Not Interesting: On the Limits of Criticism in Architecture

by Andrew Atwood

Not Interesting proposes another set of terms and structures to talk about architecture, without requiring that it be interesting. This book explores a set of alternatives to the interesting and imagines how architecture might be positioned more broadly in the world using other boring, confusing, and comforting. Along with interesting, these three terms make up the four chapters of the book. Each chapter introduces its topic through an analysis of a different image, which serves to unpack the specific character of each term and its relationship to architecture. In addition to text, the book contains over 50 case studies using 100 drawings and images. These are presented in parallel to the text and show what architecture may look like through the lens of these other terms.

Genres: Architecture

256 pages, Paperback

Published October 15, 2018

Reviews

[Charlie · Rating 3 out of 5]

A thought-provoking (if sometimes frustrating) book making the case that the various types of attention and engagement outside of the "interesting" deserve our consideration and have their own fertile ground for engagement and critique. Identified as the boring, the comfortable and the confusing, these forms of attention make up the majority of our engagement with the world around us, and as such should maybe be more considered in architectural discourse. Crucially, it's not making the case that underappreciated things should be considered worthy of our interest, but rather that we should be more conscious of our disinterest and the forms of thought it engenders. Does boredom lead to a meandering type of attention with perhaps a more attention to variance? How do we react to a confusing environment and what can that teach us?
The architectural criticism angle feels a little shoehorned into a more philosophical exploration to me, and the examples given don't do a great job of illustrating the underlying concepts. Two projects which, in my reading, engendered very similar responses and attention were presented as indicative of different attentions. The structure of the essays proved somewhat more instructive (they're meant to resonate / create the type of attention being discussed) Nonetheless, it was felt like a worthwhile read which widened my perspective. I don't think the arguments are expertly constructed, but they're arguments worth making and considering and I enjoyed engaging with them.
Also, nice drawings but I don't get how they're related. Maybe I don't get it! Will reread at some point.