reading “Boring” written by Atwood they list aspects of archichitecture that they think are boring. But the aspects listed are the most effectively taken executed in these “boring” ways. How do you think that we can make these “boring” aspects not as boring without losing any of the effectiveness.
2. In the reading “Systems and Shapes” written by Meredith she talks about the creation and design House No. 5 Element House. As this reading and project are on the interesting side of things how do you think this building can be boring?
3. Based on the same premise of the previous question how do you think that the projects stated in the reading “boring” and interesting.
LikeLike
1.) Atwood talks about in “Boring” and how it describes a way objects receives attention. it seems that people have different perspective of “boring” are things really boring when there are different perspectives on what boring is?
2.) In “Systems and Shapes” It said that shapes don’t like anything that disrupts their shape, then how did that shape become the way that it is? is there a way to shape something without disrupting it?
3.) In “Merely Interesting,” What is universality to relativism???
LikeLike
In response to the presentation lecture given, first of all, it was interesting and eye catching. There are many different point of views on how people view architecture, it can be “Interesting, boring, and indifference.” People view boring as something that it is negative, like it does not excite them when they look at it. Now a days, architects are designing something that is not eye catching to the public view. Why? because why not. Not everything has to be pleasing to the eye. Boring can be the new aesthetic. Boring can be the concept that they are trying to achieve People view boring and interesting in different ways, it can be boring to one person and interesting to the other person.
LikeLike
1. In “System and Shapes”, Michael Meredith describes the opposition between systems and shapes, and how the Element House goes against this typical opposition. Can one really make this observation, with”system” and “shape” having such ambiguous meanings? However, if this is true and the Element House really does go against this opposition, is this the superior method of creating architecture, the ultimate goal being to strive against this typical opposition?
2. In “Merely Interesting”, Ngai discusses the meaning of “interesting” and what the criteria is for if something is interesting or not. However, such a big part of what we find interesting is subjectivity; in other words, “interesting” has a different meaning depending on the viewer. So, how can we actually place aesthetic judgement? How do we define anything as “aesthetically pleasing” or “interesting” when the criteria varies depending on the person? Is it counter-productive to call something “interesting” when this word holds many different meanings?
3. Andrew Atwood in “Boring” makes the argument that objects that are open-ended are considered “boring”. Is this a fair assessment; one could argue that a certain level of open-endedness is actually more thought-provoking then something that provides all answers and has resolved every problem?
LikeLike
The main idea that I took away from this presentation is the idea that architecture is an extremely subjective field. The readings and post-lecture discussed the differences between system and shape in architecture, as well as the debate of what defines something as interesting vs. boring. One thing I have been continuously questioning the past few weeks with these lectures is why do we always find the need to have to define architecture with phrases such as “interesting”, “boring”, “aesthetically pleasing”, etc. when we know that these phrases have varying meanings? One person’s definition of “boring” might mean another person’s definition of “interesting”. In addition, one could argue that something generally defined as “boring” might actually be more open-ended, thus sparking more critiques for it and thus creating a more interesting project with more possibility and greater future potential. Aesthetics are extremely subjective as we have come to learn, having much more to do with a person’s emotional response to a work of architecture sometimes then the actual architecture itself. Thus, why do historians spend years of their life trying to bring rationale into their opinions when it really just comes down to an emotional response?
LikeLike
The main idea that I took away from this presentation is the idea that architecture is an extremely subjective field. The readings and post-lecture discussed the differences between system and shape in architecture, as well as the debate of what defines something as interesting vs. boring. One thing I have been continuously questioning the past few weeks with these lectures is why do we always find the need to have to define architecture with phrases such as “interesting”, “boring”, “aesthetically pleasing”, etc. when we know that these phrases have varying meanings? One person’s definition of “boring” might mean another person’s definition of “interesting”. In addition, one could argue that something generally defined as “boring” might actually be more open-ended, thus sparking more critiques for it and thus creating a more interesting project with more possibility and greater future potential. Aesthetics are extremely subjective as we have come to learn, having much more to do with a person’s emotional response to a work of architecture sometimes then the actual architecture itself. Thus, why do historians spend years of their life trying to bring rationale into their opinions when it really just comes down to an emotional response?
