208 thoughts on “Interesting, Boring & Indifference”
1. What do you believe boring in architecture is? What does boring look and feel like in architecture? Can you actually categorize buildings as boring because what is boring is subject to ones personal opinion?
2. In the reading on shape and form it is argued that shape and form are different. A quote says “Shapes don’t like anything that disrupts their shape”. Would it be fair to say that in this case, shape is meant as a basic shape (box, sphere, etc.) and that form could be considered a more complex “shape” or a shape that has been disrupted?
3. “To pinpoint one definition of boredom would be to discriminate, to force into focus the inherently nebulous” (Atwood reading). Can anything be boring? In architecture, could even the most complex and interesting building built be boring?
One main idea that comes out of the boring lecture is that architecture is a very opinionated field. There is always a case of someone feeling one way about architecture or a project, with another person going against them. While one person thinks one building is boring, another person disagrees and views it as interesting. As architecture students, we see how opinionated the field is every day. At our reviews, one person on the jury can think your project is amazing, while the person sitting next to them doesn’t understand your thesis at all. How can people categorize something as boring or interesting? It isn’t a category, it is an opinion, and it is based on who you are as a person.
1. In Atwood’s “Boring” text, he lists 10 criteria that are used to describe something as “boring”. Many items on that list are factors that I have seen used to describe quite interesting and dynamic projects. Is the concept of “boring ” meant to be one of subjectivity, or is there some standard by which we as a society could typify a work as “boring”?
2. In Ngai’s reading “Merely Interesting, she posits the idea that “interesting has nonaesthetic as well as aesthetic uses.” To what end can these uses of the “interesting” can we extend it to in architecture? Could the nonaesthetic “interesting” be the designs of mechanical systems or other programmatic needs in a building? Or is the nonaesthetic “interesting” a typology of building?
3. The idea of “boring” design is something that has been a hot button topic for much of the past half-century, as architects and designers strive to make the most interesting work. What space does “boring” design occupy in this constant strive for dynamism in design? Are we characterizing work as “boring” for the sake of maintaining the zeitgeist, or is “boring” now being born out of society’s constant need for new and creative design?
The concept of “boring” architecture is definitely one born out of change and the zeitgeist. As a society, we are inundated with new and novel designs that we get overwhelmed and move from trends in the blink of an eye. That, however, doesn’t go to say that “boring” holds no place in architecture. “Boring” is highly subjective, what one person thinks is absolutely dull could be a fascinating and dynamic project for someone else. As we saw in Atwood’s reading, the criteria that make a boring project can also be used in the same dialogue to describe an interesting project. Not only that, but the idea of “boring” should be something that is welcomed in architecture. How else is an architect supposed to make good, interesting architecture if they haven’t made something that would be considered boring?
Ngai handles the adverb interesting as if a noun, forcing one to reassess an already established interpretation. In our society, the word is often overused, misused or both: do architects have either of these habits? Moreover, even though interesting is subjective, so is all criticism – is it then fitting for architect’s to use interesting significantly?
In Boring, via several in-depth examples of what is and is not considered boring in an attempt to illustrate how the word is not only merely based on perspective, but that it also doesn’t necessarily need to have negative connotations. If boring really is just perspective on a case to case basis, how would this affect an evaluation of architectural work?
Gravitating away from the analyzation of what is agreeable and what that really means, we deliberate the Element House and two possible design processes – shape and form. Given the other readings and considering the juxtaposition of shape and form, what is your evaluation of the project? How both readings and Meredith closing paragraph impression your critique?
1. “Interesting,” used as a description, has been discounted for its lack of architectural weight. Is this something you agree with, or is the term simply so overused in the profession, that its meaning is no longer important?
2. In, “Boring,” Opie is praised for her lack of sensical naming conventions and arrangements of her photography. If she has no clear reason for doing this, do you think her style of naming and arranging is lazy or boring when based off the 12 bullet list shown in the beginning of the text?
3. In Meredith’s, “Systems and Shapes,” the Element House is discussed as neither a system, nor a shape, but as both simultaneously. Is it naïve to attempt to categorize all architecture and architects into one of two categories? If so, how could the Element House help to bridge the gap between Systems and Shapes?
Throughout all our lectures so far, I keep running into the same phenomenon; there is always a this or that mind set within art and architecture. Why? For example, we are told to choose “form follows function OR function follows form,” or choose “system OR shape,” or choose “boring OR interesting.” I cannot begin to understand why we must choose one or the other. Much like the Element House, architecture can be many things all at once. And of the art we looked at, although boring on the surface, the conversation and the thought process behind it is incredibly interesting. We as architects are always trying to categorize our work. I think we need to use the Boring Lecture as an important reminder that art and architecture can function tremendously even while being contradictory.
1. In fact, boredom does not occur by accident. It is targeted and specific behavior. Combining knowledge and experience, how many reasons that can lead to people’s boring behavior?
2. In the process of building a house, the system and shape are dialectical and complementary. This also contains aesthetic values. Can you cite a set of concepts that are related to each other based on other things in life?
3. Generally, “interesting” is our gambit, Ngai contends when we feel something but we’re not yet sure what to think. Actually, when we say something is interesting, we are inviting conversation and we also hope to be asked to reveal and explain ourselves. That gives us a reminder. When we start talking, how do we make sure our topic is interesting and attracts attention?
There are always moments when they are bored. The things or objectives that make people boring are related to these adjectives: dull, insignificant, ambiguous, amateur, deadpan … I once thought that boredom was a sudden or subconscious emotion. In fact, this is also a specific behavior. Negative boredom occurs when people’s expectations of interest are not met. So there is a relative conceptual relationship between boredom and interesting.
Ngai establishes the interesting as a contemporary aesthetic category. In her opinion, “Interesting” is an aesthetic judgment so mild and so commonplace that it barely seems to qualify as a judgment at all. Therefore, it has different ways of understanding people with different education and different personalities. So everyone may have their own set of standards for “interesting.” Moreover, cultural pluralism and differences also require us to be able to accommodate “interesting” things and phenomena. I hope that after studying Ngai’s theory, I can continue to learn how to appreciate interesting things and beauty, and master the skills to make my conversations more interesting.
1. The example for boring given in Atwood’s writing, …And Pedestals, showed that viewer are bored by the showing due to its ambiguity, lack of attention, etc.; however, if the process and the outcome were given to the viewers, would it create a different viewing of the project rather than boring?
2. Atwood’s boring project, …And Pedestal, was bare besides the three cones and the documentation included “‘normal’ things”. One the other hand, House No. 5 Element House was “stripped down to basic components, but is still quite engaging due to the other aspects of the building, the geometry, its function, etc. Would this still be considered as boring?
3. Relating back to the previous question, would Ngai consider House No. 5 Element House and/or …And Pedestals to be interesting since there is was thought out process and awareness of the audience/viewer?
It is interesting to see that although a project was well thought out and executed, the viewers interrupt the project as boring due to any of the things mentioned by Atwood, lack of attention, ambiguous, etc. I wonder if the selected word used to describe the project would change if the creator’s intentions and doings were? On the other hand, a comment mentioned today during the mock up was “something interesting won’t always stay interesting; it starts to become normal and not exciting.” This is similar to fashion and its bizarre trends. When something strikes off, it may be full of excitement and talked about everywhere due to its significance. However, over time the bizarre trend fades and starts to “lack attention”, making it “insignificant”. In the future, the previous fashion trend could repeat or it could gain attention for other reasons.
1. In “Boring” by Andrew Antwood, it is stated that, “…boredom is blurry because it is always in motion. Its multiple meanings never fixed but always fluid…”. With open ended architecture or open ended things in general, people tend to come to their own conclusions which is kind of like an “end” for the architecture. Would this be the wrong way of looking at this architecture?
2. In “Merely Interesting” by Sianne Ngai the argument of what is interesting and what is not comes into play. If words such as interesting are just placeholders to other more in depth words, then is their more of a fluidity among words?
3. In “Systems and Shapes” by Meredith McDaniel, House No. 5 is kept somewhat simple in shape so it can be duplicated several times over allowing the building to grow. However, would the house be able to keep its environmental compatibility when more units are added?
Boring is a word that many don’t want to use and or hear when talking about their own work of architecture. However, the way in which Atwood speaks about boring is in and of itself, very different then the usual status of the word. She describes it as being very fluid because of the way it causes people to push their mind past something “boring” to create something “interesting”. In Atwood’s exhibits it causes people to try to find the true inner meaning of what all the works of art mean. Another import aspect about works such as these, I believe is the whole context of the situation. The fact that these artworks find their home in an art exhibit brings people to attempt to think of something in a different way. If you were to instead to find this kind of artwork in a park, you wouldn’t think much of it and probably walk away from it in seconds once you become bored. This contextual part to this artwork seems to add another layer to the already multiple layers that comes to this work.
1. In the reading “systems and shapes”, it is said that the Element house is indifferent to the previous claims made about shapes and systems. How can a building be indifferent to these qualities if it utilizes them within its architecture?
2. In “Merely Interesting”, interesting objects are classified as “meaningfully different from others of its type”. Is that classification limited to physical qualities, or can something be interesting merely from the context of its creation?
3. Can architecture become interesting by the way it is represented, and cease being interesting when seen in person? or is interesting architecture inherently interesting regardless of representation?
This week’s presentation and lecture brought up many interesting ideas regarding the subjectivity of art and architecture. Art criticism was always an interesting topic to me, not because of the criticism itself, but rather because I thought the field was so ridiculously full of itself. After this lecture and presentation however, I feel that I can understand many of the ideas I once thought to be ridiculous, specifically the work of Andy Warhol. I was always puzzled by the fame that followed Andy Warhol and his work, mainly due to the fact that I just saw it to be overly simplistic and weird. It was reasons like this that initially shied me away from art in general, but after discovering this level of parody that is embedded in the work of Warhol, Duchamp, etc. I suddenly find Art more interesting, and less boring.
1. Based on the Systems and Shapes reading, Meredith talks about Form vs Shape. Together there two friendly opposing forces make up an interesting architecture. But could there exist a single one of those elements that still makes for an interesting piece of architecture, without the other?
2. If knowing your audience and catering to its interests will classify something as interesting, then how can one make the most boring building if there are multiple tastes and interests among people? Wouldn’t some part of audience find it interesting?
3. Ngai talk about the aesthetic judgment part of the Interesting. When doing this, it is suggested that “interesting” can be quantified by judgement and content despite it being tied to “merely”. If people can, in some way, quantify Interesting, then is there a commonality that exist to create a standard for interesting? and if so, where would be the overlapping topics? Color, pace, form?
1. In “Merely Interesting”, Ngai discusses the use of reason to justify design choices. The problem is that not all connections are logical and obvious. Therefore, they may require a closer examination to find the connection between the “nonaesthetic qualities of an object”. Within our own work, how do we use the nonaesthetic characteristics to describe the overall aesthetic qualities of our designs? Does a clear connection between the two lead to a stronger project?
2. “Boring” begins by taking a look at a series of photographs by Catherine Opie. In one series, Opie photographs freeways, framing them in such a way that they appear to the viewer as they would through a rear view mirror. The framing of the freeway in the rear view mirror brings into question the idea of a viewer’s perception. How can the artist/architect change the way a person experiences their work by framing the image in a certain way? Can framing the image help to tell a different story (i.e. turn something mundane into something more intriguing)?
3. The Element House designed by MOS Architects ignores all typical ideas of shape and systems of form, trading complexity for simplicity. Through developing a focus on the function of the home rather than the form itself, the cleanliness of the building takes on an intricate new meaning of independence. How does the interruption of the form with the series of chimneys help to reinforce the importance of independence in the project? Is the form influenced by the idea or does the idea inform the final form of the design?
In an attempt to define interesting, a few things become apparent about the nature of the word itself. First of all, every individual has a separate perception of a situation or event, so that in trying to define interesting, no real consensus can be drawn. Every person has a different view of how and when to use the word to describe something. For one person, it may be used to describe something that has never been seen before, but to another it may be used to describe something that makes them uncomfortable. Another element of the discussion was the fact that interesting is often used to describe a situation where one does not know how to explain their thoughts or feelings, usually followed by “…” when other words are lacking. But this begs the questions of what is the true definition of interesting? It appears as though the ambiguous nature of the word inspires discussion, as it naturally initiates conversation on an object or design.
1. In Merely Interesting and Boring, there are multiple conversations being had as it pertains to architectural detail, their significance, and their overall effect to the design. Various aesthetic judgments are being questioned constantly during the design process, so how is it possible to accurately assess which decisions are made with indifference and which are made with clear intent? Aren’t all decisions at some level purposeful? What is the line between indifferent design decisions and purposeful ones when the line is to fine?
2. “Aesthetic judgment” as the term was mention in Merely Interesting, is arbitrary. There are those that will find some aesthetic decisions to be more interesting than others, but the question remains is this solely limited to a formal understanding, or can it be extended to spatial organization, cultural intent, etc. These analyses have focused predominately on superficial aesthetics, so does that entail that the most interesting designs are ones of geometric complexity, and if so does that come with the sacrifice of other pivotal decisions in the design process?
3. The history of architecture in general is boring. The vast majority of constructions are conventional, but that does not mean they are any less important to the building environment as are the exotic ones. In modern day, all of architecture is generally forced to be new, and exciting, but is it a possibility that sometimes the right architecture needs only to serve the needs of the client as opposed to creating an unnecessary eye-catching aesthetic? How important is it that a building must be interesting, rather than functional, efficient, etc.
Dear Diary- After the presentation it would seem as though there is no, and perhaps never will be a consensus on what if truly interesting and what is boring. As mentioned what is of interest to people is arbitrary, but it begs the question what is the purpose of producing interest in the context of the building environment and architecture? Buildings at their core must provide a set of spatial programmatic requirements that in turn can produce a level of complexity that people would find appealing. Appealing would be the more appropriate term than interest, because interest has such vague connotations that it renders the word meaningless. The most important aspect of architecture is that it is successful, efficient, and appealing/appropriate. There is no necessity for producing interest as the forefront responsibility of the architect. It is an aspect of the project that can be humbler than most believe, and if anything it would be better because of it.
1) Is finding something interesting merely an opinion that one forms themselves, or does there need to be a base point of comparison before deciding whether something is interesting or not?
2) In “Systems and Shapes,” why does the author make a clear distinction between systems and shape when in the end they go hand in hand and need each other to create good architecture?
3) In “Boring,” the author states that “along with boredom, comfort and confusion came into play.” Why is it that with boredom comes comfort and confusion, and not anxiety and frustration?
Why is it that we find things interesting. Is every person born with a different set of opinions and a different way of seeing things? Are we not molded as a society to see things the way others see it? People walk around every day thinking about something they just saw, captivated on it. Maybe finding something interesting can mean that it makes you curious and keeps your focus on it. Interesting can also be seen as something that is not boring. When you see something boring, your first reaction is probably to ignore it because it just doesn’t catch your gaze. The feeling of pure boredom is one of the most frustrating things in the world. However, there are many different phases to boredom. There is the boredom that makes you want to scream because there is nothing to do, the boredom were you just don’t find something interesting, the boredom when you’re stuck in an art gallery with art that you could “do yourself in an hour,” etc. Boredom shouldn’t be defined as one thing when it has so many various emotions tied to it.
1. Michael Meredith writes in Systems and Shapes that form and shape are fundamentally different, saying things like systems (form) “play with computation”, producing “their own ground”, “obsessing over discretizing surfaces”, while shapes “relish the pictoral”, “swoon for photos”, are “silhouettes”.I think we can simplify the analogy down to this: a system might be a highly detailed 3d model, but a shape might just be a sketch on a napkin. Our school seems to me to fall into the systems group, considering we do almost no analog sketching. Do you think there is value in the sketch that we miss at our school? Something that captures the meaning of the project without a huge process?
