Our old friend Chris Jordan

[Tim Hyde]

Here is a very interesting film clip featuring Chris Jordan, who apparently is no longer a LF photographer but has been a valuable contributor to this forum over the years:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09212007/watch3.html

I am not very fond of his new work but I expect it will do very well. God it is expensive, that's for sure.

[Michael Kadillak]

Here is a very interesting film clip featuring Chris Jordan, who apparently is no longer a LF photographer but has been a valuable contributor to this forum over the years:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09212007/watch3.html

I am not very fond of his new work but I expect it will do very well. God it is expensive, that's for sure.

Wow. For some reason that I cannot comprehend Chris simply wigged out. Leaving politics and personal choices on the sidelines for a change, if the transition from a highly talented photographic artist to an agent for change is what turns his key, then who are we to stand in his way. I only wish him the best in his efforts and hope that he finds whatever it is that he is looking for.

[tim atherton]

Wow. For some reason that I cannot comprehend Chris simply wigged out. Leaving politics and personal choices on the sidelines for a change, if the transition from a highly talented photographic artist to an agent for change is what turns his key, then who are we to stand in his way. I only wish him the best in his efforts and hope that he finds whatever it is that he is looking for.

hmm - not that different from Ansel or Robert Adams etc etc

[Michael Kadillak]

hmm - not that different from Ansel or Robert Adams etc etc


Huge difference from my perspective. Ansel remained a landscape photographer while he lobbied for the environment. He utilized the beauty in his photographs and his place in modern culture at the end of his career as a highly positive experience to champion his causes and was quite successful at it. Just think of all of the people that joined the Sierra Club, began to appreciate and respect the delicate outdoors and wilderness areas, became photographers or embraced the general tenets of our place in the world environment because of Ansel and his photographs. I am not that familiar with Robert Adams but looking at his work it appears that he also used this approach.

My point is that using in your face negativity as a catalyst for change is a delicate and sensitive subject. It can work, but it can also quickly backfire and alienate individuals. People in general have to be convinced to own the problem before they are willing to assist in solving it and a positive approach is the generally more accepted strategy.

Cheers!

[Frank Petronio]

i still don't understand what the problem with consumerism is? That we are able to produce and market all of these items is a tremendous tribute to our civilization's intelligence and capabilities. Thanks to capitalism and free markets we now have the highest rate of home ownership, the longest lifespans, the highest literacy, the longest period between major wars, etc. ever in the history of the human race.

Heck there is even good money to made in the process of cleaning it up.

Not to mention making art about it...

I say let's have some more....

(Personally I like Chris but find his new work to be very calculated to sell to a particular upscale demographic. It makes nice decoration in NY and LA apartments and appeals to those who have a Prius even though they made $3 million last year....)

[John Kasaian]

Which Chris Jordan is this one? Theres two of them.

I think it is a very interesting & important piece of work Chris is doing, though I have to wonder about his going digital and all those batteries he'll eventually go through!

[paulr]

(Personally I like Chris but find his new work to be very calculated to sell to a particular upscale demographic. It makes nice decoration in NY and LA apartments and appeals to those who have a Prius even though they made $3 million last year....)

extreme cynicism is always a possibility, but i personally don't think that's where chris is coming from. you might disagree, but i wouldn't levy such an accusation against someone without knowing them pretty well.

as far as consumerism goes, perhaps the real issue is sustainability. there's no trouble from making, buying, and enjoying things if you can do it without depleting all the resources and trashing the place.

[Tim Hyde]

I don't mind his politics and don't mind art infused with the artist's point of view, I just don't like to be hit over the head with it. Here is Chris' website:

http://www.chrisjordan.com/

I like the first two bodies of work very much, and while they definately had a point of view--were even adversarial--I thought the message was nuanced, complex, and open-minded. The latest series is much more overt--too much so for my taste. It's also not photography, some would argue, but I think I could come to terms with that if it weren't for the megaphone drowning out all quiet contemplation.

[Brian Sims]

Frank states, "...we now have the highest rate of home ownership, the longest lifespans, the highest literacy, the longest period between major wars, etc. ever in the history of the human race."

I bet the Greenland Norse, the Anasazi, the Maya, the Romans, the society on Easter Island all said essentially the same thing.....right up to their collapse.

I'm all for optimism. But optimism about the status quo inevitably leads to disaster. Optimism about our ability to change course and the wisdom to take on the status quo provides the only chance for long term survival.

I don't think Chris's work is negative at all. I think it is a very positive and hopeful message.

[clay harmon]

Sounds like you read "Collapse" by Jared Diamond. Interesting and thought provoking book.



Frank states, "...we now have the highest rate of home ownership, the longest lifespans, the highest literacy, the longest period between major wars, etc. ever in the history of the human race."

I bet the Greenland Norse, the Anasazi, the Maya, the Romans, the society on Easter Island all said essentially the same thing.....right up to their collapse.

I'm all for optimism. But optimism about the status quo inevitably leads to disaster. Optimism about our ability to change course and the wisdom to take on the status quo provides the only chance for long term survival.

I don't think Chris's work is negative at all. I think it is a very positive and hopeful message.

[Brian K]

I respect what he's doing. He's not wigging out, he's just looking at the big picture.

The problem with consumerism isn't so much consumerism but population. If you have 6 billion consumers on planet Earth maybe the Earth can handle the stripping of it's resources, or maybe we can come up with some better technologies to recycle materials, but when the Earth's population is 12 billion or 25 billion, and that could be in 50 years, there is a tipping point where the Earth can not recover and where even huge technological breakthroughs will not come to our aid. There is only so much land that you can live on, farm on, raise livestock on and build factories on. There are only so many fish in the sea and even today they are being badly over fished. The problem isn't consumerism, it's us. We take from the planet and give nothing back in return. Imagine life on Earth when there's 50 or 100 billion people. Will we even survive to reach that point?

[Frank Petronio]

I recall reading books in the 70s predicting our overpopulation and collapse right about... now... or maybe it was 2000 or 2005...

If anything, we ought to be having more babies in the first world, not less.

Seems to me that dictators, Socialism, beaurucrats, and the lack of a market system have caused the world's leading environmental disasters... for example:

1. Chernoybol

2. The warlords who are burning off billions of cubic feet per day of Natural Gas in Central Africa

3. China

4. Russia

5. New Jersey (well they have a lot of Democrats.)

[Don Miller]

Great for Chris. I like his new work. I wondered why he wasn't around. Never met him personally, but he seems like a nice guy.

If he's an artist, why does the media matter?

[Ben Chase]

The problem isn't consumerism, it's us. We take from the planet and give nothing back in return. Imagine life on Earth when there's 50 or 100 billion people. Will we even survive to reach that point?

That's what major pandemics are for. :)

[Michael Kadillak]

I respect what he's doing. He's not wigging out, he's just looking at the big picture.

The problem with consumerism isn't so much consumerism but population. If you have 6 billion consumers on planet Earth maybe the Earth can handle the stripping of it's resources, or maybe we can come up with some better technologies to recycle materials, but when the Earth's population is 12 billion or 25 billion, and that could be in 50 years, there is a tipping point where the Earth can not recover and where even huge technological breakthroughs will not come to our aid. There is only so much land that you can live on, farm on, raise livestock on and build factories on. There are only so many fish in the sea and even today they are being badly over fished. The problem isn't consumerism, it's us. We take from the planet and give nothing back in return. Imagine life on Earth when there's 50 or 100 billion people. Will we even survive to reach that point?