LikeLike
1. The difference between interest and attention is that attention is subjective. Boring architecture can still grab attention for its lack of a certain quality. Interest is objective, often holding one common idea of a quality. How has architecture historically taken advantage of these differences? What movements or designs are only interesting due to their lack of objective?
2. “Aesthetic judgements are given and contained in the immediate experience of art.” How do the concepts appear to viewers in relation to the aesthetics? -Kosuth. How strongly can the exterior aesthetics influence a person’s immediate opinion to the point where the concept becomes a secondary element rather than the main element that inspires the aesthetics?
3. If aesthetic judgements are given first and retained afterwards, how much do shapes override forms in design? Shapes are described as graphics while forms are the means and technicians. How can shapes and forms work together to create a project where the aesthetics and conceptual ideas collaborate enough to create a balanced, “accurate” judgement?
LikeLike
The subject this week centers around perspective and how it’s affected. Graphics are important in architecture due to their hold on the critics. A great project can be overwhelmed by mediocre graphics. Similar to that, a well-thought out design can become “boring” if it’s not interesting enough; beautiful, but simple projects can grab more attention than a creative, but “uninteresting” one. Kosuth states in the readings that aesthetic judgements are given and contained in the immediate expression of art. Initial impressions are important. However, the presentation discusses how a project that’s interesting before may not retain the same concept in time. That raises the question of how a person’s perspective can change. Is it a closer analysis of the project or outside factors such as different trends?
LikeLike
1. In the article “Boring” there is a description between what it mean to design something boring. The discussion focus on the idea that maybe what we think might be boring, really just means that it has a deeper meaning, something more than what is shown. Does this mean that when designing a work of architecture, simplicity is automatically seen as boring, even if it conveys a larger meaning in the background?
2. In the article “Systems and shapes” Meredith tries to separate designer by the categories of shape and systems. While the two category have their own separate characteristics, both can come together to form something equally as harmonious. That being said, is it possible for a designer to belong to both categories at the same time?
3. Thinking back on the idea of what makes a work of architecture boring, or what bring about the larger meaning behind it. It seems as though the ideas that created an architectural work can sometimes be over looked or lost in translation from the perspective of the client in question. In what specific ways can an architect share his/her thought process with a client, without confusing them or making them miss the meaning behind that specific design?
LikeLike
When it comes to the definition of the word boring in relation to architecture, the meaning could be seen from many different perspectives. The lecture brought up an interesting point that sometimes it is the idea of making something boring the pushes the architect to create. I guess this comes from the ideal that all architects have, that there will always be room to better any work that you create. The problem with this way of thinking is how to explain it to the client, without saying that a project is boring, or that a project will always have more room to grow. Then there is also the problem of interpretation from the client when sometimes the design itself is portrayed very clearly, such in a sense that it might seem too simple, or overall boring. So it seems that the main goal that needs to be achieved here is finding a middle ground between making it clear to a client, but also a bit confusing, which will make it more interesting, because you are leaving room for things to be discovered and thought out.
LikeLike
1. Repetition is a characteristic of boring architecture, which allows for people to notice a city’s change throughout time. Therefore, isn’t boring architecture crucial to the history of architecture, or is it redundant since architecture is prone to repeat itself since there really are no new ideas?
2. The Element House is praised for being a product of thinking outside the ‘shape’ and ‘system.’ Yet, the building is an element house. A house built from basic components, or elements of systems and shapes. This bring to question: is the logic of shapes and systems unavoidable? Are we just stuck using the same shapes and systems to create “new” things? Is architecture not generative?
3. The notion of ‘being interesting’ is based on perception. Anything and everything can be interesting whether good or bad. Therefore, ‘interesting’ is just the adjective of the word ‘criticism.’ One word having a good connotation while the other bad. Therefore, does architecture really benefit from being called ‘interesting’ or it is more for the sake of the designer?