2. Meredith and Atwood do a very similar thing in the Element House and the Installation, where they use color and form to diffuse the discrete elements of their interventions, blending them with each other in the former and the existing in the latter. The repetition of the Element House, and the nothingness of the installation seem to produce a banality, a boringness. This leads to a number of associations by the viewers, with the magazines writing about the Elements House’s chimneys and the photographer shooting all of the different details of the exhibition as “questions”. In this manner, the banality is urging people to look closer into the concepts of the projects, even though they might be bored. How do you think this is similar/different from the “close reading subject” that Eisenman is trying to produce?
3. Ngai writes that “interesting comes to the fore as the aesthetic judgment in which the question of justification looms largest of all”. For me, this reminds me of our school being form or system people, with students finding themselves learning to use the software, trying to create something “interesting”. Our presentations become about the process, more than about the concepts sometimes. This loops back to the conversations we were having about Sarah Whiting’s interview, as students now do not learn the history of the practice, as much as we should. Do you think our school is really teaching us the tangible values we should learn as architects? Or is our school too obsessed with form??
I think the diffusion of the subject matter using techniques like Atwoods actually attempts to create Eisenman’s “close-reading subject”, looking into the mundane and bringing the intention of the boring into question. Similarly, one can argue that the repetition of interesting forms, such as Meredith’s repeated white houses, begins to diffuse them into the boring. I think this actually applies to Eisenman’s axonometric serial form drawings, as this same repetition with little variation is seen in Andy Warhol’s soup containers, urging one to make less of a serious judgement of the subject matter. The opposite of Eisenman’s intentions.
1. Architects strive to create work that is interesting both conceptually and formally. Can modular and prefabricated design still be considered interesting in this sense or does it negate creativity to the point that is no longer considered architecture?
2. Many architects that are interested in parametric design use a system to create a logic within the complexity of their design, in this sense could a system be used to create layers of complexity in architecture that otherwise would be deemed as boring? Does the creation of the vague leave more room for interpretation so that interest can be sparked regardless of a subjects particular view? And is vague architecture still classified as ‘good’ architecture?
3. The core idea of something being interesting or boring is inherently subjective, just as the value of various types or aesthetics of architecture is reduced to the feelings it provokes for a particular individual. How can an architect pass on the theoretical values that justify their design decisions in order for the general public to get more out of the architecture? How can subjectivity within architecture be broadened?
The subjective nature of interest is one that is particularly relevant in relation to various art forms, including architecture. The scientific method calls for analyzing based off of facts and reaching a resolution from those criteria. After discussing the idea of criticality in class, it is more clear that even in the arts, where a subjective nature is the stereotypical understanding of analysis, there is a logical breakdown of judgement used to characterize how people determine the value of something. Although still largely based off of personal preference, it is interesting to have a greater understanding of the logic of emotions and how that plays into the value and aesthetics of architectural works.
1. Architecture can be considered boring if it doesn’t meet the expectations of the artist or the public. Give an example of architectural boredom and why it may generate interest to others.
2. This quote from Boring by Atwood, “Boredom occurs when the expectation for interest is not met. This raises questions about audience and intent. For boredom to be intentional, an author of a “boring” work must first understand and anticipate her audience and then construct her work such that it does not meet her audience’s expectations.” Based on reading Merely Interesting by Sianne Ngai how do you think she would respond to the quote above?
3. Whether simpler architecture is considered boring or minimalist, there is reasoning behind every design decision made. The No. 5 Element House was designed with many attributes in mind such as for the land art project nearby and the climate. Other than what was mentioned in the article, what might be another reason for the design decisions that were made?
The word “boring” itself has a negative connotation and we seem to strive to create something that would be considered “interesting.” However, Atwood has view “boring” from a different perspective; in an attempt to change the view on the label of boring, Atwood wanted to explore boredom in architecture. This made me wonder why something being labeled as boring has been defaulted as the negative alterative to interesting. Architecture is overall a subjective field where everyone’s opinions are given. Resulting in feedback that can fluctuate between positive and negative, nearly impossible to make everyone happy. One of the common words I hear during reviews is interesting and it can be phrased in one of the two ways. “That’s an interesting moment” or “how can you make this more interesting?” Making interesting the word we strive for and reinforcing the negativity associated with boring. Something to think about is: how would you redefine boring?
1.) In “Boring” Andrew Atwood states that something that is ‘boring’ must be open-ended, generic, amateur, lacking attention [to detail], non-judgemental and non-directional. The matter of something being ‘boring,’ however, is very subjective. For example, a funny video to you might be an extremely boring video to your mother. When relating this to architecture, one must think about familiarity, and how it plays a role in a built environments “boring-ness.” Is something that is boring necessarily a bad thing? Perhaps instead of something that “lacks detail,” its purpose is to create a sense of familiarity instead of something new?
2.) At the very end of “Systems and Shapes”, there is a shift in narrative. The author proceeds to talk about ‘shape’ vs. ‘systems’ very passionately. The passage ends with “The little house in the middle of nowhere is indifferent to all of the above.” Why is this so important that the housing complex disregards both systems and shapes?
3.) In “Merely Interesting,” Ngai describes that something that holds interest is up to the person that is experiencing it. If then, beauty among interest is subjective, how is one supposed to argue that something is “boring” or “interesting” or “aesthetic” or “non-aesthetic”? The standard for beauty is criticized heavily throughout differing societies. How can one ever make a valid supporting point if everything is subjective?
When discussing what is boring and what is not it directly relates to beauty and how it is perceived. Both in a sense are subjective, as Margaret Hungerford once stated, “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” Something that I found interesting during class was the statement that “no one would argue that the ‘sloth’ from the Goonies is not more attractive than Angelina Jolie.” Immanueal Kant was brought up during class as well. The German philosopher focused his efforts on the subjects of aesthetics as well as the sublime. A topic that I am most interested in, the sublime, holds a unique characteristic that enhances our individual experience when faced with an object. Something that is sublime is historically noted to be something overwhelmingly large, massive, and intimidating. It plays upon the fine line between fear and excitement, pain and pleasure. Regarding aesthetics, the sublime is a powerful feeling that can be conveyed from the appearance of an entity. The difference between boring and interesting, beautiful and intimidating is more unclear than we believe it to be.
1. The design of the No. 5, Element house is primarily centered around utilizing the built environment of the location and climate of the project. The house is stripped down to its most “basic components” and uses simple sustainable practices. Does simplicity equate to boring? Can the most basic of forms and functions be more interesting than perhaps a more complicated design?
2. The everlasting challenge and concept of “what’s in a name” has long been around and prevalent in architectural design. How does the significance of naming a project “untitled” or “unnamed”,meant to “emphasize their arbitrariness”, impact the purpose and understanding of a project?
3. Typically aesthetic results in a very personal opinion or preference of an object, place, or program. How can such an open-ended concept be categorized into objective terms such as “boring” and “interesting”? How can a grey concept be brought up in terms of black and white?
I believe that there’s an important grey zone within the seemingly conditioned black and white concepts and ideas that seem almost predetermined by our architectural predecessors throughout different time periods and styles of architecture. Not everything should be forced into one unique category or another, architecture can have themes yes, and can be designed with an intent to create a particular space or emotional response; however, what can be considered interesting or boring, beautiful or ugly, will always remain in the eye of the beholder so to speak. It is impossible to decide a universal meaning of one design or object, when each individual experience of said architecture is biased based off of each person’s personal experience or history.
1. In “Systems and Shapes” the house is described as being organized based on an additive geometric systems of growth. Why does the author differentiate systems from shapes when in order to create this project the conceptual and commercial aspects had to come together?
2. If interesting is defined by non-aesthetic and aesthetic judgement. How can any opinion be considered right?
3. In “Boring” the author compares boredom along with positive and negative feelings. What about these feelings make them justifiable to form an opinion on somethings form? Is everything just up for interpretation?
When taking into terms interesting and boring when applied to architecture it leaves the determination up to the opinion of the viewer. I think that nothing can truly be considered interesting or boring completely as one can lead to the other. The way you apply the conceptual or methodological systems can determine different aspects and could be applied in different ways leading to an ever changing opinion based cycle. This would make it impossible to ever really evaluate something based on if it’s viewed as interesting or boring. There’s also many different ways people can interpret the description of interesting or boring, leaving it to take on even more variety in opinion.
1. In the article Boring, Atwood has the idea that people might find things boring because of how interesting they are. Is this means that the interesting things would become boring through time so that this would promote people to find some new points of them that are interesting and improve them? How does this apply to the architecture today?
2. In the article “Merely Interesting”, Ngai states that “we tell people we find works interesting when we want to do criticism”. And he thinks that you have to find something interesting when you judge it. How is this definition apply to something when people have different ideas? If something boring in this world is criticized by someone is it then interesting?
3. In the article of “Systems and Shapes”, Meredith talks about the Element House in New Mexico is very indifferent to the characteristics of Systems and Shapes. Is the material of the House makes it become special? What makes the house indifferent from a system or a shape? Is the material makes it more boring or useful?
Boring is something that very based on different opinions. In fact, boredom starts to appear when the expectation of what they think interesting is not met with their thought. In this case, the connection between boredom and interesting mostly depends on different people’s opinion and point of view. For example, in our architectural design review as architecture students, the critics may have different opinions on the same project. Some of them might think that the project has something special and unique so that make it become very interesting. On the contrary, others might think that the project is not what they expect to see and criticize. In this case, the relationship between boring and interesting is a very personally decision.
1) In “Systems and Shapes”, Meredith indicates that both systems and shapes go hand and hand when designing. However, is it possible to have on without the other?
2) In the reading “Boredom”, Atwood introduces the argument of designs being “boring”. Is simplicity necessarily “boring” or is this characteristic dependent upon who is the critique is? Who is to decide if a design is boring?
3) If geometric shapes and forms are not necessarily “natural”, why does architecture push for geometric designs and concepts? Referring to my previous question, are geometric designs then considered boring?
1. In the Systems and Shapes article, Meredith discusses that systems and shapes are frenemines. Do you agree with the characteristics he brings up? In what further ways can systems and shapes relate to each other?2. It was stated in “Merely Interesting” that the most characteristic thing about the interesting was the deduction. Removing content from the object produces a more interesting result. In what examples can you describe this idea? Are there certain details that when removed causes a less interesting object?
3. One meaning of “Interesting” is to come back to view again later. What happens if you label something “interesting” because you want to go back to view it again later, but after a few times of viewing it again, you no longer want to view it again. Is it no longer interesting? Can an object be called interesting only for a short period ?
Today artists are trying to produce work that is so simple that it looks boring. However, once it becomes very simple and so called “boring”, the work becomes interesting because people are trying to understand its meaning. What does “boring” mean then in the art world? Does it just refer to the sense of something being physically simple? Or should it refer to the entire idea of the object? then in that sense how can art be actually boring? perhaps because our lives are filled with so many details, art that represents our lives such as having much color and forms, are more boring than a piece of art having simply one or two colors or forms. We are not accustomed to simple forms and so when we see simple forms on display we have to take time to analyze them to understand them. For example, Sol LeWitt’s art seem simple if you describe its components: squares, triangles, and lines. However, their relationship to one another causes one to stare and observe what is actually occurring. Boring is the new interesting.
Today artists are trying to produce work that is so simple that it looks boring. However, once it becomes very simple and so called “boring”, the work becomes interesting because people are trying to understand its meaning. What does “boring” mean then in the art world? Does it just refer to the sense of something being physically simple? Or should it refer to the entire idea of the object? then in that sense how can art be actually boring? perhaps because our lives are filled with so many details, art that represents our lives such as having much color and forms, are more boring than a piece of art having simply one or two colors or forms. We are not accustomed to simple forms and so when we see simple forms on display we have to take time to analyze them to understand them. For example, Sol LeWitt’s art make seem simple if you describe its components: squares, triangles, and lines. However, their relationship to one another causes one to stare and observe what is actually occurring. Boring is the new interesting.
Atwood writes in list number 027 how boring art blurs the line between creator and audience. How can this ambiguity be used to create a more democratic architecture? Does the architect need to place themself in a position of authority in order to create something meaningful or useful?
Meredith describes how No.5 Element house rejects thought based purely on systems or shapes. Is a project better off for disregarding such precedents?
Ngai asserts that the interesting depends on an interaction between the immediacy of the spontaneous and the lasting nature of boredom. How does this theory relate to Atwood’s ideas about boredom? Does making something interesting diminish the blurriness of boredom or just draw attention to it?
I think the use of boring architecture is, well, interesting. In an age of ever grander projects, the quiet self-reflecting nature of boring architecture forces introspection and the participation of the audience as more than a passive viewer. Interesting architecture has often traded depth for spontaneity. Interest has already been gathered and faded away by the time a rigorous critique can be formulated, and this allows a visually appealing but meaningless architecture. Boring architecture, at least, is aware of its own meaninglessness, but because it is inherently non-judgmental and non-directional, does not propose a new method of thought, and is more of an antithesis to the interesting than its own idea. Neither can truly dominate without referencing the other, and they seem to have a cyclical relationship that responds to the whichever is more prevalent. Whether or not this is true, I appreciate the blank canvas boring architecture provides to project ideas onto while creating a refuge from elaborate design.
1. In the Systems and Shapes article, Meredith discusses that systems and shapes are frenemines. Do you agree with the characteristics he brings up? In what further ways can systems and shapes relate to each other?
2. It was stated in “Merely Interesting” that the most characteristic thing about the interesting was the deduction. Removing content from the object produces a more interesting result. In what examples can you describe this idea? Are there certain details that when removed causes a less interesting object?
3. One meaning of “Interesting” is to come back to view again later. What happens if you label something “interesting” because you want to go back to view it again later, but after a few times of viewing it again, you no longer want to view it again. Is it no longer interesting? Can an object be called interesting only for a short period ?
1. Mentioned by Ngai, the attitude of interests to conceptual art is similar to the state how the art communicate to itself, how should to explain the communication here?
2. Listed by Atwood, are those 12 arguments of boring objects the principles of judging in the society, are we supposed to avoid creating boring things instead of creating what we want originally?
3. When we look at the Element House based on the 12 arguments listed by Atwood, how should we judge this form if some of arguments meet but others not?
1) In Ngai’s writing called “Merely Interesting”, he says that conceptual art is interesting or it isn’t like how one is informed or isn’t or that an object communicates itself or it doesn’t. In architecture, either the design is interesting to people and is widely popular or it isn’t interesting and abandoned. How do people come to the conclusion that one type of architecture is more interesting than the other? Aesthetics? Material? System?
2) In the article about Boring Architecture, it says that at the surface boring architecture seems like nothing is happening, but there’s actually much happening in terms of formal, social, political, etc aspects. Why is there so much thought put into boring architecture?
3) For the reading “Element House”, the article claims that the house in the middle of nowhere is indifferent to systems and shapes. Yet, the project is a modular building and its organization is based on a geometric system of growth. Should this project still be considered indifferent?
To me, I’m interested in different kinds of materials people can use to build and design a building. Material use is really interesting. Some people recycle old materials and create fabulous buildings with a rich history background. Other people invent new materials and sell them as a product in the market. There’s many things materials can do, thus I am interested in architecture through the use of different materials. One way of boring architecture is to think of a person’s lack of thinking about the architecture. You would think something is boring because you don’t want to spend the energy to think about the object.
1. In “Boring,” Catherine Opie’s ‘frenzied’ style of photography is mentioned as boring because of its lack of clarity, however; could it be that Opie chooses to constantly change her style and uses different techniques in her photography so that the viewers would have more questions? Atwood states that her work, “does very little to guide or organize it and it works very hard to resist immediacy and prevent focus,” but Opie’s goal may have been to challenge the focus of the viewers, intentionally creating a puzzle with no solution.
2. The Museum of Outdoor Arts Element House is divided with two separate design approaches; shape and system. Being that it was created with environmental efficiency in mind, Michael Meredith discusses their opposing relationships coming together to create a completely efficient house. In the future, could the combination of shape and system is the solution to creating more energy-efficient projects?
