Kind of Boring by Paul Preissner

Interesting is boring, and boring is interesting.

I say this very precariously and with slight caution, using the words ‘interesting’ and ‘boring’ with both positive and negative connotations. The central theme of the book Kind of Boring by Paul Preissner revolves around the idea that calling something interesting limits the boundaries of its perceptibility, and what is termed as interesting/good/anything described with a positive adjective takes away from it the possibility of being viewed from any other angle.

This relentless quest for the interesting curtails architecture's ability to be genuinely original. In this manner, it mirrors the poignant words of Colin Rowe and Robert Slutzky in Transparent: Literal and Phenomenal (1964), where they explore transparency in architecture. Just as transparency can limit multiple interpretations of a structure, the term 'interesting' precludes diverse readings or experiences of architecture.

Calling something interesting already predisposes one to formulate their opinion about it. Disagreeing can be another response to the adjectivized subject, but the range of reactions then extends only to the very ends of a spectrum instead of being allowed to explore the entirety of the range. What is ‘interesting’ elicits a duality of responses that often happens to influence a person to have a similar opinion without giving them the opportunity to formulate their own response to it. This takes away from the viewer their autonomy of experience by unconsciously making their decision for them.

​

In the context of architecture, we see a very innate desire by architects to create original architecture. This architecture results from ‘...a vanity fair of novelty, expressions of wealth, expressions of modesty, expressions of morality, and peacock-like demonstrations of individuality in which someone doesn’t resist the world they pretend to be against, but simply celebrates the cultural hierarchy of material’ (Page 171). As a result, the quest of this generation of architects and architecture is to create identifiable architecture backed by a very apparent cause that defines it very distinctly. One that leaves no room for wonder or thought or pondering as it is built to fulfill a purpose, a cause that needs clear explanation so that the architecture is justified in some way. This deliberate effort to provide a well-explained argument for the design merits no space for anything original anymore. Thus, the very desire to create an original piece results in the production of kitschy architecture, mass-produced and categorized into one of the many typologies that have each sprung from the inclination of creating spectacular (original) architecture.

​

The characteristics of dumb space, on the other hand, allow room for more. Being dumb allows one not to try too hard. ‘It’s the space of choice’ (Page 170). There’s no definite process or guideline to produce something dumb as it allows one the opportunity to explore, to falter, to conjure, and to speculate without the knowledge of what the end result is going to be. This undefined state of creation is what allows architecture to shed its pretentious baggage and freely become something that isn’t a product of systemic planning. The freedom to be something without the pressures of it having to continually grab our attention tends to create unfettered architecture.

​

Interestingly, this resonates with Michael Fried's insights in Art and Objecthood (1967), where he critiques the concept of 'theatricality' in art. He notes how the art object's role is preconceived, stripping it of autonomy and undermining its ability to provoke thought or defy normative expectations. In much the same way, the quest for 'interesting' architecture limits the freedom to challenge conventions and produce something truly original.

​

The sheer focus on creating unique architecture has taken away from its uniqueness as the more design is subjected to revision, iterations, planning, redesign, and edits to achieve perfection, it veers away from the ‘original’ idea and loses touch with what it started out to be (originally). Architecture is not allowed to take shape but rather chiseled and finessed until it fits into a notion,  a function, a nomenclature that solidifies its identity- almost afraid to defy the norm(al) and step out of line. Architecture continued to be produced this way will only echo the voices of those loud enough or those who have been around long enough. ‘When it’s trying to be interesting, it is just not very interesting, and worse, it is simply reinforcing the self-conception of the upper classes of the world that they are the chosen stewards of taste and judgement’ (Page 172). This has a dreadful impact on the community as it makes breaking the norm even more difficult.

​

This resonates with Clement Greenberg's examination of the avant-garde and kitsch in Avant-Garde and Kitsch (1937). Preissner's perspective echoes Greenberg's sentiment that the relentless pursuit of the 'interesting' can inadvertently lead to the production of architectural 'kitsch' that conforms to popular taste and expectations, depriving it of its unique character. Good design and bad design vary, but if one does not think to question and consequently explore, we will be stuck with an architecture that does not evolve or progress and follows the principles of good design by the book. This kind of architecture will have no quirk, no kink, no soul.

​

Overall, the book discusses the liminality of the term ‘interesting’ and explores the vast potential that lies in the nondescript term- boring, which has been described by Preissner as ‘...somewhat messy, and aesthetically dumb, and indifferent’ (Page 164). In a world where the architectural landscape often strives for the elusive label of ‘interesting,’ Kind of Boring emerges as a bold declaration. It invites architects to embrace the potential within the ‘boring,’ to liberate their creativity from the stifling grip of the convention and tap into the hidden potential within 'boring' by rediscovering the value in simplicity. In doing so, Kind of Boring ensures that architecture remains an ever-evolving field, where innovation is not restricted by the allure of being merely ‘interesting’ but is instead celebrated for its enduring and impactful exploration of the uncharted territories of the built environment.