Human existance on the planet earth is without question THE WORST THING that the environment could have ever imagined. Since our ancestors started walking erect we
have been mucking things up in every way possible because that is what we do best. All we can do is manage the degredation component to mother earth but make no mistake the earth would be FAR better if we collective were not here. But we are and we have been for a very long time and the world as we know it is not coming to an end. The good news is that in relative terms we only live a relatively short time so my attitude is to live a good life and be conservative, but do not apologize of feel bad for being the supreme species. We earned the right to do what we do. Yes?

Natural resources are there to be consumed and guess what - we consume them. I make no apologies for the house I live in, the food I put on the table, the film and chemicals I use for my photography and the metals and plastics that make our life the marvelous thing that it is. I recycle my aluminum and plastics, mulch my lawn clippings, conserve my water usage to the degree possible and make every effort to minimize my carbon footprint. But I am not going to freeze my ass off, starve or start stressing out being who I strive to be. That is where reality and fanaticism depart company. Now that the Chinese and the Indians and the rest of what we used to refer to as the Third World have had a chance to get a glimpse of raising their standard of living far above the open fire in a grass hut (thanks you internet), the global economy is rearing its ugly head as the human experience continues to exponentially grow on its own terms. So if everyone does the right thing and mitigates their "consumption" to the lowest degree possible what difference does it make in the bigger scheme of things? The best thing possible for the Chris Jordans of the world would be to somehow eliminate 100 million humans from the consumption equation. There is no possible way that you can improve the consumption habits of the existing population base to alter the state of degredation because all you would be doing is borrowing time.

I chose to look at the situation with a realistic perspective and keep the stress component at bay. Being realistic is not only necessary, but it is the only way to get along. Life is very good so by all means enjoy it!

Cheers!

[Bruce Watson]

I respect what he's doing. He's not wigging out, he's just looking at the big picture.

The problem with consumerism isn't so much consumerism but population. If you have 6 billion consumers on planet Earth maybe the Earth can handle the stripping of it's resources, or maybe we can come up with some better technologies to recycle materials...

We can't sustain the consumer culture because there are just too many of us trying to consume. That is, the root cause of the sustainability issues is the size of the human population.

I've seen estimates that the earth's carrying capacity is somewhere around 1-3 billion humans. We are already way over the planet's carrying capacity, which is what's causing the problems we have, from global warming to the loss of 90% of the "food fish" in the world's oceans, to the islands of floating plastic junk in the oceans that have an aggregated size of the state of Texas.

Yet, no one will talk about the over population problem. Certainly not the world's religious leaders. Certainly not the world's political leaders. It'll be interesting to see if Chris tackles that some day.

Then again, it may turn out to be a moot point. Hardly anyone knows, but it takes a pound of oil to put a pound of beef on the table. This includes the fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, transportation costs, all of it. When we run out of oil, big agra is going to slow to a halt. Has to since it requires oil to make the herbicides, fertilizers, and pesticides without which big agra can't exist. Oil has allowed factory farming to increase per acre yields by 5x or so over sustainable farming.

What's going to happen to the world population of humans when we loose 4/5 of our food due to a lack of oil? Don't be surprised if the first thing we do is cut down every tree on the planet, just like the Easter Islanders did. Even though we know where that road leads.

I'm all for Chris doing his thing to create awareness of what we humans are doing to the only habitable space available to us. I just hope it's not too little too late. But at least he's trying.

[Juergen Sattler]

I very much respect Chris for what he is doing. His images provoke a reaction and I agree with him that statistics only cannot convey how much we consume without ever thinking about it. Platsic bags are a great example - how many bags do you bring back from the grocery store? Does anyone ever consider to reuse these bags next time they go shopping? In many countries in Europe, plastic bags are banned now - you can buy a bio-degradable bad at the store for a dollar or two and use that over and over again. When will we in the US wake up and follow an example like that? Chris is making us aware of these issues without raising himself to the status of a know-it-all guru. I am sure that his work does have an impact on the viewer!

[David A. Goldfarb]

A natural foods store chain in the US tried to encourage reuse of plastic bags around 1989 I recall, offering something like 5 cents for every bag reused, but in Boston where I was living at the time, the health department put an end to the practice on the grounds that it would make it more difficult to trace outbreaks of food poisoning.

[Kirk Gittings]

Frankly I think Chris' work rocks in this and earlier phases. There is an obvious progression aesthetically, graphically and politically. I can't wait to see what he does next.

And who knew, he was also the handsomest guy on the forum?

[paulr]

And who knew, he was also the handsomest guy on the forum?

you probably know the "official" story ... that he left the forum of his own accord because he switched to smaller cameras.

but there are rumors that he got kicked out, like pete best got kicked out of the beatles, because he was getting all the attention from the chicks.

[Kirk Gittings]

He is the dude.

[QT Luong]

I am wondering why he seems to have turned his back to photography by saying that he "used to be a photographer" as if that was incompatible with being a conceptual artist.

[jnantz]

snipp

you probably know the "official" story ... that he left the forum of his own accord because he switched to smaller cameras.



he always said that as soon as he could get the results he wanted
without using a lf camera, he would make the switch.

its good to see someone trying to make a difference ...

[Brian K]

I recall reading books in the 70s predicting our overpopulation and collapse right about... now... or maybe it was 2000 or 2005...

If anything, we ought to be having more babies in the first world, not less.

Seems to me that dictators, Socialism, beaurucrats, and the lack of a market system have caused the world's leading environmental disasters... for example:

1. Chernoybol

2. The warlords who are burning off billions of cubic feet per day of Natural Gas in Central Africa

3. China

4. Russia

5. New Jersey (well they have a lot of Democrats.)


We need to be having less babies, period.

We in the US, have been the worst offender. We have caused more greenhouse gases than China and Russia combined.

An excellent argument can be made that it is the right side of the politcal equation here in the US that has the lion's share of responsibility for pollution. As they have kept fuel efficency standards down, the Bush admin eliminated or gutted the clean air and clean water federal standards and then raised the legal acceptable standards of arsenic in drinking water, dropped the lawsuits against some of the worst polluters and rescinded fines and penalties that had already been levied by the DEA (something which many states sued the Bush Admin over, including Eliot Spitzer when he was NY AG).

The Bush Admin had the oil and gas companies, including Enron, come in and plan energy policy and not have even one person representing the environmental side of the issue. The incident following 9/11 where the Bush admin had the DEA edit out warnings of high levels of dangerous toxins like asbestos in the air around ground zero is a prime example of their character. Apparently the health and lives of the rescue workers, as well as the people whom live and work near there,(and I take this personally because my wife used to work in the WTC, went back to work a few blocks from GZ a week after 9/11 and had to breathe that air) was less valued than getting people back into their offices near ground zero. It's all about money and the greediest and most corrupt governments do the most damage.

Most often laws regulating pollution and environmental concerns come from the left side of politics, the "tree huggers" , while the right side claims that any regulation of business is just bad for business and that business should do whatever it wants. A notable exception if I recall correctly is that Nixon signed the clean air and water acts. It has been the left side of the political spectrum that has been sounding the alarm over global warming, Al Gore being the most obvious spokesman, while the right side has dismissed it for years eventhough the scientific argument has been undeniable.

The poor countries , tend to do everything on the cheap, and for them cleaning up pollution, setting pollution standards, and enforcing environmental laws is expensive. We don't have that excuse, we can afford to minimize the damage we do, we just choose not to, there's more money in making weapons than in cleaning the air we breath and the water we drink.