3. In “Merely Interesting” by Sianne Ngai, interesting is described as indefinite, yet somehow is also defined by aesthetic judgement. Is the definition of interesting in some way linked to the definition of aesthetics? If so, would not everything be interesting to some people based on their idea of aesthetics?
How could something be defined as “boring”? What aspects would define a work of art as boring as compared to another? Debating factors of how interesting a piece of art is are numerous, but sometimes contradictory in that its “boring” nature could be a piece of interest on its own. A simple box might be labeled as boring due to a person’s lack of wonderment, the basic geometries, or lack of creativity in form, however; depending on its context and purpose, could be deemed extremely interesting. Just as that seemingly uninteresting box is labeled “boring”, architecture defined similarly has been contributing greatly to modernism and the architecture of today. This brings up the question of aesthetics in architecture and how they define a work. Continuing with that idea, shape and organization definitely play a larger role in the “aesthetic” nature of architecture, so that could mean that how boring a project is would actually be predetermined by its design, based on the shapes.
1. Systems and shapes act together to form volume; according to “System and Shapes”, while they have different concentrations, that system are conceptual and shapes are commercial, how should we understand the phrase “systems are centrifugal, shapes are centripetal”?
2. Boredom is a tool to distinguish highlighted points. But how should we design with boredom? Are we intending to design boring thing, or should we ignore them?
3. In the article “Merely Interesting”, the author talks about the factors attract attention. Many terms are not solely attractive, but the accumulation of those factors cause into an interesting effect. Boredom is a way to point out an interesting thing, and those seemingly boring elements make an interesting thing. How can we understand the difference and similarities between the “boredom” and the “interesting”?
In this week’s presentation, the contrast between “boring” and “interesting” is discussed. They seems conflicting, and we, as architect, are definitely more into creating “interesting” architecture; the fact is that even boredom is worth appreciation. Inside boredom, its highlight points are easier to be stand out. The most famous example is Andy Warhol’s works; the Campbell’s Soup Cans are kind of boring, but it indeed is interesting as well. Boredom is necessary since people are attracted by those interesting embedded inside. Learning to deal with boredom/boring elements is a necessity because this is at the same time enabling more possibilities to our representation methods.
1. In the description of the Element House, there seems to be two schools of thought: systems vs shape. The former is about the process, repetitions, and concepts while the latter is about the immediate, singular, and commercial. Knowing these two groups and their definitions, how is the Element House indifferent to either of these categories? To me, this project is a group of shapes forming into a system. There is clear graphic, singularity in each of the modules; as well as a repetitive system of forms as a whole present.
2. In the reading Boring, the author describes how the boring can actually be turned into the interesting. There is a certain quality of the mundane, generic, and dull that draw people towards it, though it may not be in the most obvious ways. When things are so simplified and toned down, people begin to pay attention to every detail of the object and the environment in which it resides in. Knowing this information, how can architects incorporate this subtle juxtaposition between the boring and the interesting in their designs?
3. The reading also mentioned the importance of how these mundane subjects are portrayed/presented, comparing Ruscha’s work with Opie’s, both of very plain, typical building types. However, Opie’s works drew more attention and curiosity, by the way she captured the photographs but also in the way she scaled, framed, and organized them. How can architecture use this in their designs to create more interest in seemingly boring buildings such as malls, motels, and hospitals?
An interesting point brought up in one of the presentations is that a boring design is not unintentional. It seems pretty ironic that an architect would purposely design a building to be boring, but the student mentioned that the modern aesthetic of architecture (white, cubic, and seemingly plain) is in fact boring by definition. However, this style of design is very popular and sought for. Additionally, Rosanne Somerson’s idea of breaking through boredom to push the boundaries of modernism stuck out to me. In this world of social media, electronics, and advanced technology, we forget to sit and just think. The idea behind the act of sitting down for a few hours is profound and a good exercise to spark creativity and go beyond.
1.Boring by Andrew Atwood states that” Boring architecture has a lot of similarities with minimalism architecture, and it’s not about the work itself because it can’t consume people into a moment. However how does that measure its boringness if boring is defined as an emotional state?
2.In the article “Systems and Shapes” is very interesting how they use the organization of the house to create a geometric system that expands outwards using modules. However why is this significant for this particular project when the point is sustainable building components?
3.Merely interesting by Sianne Nga talks about the what makes” the interesting so compatible with irony and art that fuses philosophical and aesthetic interests is precisely what makes it complicit in advancing the end of art.” Well if art is the expression of a medium and art can’t be fully expressed, how can philosophy change our perception of architecture over the experience?
In my opinion, Boring is subjective and not about the work itself but the induvial’ state of mind. Interest is personal to everyone. It is also based on one’s ability to recognize and understand other people’s logic. It also depends on the time period in which art is created, and who the audience is intended for.
1. In Boring, Atwood states that “boring” architecture and minimalist art share a similarity in which the audience is required to complete the work. It is not about the work itself, but the lack of a fixated, focused moment. “Boring” architecture makes us aware that architecture is in a state of constant dispersal and projection between different objects and subjects. Does “interesting” architecture inhibit this awareness? Do you think “boring” architecture plays as important a role in architecture as “interesting” architecture?
2. Meredith’s Systems and Shapes introduces the Element House, describing its organization as an additive geometric system of growth, with decentralized chimneys, and interlocking cladding. Do you think shape or system is the dominant element leading its design? Or do they play an equal role?
3. Ngai’s Merely Interesting ponders the meaning and role of the word “interesting”. What is your take on the word? In terms of critique in architectural discourse, how should the word be used, if at all?
Some argue that boring isn’t an appropriate term to describe architecture due to its subjective quality. A work of architecture may not necessarily be boring, but instead, the viewer might have feelings of boredom toward the work and thus is projecting these feelings onto the work. This attitude is a reflection of the viewer’s emotion and personal taste. Some people find repetition to be boring. The lack of occurrence or identifiable meaning in a piece of architectural work can also lead to such feelings. When an expectation is not met, the viewer often experiences these feelings. Sometimes, boring architecture asks the audience to complete the experience. The viewers must confront their subjective limitations. Boring architecture, however, can open new ways of thinking and awareness. Rather than being just a building, architecture can be an exciting novelty, introducing complex systems and experiences. Architecture does not exist in just a single fixed frame or moment. It is in a constant state of projection and dispersal.
1. Considered as two different and non related forces within design, shape and system is deemed by Meredith as two counter-arguments to the origins of a project. People are considered as either falling into the systemically obsessed or the singularly envisioned shape. How does the Element House, No. 5 seem to exist without falling into either category?
2. Termed a ‘syntactic place holder’, the role of ‘interesting’ and its inherent ties to ongoing intrigue leads to a temporal questioning of whether the term is simply a way to push the opinion to a later time or whether ‘interesting’ is a notion of having the ability to be addressed now and later.
3. “Something can be intrinsically boring…yet extrinsically not boring.” – Atwood. How can the content itself be both a counter to interesting yet contain within its being an outward interest? Does the relationship not create a more rich dialogue between the ambiguously boring content and its resulting contradictory exterior condition?
Caught between the agreeable, good and beautiful is the critique of judgment and the arising question of whether interesting and boring is a matter of the work’s relationship to the sustainment of visual interest through ambiguity that questions the surrounding conditions. In this way architects can be critiquing the dominant forms of expression creating an aesthetic condition of boring. Discussed in the presentations were the willful blurring and consideration of the legitimate visual experience. Another question also is the critique of the cultural engagement of boring. Brought into consideration is the difference of systemic and shape driven projects and the counter-arguments ability to exist within a single project or be devoid in any altogether.
1. The concept of “boring” architecture is one that is heavily based around the inhabitant’s expectations of architecture and the reality of these expectations being unfulfilled. Therefore, “boring” architecture is highly subjective on the person experiencing the space and is less about the intentional design moves of the architect. Can the design of “boring” architecture truly be achieved by the architect? And if so, does the architect’s level of precision in the crafting of such a space and experience, in turn create a contradiction and inherently makes the architecture interesting?
2. The Element House by MOS Architects, is a building that plays with the mundane, bland nature of a traditional suburban home and presents a series of simple operations of intersection and reimagination of its context and formal expression. Set against the rolling deserts of New Mexico, the simplicity of the building creates a contrast with the landscape that symbiotically enhances both elements of the project. Is our bias of whether a building is interesting or boring heavily influenced by the context in which it resides and does this description drastically change if the building moved to a different context?
3. In Merely Interesting by Sianne Ngai, she discusses the fact that what makes an object “interesting” is not dependent on the aesthetic characteristics of a project at all, but rather on the context in which the object is placed with. By this description, it almost seems like intentionally making an object interesting is more chanced based and that “interesting” is a byproduct rather than a descriptive term that has a clear set of parameters. Therefore, is it fair to categorize and describe something as interesting and does the word even hold any value when the concept is fixed around elements that don’t even correspond to the actual object?
“Boring” architecture and art evokes a certain sense of accessibility and anti-classicism that invites the public into an open conversation about culture. Artist and architects who strive to intentionally create banality work within a mode of contradiction in which their efforts to bore are used to spark interest. People such as Andy Warhol commercialize art to the point where it appeals to the masses and reduces the elite to the common folk. While the cleverness of this tactic greatly alters culture, there is a fallacy in using the words “boring” and “interesting” to categorize architecture and art. The subjective characteristics of these words undermine the accessibility of the object. While a majority may perceive a certain object as beautiful or unfulfilling, a portion of the population will feel the opposite. Yes, the architecture and or art has been dumbed down to open up conversation, but it still does not completely address the complexity and resistance of culture and classicism. Art is still for the elite, even if the painting is a giant Campbell soup can that is consumed by the public.
1| In determining boredom’s innate ability to hold sustained interest among a curious audience, does Atwood consequently make an argument for the fact that boredom, rather than describing something plain, easy, or unadorned, describe something all too complex to analyze within the attention span of an average person?
2| Meredith asserts that the Element House, ancillary to Charles Ross’ Star Axis, is indifferent to the applications of system as well as shape. Is this indifference manifested in the apparent equilibrium achieved by the relationship between shape and system in this case?
3| Sianne Ngai argues that the “most characteristic thing about the interesting thus seems to be its lack of distinguishing characteristics”. In describing interesting as such, i.e. “ambiguous” does it consequently become valid to place “boring” under the same general description as “interesting”?
Existing within possibly any boring creation lies an innate characteristic of ambiguity. Defining boredom similarly, an item becomes boring to an audience when its overarching characteristics are in-congruent with one another to the point where the object’s identity is not easily identifiable and thus becomes dis interesting. A usual boring object may only exist as such in the mind of those who wish not to fully comprehend its characteristics. Simultaneously, however, an action or task may become boring if either repeated to the point of exhaustion or done without meaning or explanation. That being said a boring task is slightly more difficult to define as such considering the motives behind partaking in any particular action are often buried deep within the psyche of an individual or group of individuals. Unlike boring objects, boring tasks often lack the paradoxical relationship with what is interesting that objects share; this is probably due to the fact that ambiguity is only interesting when searching for a definitive answer.
1.) As Scott Brown and Wall noticed in Ruscha’s photographs, what makes something “boring” is when it fails to take a stance or make a statement and is “open-ended, generic, amateur, non-judgmental, etc. ”. So with that, how can one remain interesting in a society that is concerned with being non-offensive and politically correct?
2.) In “Systems and Shapes”, Michael Meredith discusses the Museum of Outdoor Arts Element House and its design/construction. The building focuses on the systems of chimneys and windows. With that, does focusing on building systems rather than design make for a “boring” building? Or can it lead to complexity?
3.) In “Merely Interesting”, Ngai talks about the ambiguity of the word “interesting” and how it is often used when one does not definitely know how they feel about something. Therefore, how does one make an argument in favor of their “aesthetic judgements” and what counts as factual evidence?
In “Boring,” Atwood lists some of Brown and Wall’s characteristic descriptions of Ruscha’s photographs as “open-ended, generic, ambiguous.” A connection can be made to the modern pop song—an often meticulously designed earworm that has an inherent reliability for the masses, often at expense of saying anything too specific in avoidance of audience isolation. How would you relate the modern pop song to a work of built architecture? Would you find it a compelling approach or contemporary crack?
Building on methods above, how might a designer reconcile logical approaches with more abstract aesthetic ones? How might a connection foster innovation, as “Merely Interesting” begins to hint at?
Similar to discussions within the week of parametricism, how do you weigh a building’s form with its function in efforts to avoid mediocrity in favor of interesting architecture? How would you compare the readings this week and make an argument for an approach to, or the merits of, interesting architecture?
(the format was changed inadvertently, so here’s a cleaner one)
1. In “Boring,” Atwood lists some of Brown and Wall’s characteristic descriptions of Ruscha’s photographs as “open-ended, generic, ambiguous.” A connection can be made to the modern pop song—an often meticulously designed earworm that has an inherent reliability for the masses, often at expense of saying anything too specific in avoidance of audience isolation. How would you relate the modern pop song to a work of built architecture? Would you find it a compelling approach or contemporary crack?
2. Building on methods above, how might a designer reconcile logical approaches with more abstract aesthetic ones? How might a connection foster innovation, as “Merely Interesting” begins to hint at?
3. Similar to discussions within the week of parametricism, how do you weigh a building’s form with its function in efforts to avoid mediocrity in favor of interesting architecture? How would you compare the readings this week and make an argument for an approach to, or the merits of, interesting architecture?
It’s obvious that “boring” is a subjective term, but the intricacies of implied interpretations and procedural strategies to both avoid and inadvertently arrive at boring really came together from the presentation notes. One main idea I gathered from the reading, and conversations about the content, was the implications of excessive ornament. If an ornament is overused or extended beyond decoration or singular artifact, it risks being read as a field, which in turn can become very minimal in its overall interpretation. A field of repeating ornament reads as just that—a plain and simple field, without personality or moving parts.
Based on the text: “Boring”, Atwood displays how “the boring” can become an idea. In my perspective boredom is a catalyst to do anything that is not boring. But in the projects reaching boredom is the goal. It’s perplexing because boredom keeps one locked into a perpetual state of that feeling until they choose to leave; there’s no purpose to wanting to achieve boredom. So if boredom is a product of more boredom, as the projects shown in the text, what is its purpose/ role in architecture?
The Element House (House No. 5) is an excellent example on how order and form can create something familiar, different, and functional. Why do we try to create something new when we are constrained by society having a staunch attitude towards its preconceptions on what something should be; why continue to strive to create something different?
Interest is what instills purpose in our lives. A curiosity for asking “what more” keeps us searching for more answers to move us closer to a destination we don’t even know exists. Why do we try to find something that we aren’t sure exists, why aren’t we content with all the information we already have?
Boredom as a concept is a logical means of of bringing out a new idea. Before the the lecture I was still not too sure if boredom could be considered a valid topic of discussion, but upon further examination, trying to achieve boredom does have a point, it acts as a means to push us to move forward. Although an artist would say there is no meaning, the true reasoning behind it is so us, the viewer, can find something the artist doesn’t see. In fact the artist is not trying to see anything from their work, the artist is trying to see how the human mind can be challenged. By reaching the state of boredom, something in the brain tells us to stop being bored, thus we formulate a brand new interpretation that sparks interest. Whether the vierer attains something meaningful from the work is frankly indifferent. There is no difference, it is all meaningless. And yet we still strive to find meaning so we can contribute to a more positive society in our eyes, thus reaching a (false) sense of purpose.
1. Ngai describes some things as being interesting because it is hard to pin them down with simple characteristics that might lead to a quick categorization like cute or brutish and thus forces the viewer to continue looking. What is the limit at which a boring object becomes interesting to the viewer Atwood’s terms and not just something one passes by without a glance?
2. Atwood’s description of the boring helps to understand how spilled wine glasses at galleries can become misinterpreted as pieces by visitors. If the search for meaning is enough to justify a piece of art, what makes anything from becoming a piece of art worth displaying?