LikeLike
Both boring and interesting are perspective, opinion-based concepts that are gravely influenced by society. Student architects nowadays are striving for the notion of interesting, and rather obsess over the fame of architecture. The discipline of architecture is not their priority. However, what is the point of being interesting if the building does not meet program requirements, and please the client or culture? If it is weird, it is interesting. If it is cool, it is interesting. If it is the worst thing you have ever seen in your life, it is interesting. Interesting is a vague concept that usually implies nothing of the nature of the work, but just if it is the standard norm or not. ‘Interesting’ should not be a goal but rather a byproduct of good work. Perhaps ‘boring’ is the criteria one should meet if it means that the architect has designed properly and beautifully since boring simply just means that it is not a new “CRAZY BOMB ASS” innovation.
LikeLike
1. In the reading of the Element House, it is describes to be indifferent of shape or system and the obsessions of aesthetic and functionality that follow it. However, in the beginning of the reading one of the first things mentioned is the process of an additive geometric system of growth. Does this contradict the Element House’s supposed indifference to shape and specifically system, or not?
2. In Atwood’s writing “Boring” one of the things on the list is ambiguity. In architecture school specifically in the conceptual stages of a project ambiguity is often encouraged to discover and explore new things about a project. Is the ambiguity described in Atwood’s reading different from vagueness or does it edge more on the side of interesting from our view?
3. How can we as architects design something that is not only aesthetically pleasing to many individuals, but also interesting in its context? Do the factors that make a project interesting often rely too much on graphics or the physical aspects of the project?
LikeLike
The conversation held during class mainly focused on art and architecture and its capacity to evoke interest or boredom. Before reading the material given, one might hear about a boring building and immediately write it off. However, boring architecture might be more than what it seems. The thought process behind it, the meaning, the context, and all the inner works of the project are what enters our imagination when we see “boring” architecture. We aren’t distracted by architecture that is trying abundantly hard to be more than what its not. The word “boring” was given a positive connotation during class while the word “interesting” was given a negative one. We discussed how interesting is often used as a filler word for when people are at a loss of what to say. First semester studio reviews have a lot of “interestings” in their critiques. Interesting has become the new “um” or “uh” while boring has become the new interesting.
LikeLike
1. In Atwoods reading, Boring, he lists a bunch of terms that he would use to categorize something as “boring”. The first term on his list is “open ended”. Some might argue that having something be open ended makes it more interesting leading to new discussions or ideas on a subject that may not have been suggested prior. What is boring is all relative so, how exactly does Atwood justify his list of terms for what he says is boring?
2. In this quote by Nagi, “When asked by others to justify our aesthetic judgments, we do so precisely by pointing out the unaesthetic features…” he suggests that we don’t really know how to point out what makes something interesting. But again, what is interesting to one may be uninteresting to another and therefore it’s all relative. Is Nagi saying that it’s interesting how we talk about what we believe is interesting? Or is what’s interesting that fact that we don’t really understand why something is interesting to us?
3.Michael Meredith’s article “Systems and Shapes” he outlines the comparison between what is a system and what is a shape. Is he suggesting that shapes are the interesting and systems are the boring? Or vise versa?
LikeLike
How we distinguish what is boring from what is interesting is all relative. It depends on the viewer(s) and how exactly they perceive these differences. Typically the Interesting takes the attention away from the boring. It’s eye catching and will bring up new and intriguing conversation on the subject in question. When discussing the interesting and boring within architecture however, the distinguishing factors somewhat change. The goal of most architects is to create new, exciting and interesting buildings. Something that will take the attention of the passer-bys. The modern method of this goal seems to split in two directions. It’s done with some brutalist forms that appear very monolithic and seem to have nothing to it. To some this would be considered boring architecture, but interesting in how brutal the structure appears. Interesting architecture can also be done through truly outrageous and abstract designs. Designs that push the boundaries of architecture and create such a presence that they demand the attention of those surrounding it.
