I don't want to be interesting. I want to be good.
The quote "I don't want to be interesting. I want to be good" by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe reflects the idea that true value in art or architecture comes not from superficial appeal or novelty, but from the pursuit of quality and excellence. Mies van der Rohe, a leading figure in modern architecture, emphasizes that the goal should not be to attract attention or be trendy, but to create work that is inherently good, with lasting value and substance. For him, the integrity of the work itself is far more important than any temporary fascination it may provoke.
Mies van der Rohe was known for his minimalist approach and dedication to simplicity and functionality in architecture. This quote reflects his philosophy that architecture should be about creating enduring quality, rather than following fleeting trends or trying to be overly impressive. He believed that the true measure of a design’s success lies in how well it serves its purpose and withstands the test of time, rather than how interesting it appears at first glance.
The origin of this quote lies in Mies van der Rohe’s professional career, where he sought to redefine architecture through clear, clean lines and an emphasis on materials, light, and space, rather than ornamentation or complex designs. His work, including iconic buildings like the Barcelona Pavilion and the Seagram Building, was driven by the belief that true quality in design would naturally stand the test of time, without the need for extraneous features to make it interesting.
For architects and artists, this quote serves as a reminder to focus on the craftsmanship and quality of their work, rather than striving for novelty or surface-level appeal. It encourages creators to prioritize creating something good—something meaningful and lasting—over the desire for short-lived attention or external validation. Mies van der Rohe’s words challenge artists and architects alike to trust that true excellence will always stand out in its own right.
Llong
Honestly, I find this quote a bit provocative. It seems to dismiss curiosity, experimentation, or even personality in favor of technical perfection or moral virtue. But what if being 'interesting' is how people relate to your work emotionally? Can 'goodness' alone hold attention or evoke feeling? Maybe it depends on context—architecture, writing, music—all have different relationships with these ideas. Still, it’s a powerful stance worth reflecting on.
TCThanh Cong
I feel like this quote is a direct critique of modern culture, where 'interesting' often equates to shock value, quirkiness, or virality. 'Good' here feels like a stand-in for authenticity, integrity, maybe even moral clarity. But I’m curious—how do we ensure we’re not just using 'being good' as an excuse to play it safe? Can the pursuit of excellence sometimes inhibit experimentation or risk-taking?
NPNhi Phuong
There's something very humble and disciplined about this statement. It reflects a kind of devotion to craft that I admire. But part of me wonders—why does it have to be either/or? Is it not possible to be both interesting and good? Does striving to be good naturally lead to work that’s interesting to others? Or is he critiquing the superficial desire to simply entertain without deeper value?
MTMai Tuyet
This makes me think about the difference between fame and legacy. So many artists chase visibility, trying to be talked about, but this quote emphasizes the deeper goal of lasting quality. It makes me question: what does it really mean to be 'good' in a creative context? Is it about technique, impact, or something more ethical? And how do we measure 'goodness' in a world that constantly shifts its standards?
HTNguyen Ngoc Hoai Thuong
As someone who works in design, I find this quote incredibly grounding. It’s a reminder that quality, consistency, and thoughtfulness matter more than flash or trendiness. But I also wonder—does focusing solely on being good risk becoming invisible? In creative fields, don’t we need a bit of flair or boldness to stand out, even if it’s subtle? I’d love to hear how others interpret that balance between substance and appeal.