3. How does House No. 5 by MOS escape definition as either shape or system?
It would seem that the artist can frame views outside of their intended works with their boring art. It would be interesting to see how architects can deploy this technique in the future. This, however, would mean letting go of one’s pride so that the environment outside of the architect’s design can be appreciated further. In a world where experiences are boiling down to photos meant for Instagram and WeChat posts, the decision to be boring will be an increasingly difficult one to make. Furthermore, with a growing audience with expectations of high-class content to post and shortening attention spans, will the dialectic even be worth it if it will be ignored? Perhaps it is for the forceful reengagement of the people with their surroundings.
1. In Atwood’s “Boring,” he describes boring buildings as experienced through indifference, sedation, and routine. Would a client want to hire an architect that built buildings that the client felt indifferent toward? Would people want to use a space that they felt indifferent toward? To me, this type of architecture seems like the architecture of big box stores or dreary office buildings.
2. In “Systems and Shapes,” by Michael Meredith, he explains that shapes and systems are two very different principles. He also describes the Element house as being indifferent to both and their juxtaposition. How is it possible for a work of architecture to be indifferent to these things?
3. In “Merely Interesting,” by Sianna Ngai, Ngai says that often nonaesthetic features are used to justify aesthetic judgements. What exactly are these nonaesthetic features and is there a better way to justify aesthetic judgement?
Before the lecture, I was not sure of the efficacy of aiming to design “boring architecture.” I felt that there was no point in designing a space that was not meant to make an impact on those that experience it. It also seemed like it was the easy way out of designing. After the class discussion, I realized that aiming to design boring architecture is a valid goal and that aiming to design an “interesting” building might not be. For example, the reason why the term “boring architecture” is so off-putting is because one expects this style of architecture to be functional but not aesthetically pleasing. The alternative to boring architecture is “interesting architecture,” but interesting doesn’t necessarily mean beautiful. Interesting doesn’t have a positive or negative connotation, so it’s hard to fully commit to designing with this intention in mind. In addition, architectural styles come and go like fashion and fads. What is considered interesting one day, can be considered gaudy, flashy, or ugly the next day. Boring architecture has its merits and if executed well, can produce a successful and beautiful work of architecture.
1. The element house is subdued in nature but it doesn’t sacrifice any of its functionality to form because many of the formal decisions are based on passive thermal strategies. Why do architects throw these strategies out of the window when they can lead to interesting design?
2. A lot of vernacular architecture is more successful with passive thermal strategies than work designed by architects. To what extent has the element house been inspired by vernacular architecture and where is it apparent in the design?
3. From Atwood’s Boring: The reading claims that boring objects are better than bad objects. What is an object manifestation of bad design and how does it compare to an object manifestation of boring? Between the two examples what is worse, aesthetic failure or functional failure?
1. The element house is subdued in nature but it doesn’t sacrifice any of its functionality to form because many of the formal decisions are based on passive thermal strategies. Why do architects throw these strategies out of the window when they can lead to interesting design?
2. A lot of vernacular architecture is more successful with passive thermal strategies than work designed by architects. To what extent has the element house been inspired by vernacular architecture and where is it apparent in the design?
3. From Atwood’s Boring: The reading claims that boring objects are better than bad objects. What is an object manifestation of bad design and how does it compare to an object manifestation of boring? Between the two examples what is worse, aesthetic failure or functional failure?
The boring is often used as a tool in architecture. In no other profession is the boring so important. Many architects look to make flashy, eye catching designs and avoid the boring, however, they often end up with a result that is not so practical. Now, architects are deploying the boring to bring something new to their design. No, it’s not eye catching. It exists with purpose. Often times, the employment of the boring can lead to very interesting design.
The use of the boring sounds completely redundant. One could say that a designer is looking to the uninteresting to create something interesting. It sounds like a complete paradox, but often times simple adjustments to familiar objects are all that are needed to create something very interesting. Simple and subdued design will often lead people to think hard about the most simple decisions and even question the things they are familiar with.
Andrew Atwood’s …and pedestals is a great example of a boring design that was quite interesting. The pedestals were simple and attractive. The gallery had an audience that took the art installation quite seriously, causing them to question the pedestals and what they did. It also led them to look beyond the pedestals for something interesting. The fascination with the mundane is what caused this exhibit to be so effective. People began to question power outlets and the color of the wall, wondering if there was something deeper to read into, when in fact all that was there was right in front of them.
1. According to Andrew Atwood in the first chapter of his book called “Boring”, -“Boring architecture’s parts are monotonous, repetitive and inexhausted, with no variation from part to part.” Should be this point of view more like a personal perspective from each person to describe or identify what is considered to be boring architecture’s parts. ?
2. Can be the Element House in Star Axis, New Mexico, Be considered as Boring according to what Andrew Atwood explains in his book?
3. In “Merely Interesting”, Sianne Ngai mentions that interesting not only comes from the aesthetic judgment of an object. But also, interesting comes from the surroundings or environment in which this object is placed that makes it look that way. Should it be better to identify the characteristics of the object itself that makes it interesting before seeing the effects that its surrounding can have on it that makes it interesting?
Boring and interesting? can it be a universal and unique idea of what these two concepts mean? well not really. I think these two concepts have changed through the years and they will be changing according to the believes and taste that people adopt or create. Something that can be interesting to a person, may not be for another and the same thing with “Boring”. In architecture, there will never be an agreement of what is actually an interesting design or a Boring design due to principles and rules that were preestablished in classic architecture and that noways have been modified in order to create modern architectural designs. It may be the case that older architects see modern architecture as boring because it does not have the skills and principles that conserved a more interesting form of architecture. But new architects look back and respect the beauty of modern architecture then apply new techniques that make more interesting and awesome designs that may not be interesting to older architects and vice-versa
1. In “Boring,” Atwood describes that Ed Ruscha uses several photographic methods to make his photographs appear intentionally boring. Does knowing the techniques he uses with this intent make the photographs less boring?
2. In Meredith’s “Systems and Shapes,” systems are described as more of a functional process while shapes are more graphic. Since systems are less graphically enticing and shapes are less meaningful, which would be considered more architecturally boring?
3. In “Merely Interesting,” Ngai blurs the line between interesting and boring. In modern art and architecture, how do we decide what is interesting and what is boring?
The concepts of boring and interesting in architecture can be, like most forms of architectural critique, applied to fine arts, photography, and even fashion. Since all of these fields provoke emotion, critiques will always be subjective in some way. However, there generally are standards that can be applied to projects to help classify them as boring or interesting in a more objective way, such as learning about the process of designing these things. While we try to be logical in our critiques, we will always be influenced by our personal opinions on what is boring and interesting.
1. In Merely Interesting, Ngai mentioned that interesting art requires general classification. With what classification can interesting art be meaningfully different from others of its type?
2. In the last paragraph of Systems and Shapes, Meredith mentioned that the Element House is indifferent to all the description between systems and shapes. Does it mean the element house is the combination of both? If so, how?
3. According to Atwood’s Boring, Atwood mentioned that when we look back, boring buildings can become interesting. Does it mean the definition of boring is subtle and changeable? If so, how can we identify whether a building is boring or not？ Will it be too subjective？
When thinking of boring, we always connect it with uninteresting and tend to avoid it as a bad thing.
No one wants to be boring. However, If everyone tends to be different, then different can be another form of boring. Boredom can have a relationship with architecture, but artists and designers have found that true breakthroughs result when they drive the inquiry down a new path. For architecture to go, we need to back to boring. Boring, in another word, can be something interesting.
Something considered as boring in the past can seem as interesting now, which is because we failed to recognize its interesting part in the past. So, the audience is required to confront its own creative and subjective limits to find boring interesting.
From the lecture, I also learn an interesting term called “Das Intersante”, which means opposing other concepts and carry a sense of irony. To apply it to architecture, we need to make architecture open to criticism, respond to culture and be recognizable as significant to its time even at other points in history.
Similar to boredom, what is cool now is not likely to be cool next season. So it is vital for us to have our own creature.
1. In Ngai’s article, he mentioned: “The application of interesting to objects is not always about aesthetic; cultural interpreters are just as likely to find objects historically interesting, psychologically interesting, and so on.” If we can better identify the characteristics of the object itself, will it make the object interesting before we see the impact it might have on it?
2. The Museum of Outdoor Arts Element House shows that how a building can be break into multiple parts. But is the modular system really worked in this way? Is it the simplest or most successful for forms and shapes to work together?
3. How do we make interesting architecture under the circumstances which the will and incentives to do better are not there any more?
Through this lecture, we learned how to objectively judge whether an architecture piece is boring. Yet I think “boring” is very subjective, and everything has two sides. What a person thinks is absolutely dull, it might be a fascinating and energetic project for others. As we learned in Atwood’s reading, buildings can have many features at the same time. Many times, the art we see is superficially boring, but the process of dialogue and thinking behind it could be very interesting. In my opinion, we should study a building in depth rather than looking at its exterior one-sidedly. By studying the buildings which are generally thought “boring”, we can create better designs.
1. “Boring” is a hot topic in design areas. In Atwood’s book “Boring”, he lists a series of example to tell what is boring in his perspectives: “open-ended”, “permissive”, etc. Is his definition of “boring” a real element of our judgment on “boring”? How do these “boring” elements occupied in the design in architecture and how it is being dealt?
2. In the reading “Merely Interesting” written by Sianne Ngai, she argues, “interesting has no aesthetic as well as aesthetic uses.” When we talk about the aesthetical part of interesting in architecture, how can the designer ensure that most people’s tastes coincide with his or hers? When “interesting” can be quantified, is there any need to design creatively?
3. Meredith McDaniel talked in his book “System and Shapes” the relationship between forms and shapes. We have already know that form and shape are elementary for architects in their design. How a simple shape turns into an interesting building? Why most famous modern architecture comes from simple forms?
How to define “boring” in architecture? We know that “interesting” is arousing curiosity so interesting architecture means buildings that will draw our attention, but how can we define the boring architecture? Since different people have different tastes, different shapes will catch different people’s attention. In addition, culture and environment also influence the preference; if there is a need to judge whether an architecture is interesting or boring, an evaluation system should build up like how Michelin stars influence restaurants world-widely. However, is there a need to evaluate a system to judge an architecture? We know that architecture, or building, is just the living and activity place for human being. We are used to adapting normal buildings surrounding us. These buildings, in the artists’ perspective, is boring. However, years ago, they are interesting and fancy to artists and architects. The definition of boring is an ambiguous issue.
1. In merely interesting, what is the answer of how we use reason to justify aesthetic judgement is worth examining more closely in light of the fact that we do so all the time and without resource to general principles?
2. Why the question of how we use reason to justify aesthetic judgments is worth examining more closely in light of the fact that we do so all the time and without recourse to general principles?
3. What is the most characteristic thing about the interesting thus seems to be its lack of distinguishing characteristics making its deduction?
When applied to buildings, it takes into account the interesting and boring terminology that will determine the opinions left to the audience. While the cleverness of this strategy has dramatically changed culture, there is a fallacy in using the terms “boring” and “fun” to classify architecture and art. The subjective characteristics of these words undermine the accessibility of the object. Usually boring objects may only exist in the minds of people who do not want to fully understand their characteristics. However, at the same time, if the repetition is exhausted or meaningless or explained, the action or task may become boring. . When responding to the word “interesting”, you are making an open statement that gives you a detailed description of how you feel, whether they are good or bad. In both cases, the observer will have a critical analysis.
When applied to buildings, it takes into account the interesting and boring terminology that will determine the opinions left to the audience. While the cleverness of this strategy has dramatically changed culture, there is a fallacy in using the terms “boring” and “interesting” to classify architecture and art. The subjective characteristics of these words undermine the accessibility of the object. Usually boring objects may only exist in the minds of people who do not want to fully understand their characteristics. However, at the same time, if the repetition is exhausted or meaningless or explained, the action or task may become boring. . When responding to the word “fun”, you are making an open statement that gives you a detailed description of how you feel, whether they are good or bad. In both cases, the observer will have a critical analysis.
The adjective “Interesting,” in my opinion, has been overused in the field of architecture to the point where it could be considered an invalid comment. Even though there are other synonyms, do you believe that the term should no longer be used solely because of its lack of pull in architecture?
From reading “Merely Interesting,” by Sianne Ngai, the word interesting as also been described as a placeholder for more intellectual words. In my opinion, certain words that are considered placeholders for larger words should not be unused solely because if you are attempting to get a point across any form of vocabulary should be allowed. Do you agree?
From reading “Boring” I noticed that the author focused on describing boredom as affecting someone positively or negatively. I believe that boredom is a word engineered more towards having a negative effect. Is this statement accurate, or do you believe that boredom could affect us either way?
1. Particularly in contemporary art and architecture styles, minimalist forms and expression through abstract moves have made it so that the viewer is required to consider the nature of the building instead of the design being thrust upon them. Based on the 10 criteria listed in the Boring reading, where is the line between design that is lacking in definition because it is minimalist or abstract versus one that is boring? Does simple necessarily mean boring?
2. Ngai’s Merely Interesting posits that are there practical, non-aesthetic uses of ‘interesting’ design and interesting form. How can we quantify why we want our buildings to be interesting, beyond a design or aesthetic reason?
3. Although shape and system are competing concepts, as described in Meredith’s Systems and Shapes, they work together to make volume and successful forms like MOA’s Element House. Is one of these the dominant design concept, and for what reason? When designing different spaces, does one become more or less important than the other?
1. In the article titled ‘Boring’ , the author mentioned the representation of an ideal boring architecture by showing a boring gallery installation she did a few years ago which originally hopping the exhibition can activate people’s interestingness and imagination. Although the author intentionally design lots of interaction between space and people, the exhibition still ned up with boring installation strategy. Do you think what cause this happen?
2. Meredith has introduced in the System and Shapes about how ordered is the shape of The Museum of Outdoor Arts Element House. Its modular geometry system does not only function house with its surrounding but also strip down to basic grid. Do you agree that the system and shape are supplement each other?
3. Ngaio claimed in the articles Merely Interesting that ‘the application of interesting to objects is not always aesthetical’. Why did the author say this? Can you think about an example?
In my opinion, the concept about defining boring mentioned by Atwood can be well learned by contemporary architects and apply to their creation and recording to architecture in order to exaggerate all intentions. In the proposal of defining concept of representation of an ideal boring, Atwood gives its clear standard: open-ended, generic, amateur, nonjudgmental, and lack of attention. In order to further explain the difference between generic and un-generic, Atwood takes a lots of example in the articles. For example, Ed Rusca uses a lot of rigor and technique in the creation of photographs in order to make them become ‘generic’. Moreover, the way artists photographing contemporary architecture nowadays also shows some clue matches ‘boring aspects’. Besides photographing, noticing the importance of lack of installation can avoid boring visits. However, does the parametricism consider as boring shapes since it uses ordered geometries repetitively? Therefore, it is necessary for architect to find a balance between creating an interesting shape and keeping its function.
1. In what ways does boring work force us to confront our own creative limits? How can we use boredom to facilitate our designs?
1. Do you agree with the assertion that “this is interesting because it is boring” is an unavoidable expression of boredom, and how can it be remedied?
3. Why do we feel compelled to make claims that we find objects ‘Interesting’ public, and how does this affect its aesthetic evaluation?
Contemporary Design Approaches 
1. What do you believe boring in architecture is? What does boring look and feel like in architecture? Can you actually categorize buildings as boring because what is boring is subject to ones personal opinion?
2. In the reading on shape and form it is argued that shape and form are different. A quote says “Shapes don’t like anything that disrupts their shape”. Would it be fair to say that in this case, shape is meant as a basic shape (box, sphere, etc.) and that form could be considered a more complex “shape” or a shape that has been disrupted?
3. “To pinpoint one definition of boredom would be to discriminate, to force into focus the inherently nebulous” (Atwood reading). Can anything be boring? In architecture, could even the most complex and interesting building built be boring?