[rknewcomb]

[QUOTE=Frank Petronio;277458]i still don't understand what the problem with consumerism is? That we are able to produce and market all of these items is a tremendous tribute to our civilization's intelligence and capabilities. Thanks to capitalism and free markets we now have the highest rate of home ownership, the longest lifespans, the highest literacy, the longest period between major wars, etc. ever in the history of the human race."

WE also have the largest amount of personal and national debt, the most expensive health care in the world, high infant mortality rate, use way too much energy for our population size, have citizens blissfully unaware of the rest of the world and "free markets" are controlled by agressive marketing and those that run the news outlets.

Robert Newcomb

[paulr]

I am wondering why he seems to have turned his back to photography by saying that he "used to be a photographer" as if that was incompatible with being a conceptual artist.

I don't want to speak for him, but it sounds to me like he's avoiding potentially constricting definitions. He doesn't even want to call himself an artist ... he says he likes to think of himself as being somewhere between an artist and an activist without getting too entrenched in either way of thinking.

There might also be something there about preempting criticism. If he called himself a photographer, there would be a certain number of conservative photographers (you might know a few!) saying "oh, no you're not!" But he can avoid that conversation simply by avoiding the definition.

I see musicians doing this. The group Medesky, Martin & Wood refuses to call themselves a Jazz group. They go by the ambiguous title of "contemporary improvising musicians" or something like that. They all come from a jazz background, and know how conservative and critical their fellow jazzies can be. By avoiding the title, they can avoid all the "that's not jazz!" arguements that would surely follow.

The band can blame the record stores for filing their CDs in the jazz section. But chris probably doesn't have to worry much about how others categorize him, because curators and collectors have become so interested in interdisciplinary work and new media.

[seawolf66]

I will give Chris Jordon: Credit where its due, He did all right as a Fotographer , but some reason he felt that, that was not enough ,so along comes the Green thyme, and he is ready ,and what he points out is the truth about how disgracefull we humans are of our surroundings and how we waste our resources, It use to be a child was very happy if they got a couple of toys for xmas or a birthday , Now god you can not get away with less $500.00 to a $1,000.00 , I know economy "eh" ! So to chris Jordon I tip my hat to him: His point of view is well made:

[Don Miller]

Genetic engineering will soon allow a few of us to kill most of us. So be happy.

We need to take better care of our planet, but the population problem is temporary.

Science will solve the problem - just not in a way most people alive at that time will find desirable.

[tim atherton]

I am wondering why he seems to have turned his back to photography by saying that he "used to be a photographer" as if that was incompatible with being a conceptual artist.

Like Paul said, but I also think think it was ever so slightly tongue in cheek.

And I think he's been dumped on more than a few times of here for a. taking up with a funny little digital camera instead of toughing it all out with an 8x10 and b. it's not "real (mans) photography" he's doing now anyway (it's some kind of fake digi art stuff)...

[Marko]

Like Paul said, but I also think think it was ever so slightly tongue in cheek.

And I think he's been dumped on more than a few times of here for a. taking up with a funny little digital camera instead of toughing it all out with an 8x10 and b. it's not "real (mans) photography" he's doing now anyway (it's some kind of fake digi art stuff)...

And he chose the most intelligent response to that nonsense. It is a response that cuts all the attendant crap and elliminates the "discussion" that would surely follow any attempt to explain or debate. Witness this board and endless rounds of digital vs. film blabber...

My hat's off to Chris for having both the clear focus and the intelligence to insulate himself from detractors. Not to mention that I do like both his idea and his execution of it.

[Bruce Watson]

If anything, we ought to be having more babies in the first world, not less.

That's just completely illogical.


Seems to me that dictators, Socialism, beaurucrats, and the lack of a market system have caused the world's leading environmental disasters...

Right... the free market is what gave us DDT in the first place, and wide spread use of DDT was a far greater ecological disaster than Chernoybol. It was governments that banned DDT. Because government is good.

The free market without regulation would kill us all in the pursuit of profit, as the DDT case clearly illustrates. Would that this were an isolated incident, but it is not. Regulation, government regulation, is what saves us from the excesses of the free market. The free market will not regulate itself as it has shown over and over and over. Even republicans in the USA know (knew?) this -- it was Nixon who created the EPA, remember? Even Nixon knew that government regulation was a good thing.

It's the current crop of regressive republicans who insanely think that regulation is bad. And it's this current crop that is at least partially responsible for artists like Chris Jordan. They've created such a mess that artists like Chris who are concerned for the future and can see beyond next Tuesday feel like they have to change direction and address the mess.

I'm glad there are artists like Chris Jordan out there doing that work, calling attention to the mess we are making and implicitly asking us to do something about it. It's a worthwhile calling. Good on him.

[Tim Hyde]

Bruce-

As "resident heretic" you should question conventional wisdom more often. Even the left-leaning World Health Organizaiton now admits that banning DDT was a mistake, based on bad science, and has cost millions and millions of lives because of malaria, mostly in poor countries.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Oh well, I guess I am going to catch the flack for not participating in this love fest, but I gotta say it.

Jordan deserves kudos for his great ability to promote himself and finding the right schtick to feed the "art" world, the sappy, pseudo environmental, I am so noble for my social conscience kind of crap.

I liked his initial work, the one where he got published in VC, he then went on to do carbon copies of Burtynsky's work and his present work is like working at a paper mill, you are at first shocked by the smell but then get used to it after a little while and fail to notice it. He found a clever idea to illustrate statistics and for that my hat off to him, but the "message" is trite and as much as beating a dead horse as the digital vs analog debate here.

The worst part for me is that this is the kind of BS where the person decrying such deproable behavior is actually saying "do as I say not as I do". I am so tired of this fake social conscience, if you want to denounce consumerism, then go live in a comune, walk or use a bicycle to do your work, in other words, live like a Quaker or Menonite and then come and point the finger at me. Exolting a cleaner living, and then going about your life using a gas guzzler (if I recall correctly he used to drive a Jeep, one of the worst fuel economy vehicles around), heating and cooling your apartment or house with electric energy or gas, etc, etc, is just plain hypocritical.

It has become popular to jump in the "environmental" bandwagon, but those who do rarely follow their own advice or they do for a while until it becomes too inconvenient.

So I guess just to be honest and maybe state what I beleive many here are thinking, yes, I envy his self marketing skill (he should be the one here telling us how to promote ourselves), I certainly envy his print prices and the fact that he seems to be able to sell them, and I salute him for finding the right combination of BS to give to the "art" community.

[Michael Kadillak]

Posts like this one give everyone a chance to rip everyone for everything they think should be rectified. No matter who holds the political reins certain people have a tendency to see the glass half full. I am just proud of the fact that this post has not gotten completely out of control.

The marvelous thing about living in a free society is that each and every one of us can pursue our passions as long as we stay withn the context of the law. From shaving your head giving up all of your worldly possessions and moving to a monestary in Tibet to being a CEO of a major corporation and all parts inbetween the possibilities are limitless and for that we can all be thankful. I wish Chris the best.

As my grandfather said many times - There is no heaven on earth

[SamReeves]

Sorry I don't buy into "green" art or photography. It's bad enough most Dems and a few Reps are pushing "green" lifestyles down our throats from a legislative standpoint. I'm keeping my SUV, using plastic bags (especially for the film holders), and eating meat. I don't feel sorry for doing so one bit. :mad:

[paulr]

There are obvious reasons why people feel this kind of work is hypocritical (look at all that paper! Computers are toxic! He had to drive to make the pictures! He took a plane to the exhibition opening!).

Chris has discussed these concerns in interviews, and has said many times that he doesn't want to be seen as preaching. He hints at this in the interview linked by the o.p. ... he's not saying "look at yourself," he's saying, "look at us."