LikeLike
1. In “Boring,” different styles of photography are compared. How can boring be used to describe both a picture in which nothing is really going on as well as a picture in which there is a lot of information all at once?
2. In “House, #5, Element House,” if the goal of the the project was to create a building that doesn’t depend on public utilities as much by relying on the surrounding environment, why does the form seems to combat function in the sense that more practical geometries aren’t in use? Why use traditional shapes such as chimneys when the traditional function behind these shapes are not in use?
3. In “Merely Interesting,” Sianne Ngai talks about how the justification of calling something cute may be found in the identification of lesser yet constructive attributes of that object. Can the term interesting be broken down in this way? Can justification for one’s view be met through this method?
LikeLike
1. Boredom and laziness are both terms that define art and architecture. Laziness approaches architecture to preserve traditional styles while adapting new styles at the same time while boredom is linked to flexibility. In what ways can architects apply boredom and laziness to design? How does boring architecture maintain its boredom?
2. In “Merely Interesting” by Sianne Ngai, the term “interesting” is being discussed in relation to the changes of perspectives over time. When something is considered interesting, it needs to be confronted with criticism. Can boring architecture become interesting? Does being interesting strip the architecture of boredom?
3. Sianne Ngai inferred that people are easily influenced by the nature of aesthetics. They are able to change perception based on the outer appearance and everything aesthetic suddenly becomes “interesting”. Can non-aesthetic architecture be criticized/judged to point of boredom or interest?
LikeLike
Boredom under different perceptions can be viewed as interesting, the indifference nature of boring can become interesting. In the presentation, objects that fall under the category of “boring” are open-ended, generic, and non-judgmental etc. People would normally deem “boring” as something ambiguous, insignificant, and uninteresting because they only have one perspective of the object/structure. By changing the perception and studying the details of the object carefully, people learn to become aware that boredom has interesting traits. In order for boredom to be interesting, it must be open to criticism and be recognized as significant by open-minded people. In relation to laziness, boredom is another state of mind where creativity flourishes new ideas and in depth understanding of concepts occur. We live in a world surrounded by aesthetics, however people overuse the term “interesting” to describe objects and beauty that we don’t understand. This new generation of architects are considered to have a flawed understanding of aesthetics and non-aesthetics. There is no basis of general concepts because the teaching system does not expose designers to a variety of themes. To have a better understanding of our world, there must be an established system to training new designers/artists/architects. The system must focus on the process and progress while it is the architect’s job to formulate ideas.
LikeLike
1. In “Boring” Andrew Atwood writes about how ambiguity is boring. He feels that In photography, an image isn’t “interesting” unless there is an interesting focus. Can a photo be interesting if there is an unclear focus? Does this connection between ambiguity and “boring” also exist in design and architecture?
2. In “Merely Interesting” Ngai writes about how interest is subjective. An object can be both amazing and boring at the same time depending on the viewer. He also writes about how being interested in something goes hand in hand with being unfamiliar with it. Does the meaning of interesting change depending on how long something is observed?
3. In “Systems and Shapes” Meredith writes about the Element House and how it is basic and efficient. It is primitive in its design being as simple as possible. Should this house be considered boring because there are such basic ideas? Is it interesting because of them?
LikeLike
1-House, No. 5, Meredith – Systems and Shapes; The author goes over how the articulations of passive systems and on-site energy -generations with the use of simple components, became adaptable to the environment, why do you think by this little house became indifferent to all of the above articulations used in this project?
2-Merely Interesting Sianne Ngai talked over how interesting objects are more interesting for the historicism behind of it, Why the applications to object of interesting isn’t always aesthetical?
3-On Atwood Boring, the author goes over how people seem different installations in gallery as boring, and how the installations bored the person who is typically responsible for performing the final act organization in any installations, what do you think if the visitors have different paths of circulations will them experience it more interesting or will stay boredom?