LikeLike
One main idea that comes out of the boring lecture is that architecture is a very opinionated field. There is always a case of someone feeling one way about architecture or a project, with another person going against them. While one person thinks one building is boring, another person disagrees and views it as interesting. As architecture students, we see how opinionated the field is every day. At our reviews, one person on the jury can think your project is amazing, while the person sitting next to them doesn’t understand your thesis at all. How can people categorize something as boring or interesting? It isn’t a category, it is an opinion, and it is based on who you are as a person.
LikeLike
1. In Atwood’s “Boring” text, he lists 10 criteria that are used to describe something as “boring”. Many items on that list are factors that I have seen used to describe quite interesting and dynamic projects. Is the concept of “boring ” meant to be one of subjectivity, or is there some standard by which we as a society could typify a work as “boring”?
2. In Ngai’s reading “Merely Interesting, she posits the idea that “interesting has nonaesthetic as well as aesthetic uses.” To what end can these uses of the “interesting” can we extend it to in architecture? Could the nonaesthetic “interesting” be the designs of mechanical systems or other programmatic needs in a building? Or is the nonaesthetic “interesting” a typology of building?
3. The idea of “boring” design is something that has been a hot button topic for much of the past half-century, as architects and designers strive to make the most interesting work. What space does “boring” design occupy in this constant strive for dynamism in design? Are we characterizing work as “boring” for the sake of maintaining the zeitgeist, or is “boring” now being born out of society’s constant need for new and creative design?
LikeLike
The concept of “boring” architecture is definitely one born out of change and the zeitgeist. As a society, we are inundated with new and novel designs that we get overwhelmed and move from trends in the blink of an eye. That, however, doesn’t go to say that “boring” holds no place in architecture. “Boring” is highly subjective, what one person thinks is absolutely dull could be a fascinating and dynamic project for someone else. As we saw in Atwood’s reading, the criteria that make a boring project can also be used in the same dialogue to describe an interesting project. Not only that, but the idea of “boring” should be something that is welcomed in architecture. How else is an architect supposed to make good, interesting architecture if they haven’t made something that would be considered boring?
LikeLike
Ngai handles the adverb interesting as if a noun, forcing one to reassess an already established interpretation. In our society, the word is often overused, misused or both: do architects have either of these habits? Moreover, even though interesting is subjective, so is all criticism – is it then fitting for architect’s to use interesting significantly?
In Boring, via several in-depth examples of what is and is not considered boring in an attempt to illustrate how the word is not only merely based on perspective, but that it also doesn’t necessarily need to have negative connotations. If boring really is just perspective on a case to case basis, how would this affect an evaluation of architectural work?
Gravitating away from the analyzation of what is agreeable and what that really means, we deliberate the Element House and two possible design processes – shape and form. Given the other readings and considering the juxtaposition of shape and form, what is your evaluation of the project? How both readings and Meredith closing paragraph impression your critique?
LikeLike
1. “Interesting,” used as a description, has been discounted for its lack of architectural weight. Is this something you agree with, or is the term simply so overused in the profession, that its meaning is no longer important?
2. In, “Boring,” Opie is praised for her lack of sensical naming conventions and arrangements of her photography. If she has no clear reason for doing this, do you think her style of naming and arranging is lazy or boring when based off the 12 bullet list shown in the beginning of the text?
3. In Meredith’s, “Systems and Shapes,” the Element House is discussed as neither a system, nor a shape, but as both simultaneously. Is it naïve to attempt to categorize all architecture and architects into one of two categories? If so, how could the Element House help to bridge the gap between Systems and Shapes?
LikeLike
Throughout all our lectures so far, I keep running into the same phenomenon; there is always a this or that mind set within art and architecture. Why? For example, we are told to choose “form follows function OR function follows form,” or choose “system OR shape,” or choose “boring OR interesting.” I cannot begin to understand why we must choose one or the other. Much like the Element House, architecture can be many things all at once. And of the art we looked at, although boring on the surface, the conversation and the thought process behind it is incredibly interesting. We as architects are always trying to categorize our work. I think we need to use the Boring Lecture as an important reminder that art and architecture can function tremendously even while being contradictory.
LikeLike
1. In fact, boredom does not occur by accident. It is targeted and specific behavior. Combining knowledge and experience, how many reasons that can lead to people’s boring behavior?
2. In the process of building a house, the system and shape are dialectical and complementary. This also contains aesthetic values. Can you cite a set of concepts that are related to each other based on other things in life?
3. Generally, “interesting” is our gambit, Ngai contends when we feel something but we’re not yet sure what to think. Actually, when we say something is interesting, we are inviting conversation and we also hope to be asked to reveal and explain ourselves. That gives us a reminder. When we start talking, how do we make sure our topic is interesting and attracts attention?
LikeLike
There are always moments when they are bored. The things or objectives that make people boring are related to these adjectives: dull, insignificant, ambiguous, amateur, deadpan … I once thought that boredom was a sudden or subconscious emotion. In fact, this is also a specific behavior. Negative boredom occurs when people’s expectations of interest are not met. So there is a relative conceptual relationship between boredom and interesting.
Ngai establishes the interesting as a contemporary aesthetic category. In her opinion, “Interesting” is an aesthetic judgment so mild and so commonplace that it barely seems to qualify as a judgment at all. Therefore, it has different ways of understanding people with different education and different personalities. So everyone may have their own set of standards for “interesting.” Moreover, cultural pluralism and differences also require us to be able to accommodate “interesting” things and phenomena. I hope that after studying Ngai’s theory, I can continue to learn how to appreciate interesting things and beauty, and master the skills to make my conversations more interesting.
LikeLike
1. The example for boring given in Atwood’s writing, …And Pedestals, showed that viewer are bored by the showing due to its ambiguity, lack of attention, etc.; however, if the process and the outcome were given to the viewers, would it create a different viewing of the project rather than boring?
2. Atwood’s boring project, …And Pedestal, was bare besides the three cones and the documentation included “‘normal’ things”. One the other hand, House No. 5 Element House was “stripped down to basic components, but is still quite engaging due to the other aspects of the building, the geometry, its function, etc. Would this still be considered as boring?
3. Relating back to the previous question, would Ngai consider House No. 5 Element House and/or …And Pedestals to be interesting since there is was thought out process and awareness of the audience/viewer?
LikeLike
It is interesting to see that although a project was well thought out and executed, the viewers interrupt the project as boring due to any of the things mentioned by Atwood, lack of attention, ambiguous, etc. I wonder if the selected word used to describe the project would change if the creator’s intentions and doings were? On the other hand, a comment mentioned today during the mock up was “something interesting won’t always stay interesting; it starts to become normal and not exciting.” This is similar to fashion and its bizarre trends. When something strikes off, it may be full of excitement and talked about everywhere due to its significance. However, over time the bizarre trend fades and starts to “lack attention”, making it “insignificant”. In the future, the previous fashion trend could repeat or it could gain attention for other reasons.
LikeLike
1. In “Boring” by Andrew Antwood, it is stated that, “…boredom is blurry because it is always in motion. Its multiple meanings never fixed but always fluid…”. With open ended architecture or open ended things in general, people tend to come to their own conclusions which is kind of like an “end” for the architecture. Would this be the wrong way of looking at this architecture?
2. In “Merely Interesting” by Sianne Ngai the argument of what is interesting and what is not comes into play. If words such as interesting are just placeholders to other more in depth words, then is their more of a fluidity among words?
3. In “Systems and Shapes” by Meredith McDaniel, House No. 5 is kept somewhat simple in shape so it can be duplicated several times over allowing the building to grow. However, would the house be able to keep its environmental compatibility when more units are added?
LikeLike
Boring is a word that many don’t want to use and or hear when talking about their own work of architecture. However, the way in which Atwood speaks about boring is in and of itself, very different then the usual status of the word. She describes it as being very fluid because of the way it causes people to push their mind past something “boring” to create something “interesting”. In Atwood’s exhibits it causes people to try to find the true inner meaning of what all the works of art mean. Another import aspect about works such as these, I believe is the whole context of the situation. The fact that these artworks find their home in an art exhibit brings people to attempt to think of something in a different way. If you were to instead to find this kind of artwork in a park, you wouldn’t think much of it and probably walk away from it in seconds once you become bored. This contextual part to this artwork seems to add another layer to the already multiple layers that comes to this work.
LikeLike
1. In the reading “systems and shapes”, it is said that the Element house is indifferent to the previous claims made about shapes and systems. How can a building be indifferent to these qualities if it utilizes them within its architecture?
2. In “Merely Interesting”, interesting objects are classified as “meaningfully different from others of its type”. Is that classification limited to physical qualities, or can something be interesting merely from the context of its creation?
3. Can architecture become interesting by the way it is represented, and cease being interesting when seen in person? or is interesting architecture inherently interesting regardless of representation?
LikeLike
This week’s presentation and lecture brought up many interesting ideas regarding the subjectivity of art and architecture. Art criticism was always an interesting topic to me, not because of the criticism itself, but rather because I thought the field was so ridiculously full of itself. After this lecture and presentation however, I feel that I can understand many of the ideas I once thought to be ridiculous, specifically the work of Andy Warhol. I was always puzzled by the fame that followed Andy Warhol and his work, mainly due to the fact that I just saw it to be overly simplistic and weird. It was reasons like this that initially shied me away from art in general, but after discovering this level of parody that is embedded in the work of Warhol, Duchamp, etc. I suddenly find Art more interesting, and less boring.
LikeLike
1. Based on the Systems and Shapes reading, Meredith talks about Form vs Shape. Together there two friendly opposing forces make up an interesting architecture. But could there exist a single one of those elements that still makes for an interesting piece of architecture, without the other?
2. If knowing your audience and catering to its interests will classify something as interesting, then how can one make the most boring building if there are multiple tastes and interests among people? Wouldn’t some part of audience find it interesting?
3. Ngai talk about the aesthetic judgment part of the Interesting. When doing this, it is suggested that “interesting” can be quantified by judgement and content despite it being tied to “merely”. If people can, in some way, quantify Interesting, then is there a commonality that exist to create a standard for interesting? and if so, where would be the overlapping topics? Color, pace, form?
LikeLike
1. In “Merely Interesting”, Ngai discusses the use of reason to justify design choices. The problem is that not all connections are logical and obvious. Therefore, they may require a closer examination to find the connection between the “nonaesthetic qualities of an object”. Within our own work, how do we use the nonaesthetic characteristics to describe the overall aesthetic qualities of our designs? Does a clear connection between the two lead to a stronger project?
2. “Boring” begins by taking a look at a series of photographs by Catherine Opie. In one series, Opie photographs freeways, framing them in such a way that they appear to the viewer as they would through a rear view mirror. The framing of the freeway in the rear view mirror brings into question the idea of a viewer’s perception. How can the artist/architect change the way a person experiences their work by framing the image in a certain way? Can framing the image help to tell a different story (i.e. turn something mundane into something more intriguing)?
3. The Element House designed by MOS Architects ignores all typical ideas of shape and systems of form, trading complexity for simplicity. Through developing a focus on the function of the home rather than the form itself, the cleanliness of the building takes on an intricate new meaning of independence. How does the interruption of the form with the series of chimneys help to reinforce the importance of independence in the project? Is the form influenced by the idea or does the idea inform the final form of the design?
LikeLike
In an attempt to define interesting, a few things become apparent about the nature of the word itself. First of all, every individual has a separate perception of a situation or event, so that in trying to define interesting, no real consensus can be drawn. Every person has a different view of how and when to use the word to describe something. For one person, it may be used to describe something that has never been seen before, but to another it may be used to describe something that makes them uncomfortable. Another element of the discussion was the fact that interesting is often used to describe a situation where one does not know how to explain their thoughts or feelings, usually followed by “…” when other words are lacking. But this begs the questions of what is the true definition of interesting? It appears as though the ambiguous nature of the word inspires discussion, as it naturally initiates conversation on an object or design.
LikeLike
1. In Merely Interesting and Boring, there are multiple conversations being had as it pertains to architectural detail, their significance, and their overall effect to the design. Various aesthetic judgments are being questioned constantly during the design process, so how is it possible to accurately assess which decisions are made with indifference and which are made with clear intent? Aren’t all decisions at some level purposeful? What is the line between indifferent design decisions and purposeful ones when the line is to fine?
2. “Aesthetic judgment” as the term was mention in Merely Interesting, is arbitrary. There are those that will find some aesthetic decisions to be more interesting than others, but the question remains is this solely limited to a formal understanding, or can it be extended to spatial organization, cultural intent, etc. These analyses have focused predominately on superficial aesthetics, so does that entail that the most interesting designs are ones of geometric complexity, and if so does that come with the sacrifice of other pivotal decisions in the design process?
3. The history of architecture in general is boring. The vast majority of constructions are conventional, but that does not mean they are any less important to the building environment as are the exotic ones. In modern day, all of architecture is generally forced to be new, and exciting, but is it a possibility that sometimes the right architecture needs only to serve the needs of the client as opposed to creating an unnecessary eye-catching aesthetic? How important is it that a building must be interesting, rather than functional, efficient, etc.
LikeLike
Dear Diary- After the presentation it would seem as though there is no, and perhaps never will be a consensus on what if truly interesting and what is boring. As mentioned what is of interest to people is arbitrary, but it begs the question what is the purpose of producing interest in the context of the building environment and architecture? Buildings at their core must provide a set of spatial programmatic requirements that in turn can produce a level of complexity that people would find appealing. Appealing would be the more appropriate term than interest, because interest has such vague connotations that it renders the word meaningless. The most important aspect of architecture is that it is successful, efficient, and appealing/appropriate. There is no necessity for producing interest as the forefront responsibility of the architect. It is an aspect of the project that can be humbler than most believe, and if anything it would be better because of it.
LikeLike
1) Is finding something interesting merely an opinion that one forms themselves, or does there need to be a base point of comparison before deciding whether something is interesting or not?
2) In “Systems and Shapes,” why does the author make a clear distinction between systems and shape when in the end they go hand in hand and need each other to create good architecture?
3) In “Boring,” the author states that “along with boredom, comfort and confusion came into play.” Why is it that with boredom comes comfort and confusion, and not anxiety and frustration?
LikeLike
Why is it that we find things interesting. Is every person born with a different set of opinions and a different way of seeing things? Are we not molded as a society to see things the way others see it? People walk around every day thinking about something they just saw, captivated on it. Maybe finding something interesting can mean that it makes you curious and keeps your focus on it. Interesting can also be seen as something that is not boring. When you see something boring, your first reaction is probably to ignore it because it just doesn’t catch your gaze. The feeling of pure boredom is one of the most frustrating things in the world. However, there are many different phases to boredom. There is the boredom that makes you want to scream because there is nothing to do, the boredom were you just don’t find something interesting, the boredom when you’re stuck in an art gallery with art that you could “do yourself in an hour,” etc. Boredom shouldn’t be defined as one thing when it has so many various emotions tied to it.
LikeLike
1. Michael Meredith writes in Systems and Shapes that form and shape are fundamentally different, saying things like systems (form) “play with computation”, producing “their own ground”, “obsessing over discretizing surfaces”, while shapes “relish the pictoral”, “swoon for photos”, are “silhouettes”.I think we can simplify the analogy down to this: a system might be a highly detailed 3d model, but a shape might just be a sketch on a napkin. Our school seems to me to fall into the systems group, considering we do almost no analog sketching. Do you think there is value in the sketch that we miss at our school? Something that captures the meaning of the project without a huge process?
2. Meredith and Atwood do a very similar thing in the Element House and the Installation, where they use color and form to diffuse the discrete elements of their interventions, blending them with each other in the former and the existing in the latter. The repetition of the Element House, and the nothingness of the installation seem to produce a banality, a boringness. This leads to a number of associations by the viewers, with the magazines writing about the Elements House’s chimneys and the photographer shooting all of the different details of the exhibition as “questions”. In this manner, the banality is urging people to look closer into the concepts of the projects, even though they might be bored. How do you think this is similar/different from the “close reading subject” that Eisenman is trying to produce?