Any activist endeavor raises questions. It is very difficult to address fundamental problems in a society without participating in that society, and by extension participating in the problems themselves.

Becoming a hermit and living in a solar-powered yurt with an organic garden would indeed have been one option for Chris. But it begs the question, could he make as much difference doing that as he could by engaging the public with his art? One person dropping off the grid likely makes less difference than thousands of people having their consciousness raised by notch or two.

In general, rhetorical art is not my thing. I don't like being told what to think or feel. So I appreciate chris saying that he identifies himself as an activist (an admittedly rhetorical role) as much as an artist.

And I like the way his work works. It simply represents the consequences of how we live, in a visual way that we can actually grasp. statistics are often ungraspable; we tune out big numbers because we have no frame of reference for them. But to actually SEE 8 hours of jet vapor trails, or one afternoon worth grocery bags, or whatever, brings these numbers back down to earth, into a realm where they can actually make an impression.

[tim atherton]

And I like the way his work works. It simply represents the consequences of how we live, in a visual way that we can actually grasp. statistics are often ungraspable; we tune out big numbers because we have no frame of reference for them. But to actually SEE 8 hours of jet vapor trails, or one afternoon worth grocery bags, or whatever, brings these numbers back down to earth, into a realm where they can actually make an impression.

I must say that the jet trails is one of his best pieces in the series so far too (especially after following all the back and forth on here about how to find them)

[Brian K]

There is a downside to doing cut and paste work that is trying to communicate a message. The fact that it is cut and paste, therefore completely contrived causes a loss of credibility of the image, that is while it may represent something true, the image itself is not true, it's contrived.

[clay harmon]

Sorta like a painting, you mean?


There is a downside to doing cut and paste work that is trying to communicate a message. The fact that it is cut and paste, therefore completely contrived causes a loss of credibility of the image, that is while it may represent something true, the image itself is not true, it's contrived.

[Don Miller]

There is a downside to doing cut and paste work that is trying to communicate a message. The fact that it is cut and paste, therefore completely contrived causes a loss of credibility of the image, that is while it may represent something true, the image itself is not true, it's contrived.

I do agree that how it is made detracts from it's beauty. Or perhaps detracts from the emotional impact. His 8x10 work has more impact.

[paulr]

I do agree that how it is made detracts from it's beauty. Or perhaps detracts from the emotional impact. His 8x10 work has more impact.

have you seen his new work in person?

[Marko]

I do agree that how it is made detracts from it's beauty. Or perhaps detracts from the emotional impact. His 8x10 work has more impact.

I would say it largely depends on the baggage each viewer brings to the experience. If you value the process more than the result, that is certainly true.

But for those among us for whom the result is the ultimate goal, how he came there is much less important than the fact that his artwork provokes thought. It does not accuse, it does not imply, it simply makes us uncomfortable enough with our own actions that we should actually stop and think about it all.

May not be as pretty, but IMO it beats the umpteenth rendition of an all-traditional print of dry fruit or fresh vegetables on an old, worn-out plate or some other such tired cliché any day.

;)

[paulr]

someone coming to his work with purist ideas about photography might be turned off by the cut 'n paste aspect of it ... but they'd also be approaching it as something that it's not.

he's not saying "here's a documentary photograph." he's not even calling himself a photographer anymore. his work owes as much to the old traditions of collage and assemblage as it does to photography. to judge it as a straight photograph is to misrepresent it.

[tim atherton]

There is a downside to doing cut and paste work that is trying to communicate a message. The fact that it is cut and paste, therefore completely contrived causes a loss of credibility of the image, that is while it may represent something true, the image itself is not true, it's contrived.

you mean like a painting or a poem

[Steven Barall]

Thank you for that post. I actually like Chris' work even more now. I love it when someone actually thinks about what they are doing and can actually laugh a bit. I'm tired of all of that unconscious art creation stuff. What he's doing is just using photography as a tool which is what it is and he isn't being sentimental about it. He had a new idea and he switched tools.

His new photos are just more overtly completely subjective than his other ones but I believe that all photography is completely subjective so for me there is no real difference between his old work and his new work. He is just taking his responsibility for his work to a new level. In other words, I don't think that his new work is less "photographic" than his old work. Of course they might be philosophically different but that's a subject for a another forum maybe.

Thanks again for the post. Cheers.

[Brian K]

It's not a matter of detracting from it's beauty, it's more a matter of detracting from the power of the mesaage it's sending. As in the case of the contrails image, which i like and think is really good, I think it's lost it's credibility as an editorial statement because of it's contrivance. When you make a political statement, having a photograph that is a real life depiction of the problem has more gravity than an image that was contrived.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

It's not a matter of detracting from it's beauty, it's more a matter of detracting from the power of the mesaage it's sending. As in the case of the contrails image, which i like and think is really good, I think it's lost it's credibility as an editorial statement because of it's contrivance. When you make a political statement, having a photograph that is a real life depiction of the problem has more gravity than an image that was contrived.

You mean like Yann Arthus-Bertrand who took the aerial shot of the trash dump in Mexico City? Miles, and miles of trash.......

[paulr]

... having a photograph that is a real life depiction of the problem has more gravity than an image that was contrived.

i think you're missing the point of what he's doing. he's creating images to show you can't be seen. it's not possible to take a journalistic photograph of 8 hours of contrails, because the the subject is too spread out in time and space to be photographable. his piece says "this is what it would look like if you could see it all at once."

they're all like thought experiments, but in visual form. like when someone says, "a billion dollars in one dollar bills, in stack, would be 150 miles high," to give you a more visceral sense of the immensity of the number. except that chris is showing you the stack. the point isn't whether or not there was actually a stack of bills soaring into space.

[tim atherton]

As in the case of the contrails image, which i like and think is really good, I think it's lost it's credibility as an editorial statement because of it's contrivance.

he's not making an editorial statement though?

[Brian K]

You mean like Yann Arthus-Bertrand who took the aerial shot of the trash dump in Mexico City? Miles, and miles of trash.......

Jorge, something more along those lines. I think for the viewer knowing that what they are seeing is actual, real life, is more powerful than knowing that someone constructed something to illustrate a point.

I posted a contrail photo below, it's unmanipulated, and I'm not claiming it's a better or worse photo of contrails than Chris Jordan's. I happen to really like Chris Jordan's Contrail photo. But the one I posted is real and I wonder if reality illustrates the point better in this case.

[Brian K]

i think you're missing the point of what he's doing. he's creating images to show you can't be seen. it's not possible to take a journalistic photograph of 8 hours of contrails, because the the subject is too spread out in time and space to be photographable. his piece says "this is what it would look like if you could see it all at once."

they're all like thought experiments, but in visual form. like when someone says, "a billion dollars in one dollar bills, in stack, would be 150 miles high," to give you a more visceral sense of the immensity of the number. except that chris is showing you the stack. the point isn't whether or not there was actually a stack of bills soaring into space.

Paul, I'm not talking about the actual point he's making but if by doing it through a contrived image he's not getting across the bigger picture. Obviously you can't show that 800 million trees were cut down for catalogs, but then again he's showing a manufactured image of 800 million toothpicks not trees. I think his older work better illustrated the mass consumerism because even though it didn't show the vast numbers, one could still get a sense of the vastness, but also see the reality of a non manipulated image.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Jorge, something more along those lines. I think for the viewer knowing that what they are seeing is actual, real life, is more powerful than knowing that someone constructed something to illustrate a point.

