Sorry to be blunt, but ax-grinding can have a paradoxical effect if you turn up the volume too far. In the context of your work to date, this latest is perilously close to self-caricature.
Sorry to be blunt, but ax-grinding can have a paradoxical effect if you turn up the volume too far. In the context of your work to date, this latest is perilously close to self-caricature.
I think it's very effective communication.
The problem, however, is not how much we consume - It's how many of us there are.
If you cut the world population by 10, a lot of these ecological problems go away.
Some nations are aware of this, others have their heads buried in the sand.
Simplistic, after a few examples truly "ad nauseum". A self-caricature? Involuntarily, unfortunately and very surely yes, beating the dead horse is yet another expression for it. But dreaming of a deep impact (heavens!) - how far can one's simplicity go? If this works on the Vietnam wall - why not making a visual fractals in form of a cemetery (hospital, etc. you know) from all the cigarette butts smoked in one hour in the US... you got the idea... Heavens..!
Cool!
Originally Posted by Ken Lee
I do not agree.
Do you mean that our obsession (in the US) with buying, buying and buying doesn't create extra waste?
Do we need to upgrade continuosly our cellphone?
I could go on and on....
I hope I didn't sound harsh, Ken, it wasn't meant confrontational.
I don't think you were being harsh, MaestoI hope I didn't sound harsh, Ken, it wasn't meant confrontational.
Your point is well-taken: Being concerned about overpopulation doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned about wastefulness.
They are both becoming more important every day.
Since you asked for opinions...
I think what you have here is an idea for an interesting direction but the idea has not had enough time to "cook" yet, and I doubt very much seeing the full-sized originals would mitigate that sense (indeed, it would likely augment it...see below).
You need another layer or level of depth to this to make it interesting (at least to me).
For example, you depict a zillion aluminum cans as a comment on our culture which allows/encourages vast over-production and over consumption of certain goods. The work is all about excess.
Yet the work has no self-awareness to it on this very topic. These are extremely large prints (dare I say excessively large?) which in and of themselves represent and contribute to the problem you are criticizing. It is further worrying that, as you claim, you need to see these full-sized for them to "work" since only a small number of people will ever see them in that size--reproductions in the New York Times simply won't do.
It will an irony too great for me to see these purchased and displayed by people who wish to demonstrate their commitment to environmental awareness.
In fact, I'm tempted to do a work in the style of Chris Jordan where I make a huge print made up of thousands of reduced ten foot test prints of your images!
So, again, I think you are starting down an interesting and possibly productive road here--sort of a Hans Haacke for the post-Vietnam generation--but something is missing...
I would suggest that the "unexpected" is missing...seeing lots and lots of products piled up is only unexpected, briefly, on the first viewing.
Anyway, since you asked...
--Darin
(edited for spelling--my two-finger technique leaves something to be desired...)
Off topic,
but it needs to be said.
Ken, fantastic work!
Your compositions, tonalities....
You have been working hard lately!
Some of the pieces are just masterful.
I bow to you, sir.
Absolutely fantastic. I don't know why you would think there would be a problem with this, but I am curious as to how large format photography was involved as an element in the production of this work, and if so why you choose use it.
The simple identity of medium and size is greatly appreciated, indeed, I could not have really imagined the scope and impact of the work without it.
Thanks for sharing.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks