CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

This has been on my mind for awhile. Many people in my generation seem to completely disregard anything that is, in their words, "boring". Usually what they mean by this is that it isn't exciting in the way that comedy, action and suspense thrillers are.

By my measurement, though, many of the greatest artistic works are "boring". For example, most of Dickens and Dostoyevsky's works are boring, but both are hailed and praised for their lasting and important contributions to their craft.

So what do you think about this? Is boring art a thing of the past that we should leave far behind us, or are we all just too distracted to invest time in something that may yield greater personal rewards?



For myself, I try to spend time on boring art when I can. I've found that it's ultimately far more interesting and rewarding than the vast majority of popular entertaining art. In general, it seems that people have lost their ability or will to put effort into their artistic experiences, and want any messages to be easily spelled out for them. I really wish that this wasn't the case, and always try to slowly move people into this type of experience when I can.

Have to be entertaining? No. But those works that people now consider boring were greatly entertaining in their time, so there is something to it.

I think the definition of "boring" widely varies depending on who you're talking to.

What is entertainment? While I do not laugh or have "fun" reading Dostoevsky, he offers profound spiritual themes which emotionally move me.

Similarly, some other pointless things make me laugh.

I know when I like to write, I don't write to be entertaining. I want to pluck strings in people's hearts. To some people this matters. Others not so much.

So it depends on what people like to get out of art and other mediums of ideas.

I honestly think there is no such thing as boring art in general. It's impossible for it to be boring because it brings wonder and awe into the smallest of things. I mean, in some of my favorite manga art I like to pay attention to little details that I would otherwise consider boring in real life. I guess, I'm just not that easily bored. I'm easily pleased and excited about everything of life. I'm also in love with art, so nothing of it is boring to me. Art is an expression of the artist, whether people think their stuff is boring or not is their deal. I just personaly don't find any art boring....at all.

Boring (adj.) - uninteresting and tiresome; dull.

Emphasis mine.

I do not spend my time on boring art because I don't believe it is possible for truly good art to be boring. If it is interesting or engaging, however it is interesting or engaging, it is not boring. Something is boring when it fails to grasp or keep your attention.

Boring is not just another antonym for "Exciting."

I think what is or isn't boring is very subjective. I find some things very entertaining and engaging that I know some of my friends think are extremely boring.

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, is it art?

Liking boring art only means that you make up for its boring-ness by your imagination. Anyone can make something exciting if they make up stuff about it.


That being said, I'm lazy, so I don't like boring art. I like art that can inspire, promote interest and help direct my creativity. I don't want to be staring at/reading something that I can't do anything with. I only like art if I can enjoy it for more than 2 seconds. Granted, the requirements for my enjoyment will be different than someone else's.

Also, I disagree with you, Cog. I think that "boring" art is the art that spells things out for you and doesn't give you a reason to look at it for more than 2 seconds (if that), or what you would consider "popular". Boring art doesn't grab you and keep your attention. It says "POW" once then is dull and gray for the rest of its short life.

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, is it art?

hahaha. XP
I've always seen art as "expression conveyed through skill". So the great artists (DaVinci and such) were great for their great skill, and their ability to express exactly what they wanted through their skill.
Otherwise, someone who pricked their thumb sewing could be considered art. But luckilly they aren't, since they obviously lack skill, and most likely used an awful expression. XP

I interpreted this in a different way than some of you, I guess. By the original post, I took "boring" in this context to mean what much of today's culture might consider slow-moving, or difficult to understand/thematically layered in so many ways that you have to dig for the meaning beyond the surface. That said, I don't think that art (mainly talking about books and film here) has to be entertaining to hold great worth. I think that it can certainly be "boring" by today's standard's and still be rich with interesting or important themes. I will say, I'll be more inclined to consider a movie a favorite that I watch over and over again if it's got both interesting/important themes and I can consider it entertaining by my own standards. XD

On the definition of boring, I guess the only thing is that "uninteresting" varies for different people. Not that I know of anyone who would willingly watch Andy Warhol's Empire and call it the greatest movie of all time, but I think a lot of our culture today finds a lot of books and movies "uninteresting" that shouldn't be considered as such because of everything else they have to offer.

I have more thoughts on this and how it applies to the visual arts and design, but I think those will come later. XD

Cognitive Gear (post: 1444880) wrote:In general, it seems that people have lost their ability or will to put effort into their artistic experiences, and want any messages to be easily spelled out for them. I really wish that this wasn't the case, and always try to slowly move people into this type of experience when I can.

I suspect that modern consumerist society is somewhat to blame. People want things immediately]For myself, I try to spend time on boring art when I can. I've found that it's ultimately far more interesting and rewarding than the vast majority of popular entertaining art.[/QUOTE]

For that, I have four names that you should consider; Ingmar Bergman, Andrei Tarkovsky, Erich Rohmer, Robert Bresson.

These filmmakers are some of the best 'boring', 'difficult' directors out there (at least the more famous ones). Rohmer and Bresson in particular; Rohmer's movies are pure dialogue movies in the sense that he uses no music and the dialogue his characters speak are not witty but rather plain, like those in real life. Despite the fact that Tarantino loves his movies he rarely actually recommend it to fans because of it. Famously, in the 1970's neo-noir Night Moves a detective played by Gene Hackman says that a Rohmer movie is like watching paint dry, which fans amusedly have embraced as the best way to describe his work. Bresson, on the other hand, is difficult in the fact that his movies have removed any trace of emotion; the director uses non-actors whom he encourages to act blankly and limits their character development. The idea, I think, is that he wants the viewer to project emotions and character onto these 'models', which makes his movies powerful because the attuned viewer will supply everything you expect even a good movie to dictate to you.