I posted a contrail photo below, it's unmanipulated, and I'm not claiming it's a better or worse photo of contrails than Chris Jordan's. I happen to really like Chris Jordan's Contrail photo. But the one I posted is real and I wonder if reality illustrates the point better in this case.

Well there you go, in addition, it is very easy to point the finger. I don't need Jordan or any other pseudo environmentalist like him to tell me there are things wrong in the world. What I want to know is now that they have pointed it out, what are THEY doing about it.

The US is the richest country in the world yet poverty has not been stamped out, the US has the most efficient, knowledgeable, medical system in the world, yet few can afford it.

There is no such thing as social conscience without follow through. I bet Jordan still enjoys a consumer oriented life style, I bet he loves his cell phone, computer, dslr, etc. Having him illustrate "look how bad we are" as it has been the interpretation given here is un adulterated BS.

[Don Miller]

I would say it largely depends on the baggage each viewer brings to the experience. If you value the process more than the result, that is certainly true.

But for those among us for whom the result is the ultimate goal, how he came there is much less important than the fact that his artwork provokes thought. It does not accuse, it does not imply, it simply makes us uncomfortable enough with our own actions that we should actually stop and think about it all.

May not be as pretty, but IMO it beats the umpteenth rendition of an all-traditional print of dry fruit or fresh vegetables on an old, worn-out plate or some other such tired cliché any day.

;)


Why do you presume to know why I interpret his work as I do.

[paulr]

I bet Jordan still enjoys a consumer oriented life style, I bet he loves his cell phone, computer, dslr, etc. Having him illustrate "look how bad we are" as it has been the interpretation given here is un adulterated BS.

like you said, it's very easy to point the finger. it's very easy to say someone's full of b.s.

if he was positioning himself as some kind of savior, then yeah, i'd agree he's full of it. but he's emphatic about not trying to do that.

he's taking ideas that people may already understand intellectually or statistically, but showing them in a way that lends a human sense of scale. some people find it very powerful. usually it's people who have seen the work in person. have you?

[Marko]

Why do you presume to know why I interpret his work as I do.

Why do you think I presume anything? Your qualification of his work sounded very definitive:


...how it is made detracts from it's beauty. Or perhaps detracts from the emotional impact. His 8x10 work has more impact.

My point was essentially that whether it detracts or not depends on each individual viewer's background. Where is the presumption in that?

[Don Miller]

have you seen his new work in person?

I saw his 8x10 work in a gallery. Made an effort to see it.

Considering how his new work was created, yes I have seen it "in person". Right here on my computer monitor.

I like his new stuff. I especially like its messages. But my feelings are similar to those expressed by Brian K above.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Considering how his new work was created, yes I have seen it "in person". Right here on my computer monitor.

LOL...there is that...

[Nathan Potter]

I think Chris is simply documenting an interesting condition in our society. He is presenting it to us for our own interpretation and I find the images fascinating in colors and patterns - almost abstract. I'm not interested in his politics but like to read his images based on my own sensibilities. Nice work Chris!

Even angels from their aspect splendid
Which none may fathom draw their power,
These earthly images uncomprehended
Are bright as in creations hour.

Nathan Potter

[Saulius]

What I will say about Chris's current work is that it's getting people to talk. Talk about his work talk about the subject matter. No, he's not giving solutions to problems but without conversation we'll never get there. To me that's one sign of good art, getting people involved and talking. I find most of his new work interesting and captivating. It's also nice to see someone from this forum/ former participant/ getting some success, I wish him well.

[Jim Chinn]

Genetic engineering will soon allow a few of us to kill most of us. So be happy.

We need to take better care of our planet, but the population problem is temporary.

Science will solve the problem - just not in a way most people alive at that time will find desirable.


Huxley's Brave New World wil be coming to your hometown soon!

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

What I will say about Chris's current work is that it's getting people to talk. Talk about his work talk about the subject matter. No, he's not giving solutions to problems but without conversation we'll never get there. To me that's one sign of good art, getting people involved and talking. I find most of his new work interesting and captivating. It's also nice to see someone from this forum/ former participant/ getting some success, I wish him well.

We have been having conversations about the environment since the 70s. The green house effect has been bandied around since the 80s. This is not a a problem that has a single solution and it would be unfair to ask Jordan that he propose a solution when he does not have the knowledge to do so.

The old cliche if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem applies very well here. What does he do aside from exploiting the environmental theme to be part of the solution? Does he support any environmental causes either with time or money? I bet not. Here lies the problem I have with this kind of activism, that is nothing more than hypocresy masked under good intentions. There has to come a time when we need to move past the "talking" stage and do something. Each of us can do something, some more than others but we can all contribuite. Conmiserating and showing work that tells us how "bad" we are and then going about your life just like you did before is nothing more than exploitation.

He found a good hook, good for him, he found success with this hook, good for him once more. But the work and the "message" is empty. Telling people he just wants to "show" how terrible is this consumerism is a cop out. You would have to be living on a cave for the last 30 years not to be aware of this.

[paulr]

Considering how his new work was created, yes I have seen it "in person". Right here on my computer monitor.

that's b.s. and you know it. the work is very large prints. if you haven't seen them then you haven't seen them.

[paulr]

We have been having conversations about the environment since the 70s. The green house effect has been bandied around since the 80s. This is not a a problem that has a single solution and it would be unfair to ask Jordan that he propose a solution when he does not have the knowledge to do so.

Well, we have been having conversations about the landscape since the 1700s and conversations about portraits since before the middle ages. Does this mean there's nothing left to talk about or make art about?

[chris jordan]

Hello guys, great to see a thread about my work, and thank you all for your engaged comments. As always, my work is meant to provoke; if I wanted to do work that didn't provoke, I'd be shooting B&W calla lilies. But then someone would be complaining that my work wasn't engaged in the contemporary world, eh?

Those of you who want to see me get my butt kicked are in for a treat: I will be on the Steven Colbert Report on October 10th. Holy FREAK! If I come out of that one unscathed, then I will take Frank Petronio out for a beer at the bar of his choice.

Warm regards from Seattle,

~cj

[Don Miller]

that's b.s. and you know it. the work is very large prints. if you haven't seen them then you haven't seen them.

I see. Make it big enough and it's art. I need to look at that new epson 60 inch printer.

[paulr]

ha!

chris, PLEASE post about your experience after the show. i'm dying to know how well prepped (if at all) his guests are.

you know it's going to be a mock ass-kicking, right?

with luck more entertaining than the mock ass-kicking you've been getting here.

[Don Miller]

Hello guys, great to see a thread about my work, and thank you all for your engaged comments. As always, my work is meant to provoke; if I wanted to do work that didn't provoke, I'd be shooting B&W calla lilies. But then someone would be complaining that my work wasn't engaged in the contemporary world, eh?

Those of you who want to see me get my butt kicked are in for a treat: I will be on the Steven Colbert Report on October 10th. Holy FREAK! If I come out of that one unscathed, then I will take Frank Petronio out for a beer at the bar of his choice.

Warm regards from Seattle,

~cj

Subtly threaten to use Colbert head as the building block of a huge unflattering image. That'll keep in line.

[paulr]

I see. Make it big enough and it's art. I need to look at that new epson 60 inch printer.

sure, join the straw man argument crowd and see if anyone's impressed.

your comment was about the impact of the work, which suggests something about the experience of looking at it. i wanted to ascertain if you actually had that experience. you've already answered.

[Don Miller]

Jorge, something more along those lines. I think for the viewer knowing that what they are seeing is actual, real life, is more powerful than knowing that someone constructed something to illustrate a point.