LikeLike
From lecture the System obsess over means, centrifugal (gravitate away from center), so in the house 5. The geometry and the shape became the strong methods to articulate passive systems and on-site energy -generations with the use of simple components. By located buildings away of the mountain, it became the gravitate away from community. Shape is how something is made, so system is why something is made, and its more physical while are more theoretical. Sianne Ngai talked over how interesting objects are more interesting for the historicism behind of it. So Historical precedent to unsurpassed in its integration of art and architecture, maintaining an aesthetic and programmatic unity. When the architects reinforced their project with a historical precedent make it more values and aesthetic fox example the Jewish Museum by Daniel Libeskind, using the repercussions of the Holocaust as inspiration to develop one of the most famous museum building in the last decades.
LikeLike
1. Atwood’s list about boring had some things that contradicted each other but brought up a few interesting questions. Something that is boring can be view in many ways depending on the person who is interacting with said thing. One thing for certain though is “There are two primary responses to boredom: avoidance and/or endurance. So when Atwood said “boring things are often blurry because they blend into their background.” and “… Boredom is creative only when one confronts and then endures the subjective limits of a boring experience by actively working to create interest inside the work itself.” So this brings in the contradiction between “ We give attention to interesting things when we want to understand them better.” And “We give attention to boring things when we want to understand ourselves better.” So question one is what does Atwood mean when he says “we want to understand ourselves better” if we’re examining someone else’s work why are we judging ourselves? The second question is if we’re enduring something that is boring, aren’t we technically trying to understand it better, even though we’re probably making our own assumptions to make it interesting?
2. If form and shapes are frenemies, what are some ways to make them work in harmony together? Is a modular system the easiest or the most successful way of making form and shape work together?
3. “Conceptual art “is interesting or it isn’t,” just as “one is informed or isn’t” or, from the side of the object, just as it “communicates itself or it doesn’t.” If something communicates itself, why do we need to give it a title or a description? It may still be open to interpretation but by giving it a title or description you’re essentially narrowing people’s interpretation. When it comes to a piece of art would you rather be informed about the art piece (meaning a description or title given) or would you rather make your own interpretation? Which is more interesting, being informed and then making your interpretation or not being informed and making your interpretation?
LikeLike
1. In “Boring” by Atwood, there is a list of what makes an image or object boring. Do all these reasons of why something is boring match with a person being lazy? Number 3 on the list say “Lack of Attention”. Wouldn’t that mean that that person is careless and lazy about their image or object? That these is no effort? Does an interesting/complex image or object have to be presented in order to prove that a person is not lazy?
2. In Meredith’s “Systems and Shapes”, it is stated that the building, “Star Axis” is stripped down to basic components. By comparing “Boring” to this reading, does that mean that it is boring? Because isn’t basic boring? Since it is basic doesn’t it mean that there is a “lack of attention”?
3. In “Merely Interesting” by Sianne Ngai, there is a lot of talk about “people(‘s) rightness of our aesthetic judgement”. Whether or not we find something aesthetic or non aesthetic is based upon our subjective feelings of pleasure or displeasure. Therefore isn’t everyone’s judgement on whether something is interesting or not is correlated to whether we believe it is aesthetic or non aesthetic and then that is correlated to a person’s personal opinion and experience? So then everyone’s going to find it an image or object interesting or boring based upon their personal opinion so there are no hard facts or way to prove an image or object is boring?
LikeLike
When you hear the word boring, it comes across you as a negative thing. The reason for that is because you only are intrigued by things that grab your attention. Therefore for something that doesn’t, it is not usually a good thing. Boring architecture can actually be good architecture though. Some people interpret it as going back to the roots of simple forms and seeing how it all started. Others are just amazed by simple beauty. Sometime things (especially in buildings) get over complicated and super complex. For some people this can give the impression of chaos. Therefore going back to simpler forms that can be found unaesthetic and boring to some people can actually be really nice to others. It’s not a paradox that something can be boring and interesting at the same time anymore.