3. Ngai writes that “interesting comes to the fore as the aesthetic judgment in which the question of justification looms largest of all”. For me, this reminds me of our school being form or system people, with students finding themselves learning to use the software, trying to create something “interesting”. Our presentations become about the process, more than about the concepts sometimes. This loops back to the conversations we were having about Sarah Whiting’s interview, as students now do not learn the history of the practice, as much as we should. Do you think our school is really teaching us the tangible values we should learn as architects? Or is our school too obsessed with form??
LikeLike
I think the diffusion of the subject matter using techniques like Atwoods actually attempts to create Eisenman’s “close-reading subject”, looking into the mundane and bringing the intention of the boring into question. Similarly, one can argue that the repetition of interesting forms, such as Meredith’s repeated white houses, begins to diffuse them into the boring. I think this actually applies to Eisenman’s axonometric serial form drawings, as this same repetition with little variation is seen in Andy Warhol’s soup containers, urging one to make less of a serious judgement of the subject matter. The opposite of Eisenman’s intentions.
LikeLike
1. Architects strive to create work that is interesting both conceptually and formally. Can modular and prefabricated design still be considered interesting in this sense or does it negate creativity to the point that is no longer considered architecture?
2. Many architects that are interested in parametric design use a system to create a logic within the complexity of their design, in this sense could a system be used to create layers of complexity in architecture that otherwise would be deemed as boring? Does the creation of the vague leave more room for interpretation so that interest can be sparked regardless of a subjects particular view? And is vague architecture still classified as ‘good’ architecture?
3. The core idea of something being interesting or boring is inherently subjective, just as the value of various types or aesthetics of architecture is reduced to the feelings it provokes for a particular individual. How can an architect pass on the theoretical values that justify their design decisions in order for the general public to get more out of the architecture? How can subjectivity within architecture be broadened?
LikeLike
The subjective nature of interest is one that is particularly relevant in relation to various art forms, including architecture. The scientific method calls for analyzing based off of facts and reaching a resolution from those criteria. After discussing the idea of criticality in class, it is more clear that even in the arts, where a subjective nature is the stereotypical understanding of analysis, there is a logical breakdown of judgement used to characterize how people determine the value of something. Although still largely based off of personal preference, it is interesting to have a greater understanding of the logic of emotions and how that plays into the value and aesthetics of architectural works.
LikeLike
1. Architecture can be considered boring if it doesn’t meet the expectations of the artist or the public. Give an example of architectural boredom and why it may generate interest to others.
2. This quote from Boring by Atwood, “Boredom occurs when the expectation for interest is not met. This raises questions about audience and intent. For boredom to be intentional, an author of a “boring” work must first understand and anticipate her audience and then construct her work such that it does not meet her audience’s expectations.” Based on reading Merely Interesting by Sianne Ngai how do you think she would respond to the quote above?
3. Whether simpler architecture is considered boring or minimalist, there is reasoning behind every design decision made. The No. 5 Element House was designed with many attributes in mind such as for the land art project nearby and the climate. Other than what was mentioned in the article, what might be another reason for the design decisions that were made?
LikeLike
The word “boring” itself has a negative connotation and we seem to strive to create something that would be considered “interesting.” However, Atwood has view “boring” from a different perspective; in an attempt to change the view on the label of boring, Atwood wanted to explore boredom in architecture. This made me wonder why something being labeled as boring has been defaulted as the negative alterative to interesting. Architecture is overall a subjective field where everyone’s opinions are given. Resulting in feedback that can fluctuate between positive and negative, nearly impossible to make everyone happy. One of the common words I hear during reviews is interesting and it can be phrased in one of the two ways. “That’s an interesting moment” or “how can you make this more interesting?” Making interesting the word we strive for and reinforcing the negativity associated with boring. Something to think about is: how would you redefine boring?
LikeLike
1.) In “Boring” Andrew Atwood states that something that is ‘boring’ must be open-ended, generic, amateur, lacking attention [to detail], non-judgemental and non-directional. The matter of something being ‘boring,’ however, is very subjective. For example, a funny video to you might be an extremely boring video to your mother. When relating this to architecture, one must think about familiarity, and how it plays a role in a built environments “boring-ness.” Is something that is boring necessarily a bad thing? Perhaps instead of something that “lacks detail,” its purpose is to create a sense of familiarity instead of something new?
2.) At the very end of “Systems and Shapes”, there is a shift in narrative. The author proceeds to talk about ‘shape’ vs. ‘systems’ very passionately. The passage ends with “The little house in the middle of nowhere is indifferent to all of the above.” Why is this so important that the housing complex disregards both systems and shapes?
3.) In “Merely Interesting,” Ngai describes that something that holds interest is up to the person that is experiencing it. If then, beauty among interest is subjective, how is one supposed to argue that something is “boring” or “interesting” or “aesthetic” or “non-aesthetic”? The standard for beauty is criticized heavily throughout differing societies. How can one ever make a valid supporting point if everything is subjective?
LikeLike
When discussing what is boring and what is not it directly relates to beauty and how it is perceived. Both in a sense are subjective, as Margaret Hungerford once stated, “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” Something that I found interesting during class was the statement that “no one would argue that the ‘sloth’ from the Goonies is not more attractive than Angelina Jolie.” Immanueal Kant was brought up during class as well. The German philosopher focused his efforts on the subjects of aesthetics as well as the sublime. A topic that I am most interested in, the sublime, holds a unique characteristic that enhances our individual experience when faced with an object. Something that is sublime is historically noted to be something overwhelmingly large, massive, and intimidating. It plays upon the fine line between fear and excitement, pain and pleasure. Regarding aesthetics, the sublime is a powerful feeling that can be conveyed from the appearance of an entity. The difference between boring and interesting, beautiful and intimidating is more unclear than we believe it to be.
LikeLike
1. The design of the No. 5, Element house is primarily centered around utilizing the built environment of the location and climate of the project. The house is stripped down to its most “basic components” and uses simple sustainable practices. Does simplicity equate to boring? Can the most basic of forms and functions be more interesting than perhaps a more complicated design?
2. The everlasting challenge and concept of “what’s in a name” has long been around and prevalent in architectural design. How does the significance of naming a project “untitled” or “unnamed”,meant to “emphasize their arbitrariness”, impact the purpose and understanding of a project?
3. Typically aesthetic results in a very personal opinion or preference of an object, place, or program. How can such an open-ended concept be categorized into objective terms such as “boring” and “interesting”? How can a grey concept be brought up in terms of black and white?
LikeLike
I believe that there’s an important grey zone within the seemingly conditioned black and white concepts and ideas that seem almost predetermined by our architectural predecessors throughout different time periods and styles of architecture. Not everything should be forced into one unique category or another, architecture can have themes yes, and can be designed with an intent to create a particular space or emotional response; however, what can be considered interesting or boring, beautiful or ugly, will always remain in the eye of the beholder so to speak. It is impossible to decide a universal meaning of one design or object, when each individual experience of said architecture is biased based off of each person’s personal experience or history.
LikeLike
1. In “Systems and Shapes” the house is described as being organized based on an additive geometric systems of growth. Why does the author differentiate systems from shapes when in order to create this project the conceptual and commercial aspects had to come together?
2. If interesting is defined by non-aesthetic and aesthetic judgement. How can any opinion be considered right?
3. In “Boring” the author compares boredom along with positive and negative feelings. What about these feelings make them justifiable to form an opinion on somethings form? Is everything just up for interpretation?
LikeLike
When taking into terms interesting and boring when applied to architecture it leaves the determination up to the opinion of the viewer. I think that nothing can truly be considered interesting or boring completely as one can lead to the other. The way you apply the conceptual or methodological systems can determine different aspects and could be applied in different ways leading to an ever changing opinion based cycle. This would make it impossible to ever really evaluate something based on if it’s viewed as interesting or boring. There’s also many different ways people can interpret the description of interesting or boring, leaving it to take on even more variety in opinion.
LikeLike
1. In the article Boring, Atwood has the idea that people might find things boring because of how interesting they are. Is this means that the interesting things would become boring through time so that this would promote people to find some new points of them that are interesting and improve them? How does this apply to the architecture today?
2. In the article “Merely Interesting”, Ngai states that “we tell people we find works interesting when we want to do criticism”. And he thinks that you have to find something interesting when you judge it. How is this definition apply to something when people have different ideas? If something boring in this world is criticized by someone is it then interesting?
3. In the article of “Systems and Shapes”, Meredith talks about the Element House in New Mexico is very indifferent to the characteristics of Systems and Shapes. Is the material of the House makes it become special? What makes the house indifferent from a system or a shape? Is the material makes it more boring or useful?
LikeLike
Boring is something that very based on different opinions. In fact, boredom starts to appear when the expectation of what they think interesting is not met with their thought. In this case, the connection between boredom and interesting mostly depends on different people’s opinion and point of view. For example, in our architectural design review as architecture students, the critics may have different opinions on the same project. Some of them might think that the project has something special and unique so that make it become very interesting. On the contrary, others might think that the project is not what they expect to see and criticize. In this case, the relationship between boring and interesting is a very personally decision.
LikeLike
1) In “Systems and Shapes”, Meredith indicates that both systems and shapes go hand and hand when designing. However, is it possible to have on without the other?
2) In the reading “Boredom”, Atwood introduces the argument of designs being “boring”. Is simplicity necessarily “boring” or is this characteristic dependent upon who is the critique is? Who is to decide if a design is boring?
3) If geometric shapes and forms are not necessarily “natural”, why does architecture push for geometric designs and concepts? Referring to my previous question, are geometric designs then considered boring?
LikeLike
1. In the Systems and Shapes article, Meredith discusses that systems and shapes are frenemines. Do you agree with the characteristics he brings up? In what further ways can systems and shapes relate to each other?2. It was stated in “Merely Interesting” that the most characteristic thing about the interesting was the deduction. Removing content from the object produces a more interesting result. In what examples can you describe this idea? Are there certain details that when removed causes a less interesting object?
3. One meaning of “Interesting” is to come back to view again later. What happens if you label something “interesting” because you want to go back to view it again later, but after a few times of viewing it again, you no longer want to view it again. Is it no longer interesting? Can an object be called interesting only for a short period ?
LikeLike
Today artists are trying to produce work that is so simple that it looks boring. However, once it becomes very simple and so called “boring”, the work becomes interesting because people are trying to understand its meaning. What does “boring” mean then in the art world? Does it just refer to the sense of something being physically simple? Or should it refer to the entire idea of the object? then in that sense how can art be actually boring? perhaps because our lives are filled with so many details, art that represents our lives such as having much color and forms, are more boring than a piece of art having simply one or two colors or forms. We are not accustomed to simple forms and so when we see simple forms on display we have to take time to analyze them to understand them. For example, Sol LeWitt’s art seem simple if you describe its components: squares, triangles, and lines. However, their relationship to one another causes one to stare and observe what is actually occurring. Boring is the new interesting.
LikeLike
Today artists are trying to produce work that is so simple that it looks boring. However, once it becomes very simple and so called “boring”, the work becomes interesting because people are trying to understand its meaning. What does “boring” mean then in the art world? Does it just refer to the sense of something being physically simple? Or should it refer to the entire idea of the object? then in that sense how can art be actually boring? perhaps because our lives are filled with so many details, art that represents our lives such as having much color and forms, are more boring than a piece of art having simply one or two colors or forms. We are not accustomed to simple forms and so when we see simple forms on display we have to take time to analyze them to understand them. For example, Sol LeWitt’s art make seem simple if you describe its components: squares, triangles, and lines. However, their relationship to one another causes one to stare and observe what is actually occurring. Boring is the new interesting.
LikeLike
Atwood writes in list number 027 how boring art blurs the line between creator and audience. How can this ambiguity be used to create a more democratic architecture? Does the architect need to place themself in a position of authority in order to create something meaningful or useful?
Meredith describes how No.5 Element house rejects thought based purely on systems or shapes. Is a project better off for disregarding such precedents?
Ngai asserts that the interesting depends on an interaction between the immediacy of the spontaneous and the lasting nature of boredom. How does this theory relate to Atwood’s ideas about boredom? Does making something interesting diminish the blurriness of boredom or just draw attention to it?
LikeLike
I think the use of boring architecture is, well, interesting. In an age of ever grander projects, the quiet self-reflecting nature of boring architecture forces introspection and the participation of the audience as more than a passive viewer. Interesting architecture has often traded depth for spontaneity. Interest has already been gathered and faded away by the time a rigorous critique can be formulated, and this allows a visually appealing but meaningless architecture. Boring architecture, at least, is aware of its own meaninglessness, but because it is inherently non-judgmental and non-directional, does not propose a new method of thought, and is more of an antithesis to the interesting than its own idea. Neither can truly dominate without referencing the other, and they seem to have a cyclical relationship that responds to the whichever is more prevalent. Whether or not this is true, I appreciate the blank canvas boring architecture provides to project ideas onto while creating a refuge from elaborate design.
LikeLike
1. In the Systems and Shapes article, Meredith discusses that systems and shapes are frenemines. Do you agree with the characteristics he brings up? In what further ways can systems and shapes relate to each other?
2. It was stated in “Merely Interesting” that the most characteristic thing about the interesting was the deduction. Removing content from the object produces a more interesting result. In what examples can you describe this idea? Are there certain details that when removed causes a less interesting object?
3. One meaning of “Interesting” is to come back to view again later. What happens if you label something “interesting” because you want to go back to view it again later, but after a few times of viewing it again, you no longer want to view it again. Is it no longer interesting? Can an object be called interesting only for a short period ?
LikeLike
1. Mentioned by Ngai, the attitude of interests to conceptual art is similar to the state how the art communicate to itself, how should to explain the communication here?
2. Listed by Atwood, are those 12 arguments of boring objects the principles of judging in the society, are we supposed to avoid creating boring things instead of creating what we want originally?
3. When we look at the Element House based on the 12 arguments listed by Atwood, how should we judge this form if some of arguments meet but others not?
LikeLike
1) In Ngai’s writing called “Merely Interesting”, he says that conceptual art is interesting or it isn’t like how one is informed or isn’t or that an object communicates itself or it doesn’t. In architecture, either the design is interesting to people and is widely popular or it isn’t interesting and abandoned. How do people come to the conclusion that one type of architecture is more interesting than the other? Aesthetics? Material? System?
2) In the article about Boring Architecture, it says that at the surface boring architecture seems like nothing is happening, but there’s actually much happening in terms of formal, social, political, etc aspects. Why is there so much thought put into boring architecture?
3) For the reading “Element House”, the article claims that the house in the middle of nowhere is indifferent to systems and shapes. Yet, the project is a modular building and its organization is based on a geometric system of growth. Should this project still be considered indifferent?
LikeLike
To me, I’m interested in different kinds of materials people can use to build and design a building. Material use is really interesting. Some people recycle old materials and create fabulous buildings with a rich history background. Other people invent new materials and sell them as a product in the market. There’s many things materials can do, thus I am interested in architecture through the use of different materials. One way of boring architecture is to think of a person’s lack of thinking about the architecture. You would think something is boring because you don’t want to spend the energy to think about the object.
LikeLike
1. In “Boring,” Catherine Opie’s ‘frenzied’ style of photography is mentioned as boring because of its lack of clarity, however; could it be that Opie chooses to constantly change her style and uses different techniques in her photography so that the viewers would have more questions? Atwood states that her work, “does very little to guide or organize it and it works very hard to resist immediacy and prevent focus,” but Opie’s goal may have been to challenge the focus of the viewers, intentionally creating a puzzle with no solution.
2. The Museum of Outdoor Arts Element House is divided with two separate design approaches; shape and system. Being that it was created with environmental efficiency in mind, Michael Meredith discusses their opposing relationships coming together to create a completely efficient house. In the future, could the combination of shape and system is the solution to creating more energy-efficient projects?