I posted a contrail photo below, it's unmanipulated, and I'm not claiming it's a better or worse photo of contrails than Chris Jordan's. I happen to really like Chris Jordan's Contrail photo. But the one I posted is real and I wonder if reality illustrates the point better in this case.


O.T. The temperature effect of no contrails in the US for a few days after 911 is very interesting. Well, interesting for those interested in science over FOX news.

[claudiocambon]

What does he do aside from exploiting the environmental theme to be part of the solution? Does he support any environmental causes either with time or money? I bet not.

Chris donated all the profits from his book on Katrina to a non-profit, which is admirable.

His responsibilities as an individual consumer aside, it is his role as an artist to put forth issues that need to be discussed in new and compelling ways; that's what artists do. There is nothing facile about what he is doing at all, ie, as others have said, getting people to consider the problem in new ways.

[Don Miller]

sure, join the straw man argument crowd and see if anyone's impressed.

your comment was about the impact of the work, which suggests something about the experience of looking at it. i wanted to ascertain if you actually had that experience. you've already answered.


I have no idea what the "straw man" arguement is in this case. I'm not anti-digital at all.

[Don Miller]

But with Jorge I think we can talk about "ad hominem" arguments.

What's up with that Jorge. Do unto others, dude.

[paulr]

I have no idea what the "straw man" arguement is in this case. I'm not anti-digital at all.

"I see. Make it big enough and it's art. I need to look at that new epson 60 inch printer."

that's a straw man arguement. no one said anything about big=art.

my criticism was about judging the "impact" of something you haven't seen.

saying you've seen a body of large scale printed works based on web images is like saying you've seen a feature film based on clips posted on youtube.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

But with Jorge I think we can talk about "ad hominem" arguments.

What's up with that Jorge. Do unto others, dude.

Huh?

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Chris donated all the profits from his book on Katrina to a non-profit, which is admirable.

His responsibilities as an individual consumer aside, it is his role as an artist to put forth issues that need to be discussed in new and compelling ways; that's what artists do. There is nothing facile about what he is doing at all, ie, as others have said, getting people to consider the problem in new ways.

Sorry, as an artist it is his responsibility to present art, nothing more, nothing less. If he choses to present an activist point of view then what is he doing to back up his views?

All he is doing is to illustrate a problem and tell us "look how wasteful we are"...BFD.... this is not news to anybody.

I will be impressed when I see an interview that says "CJ not only makes us aware of a wasteful society but he is also a member/supporter of xxxxx which is an environmental xxxx...." Till then, he has found a good hook to attach to his art and generate interest so he can sell it. Great idea! my hat off to him for finding a way to exploit the issue, but as a message it is empty.

In the end it is no big deal, I found the illustrations clever and very well done. A perfect example of what good digital art can do. As a message it is trite, and after you get past the first couple of examples the novelty wears off, regardless of wether the images are big or small. Then again, this is just my opinion, an opinion that come from someone who actually does environmental work for free, I actually put my money where my mouth is.....

[Marko]

saying you've seen a body of large scale printed works based on web images is like saying you've seen a feature film based on clips posted on youtube.

Well, putting someone down is much easier than creating something original, isn't it? That's probably why we have so many ad hominems here lately, mostly from the same set of characters.

But that's fine too, everybody's got to show what they're made of. ;)

P.S. Come to think of it, that's why we have so many cala lillies, half domes and long gone church ruins too...

[QT Luong]

Chris donated all the profits from his book on Katrina to a non-profit, which is admirable.

I believe he donated the profits from the *prints* as well. How many here have done so for a whole body of work ? In light of that fact, I find the comments of those who question his motives without knowledge particularly distasteful.

[Don Miller]

"I see. Make it big enough and it's art. I need to look at that new epson 60 inch printer."

that's a straw man arguement. no one said anything about big=art.

my criticism was about judging the "impact" of something you haven't seen.

saying you've seen a body of large scale printed works based on web images is like saying you've seen a feature film based on clips posted on youtube.

Or like watching a movie on television rather than the theater.

[Brian K]

........ As always, my work is meant to provoke; if I wanted to do work that didn't provoke, I'd be shooting B&W calla lilies. But then someone would be complaining that my work wasn't engaged in the contemporary world, eh?

~cj

Nothing provokes me more than ANOTHER photo of B&W calla lilies. I like the new imagery but I think your older work, which was actual depictions of scenes of mass consumerism and waste might have held more power because of their basis in reality.

[Chris Strobel]

Nothing provokes me more than ANOTHER photo of B&W calla lilies.

Nothing INSPIRES me more than another GOOD photo of B&W calla lilies :D

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I believe he donated the profits from the *prints* as well. How many here have done so for a whole body of work ? In light of that fact, I find the comments of those who question his motives without knowledge particularly distasteful.

If it comes to monetary value, I have donated far more than a few print sales. The Katrina donations, aside from the fact that it seemed that the desicion came from some pressure in this forum, while commendable is just one instance. Convictions mean nothing if they don't have sustaining power. I have been doing environmental work both for pay and for free for the last 25 years, so yeah, I get irked by the pseudo enviromentalists who bitch about the sad state of affaris and then go on doing nothing about it.

[QT Luong]

Prints sold at the Paul Kopeikin do not have exactly the same monetary value as those sold on ebay, and they consist of his full-time work and source of revenue, not a hobby. Unless you have evidence that Chris has "done nothing about the environment", the decent thing to do would be to refrain from comments that assume it is an established fact, and at least give him the benefit of the doubt.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Prints sold at the Paul Kopeikin do not have exactly the same monetary value as those sold on ebay, and they consist of his full-time work and source of revenue, not a hobby. Unless you have evidence that Chris has "done nothing about the environment", the decent thing to do would be to refrain from comments that assume it is an established fact, and at least give him the benefit of the doubt.

Did I say I donated my prints sales? My environmental work is part of the way I earned my money and I can assure you I spent far more time DOING environmental work than sitting in front of a computer. To the present day I still do environmental work and provide free consulting services to municpalities in Mexico which cannot afford a consultant for their water treatment plants. So while you might think you were clever about the slight about my prints, I assure you even if cj sold 20 of his prints and donated the FULL income from those prints to any environmental cause he still comes up far short compared to the amount I have donated with my time and effort during 25 years.

As to evidence, no I don't have any, but then I don't have any that he has either. Is up to him to tell us that, one way or the other. He was quick to announce his Katrina donations, what happened after that?

Bottom line, is the work good? Sure, but lets not pretend it has any environmental relevance, the message is old and it is only a means to drum up business for him.

[Brian K]

If you want to question people's integrity about the validity of their altruism you can add a lot more people than CJ to the list. I'm sure he has a certain level of belief in what he's doing, whether it's 100 % altruism or has an element of smart marketing only he knows. I would think there's a combination of the two. If you're going to market your work why not do it in a positive way with a timely message. I think he's been very smart.

[Tim Hyde]

No matter how many times think about it, I fail to come up with a single reason why, on this LF Board, I should care how much Jorge has contributed or not contributed to the environment or any other cause. For that matter, I really don't care how much Chris Jordan has contributed. My questions hover around the questions of whether it is art or politics, is it good art, and of course the fascinating technical questions about how he actually produced it. By the way, whatever you think about his capture and processing methods, he is still a world-class digital printer and for that reason alone I wish he would pay us a visit more often.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I should care how much Jorge has contributed or not contributed to the environment or any other cause

You should not, in the same way I don't care what you do... ;)

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

If you want to question people's integrity about the validity of their altruism you can add a lot more people than CJ to the list. I'm sure he has a certain level of belief in what he's doing, whether it's 100 % altruism or has an element of smart marketing only he knows. I would think there's a combination of the two. If you're going to market your work why not do it in a positive way with a timely message. I think he's been very smart.