LikeLike
“Systems and shapes” finds Meredith categorizing the aspect of the designer into systems and shapes. Each group possesses qualities that establish themselves, however they simultaneously couple into a design that works well together. With this in mind, can an architect find themselves working both system and shape simultaneously?
House Number 5 is described as a structure that has been “stripped down to the basic components.” With that being said, can a building that focuses on such minimal architecture still find time to incorporate some form of ornamentation into the piece? Why or why not?
Andrew Atwood’s “Boring” discusses the characteristics of what enables an object or structure to be uninteresting. Atwood explains that it is a part of human nature to occasionally focus on the mundane and that boredom is simply the first step of why we focus on it. Can it be thought, then, that as open ended as the work is, that people themselves might create that sense of boredom?
LikeLike
The interpretation of the word boring has always been up to interpretation, however it has never been more apparent than now that it is an item that finds high value in modern society. To come to the understanding of how an item can be classified as boring follows many specific strokes, culminating in a definition that proves the designer’s passage. The subject of excessive ornamentation is one that prompted many subjects of discussion throughout the course of the presentation. The general response given was insightful, stating that while ornamentation has many strong benefits when used appropriately, an excessive use of ornamentation might allow for the viewer to read the detail as a general field rather than the minute details that embolden the work.
LikeLike
1. “Shapes are elevations or silhouettes. Systems are conceptual.” It is possible to have shape without system, but is it possible to have system without encountering shape?
2. Michael Meredith states “This little house in the middle of nowhere is indifferent to all of the above.”, but what makes it indifferent? Is it all inclusive or all exclusive?
3. How can the way in which someone frames something “mundane” make it have the appearance of being important and interesting?
LikeLike
Does “boring” architecture mean that it is not complex or interesting? In many ways being “boring” forces the viewer to be more critical and ask more questions on the work. As stated by Mies van der Rohe, “don’t try to be interesting, just try to be good.” Through the design of the “good” and “boring” instead of the “spectacular”, the designer is able to obscure a deeper complexity in the work; if there even is one. Some people might consider the work of Jackson Polluck to be “boring” because they are merely looking at the formal qualities of the work, when in fact the complexity and design are born from the process of design instead of the final outcome. In that case the design of a “boring” building could just be the complexity of the index of the process, such as proportioning.
LikeLike
1 In the “Element house” article, the Museum of Outdoor Arts Element House is presented as indifference system compared with the characteristic of the system and shape. But it is introduced as a geometric system of growth. At which level can this building be described as a combination of the shape and system?
2 In the article “Boring”, Atwood discusses the relationship boring and open-endedness. An art work or an architecture may have explicitly noted concept. How to define ‘boring’ as in the artwork or architecture even if it is designed in an intricate way?
3 In “Merely Interesting,” Ngai brings up the discussion of which factor can be defined as interesting and how interesting relates to the envelope. Interesting is becoming a vague understanding and it gradually develops into a complex subject. Is there a way to consider interesting and boring as the same understanding?
LikeLike
Usually, boredom is related to something bad. Being bored actually relies on different perspective on the objects. Different object sometime will be perceived as boring, unpractical and not aesthetic. But it somehow may have its unique characteristic as a factor to develop a new style of architectural design. As an architect, we need to cultivate a sharp-eyed sensation of design or concept. A different quirky form or shape does not mean the design is boring. Every project has its features to present the potential concept development within themselves. What defines interesting or boring is becoming blurry at some extent.
LikeLike
1. Within “Systems and Shapes” by Meredith, It is stated that the building shown throughout, by being built in the middle of nowhere, is completely indifferent to the concept of shape and system. How can the building truly be separate from those aspects if the building contains said aspects: a defined shape and a system of circulation produced by the shape?
2. The reading “Boredom” by Atwood states that boredom is blurry due to seeing multiple forms of boredom, both different and sharing the same emotion. If there are many types of boredom, are there certain ideas or concepts that are just innately boring, or is it just the form of presentation that makes an idea boring?