3. In “Merely Interesting” by Sianne Ngai, interesting is described as indefinite, yet somehow is also defined by aesthetic judgement. Is the definition of interesting in some way linked to the definition of aesthetics? If so, would not everything be interesting to some people based on their idea of aesthetics?
LikeLike
How could something be defined as “boring”? What aspects would define a work of art as boring as compared to another? Debating factors of how interesting a piece of art is are numerous, but sometimes contradictory in that its “boring” nature could be a piece of interest on its own. A simple box might be labeled as boring due to a person’s lack of wonderment, the basic geometries, or lack of creativity in form, however; depending on its context and purpose, could be deemed extremely interesting. Just as that seemingly uninteresting box is labeled “boring”, architecture defined similarly has been contributing greatly to modernism and the architecture of today. This brings up the question of aesthetics in architecture and how they define a work. Continuing with that idea, shape and organization definitely play a larger role in the “aesthetic” nature of architecture, so that could mean that how boring a project is would actually be predetermined by its design, based on the shapes.
LikeLike
1. Systems and shapes act together to form volume; according to “System and Shapes”, while they have different concentrations, that system are conceptual and shapes are commercial, how should we understand the phrase “systems are centrifugal, shapes are centripetal”?
2. Boredom is a tool to distinguish highlighted points. But how should we design with boredom? Are we intending to design boring thing, or should we ignore them?
3. In the article “Merely Interesting”, the author talks about the factors attract attention. Many terms are not solely attractive, but the accumulation of those factors cause into an interesting effect. Boredom is a way to point out an interesting thing, and those seemingly boring elements make an interesting thing. How can we understand the difference and similarities between the “boredom” and the “interesting”?
LikeLike
In this week’s presentation, the contrast between “boring” and “interesting” is discussed. They seems conflicting, and we, as architect, are definitely more into creating “interesting” architecture; the fact is that even boredom is worth appreciation. Inside boredom, its highlight points are easier to be stand out. The most famous example is Andy Warhol’s works; the Campbell’s Soup Cans are kind of boring, but it indeed is interesting as well. Boredom is necessary since people are attracted by those interesting embedded inside. Learning to deal with boredom/boring elements is a necessity because this is at the same time enabling more possibilities to our representation methods.
LikeLike
1. In the description of the Element House, there seems to be two schools of thought: systems vs shape. The former is about the process, repetitions, and concepts while the latter is about the immediate, singular, and commercial. Knowing these two groups and their definitions, how is the Element House indifferent to either of these categories? To me, this project is a group of shapes forming into a system. There is clear graphic, singularity in each of the modules; as well as a repetitive system of forms as a whole present.
2. In the reading Boring, the author describes how the boring can actually be turned into the interesting. There is a certain quality of the mundane, generic, and dull that draw people towards it, though it may not be in the most obvious ways. When things are so simplified and toned down, people begin to pay attention to every detail of the object and the environment in which it resides in. Knowing this information, how can architects incorporate this subtle juxtaposition between the boring and the interesting in their designs?
3. The reading also mentioned the importance of how these mundane subjects are portrayed/presented, comparing Ruscha’s work with Opie’s, both of very plain, typical building types. However, Opie’s works drew more attention and curiosity, by the way she captured the photographs but also in the way she scaled, framed, and organized them. How can architecture use this in their designs to create more interest in seemingly boring buildings such as malls, motels, and hospitals?
LikeLike
An interesting point brought up in one of the presentations is that a boring design is not unintentional. It seems pretty ironic that an architect would purposely design a building to be boring, but the student mentioned that the modern aesthetic of architecture (white, cubic, and seemingly plain) is in fact boring by definition. However, this style of design is very popular and sought for. Additionally, Rosanne Somerson’s idea of breaking through boredom to push the boundaries of modernism stuck out to me. In this world of social media, electronics, and advanced technology, we forget to sit and just think. The idea behind the act of sitting down for a few hours is profound and a good exercise to spark creativity and go beyond.
LikeLike
1.Boring by Andrew Atwood states that” Boring architecture has a lot of similarities with minimalism architecture, and it’s not about the work itself because it can’t consume people into a moment. However how does that measure its boringness if boring is defined as an emotional state?
2.In the article “Systems and Shapes” is very interesting how they use the organization of the house to create a geometric system that expands outwards using modules. However why is this significant for this particular project when the point is sustainable building components?
3.Merely interesting by Sianne Nga talks about the what makes” the interesting so compatible with irony and art that fuses philosophical and aesthetic interests is precisely what makes it complicit in advancing the end of art.” Well if art is the expression of a medium and art can’t be fully expressed, how can philosophy change our perception of architecture over the experience?
LikeLike
In my opinion, Boring is subjective and not about the work itself but the induvial’ state of mind. Interest is personal to everyone. It is also based on one’s ability to recognize and understand other people’s logic. It also depends on the time period in which art is created, and who the audience is intended for.
LikeLike
1. In Boring, Atwood states that “boring” architecture and minimalist art share a similarity in which the audience is required to complete the work. It is not about the work itself, but the lack of a fixated, focused moment. “Boring” architecture makes us aware that architecture is in a state of constant dispersal and projection between different objects and subjects. Does “interesting” architecture inhibit this awareness? Do you think “boring” architecture plays as important a role in architecture as “interesting” architecture?
2. Meredith’s Systems and Shapes introduces the Element House, describing its organization as an additive geometric system of growth, with decentralized chimneys, and interlocking cladding. Do you think shape or system is the dominant element leading its design? Or do they play an equal role?
3. Ngai’s Merely Interesting ponders the meaning and role of the word “interesting”. What is your take on the word? In terms of critique in architectural discourse, how should the word be used, if at all?
LikeLike
Some argue that boring isn’t an appropriate term to describe architecture due to its subjective quality. A work of architecture may not necessarily be boring, but instead, the viewer might have feelings of boredom toward the work and thus is projecting these feelings onto the work. This attitude is a reflection of the viewer’s emotion and personal taste. Some people find repetition to be boring. The lack of occurrence or identifiable meaning in a piece of architectural work can also lead to such feelings. When an expectation is not met, the viewer often experiences these feelings. Sometimes, boring architecture asks the audience to complete the experience. The viewers must confront their subjective limitations. Boring architecture, however, can open new ways of thinking and awareness. Rather than being just a building, architecture can be an exciting novelty, introducing complex systems and experiences. Architecture does not exist in just a single fixed frame or moment. It is in a constant state of projection and dispersal.
LikeLike
1. Considered as two different and non related forces within design, shape and system is deemed by Meredith as two counter-arguments to the origins of a project. People are considered as either falling into the systemically obsessed or the singularly envisioned shape. How does the Element House, No. 5 seem to exist without falling into either category?
2. Termed a ‘syntactic place holder’, the role of ‘interesting’ and its inherent ties to ongoing intrigue leads to a temporal questioning of whether the term is simply a way to push the opinion to a later time or whether ‘interesting’ is a notion of having the ability to be addressed now and later.
3. “Something can be intrinsically boring…yet extrinsically not boring.” – Atwood. How can the content itself be both a counter to interesting yet contain within its being an outward interest? Does the relationship not create a more rich dialogue between the ambiguously boring content and its resulting contradictory exterior condition?
LikeLike
Caught between the agreeable, good and beautiful is the critique of judgment and the arising question of whether interesting and boring is a matter of the work’s relationship to the sustainment of visual interest through ambiguity that questions the surrounding conditions. In this way architects can be critiquing the dominant forms of expression creating an aesthetic condition of boring. Discussed in the presentations were the willful blurring and consideration of the legitimate visual experience. Another question also is the critique of the cultural engagement of boring. Brought into consideration is the difference of systemic and shape driven projects and the counter-arguments ability to exist within a single project or be devoid in any altogether.
LikeLike
1. The concept of “boring” architecture is one that is heavily based around the inhabitant’s expectations of architecture and the reality of these expectations being unfulfilled. Therefore, “boring” architecture is highly subjective on the person experiencing the space and is less about the intentional design moves of the architect. Can the design of “boring” architecture truly be achieved by the architect? And if so, does the architect’s level of precision in the crafting of such a space and experience, in turn create a contradiction and inherently makes the architecture interesting?
2. The Element House by MOS Architects, is a building that plays with the mundane, bland nature of a traditional suburban home and presents a series of simple operations of intersection and reimagination of its context and formal expression. Set against the rolling deserts of New Mexico, the simplicity of the building creates a contrast with the landscape that symbiotically enhances both elements of the project. Is our bias of whether a building is interesting or boring heavily influenced by the context in which it resides and does this description drastically change if the building moved to a different context?
3. In Merely Interesting by Sianne Ngai, she discusses the fact that what makes an object “interesting” is not dependent on the aesthetic characteristics of a project at all, but rather on the context in which the object is placed with. By this description, it almost seems like intentionally making an object interesting is more chanced based and that “interesting” is a byproduct rather than a descriptive term that has a clear set of parameters. Therefore, is it fair to categorize and describe something as interesting and does the word even hold any value when the concept is fixed around elements that don’t even correspond to the actual object?
LikeLike
“Boring” architecture and art evokes a certain sense of accessibility and anti-classicism that invites the public into an open conversation about culture. Artist and architects who strive to intentionally create banality work within a mode of contradiction in which their efforts to bore are used to spark interest. People such as Andy Warhol commercialize art to the point where it appeals to the masses and reduces the elite to the common folk. While the cleverness of this tactic greatly alters culture, there is a fallacy in using the words “boring” and “interesting” to categorize architecture and art. The subjective characteristics of these words undermine the accessibility of the object. While a majority may perceive a certain object as beautiful or unfulfilling, a portion of the population will feel the opposite. Yes, the architecture and or art has been dumbed down to open up conversation, but it still does not completely address the complexity and resistance of culture and classicism. Art is still for the elite, even if the painting is a giant Campbell soup can that is consumed by the public.
LikeLike
1| In determining boredom’s innate ability to hold sustained interest among a curious audience, does Atwood consequently make an argument for the fact that boredom, rather than describing something plain, easy, or unadorned, describe something all too complex to analyze within the attention span of an average person?
2| Meredith asserts that the Element House, ancillary to Charles Ross’ Star Axis, is indifferent to the applications of system as well as shape. Is this indifference manifested in the apparent equilibrium achieved by the relationship between shape and system in this case?
3| Sianne Ngai argues that the “most characteristic thing about the interesting thus seems to be its lack of distinguishing characteristics”. In describing interesting as such, i.e. “ambiguous” does it consequently become valid to place “boring” under the same general description as “interesting”?
LikeLike
Existing within possibly any boring creation lies an innate characteristic of ambiguity. Defining boredom similarly, an item becomes boring to an audience when its overarching characteristics are in-congruent with one another to the point where the object’s identity is not easily identifiable and thus becomes dis interesting. A usual boring object may only exist as such in the mind of those who wish not to fully comprehend its characteristics. Simultaneously, however, an action or task may become boring if either repeated to the point of exhaustion or done without meaning or explanation. That being said a boring task is slightly more difficult to define as such considering the motives behind partaking in any particular action are often buried deep within the psyche of an individual or group of individuals. Unlike boring objects, boring tasks often lack the paradoxical relationship with what is interesting that objects share; this is probably due to the fact that ambiguity is only interesting when searching for a definitive answer.
LikeLike
1.) As Scott Brown and Wall noticed in Ruscha’s photographs, what makes something “boring” is when it fails to take a stance or make a statement and is “open-ended, generic, amateur, non-judgmental, etc. ”. So with that, how can one remain interesting in a society that is concerned with being non-offensive and politically correct?
2.) In “Systems and Shapes”, Michael Meredith discusses the Museum of Outdoor Arts Element House and its design/construction. The building focuses on the systems of chimneys and windows. With that, does focusing on building systems rather than design make for a “boring” building? Or can it lead to complexity?
3.) In “Merely Interesting”, Ngai talks about the ambiguity of the word “interesting” and how it is often used when one does not definitely know how they feel about something. Therefore, how does one make an argument in favor of their “aesthetic judgements” and what counts as factual evidence?
LikeLike
In “Boring,” Atwood lists some of Brown and Wall’s characteristic descriptions of Ruscha’s photographs as “open-ended, generic, ambiguous.” A connection can be made to the modern pop song—an often meticulously designed earworm that has an inherent reliability for the masses, often at expense of saying anything too specific in avoidance of audience isolation. How would you relate the modern pop song to a work of built architecture? Would you find it a compelling approach or contemporary crack?
Building on methods above, how might a designer reconcile logical approaches with more abstract aesthetic ones? How might a connection foster innovation, as “Merely Interesting” begins to hint at?
Similar to discussions within the week of parametricism, how do you weigh a building’s form with its function in efforts to avoid mediocrity in favor of interesting architecture? How would you compare the readings this week and make an argument for an approach to, or the merits of, interesting architecture?
LikeLike
(the format was changed inadvertently, so here’s a cleaner one)
1. In “Boring,” Atwood lists some of Brown and Wall’s characteristic descriptions of Ruscha’s photographs as “open-ended, generic, ambiguous.” A connection can be made to the modern pop song—an often meticulously designed earworm that has an inherent reliability for the masses, often at expense of saying anything too specific in avoidance of audience isolation. How would you relate the modern pop song to a work of built architecture? Would you find it a compelling approach or contemporary crack?
2. Building on methods above, how might a designer reconcile logical approaches with more abstract aesthetic ones? How might a connection foster innovation, as “Merely Interesting” begins to hint at?
3. Similar to discussions within the week of parametricism, how do you weigh a building’s form with its function in efforts to avoid mediocrity in favor of interesting architecture? How would you compare the readings this week and make an argument for an approach to, or the merits of, interesting architecture?
LikeLike
It’s obvious that “boring” is a subjective term, but the intricacies of implied interpretations and procedural strategies to both avoid and inadvertently arrive at boring really came together from the presentation notes. One main idea I gathered from the reading, and conversations about the content, was the implications of excessive ornament. If an ornament is overused or extended beyond decoration or singular artifact, it risks being read as a field, which in turn can become very minimal in its overall interpretation. A field of repeating ornament reads as just that—a plain and simple field, without personality or moving parts.
LikeLike
Based on the text: “Boring”, Atwood displays how “the boring” can become an idea. In my perspective boredom is a catalyst to do anything that is not boring. But in the projects reaching boredom is the goal. It’s perplexing because boredom keeps one locked into a perpetual state of that feeling until they choose to leave; there’s no purpose to wanting to achieve boredom. So if boredom is a product of more boredom, as the projects shown in the text, what is its purpose/ role in architecture?
The Element House (House No. 5) is an excellent example on how order and form can create something familiar, different, and functional. Why do we try to create something new when we are constrained by society having a staunch attitude towards its preconceptions on what something should be; why continue to strive to create something different?
Interest is what instills purpose in our lives. A curiosity for asking “what more” keeps us searching for more answers to move us closer to a destination we don’t even know exists. Why do we try to find something that we aren’t sure exists, why aren’t we content with all the information we already have?
LikeLike
Boredom as a concept is a logical means of of bringing out a new idea. Before the the lecture I was still not too sure if boredom could be considered a valid topic of discussion, but upon further examination, trying to achieve boredom does have a point, it acts as a means to push us to move forward. Although an artist would say there is no meaning, the true reasoning behind it is so us, the viewer, can find something the artist doesn’t see. In fact the artist is not trying to see anything from their work, the artist is trying to see how the human mind can be challenged. By reaching the state of boredom, something in the brain tells us to stop being bored, thus we formulate a brand new interpretation that sparks interest. Whether the vierer attains something meaningful from the work is frankly indifferent. There is no difference, it is all meaningless. And yet we still strive to find meaning so we can contribute to a more positive society in our eyes, thus reaching a (false) sense of purpose.
LikeLike
1. Ngai describes some things as being interesting because it is hard to pin them down with simple characteristics that might lead to a quick categorization like cute or brutish and thus forces the viewer to continue looking. What is the limit at which a boring object becomes interesting to the viewer Atwood’s terms and not just something one passes by without a glance?