Agreed, but lets call a spade a spade, and call this smart marketing and not elevate it to a grand environmental contribuiton as it seems some want us to beleive here.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

I am one of those who feel CJ is a very talented artist and business person and generally I have enjoyed his work since this forum first introduced me to it. I wish I could see his new work in person and I might drive up to Boulder, Colorado and do so as I believe it is featured in a show up there.

From his website, the new work is certainly snazzy, for lack of a better term. The images are lush with color and the patterns draw me in and make me look closer for a few minutes. The size is certainly impressive and the theme, while nothing new, is important today. But I must confess, after lingering for a few minutes they become, well, boring to me. I am not sure why, perhaps because I don't see a lot of emotion in them or they are so perfectly made that I lose the message as I marvel at the technique. But, whatever it is they are not images that will live with me over time, perhaps I am just not the deep artist he is and I still like nice pictures of the world. I don't mind a message but tend to not like it hammered over my head.

I think his Katrina work was very emotional and I still remember the first time I looked at the book. The emotional pull they had on me made me truely hope the people that were hit by that terrible storm are able to rebuild their lives and I had to buy the book knowing he was donating the money to relief. That body of work made me want to help, even in some little way, and those are images that will linger in my mind for many years to come.

I wish I could say the same here, but it seems a little to slick. For sure, I was amazed by what I learned from the titles of the works and the technique was very impressive. But, I simply feel, for me, his earlier work was more impressive.

It has been fun to watch Chris and I know he will be very successful at anything he put his mind to, a talent like his is rare.

[paulr]

Bottom line, is the work good? Sure, but lets not pretend it has any environmental relevance ...

it has relevence if it raises consciousness and inspires people to think/vote/behave/spend differently. does it? i don' t know, and neither do you.

the fact that the message is an old one (you and i agree on that) does not mean that everyone has gotten it, and it certainly doesn't mean that everyone has gotten it in a way that inspires any action.

you could certainly be right. his work might not effect any change. but you could be wrong, too. it's not an easy thing to measure.

at any rate, if the work's only purpose was rhetorical, i'd be pretty uninterested in it. i like for the reason i like most work: it lets me see something, even something familiar, in a new and illuminating way.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

I was thinking about what I wrote above and wanted to add that I think his new work sort of becomes pop art, like Andy Warhol's Campbell soup cans taken to the extreme. The tough thing for me about the new work is that to really appreciate the message, it appears that you have to stand WAY back from it, but at the same time you need to be close to understand what you a looking at. My guess is that MoMA will have this hanging in it's galleries one day, where it would be perfectly at home.

Like I said, his is a rare talent.

[Michael Spear]

I think he has accomplised exactly what he wanted to. A dialog about the pressure that a population puts on the environment. Anyone who does not see the human impact on the environment may be spending too much time uder the cloth with the lens cap on. I do not think that old technology need necessarily go hand in hand with old ideas.

Good job Chris

Mike Spear

[chris jordan]

Hey Jorge, if I promise to disclose the amount of money I have donated in the last year to causes associated with the environment and social justice, will you personally pledge to match that amount? I am happy to provide a complete answer, with documentation.

~cj

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Hey Jorge, if I promise to disclose the amount of money I have donated in the last year to causes associated with the environment and social justice, will you personally pledge to match that amount? I am happy to provide a complete answer, with documentation.

~cj

LOL......Good try, but you see, as the director of the Household haz waste collection and destruction for Chemical Waste mgmt. In CA I have been responsible for the collection and destruction of millions of dollars in haz waste. As supervisor in the Houston area houseold Haz waste collection for Rollins Environmental, Technical Environmental Services and subsequently Laidlaw Environmental I was also responsible for a little less than a million dollars in haz waste destruction. Currently, since I got to Mexico in the last 6 years I have about 1000 hours in free consulting to waste water treatment plants. At a $100/hr I figure this is about $100000. Trust me when I tell you that your meager print sales don't even come close to what I have done in environmental conservation in the last 25 years. And I did all this without the bullshit and horn tooting you do. So you see, I talk the talk and walk the walk.

What do you do, donate a few dollars and then hype your work in exchange? It is so pathetic it is laughable.

[paulr]

What do you do, donate a few dollars and then hype your work in exchange? It is so pathetic it is laughable.

sounds to me like at the end of the day you two are on the same team. most people are doing nothing. what do you accomplish by berating him?

[Marko]

what do you accomplish by berating him?

Some people can only feel good when they make someone else feel bad.

Or you can think of it as grafitti of sorts - you can't really build a wall and expect it to remain clean, can you?

;)

[chris jordan]

So, Jorge, is that a yes? You promise to match my 2006 charitable donations, and I will disclose what the donations were, with documentation if anyone wants it. Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? (Someone please cut and paste his reply into a different message or I won't see it; he has been on my ignore list ever since I joined the forum...).

~cj

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

So, Jorge, is that a yes? You promise to match my 2006 charitable donations, and I will disclose what the donations were, with documentation if anyone wants it. Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? (Someone please cut and paste his reply into a different message or I won't see it; he has been on my ignore list ever since I joined the forum...).

~cj

I have put my money where my mouth is, for 25 years, so no, I have no need to match you I know what I have done and it is easily verifiable. Do your contributions match the $100000 I have donated in time? But I will tell you what, I will match you on the amount over $10000 that you have donated...deal?

[QT Luong]

I have put my money where my mouth is, for 25 years, so no, I have no need to match you I know what I have done and it is easily verifiable. Do your contributions match the $100000 I have donated in time? But I will tell you what, I will match you on the amount over $10000 that you have donated...deal?

Time is money ... NOT in the eyes of the IRS.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Time is money ... NOT in the eyes of the IRS.

Actually the reason I do it for free it is because I don't want to be in the Mexican version of the IRS. But then, not that I owe you any explanations, right?

[Brian K]

This is one of those forum arguments in which most participating come out smelling bad, maybe we should all just be thankful that some here have been generous with their time and or money and leave it at that. Gentlemen, thank you for your civic altruism and generosity.

[Doug Dolde]

It IS a pretty disgusting read.

Bragging about charitable giving shows it's an ego exercise, not done because one cares about the cause.

[claudiocambon]

I agree with others that this thread turned out pretty lousy. Rather than scream back at those who were belligerent, though, I would instead admonish the rest of us, myself included.

We have to keep our eyes on the prize. This thread should have been about Chris' work, about what in our minds specifically does and doesn't work, even whether in our eyes it does or doesn't work at all, one would hope explained as concretely as possible. Instead it became a shouting match between, on the one hand, an angry forum member who projects his own bitterness at his own lack of success onto the work, as well as the photographer himself, and, on the other hand, the rest of us, who, understandably, felt the attack was ridiculous, and that it should not go unchecked. Heck, it got so bad that even the photographer himself felt the need to defend himself.

I think the key is, somehow, to ignore these ad hominem attacks, and to keep the pace of the discussion going, hard as that may seem. As much as we may feel urged to say, "How dare you?" to such posts, what happens in the end is that the discussion becomes derailed.

A bunch of people are reading in a library. Someone comes in and starts screaming. Everyone else ends up screaming at this person to stop screaming. Everyone is screaming, and nothing gets done. No one wins.

[Marko]

This is one of those forum arguments in which most participating come out smelling bad

That's because at least one participant here "argues" in the same manner as upset chimps do. Same sensitivity, same methods, same results.