3. “Merely Interesting” by Nagi talks about what is and isn’t interesting, and the meaning behind what it means to be interesting. Is there any way to tell through certain aspects or presentation that something can be seen as interesting by the majority, or are there too many possible interests for a person to find interesting for there to be a definitive idea?
LikeLike
There are many different variables to what makes something interesting or boring. What makes something intriguing to one person may be the same reason why another doesn’t care about it. There are some cases where having a simple design may be better for it can appear more unique in comparison to the many buildings that have excessive detail added to their design. It is also important to take effort into the simplest designs, even a cube can be seen as unique if it is presented in the right perspective. No idea is innately boring, rather it is how the idea is presented to its audience will dictate how it is received. Even something as simple as soup cans labeled as different soups can be declared interesting, having a small yet noticeable change each time. Different ideas seen as boring may seem to blur together for a person due to similar reasons for boredom, but that reason may be different for person to person.
LikeLike
1. Perfect geometric shapes are hardly found in nature, then why is there such an aesthetic push for the geometric and not organic?
2. What do we think are the psychological reasons behind whether something is considered “interesting” or not?
3. Is there anyway to ever ensure a design is not boring or is it all in the hands of the viewer?
LikeLike
1. I think the push for geometric shapes to be thought of as beautiful despite the fact that they are unnatural I think is because it provides a contrast with the natural world and distinguishes itself as something not natural and created by man.
2. Something being interesting is something that catches the eye makes you look at it and not just pass over it, but catches and holds your eye.
3. Whether or not something is boring depends on the viewer. What might be boring to one person can be interesting to someone else simply due to the fact that they have different personal experiences.
The student presentation was very good, and they presented many interesting and thought provoking aspects of the articles. They had many interesting pictures as well that really portrayed the meaning and theories of the articles.
LikeLike
1. In “Boring,” Atwood describes an installation he created which was intentionally boring so that the audience would be forced to pay further attention to details, both placed by the artist and pre-existing. In a world today where social media demands that people be interesting and the news constantly demands the attention of people, how can the “boring” be used? Is the boring an escape, a nuisance, etc?
2. In “Systems and Shapes,” Meredith discusses the difference between designers who work with systems – through plan – and with shape – through elevation and iconography. However, the case study presented, House No. 5 Element House, seems to possess qualities of both a system and a shape, or perhaps a system of shapes. Is there a problem in holding architecture to such a rigid dichotomy, or is there value in setting up a basic structure which architects can expand upon? How does this system relate to the postmodern dichotomy of Venturi’s duck and decorated shed?
3. In Atwood’s essay “Boring,” he discusses the value in art and architecture in creating what he calls boring, or intentionally blurry work. Do you think there is a difference between work that is intentionally boring versus not intentionally boring? Is it possible that our preconceptions about authorial intent are coloring our readings of these two types of work?
LikeLike
What I found interesting about the discussion and the discussion topic in general was the greatly varying, contradictory, and extremely personal interpretations of “boring” and “interesting.” There exist paradoxes where things which are designed to be boring can actually become quite interesting through authorial intent and careful viewership, among other factors. I think there perhaps exists a taxonomy of four types including: things which are designed to be boring and are boring, things which designed to be boring but are interesting, things which are designed to be interesting but are boring, and things which are designed to be interesting that are interesting. However, as much as you break these items into categories, personal preference always blurs and colors the clearer breakdown. I think this is why the topic of “boring” ironically captures our interest as designers so much; it resists clear categorization, and it especially resists objectivity.
LikeLike
1. Andrew Atwood in “Boring” examines how architecture bores the beholder and attempts pin-point the core reason for it. In his deliberation he concludes that there is no one reason for boredom and its fluidity is ironic for the phenomenon’s definition. Where does the architectural community draw the line in considering architecture boring? IS it left to be decided by the “non- architectural” observers, or are those who are knowledgeable in the field the sole true commentators of the work?