As for Tarkovsky, his mind was not completely on the same plane as ours.

Radical Dreamer (post: 1444925) wrote:I interpreted this in a different way than some of you, I guess. By the original post, I took "boring" in this context to mean what much of today's culture might consider slow-moving, or difficult to understand/thematically layered in so many ways that you have to dig for the meaning beyond the surface. That said, I don't think that art (mainly talking about books and film here) has to be entertaining to hold great worth. I think that it can certainly be "boring" by today's standard's and still be rich with interesting or important themes. I will say, I'll be more inclined to consider a movie a favorite that I watch over and over again if it's got both interesting/important themes and and I can consider it entertaining by my own standards. XD

On the definition of boring, I guess the only thing is that "uninteresting" varies for different people. Not that I know of anyone who would willingly watch Andy Warhol's Empire and call it the greatest movie of all time, but I think a lot of our culture today finds a lot of books and movies "uninteresting" that shouldn't be considered as such because of everything else they have to offer.

I have more thoughts on this and how it applies to the visual arts and design, but I think those will come later. XD

This is pretty much what I meant to get at. Apparently I did it rather poorly!

To give a more specific example that may clarify it better:

Jurassic Park is a great movie. It's fun, and almost universally loved. It has stereotypical characters, a direct narrative, and doesn't really have a very deep message, or a profound theme. You would be hard pressed to find someone in America who hasn't seen it.

Koyaanisqatsi is a great film. It has no direct, or apparent narrative. It has no specific characters in the way we think about them, and doesn't even have any dialogue. It is a poem in film form, with very large themes and messages that vary from viewer to viewer. Unfortunately, it is the very way in which it must explore these ideas that makes it unappealing to the vast majority of people, and I think that you would have an easier time finding someone who had never even heard of it than you would have finding someone who has seen it.

So why is this? Should art from our time strive to be more like Jurassic Park and other blockbusters? Is high art dead as far as popular culture is concerned?

Maybe it has always been this way, but the impression I often get is that there may have been a time when high art was much more popular. Can any of our resident historians shed some light on this?

Fish and Chips (post: 1444900) wrote:Boring (adj.) - uninteresting and tiresome]be[/I] boring. If it is interesting or engaging, however it is interesting or engaging, it is not boring. Something is boring when it fails to grasp or keep your attention.

Boring is not just another antonym for "Exciting."

^This

In my mind, "boring" or "entertaining" deals with taste. Taste varies widely, so does what people consider boring or entertaining. If someone thinks that a piece of art is boring or entertaining it's because they have a particular taste for some kinds of art and not others.

So I would say, no, art doesn't have to be entertaining. Art is what it is, entertaining or not.

I'd also say that it's dangerous to reject art as bad based on entertainment value alone. It just seems a little shallow to me.

Cognitive Gear (post: 1444933) wrote:Maybe it has always been this way, but the impression I often get is that there may have been a time when high art was much more popular. Can any of our resident historians shed some light on this?

I think that (and this is just my own uninformed conclusion) the reason it seems that way is because high art is the art that lasts through the generations. The artwork that we have of long ago is mostly the really good, influential art, and the shallow popular art fell by the wayside and was forgotten, because it did not stand the test of time.

At least, that's how I would like it to work.

Art does not need to entertain you at all. Perhaps the artist even wishes to shock you so that he/she can inspire odd looks of disgust and all manner of other bizarre facial expressions from you, then we sit and watch you as you pass, and while you are not entertained... we most certainly are. Then, because they used their paint brush to paint the look on your face (as it was intended to invoke such responses and was not simply a coincidence), the question must be raised. Did they paint the art for your enjoyment, or did they paint it so that you could become theirs?

Cognitive Gear (post: 1444933) wrote:Maybe it has always been this way, but the impression I often get is that there may have been a time when high art was much more popular. Can any of our resident historians shed some light on this?

While the history of art is somewhere outside my sphere of general knowledge, my gun-to-the-head response would be, "Doubt it."

Art is always being produced, high and low, and while certain time periods can be circled as prolific moments for high art, that doesn't really speak to its popularity. Several prominent painters would have painted exclusively for the benefit of their wealthy patrons, far removed from the common crowd, and how many great writers have been unheeded in their own time only to be retroactively appreciated?

We, as a society, have a bad habit of only recognizing high art after the fact. Both Vincent van Gogh and Edgar Allan Poe died relatively poor and unknown, only achieving true fame after their deaths. Similarly, Socrates, arguably considered one of the greatest philosophers of all time by people today who think about things like that, was ordered to kill himself because of those same lauded ideas.

That is not to say we're incapable of detecting what is or isn't high art today, but simply that if you're looking back on the past to lament the present, bear in mind we've had an awful lot of past during which to accumulate high art. All new contributions will seem small next to the volume of existing work.

Which brings us to the real problem in this discussion, that being that high art is generally preserved, whereas low art is not]Not this one.[/URL]

We fondly regard Leonardo da Vinci, a man whose coffee napkin doodles could probably pass for high art, and we know to put in the good word for his competitors and contemporaries, but can you name even one man who could be associated with low art in the Renaissance? You can't. History has deemed not to remember every insignificant, fleeting work.

We're well versed in the low art of our own time because it's our time. We're around for it.

Good post, Andrew.