Yes, but, is it photography??

[Marko]

Is art supposed to make you think?

ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!

Art either makes me think or it makes me yawn. This definitely makes me think.

Art in general and photography in particular was always supposed to depict reallity, wasn't it? I can't really think of any really good photograph out there that does not carry a message, although I'm sure good folks here will come up with examples.

There are many layers and points of view regarding this particular topic, and I think Chris has done really well representing that too, using a large mosaic of large format photographs.

I agree with Paul on this, there is no "Here's what YOU are doing" in this, only "Look what WE have done".

Not something I would put on one of my walls (none of them being big enough is only one of the reasons), but defintely great art, IMHO.

[Frank Petronio]

Yeah but the same demonstrations of consumption have been popular in art and editorial worlds for several years now, even National Geographic ran a story with pix of the average household's consumption -- with all their stuff laid out on the lawn, etc. So it is hardly new ground to abstract it and make it into some large upscale gallery friendly work. I mean if some LA collector wants to drop $25K one more power to Chris, but you might as well admit that the art is in the irony of making something to be consumed and the folly of the buyer consuming. Not the work itself.

It's rather like Prince Charles flying into an ecology summit with his just only a third full -- making quite a carbon deficiet in the process of saving the environment.

Or when I did corporate annual reports and the Fortune 500 company would have eco-police to enforce recycling office paper whilst their factories spewing tons of pollutants.

I appreciate Chris being here and I like to hear how he is doing as he garners a higher profile in the fine art world, but at the same time we ought to be honest with him and push him a little harder to be critical. It seems to me the gallery world and the photo buyers are about as sophisticated as a 1982 MFA showing at RIT... cause those 20-30 year old themes are just now becoming commercially viable.

[Kirk Gittings]

I appreciate Chris being here and I like to hear how he is doing as he garners a higher profile in the fine art world, but at the same time we ought to be honest with him and push him a little harder to be critical. It seems to me the gallery world and the photo buyers are about as sophisticated as a 1982 MFA showing at RIT... cause those 20-30 year old themes are just now becoming commercially viable.

Why is it that people who make comments like this have usually not done anything truly original in their entire career? Your work is good Frank, even very good sometimes, but like myself we are treading well worn paths that are far older and far more worn than the 20-30 year old themes you see in Chris' work. Everything from some point of view has been done before. That is not the question. The question is is it any good, is he bringing anything new to the plate and I would say yes, definitely.

[chris jordan]

Hi guys, what a bunch of provocative postings. The truth is, every critical or negative comment here echoes my own fears about the limitations of this work. It is difficult to put a body of work like this out there; it would have been far easier and safer for me to continue taking 8x10 photographs of piles of garbage and selling the prints on into the future. But I am committed to a different path, so here I am getting my butt raked over the coals just as I anticipated!

I realize this new series has lots of limitations, and I don't like any of them. The choice I have made is to accept those limitations as necessary evils, in the interest of putting a message out there that I care deeply about. I have focused narrowly in on this particular message, and to do so I have had to cut away a lot of the photographc process to get there. I don't see any other way to say what I am trying to say, and I recognize that the work is full of limitations too. But so is any work; the motivation for this project is that I saw the limitations of my photographic work, and wanted to overcome those. I think I have done so with this work, but at a cost.

Frank's comment goes right to the heart of the matter of self-reflection also. It is a strange ironic experience to fly on a jet somewhere to give a talk about consumerism, or to use an entire 100-foot roll of Epson paper doing test prints for an image that is about paper consumption. I have been doing this kind of work for four years, and this issue has come up a hundred times in my own mind, and in questions that people ask me about my work. So those who don't think any of this has occurred to me must not think much of my intelligence; my own role as a consumer is at the forefront of my thoughts about my work.

I think I probably consume more than the average American consumer, despite various efforts I make to reduce my own consumption, because of all the flying I do, and also because of all the photo/inkjet products I use. This is something I talk about openly when I discuss my work, and that I have addressed in interviews. I think the intentional irony in my new work is obvious to some (the fact that they are so huge and use so much paper), but to some others it looks like I am not self-reflective. Those who are truly self-reflective can see that their comments about my lack of self-reflection might actually reflect more on themselves; and those who aren't truly self-reflective won't understand what this sentence means any more than they get what my new series is about.

In any event, apart from the occasional openly hostile and mean remarks that people have made (which have no value for anyone), I welcome this discussion. If I can stay open enough, and control my urge to be defensive, then your feedback can only help me improve on my future work. So thank you all for taking the time to engage.

~cj

[adrian tyler]

Ybut at the same time we ought to be honest with him and push him a little harder to be critical.

hey chris, frank maybe a neo-con tobacco spittin' redneck (god bless him), but he has hit it right on here, i was gonna stay out of this but frank's comment has made me think twice.

first, once your work is in collections, and institutions/galleries have "invested" in you, then said institutions/galleries are duty bound to support you and defend you. whatever. you have to use that privelage wisely.

here in this thread most of the comments are polite/supportive/sycophantic. you should delete all those comments and only work on the rest. this series has potential but i think it needs at least a year's more reflection and edition, if only because 2007 is gonna be the year that even bush speaks out about the catastrophe we are all facing.

ade.

http://www.icp.org/site/c.dnJGKJNsFq...ion_Images.htm

[julian]

Chris, a great response. I know you are 'on the path', and I know you take your work seriously, I look forward to future projects

[Michael Gordon]

Hey Chris: I've never really been overly concerned with what people think about my photographs as long as I'm being honest with myself and doing the work with integrity. It seems pretty evident that this is your criteria, and I admire you for it. Keep it up.

I hope to see your new work in LA in the near future.

[paulr]

Yeah but the same demonstrations of consumption have been popular in art and editorial worlds for several years now ...

Couldn't you say about portraiture, that depictions of what people look like have been popular in the art and editorial worlds for several years now?

I don't think this work is a news story. I don't think anyone expects you to say "Omigod! People use a lot of paper! I had no idea!" I suspect this work is about taking a phenomenon you're proabaly well acquainted with intellectually, and giving you a new way to experience it.

[Frank Petronio]

Yeah, in addition to classic art themes like religious iconography, portraiture, and nationalist glory we could add "American Intellectual Self-Loathing" to the mix

I call it the Robert Adams paradox. I love his work and much of his writing -- but after having met him years ago, I came away thinking that he simply didn't want all those people in those ugly subdivisions and driving those big trucks to exist. Like not exist period. Which is maybe scarier than tire tracks and clear cuts IMHO.

When I lived in Oregon and my buddies in Earth First (I was briefly drinking their KoolAid as a college student too) stopped some logging operations. Family men making $26 per hour suddenly went on welfare. I think that is sadder than chopping down the trees, really.

Not to mention the irony of watching what happens here when all the nature photographers post threads about their favorite 4x4 vehicles...

It makes a lot more sense to channel that energy into solutions. Put those artistic energies into promoting sustainable forestry rather than locking it all up IMHO. Duck hunters are still the most effective convservationist organization. Show me a better alternative to my SUV that makes economic sense and I'll jump on it. No socialist worker's paradise ever implemented widescale environmental clean-ups and protections -- you need those exploitive capitalists, corporate efficiencies, and a clear profit motive to do it.

[paulr]

hfirst, once your work is in collections, and institutions/galleries have "invested" in you, then said institutions/galleries are duty bound to support you and defend you.

Yeah, that's a lovely thought.

If I give you a short list of curators and collectors who have supported me once upon a time, would you be kind enough to call and remind them that they're delinquent in their duties?