2. Sianne Ngai in “Merely Interesting” makes an observation of criticism and engagement. When architecture or any work can be criticized is inevitably creates a larger audience as the piece being discussed continues to stoke the flame of discourse. Is there a way to create architecture so that the main purpose is to create a conversation? If so, would it be possible with contemporary building and safety code restrictions?
3. Meredith examines the Element House in Star Axis, New Mexico and delineates the relationship between form and function. She introduces the notion that form can imply a certain relationship in terms of public interaction but she also brings up the reality of human interaction and how the architecture continues to subconsciously support it. Is modern architecture reduced to playing games of deception with its audience to create public engagement to strive off being remembered as “boring”.
LikeLike
Boredom is a multi-faceted, experience of this emotion from architecture is perceived as an ultimately negative one. However, the perception isn’t always true to the fact: “boring” architecture still engages the beholder due to the fact that the emotion is brought on by different reasons with each person. Architecture is an art, and art intends to engage the public – examination of “boring” architecture will lead to discovery of a language written throughout an object. Interpretation of the “intellectuality” of the language is to be further discussed by the observers, but, the existence of the language creates a discourse. Arguably, if a piece of architecture creates a conversation then it accomplished one if its chief goals of existence. Everything and absolutely nothing is boring, it is purely subjective and with any increasing sample size the grey area of boring and interesting increases. Architecture shouldn’t be a question of “is it boring” but a question of “is it engaging”, and if it is engaging, then it should know exactly how and why it is engaging if it desires to be perceived in the “intellectual” field as a true piece of architecture.
LikeLike
Is it possible to identify a truly boring object? The photographer’s search for some interest in Atwood’s installation itself becomes an object of interest; is selection itself interesting?
The Element House is described as indifferent to both system and shape which creates a collective that achieves distinction by ambiguity rather than definition. Can a neutral architecture be productive?
Is calling an object interesting a valid judgement, or has it become too much of a “no comment” that absolves someone of a more personal response?
LikeLike
1- In “Systems and Shapes”, Meredith describes how the Element House is developed in such a way that it can develop, adapt and grow as time goes on. Does building in such a manner create a work of indifference? Or rather a work of ever evolving interest? Furthermore what are the environmental implications of building in such a way?
2-Ngai describes the way which ideas are indicative of the individual in “Merely Interesting”. If ideas are held in the eye of the beholder so to speak, how then can we even have the arguments of “boring” vs. “interesting” or “aesthetic” vs. “non-aesthetic”? Is there some defining knowledge that should be held as a basis for thought to induce such arguments or is it meaningless to argue over something that pertains to an individual?
3-Atwood discusses what is boring in, “Boring”. He uses the term “open-ended” as a reference to what may define something as boring. Yet does being open ended mean a project is in fact boring? or that it could possibly open up new discussions/ possibilities for the project (scope wise, design wise, program wise). Does the project need to be defined by something like a text? Would defining the context in a open ended project limit its possibilities? Or perhaps take away meaning? Does it in fact create boredom or instead open up the means for deeper thinking and analysis?
LikeLike
Boring-ness is the most sublime architectural expression. What is boring to one is eye opening to another. What we consider boring or feel indifference towards for whatever reason that may be is not necessarily the same for the people around us. The maison domino is considered to be one of the most influential drawings in architectural history– yet I find it utterly boring. Influential, yes…. but spectacular? No. Yet it is considered to be to some. The argument of boring vs interesting is in some ways an empty one. There is no one set of rules to determine what is boring and what is not. Same with aesthetic vs non aesthetic. They are personal beliefs, ideas and emotions towards an architecture. Not the one architecture but a personal architecture held solely within the eyes of the beholder. Yes it is fair to say though that architecture that is “weird” or “new” or an architecture that may make one feel uncomfortable is much more attention grabbing than that of something we have seen before but that still doesn’t classify it in one category or the other. People will have their opinions on everything, and not everyone’s ideals will align to create one overruling idea about architecture. It is ever evolving, and very personal.
LikeLike