2. Atwood’s description of the boring helps to understand how spilled wine glasses at galleries can become misinterpreted as pieces by visitors. If the search for meaning is enough to justify a piece of art, what makes anything from becoming a piece of art worth displaying?
3. How does House No. 5 by MOS escape definition as either shape or system?
LikeLike
It would seem that the artist can frame views outside of their intended works with their boring art. It would be interesting to see how architects can deploy this technique in the future. This, however, would mean letting go of one’s pride so that the environment outside of the architect’s design can be appreciated further. In a world where experiences are boiling down to photos meant for Instagram and WeChat posts, the decision to be boring will be an increasingly difficult one to make. Furthermore, with a growing audience with expectations of high-class content to post and shortening attention spans, will the dialectic even be worth it if it will be ignored? Perhaps it is for the forceful reengagement of the people with their surroundings.
LikeLike
1. In Atwood’s “Boring,” he describes boring buildings as experienced through indifference, sedation, and routine. Would a client want to hire an architect that built buildings that the client felt indifferent toward? Would people want to use a space that they felt indifferent toward? To me, this type of architecture seems like the architecture of big box stores or dreary office buildings.
2. In “Systems and Shapes,” by Michael Meredith, he explains that shapes and systems are two very different principles. He also describes the Element house as being indifferent to both and their juxtaposition. How is it possible for a work of architecture to be indifferent to these things?
3. In “Merely Interesting,” by Sianna Ngai, Ngai says that often nonaesthetic features are used to justify aesthetic judgements. What exactly are these nonaesthetic features and is there a better way to justify aesthetic judgement?
LikeLike
Before the lecture, I was not sure of the efficacy of aiming to design “boring architecture.” I felt that there was no point in designing a space that was not meant to make an impact on those that experience it. It also seemed like it was the easy way out of designing. After the class discussion, I realized that aiming to design boring architecture is a valid goal and that aiming to design an “interesting” building might not be. For example, the reason why the term “boring architecture” is so off-putting is because one expects this style of architecture to be functional but not aesthetically pleasing. The alternative to boring architecture is “interesting architecture,” but interesting doesn’t necessarily mean beautiful. Interesting doesn’t have a positive or negative connotation, so it’s hard to fully commit to designing with this intention in mind. In addition, architectural styles come and go like fashion and fads. What is considered interesting one day, can be considered gaudy, flashy, or ugly the next day. Boring architecture has its merits and if executed well, can produce a successful and beautiful work of architecture.
LikeLike
1. The element house is subdued in nature but it doesn’t sacrifice any of its functionality to form because many of the formal decisions are based on passive thermal strategies. Why do architects throw these strategies out of the window when they can lead to interesting design?
2. A lot of vernacular architecture is more successful with passive thermal strategies than work designed by architects. To what extent has the element house been inspired by vernacular architecture and where is it apparent in the design?
3. From Atwood’s Boring: The reading claims that boring objects are better than bad objects. What is an object manifestation of bad design and how does it compare to an object manifestation of boring? Between the two examples what is worse, aesthetic failure or functional failure?
LikeLike
1. The element house is subdued in nature but it doesn’t sacrifice any of its functionality to form because many of the formal decisions are based on passive thermal strategies. Why do architects throw these strategies out of the window when they can lead to interesting design?
2. A lot of vernacular architecture is more successful with passive thermal strategies than work designed by architects. To what extent has the element house been inspired by vernacular architecture and where is it apparent in the design?
3. From Atwood’s Boring: The reading claims that boring objects are better than bad objects. What is an object manifestation of bad design and how does it compare to an object manifestation of boring? Between the two examples what is worse, aesthetic failure or functional failure?
LikeLike
The boring is often used as a tool in architecture. In no other profession is the boring so important. Many architects look to make flashy, eye catching designs and avoid the boring, however, they often end up with a result that is not so practical. Now, architects are deploying the boring to bring something new to their design. No, it’s not eye catching. It exists with purpose. Often times, the employment of the boring can lead to very interesting design.
The use of the boring sounds completely redundant. One could say that a designer is looking to the uninteresting to create something interesting. It sounds like a complete paradox, but often times simple adjustments to familiar objects are all that are needed to create something very interesting. Simple and subdued design will often lead people to think hard about the most simple decisions and even question the things they are familiar with.
Andrew Atwood’s …and pedestals is a great example of a boring design that was quite interesting. The pedestals were simple and attractive. The gallery had an audience that took the art installation quite seriously, causing them to question the pedestals and what they did. It also led them to look beyond the pedestals for something interesting. The fascination with the mundane is what caused this exhibit to be so effective. People began to question power outlets and the color of the wall, wondering if there was something deeper to read into, when in fact all that was there was right in front of them.
LikeLike
1. According to Andrew Atwood in the first chapter of his book called “Boring”, -“Boring architecture’s parts are monotonous, repetitive and inexhausted, with no variation from part to part.” Should be this point of view more like a personal perspective from each person to describe or identify what is considered to be boring architecture’s parts. ?
2. Can be the Element House in Star Axis, New Mexico, Be considered as Boring according to what Andrew Atwood explains in his book?
3. In “Merely Interesting”, Sianne Ngai mentions that interesting not only comes from the aesthetic judgment of an object. But also, interesting comes from the surroundings or environment in which this object is placed that makes it look that way. Should it be better to identify the characteristics of the object itself that makes it interesting before seeing the effects that its surrounding can have on it that makes it interesting?
LikeLike
Boring and interesting? can it be a universal and unique idea of what these two concepts mean? well not really. I think these two concepts have changed through the years and they will be changing according to the believes and taste that people adopt or create. Something that can be interesting to a person, may not be for another and the same thing with “Boring”. In architecture, there will never be an agreement of what is actually an interesting design or a Boring design due to principles and rules that were preestablished in classic architecture and that noways have been modified in order to create modern architectural designs. It may be the case that older architects see modern architecture as boring because it does not have the skills and principles that conserved a more interesting form of architecture. But new architects look back and respect the beauty of modern architecture then apply new techniques that make more interesting and awesome designs that may not be interesting to older architects and vice-versa
LikeLike
1. In “Boring,” Atwood describes that Ed Ruscha uses several photographic methods to make his photographs appear intentionally boring. Does knowing the techniques he uses with this intent make the photographs less boring?
2. In Meredith’s “Systems and Shapes,” systems are described as more of a functional process while shapes are more graphic. Since systems are less graphically enticing and shapes are less meaningful, which would be considered more architecturally boring?
3. In “Merely Interesting,” Ngai blurs the line between interesting and boring. In modern art and architecture, how do we decide what is interesting and what is boring?
LikeLike
The concepts of boring and interesting in architecture can be, like most forms of architectural critique, applied to fine arts, photography, and even fashion. Since all of these fields provoke emotion, critiques will always be subjective in some way. However, there generally are standards that can be applied to projects to help classify them as boring or interesting in a more objective way, such as learning about the process of designing these things. While we try to be logical in our critiques, we will always be influenced by our personal opinions on what is boring and interesting.
LikeLike
1. In Merely Interesting, Ngai mentioned that interesting art requires general classification. With what classification can interesting art be meaningfully different from others of its type?
2. In the last paragraph of Systems and Shapes, Meredith mentioned that the Element House is indifferent to all the description between systems and shapes. Does it mean the element house is the combination of both? If so, how?
3. According to Atwood’s Boring, Atwood mentioned that when we look back, boring buildings can become interesting. Does it mean the definition of boring is subtle and changeable? If so, how can we identify whether a building is boring or not？ Will it be too subjective？
LikeLike
When thinking of boring, we always connect it with uninteresting and tend to avoid it as a bad thing.
No one wants to be boring. However, If everyone tends to be different, then different can be another form of boring. Boredom can have a relationship with architecture, but artists and designers have found that true breakthroughs result when they drive the inquiry down a new path. For architecture to go, we need to back to boring. Boring, in another word, can be something interesting.
Something considered as boring in the past can seem as interesting now, which is because we failed to recognize its interesting part in the past. So, the audience is required to confront its own creative and subjective limits to find boring interesting.
From the lecture, I also learn an interesting term called “Das Intersante”, which means opposing other concepts and carry a sense of irony. To apply it to architecture, we need to make architecture open to criticism, respond to culture and be recognizable as significant to its time even at other points in history.
Similar to boredom, what is cool now is not likely to be cool next season. So it is vital for us to have our own creature.
LikeLike
1. In Ngai’s article, he mentioned: “The application of interesting to objects is not always about aesthetic; cultural interpreters are just as likely to find objects historically interesting, psychologically interesting, and so on.” If we can better identify the characteristics of the object itself, will it make the object interesting before we see the impact it might have on it?
2. The Museum of Outdoor Arts Element House shows that how a building can be break into multiple parts. But is the modular system really worked in this way? Is it the simplest or most successful for forms and shapes to work together?
3. How do we make interesting architecture under the circumstances which the will and incentives to do better are not there any more?
LikeLike
Through this lecture, we learned how to objectively judge whether an architecture piece is boring. Yet I think “boring” is very subjective, and everything has two sides. What a person thinks is absolutely dull, it might be a fascinating and energetic project for others. As we learned in Atwood’s reading, buildings can have many features at the same time. Many times, the art we see is superficially boring, but the process of dialogue and thinking behind it could be very interesting. In my opinion, we should study a building in depth rather than looking at its exterior one-sidedly. By studying the buildings which are generally thought “boring”, we can create better designs.
LikeLike
1. “Boring” is a hot topic in design areas. In Atwood’s book “Boring”, he lists a series of example to tell what is boring in his perspectives: “open-ended”, “permissive”, etc. Is his definition of “boring” a real element of our judgment on “boring”? How do these “boring” elements occupied in the design in architecture and how it is being dealt?
2. In the reading “Merely Interesting” written by Sianne Ngai, she argues, “interesting has no aesthetic as well as aesthetic uses.” When we talk about the aesthetical part of interesting in architecture, how can the designer ensure that most people’s tastes coincide with his or hers? When “interesting” can be quantified, is there any need to design creatively?
3. Meredith McDaniel talked in his book “System and Shapes” the relationship between forms and shapes. We have already know that form and shape are elementary for architects in their design. How a simple shape turns into an interesting building? Why most famous modern architecture comes from simple forms?
LikeLike
How to define “boring” in architecture? We know that “interesting” is arousing curiosity so interesting architecture means buildings that will draw our attention, but how can we define the boring architecture? Since different people have different tastes, different shapes will catch different people’s attention. In addition, culture and environment also influence the preference; if there is a need to judge whether an architecture is interesting or boring, an evaluation system should build up like how Michelin stars influence restaurants world-widely. However, is there a need to evaluate a system to judge an architecture? We know that architecture, or building, is just the living and activity place for human being. We are used to adapting normal buildings surrounding us. These buildings, in the artists’ perspective, is boring. However, years ago, they are interesting and fancy to artists and architects. The definition of boring is an ambiguous issue.
LikeLike
1. In merely interesting, what is the answer of how we use reason to justify aesthetic judgement is worth examining more closely in light of the fact that we do so all the time and without resource to general principles?
2. Why the question of how we use reason to justify aesthetic judgments is worth examining more closely in light of the fact that we do so all the time and without recourse to general principles?
3. What is the most characteristic thing about the interesting thus seems to be its lack of distinguishing characteristics making its deduction?
LikeLike
When applied to buildings, it takes into account the interesting and boring terminology that will determine the opinions left to the audience. While the cleverness of this strategy has dramatically changed culture, there is a fallacy in using the terms “boring” and “fun” to classify architecture and art. The subjective characteristics of these words undermine the accessibility of the object. Usually boring objects may only exist in the minds of people who do not want to fully understand their characteristics. However, at the same time, if the repetition is exhausted or meaningless or explained, the action or task may become boring. . When responding to the word “interesting”, you are making an open statement that gives you a detailed description of how you feel, whether they are good or bad. In both cases, the observer will have a critical analysis.
LikeLike
When applied to buildings, it takes into account the interesting and boring terminology that will determine the opinions left to the audience. While the cleverness of this strategy has dramatically changed culture, there is a fallacy in using the terms “boring” and “interesting” to classify architecture and art. The subjective characteristics of these words undermine the accessibility of the object. Usually boring objects may only exist in the minds of people who do not want to fully understand their characteristics. However, at the same time, if the repetition is exhausted or meaningless or explained, the action or task may become boring. . When responding to the word “fun”, you are making an open statement that gives you a detailed description of how you feel, whether they are good or bad. In both cases, the observer will have a critical analysis.
LikeLike
The adjective “Interesting,” in my opinion, has been overused in the field of architecture to the point where it could be considered an invalid comment. Even though there are other synonyms, do you believe that the term should no longer be used solely because of its lack of pull in architecture?
From reading “Merely Interesting,” by Sianne Ngai, the word interesting as also been described as a placeholder for more intellectual words. In my opinion, certain words that are considered placeholders for larger words should not be unused solely because if you are attempting to get a point across any form of vocabulary should be allowed. Do you agree?
From reading “Boring” I noticed that the author focused on describing boredom as affecting someone positively or negatively. I believe that boredom is a word engineered more towards having a negative effect. Is this statement accurate, or do you believe that boredom could affect us either way?
LikeLike
1. Particularly in contemporary art and architecture styles, minimalist forms and expression through abstract moves have made it so that the viewer is required to consider the nature of the building instead of the design being thrust upon them. Based on the 10 criteria listed in the Boring reading, where is the line between design that is lacking in definition because it is minimalist or abstract versus one that is boring? Does simple necessarily mean boring?
2. Ngai’s Merely Interesting posits that are there practical, non-aesthetic uses of ‘interesting’ design and interesting form. How can we quantify why we want our buildings to be interesting, beyond a design or aesthetic reason?
3. Although shape and system are competing concepts, as described in Meredith’s Systems and Shapes, they work together to make volume and successful forms like MOA’s Element House. Is one of these the dominant design concept, and for what reason? When designing different spaces, does one become more or less important than the other?
LikeLike
1. In the article titled ‘Boring’ , the author mentioned the representation of an ideal boring architecture by showing a boring gallery installation she did a few years ago which originally hopping the exhibition can activate people’s interestingness and imagination. Although the author intentionally design lots of interaction between space and people, the exhibition still ned up with boring installation strategy. Do you think what cause this happen?
2. Meredith has introduced in the System and Shapes about how ordered is the shape of The Museum of Outdoor Arts Element House. Its modular geometry system does not only function house with its surrounding but also strip down to basic grid. Do you agree that the system and shape are supplement each other?
3. Ngaio claimed in the articles Merely Interesting that ‘the application of interesting to objects is not always aesthetical’. Why did the author say this? Can you think about an example?
LikeLike
In my opinion, the concept about defining boring mentioned by Atwood can be well learned by contemporary architects and apply to their creation and recording to architecture in order to exaggerate all intentions. In the proposal of defining concept of representation of an ideal boring, Atwood gives its clear standard: open-ended, generic, amateur, nonjudgmental, and lack of attention. In order to further explain the difference between generic and un-generic, Atwood takes a lots of example in the articles. For example, Ed Rusca uses a lot of rigor and technique in the creation of photographs in order to make them become ‘generic’. Moreover, the way artists photographing contemporary architecture nowadays also shows some clue matches ‘boring aspects’. Besides photographing, noticing the importance of lack of installation can avoid boring visits. However, does the parametricism consider as boring shapes since it uses ordered geometries repetitively? Therefore, it is necessary for architect to find a balance between creating an interesting shape and keeping its function.
LikeLike
1. In what ways does boring work force us to confront our own creative limits? How can we use boredom to facilitate our designs?
1. Do you agree with the assertion that “this is interesting because it is boring” is an unavoidable expression of boredom, and how can it be remedied?
3. Why do we feel compelled to make claims that we find objects ‘Interesting’ public, and how does this affect its aesthetic evaluation?
LikeLike