Merely interesting - Sianne Ngai

Is it simply that interesting is academic politesse?
why interesting is the aesthetics discourse?
bigness can rule out a judgment of something as cute.

interesting= new?
interesting= conceptual? wired? never seen?
interesting= catch the attention?
interesting= i care/ i don't care
ing
open a dialogue, communication and open a conversation between the artist and the audience.
just floating.
expand public sphere

just a dip, no commitment
icon of dull affect, low-intensity affect....ambivalent
lazy
why?
reuse it, paste it
all conceptual art just pointing at things?

artists = raise a question, not a finish sentence,
audience = finish the question by themselves, based on their background

beautiful is 'final"
interesting is in medias res, "on its way" to a "there" whose content or meaning is indeterminate.

https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-if-you-don-t-understand-conceptual-art-it-s-not-your-fault
put the condition of society in question as well

Conceptual art is often praised or condemned for its lack of emotion, its unsentimental devotion to documentation, repetition, and dryness.
Ngai sees the precarious balance of emotional and analytical impulses that, for her, makes a piece of art “of interest.”  
what’s interesting is always in danger of becoming profoundly boring.
 Goldsmith’s is not without emotion (even dryness is an affect, no matter how weak) and so still open to aesthetic (feeling-based) judgments.
Aesthetic judgments, Ngai reminds us, are rarely ever interesting in themselves. It is, in the end, our attempts to explain why we feel what we feel that truly interest us — and one virtue of conceptual art lies in how it asks us to explain our reaction to it.