;)

The simplest way to not come out of a thread like this smelling bad is to peruse the ignore list.

[chris jordan]

Okay Jorge, send me your private email address and I will tell you the amount that you are now obligated to donate to charitable causes. You are in for some financial stress (or not, depending on whether you keep your promises).

And, guys, I'm sorry I got myself baited away from the conversation about my work. Jorge gets me every time with his negativity; I'm always oversensitive to being attacked about my integrity. Anyway, I hugely appreciate the comments of the rest of you, including the not-so-positive feedback from a few.

Check me out on Stephen Colbert on October 10th!

~cj

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I doubt it Jordan, I doubt you have donated over 100K, so here is my address which you could have gotten from the profile. rossorabbit@hotmail.com

And you are lucky I match you after that, I am not just a charlatan who decides on a good hook so he can sell work, there is a difference between doing this for a few years to get publicity and one doing it all of your profesional career out of convition, but you very conveniently ignore this.

[paulr]

I have put my money where my mouth is, for 25 years, so no, I have no need to match you I know what I have done and it is easily verifiable. Do your contributions match the $100000 I have donated in time? But I will tell you what, I will match you on the amount over $10000 that you have donated...deal?

The accounting will be tricky, because someone will have to determine if work done with Rollins Environmental and Laidlaw counts as money for or against the environment ....

http://www.movementech.org/EBIC/pubs/laidlaw.html

[Juergen Sattler]

Can't you guys just stop this nonsense? Who are you trying to convince, other than yourselfs? It's great that both of you have donated cash and/or time to good causes - so why care who gave most?

[Vaughn]

Thanks, Chris, for your great work. It is appreciated.

Hope I can see your prints someday!

Vaughn

[Ron Marshall]

Chris, I enjoy your work very much. It raises awareness and stimulates discussion. The benefits accruing from it cannot be measured in monerary terms.

[Andre Noble]

Ansel Adams had the right idea. I can't relate to Chris's newest, esoteric stuff.

[Marko]

Ansel Adams had the right idea. I can't relate to Chris's newest, esoteric stuff.


Ansel could've easily been considered esoteric back in his day, couldn't he? And chances are Ansel would dig it if he were alive.

[Michael T. Murphy]

Wow. :confused: :p

I just dropped in on this thread - after seeing Chris' web site yesterday. I have seen his work for years and admire it greatly.

Chris, thank you for continuing to visit here. Like Alec Soth's blog, hearing straight-up from folks who are following their vision and making a living at the same time is important for us all!

I have a degree in Photography. But I also have degrees in Philosophy and Business. All three can co-exist. :D

Again, thank you Chris. Best wishes.

Michael

[Vaughn]

Ansel could've easily been considered esoteric back in his day, couldn't he? And chances are Ansel would dig it if he were alive.

ITA. AA thought highly of Bill Brant's work...he called it, "...breath-taking in its power and simplicity." (from a letter to Brant in 1977). In the same letter he wrote, "At the age of 75+ I respond to your work with excitement and the urge to go out into the world and see things in new ways."

It amazes me how people, critics and "followers" alike, pigeon-hole AA into a tiny little box of the grand landscape.

Vaughn

[paulr]

Ansel Adams had the right idea.

how often does the right idea go unchanged for half a century? seems to me the "right idea" in art changes with the times. if it didn't, guys like ansel would have been happy to be pictorialists. or painters.

[Colin Robertson]

Just been to view Chris Jordans website. Perhaps it's only me, but I feel the images have no objective meaning without their accompanying text.
Imagine the picture of the jet trails labelled "Continental- takes you more places, more often." Or- the image of prison uniforms labelled "George W Bush has taken more dangerous scumbage out of circulation than any other president- keeping YOUR family safe". Impossible? The degree of abstraction which allows him to 'illustrate' the scale of consumer waste also dilutes their connection to the real world. Elsewhere in this thread is a real photograph of real jet trails tangled in the sky. That doesn't need to be interpreted- most viewers will immediately grasp what is being shown. Clearly Chris is doing well from this (good for him) but in what way do his new IMAGES speak to you about consumerism. Maybe He's having a joke?
What could be more evocative of the waste in society than huge, room-filling prints whose job is actualy performed better by a short line of text?

[tim atherton]

Just been to view Chris Jordans website. Perhaps it's only me, but I feel the images have no objective meaning without their accompanying text.

In most cases. the amount of "meaning" that can be carried by a photograph is generally very limited without any additional context, experience or text.

(take your example of the "real" jet trail photograph - that carries a very very limited amount of meaning by itself)

And as for photographs carrying objective meaning - do they? That's a whole new kettle of fish. (precisely what "language" do they use to convey that meaning for one thing?)


Elsewhere in this thread is a real photograph of real jet trails tangled in the sky. That doesn't need to be interpreted- most viewers will immediately grasp what is being shown

or equally it could have a tag line attached to it saying "Continental- takes you more places, more often."

It's rather informative to put this discussion alongside that of the two Fenton photographs and the whole issue of "real" (I'm still not entirely convinced that's something that can be applied to the content of a photograph), constructed, truth, meaning, content etc

[Ben Chase]

Honestly, I have been pretty reluctant to join this conversation, so I'll just be brief and try not to irritate a large portion of the photographic world here.

Looking at Chris's work, I must say that it is not the type of work that I particularly enjoy looking at, yet many of the creative patterns and compositions that I see are no doubt quite good.

Regardless of the intent of his work, or the message he is trying to convey, I believe his work stands on its own and IMHO, he has a lot of talent. As for the art-worthiness or whatever you want to call it - I'm hardly qualified to comment on such matters.

I think he deserves a lot of respect regarding how successful his work appears to be (gallery showings/etc). His vision, images and etc have appealed to the right people, and whether or not that was planned specifically for business reasons or personal reasons is inconsequential in this wonderful free market we have. In short, it works.

I certainly wish Chris continued success as an artist regardless of his political motivations.

[Michael T. Murphy]

Just been to view Chris Jordans website. Perhaps it's only me, but I feel the images have no objective meaning without their accompanying text.

No offense, but based on previous experience, I think you have to have the *experience* of seeing the work before you can really tell.

It is all about what you think, feel, perceive as you approach a work that large - what are they, like 5'x10' to 16'x32'? Wow! :)

Those layers of meaning will unwrap as you approach the image and resolve more detail. I would image there are at least 4 critical viewing positions where you start to say "oh, so that is what that is/means ....."

Have you ever seen an Andreas Gursky exhibition? Thomas Struth? Jeff Wall? Their beautiful, large format, well printed monographs look like incredibly poor JPEG thumbnails next to the actual work! :D

I would imagine the same is true here. I would not judge the images based on 72K JPEGS. How well does a 10K JPEG represent an 8x10 contact print?

Don't dismiss the ambiguity of the work too quickly. Ambiguity gets people to think, feel, explore, and spend time with a piece. If you give them a card that says "this work means X", they read the card, look at the piece, and move on. Yes, there is a conceptual component. There is in almost all good work lately, including a documentarian (his own words) like Alec Soth or Joel Sternfield.

Personally, I would reserve judgement until you get a chance to see the works in person. I have been quite moved/changed by exhibitions that I thought would be trite or overblown going in ....

Best,
Michael

[Michael T. Murphy]

Er, uh, Chris .... this is kind of bad news man:


"The conservation movement is a breeding ground of Communists and other subversives. We intend to clean them out, even if it means rounding up every bird-watcher in the country."
- John Mitchell, U.S. Attorney General, 1969-1972

You may want to try to get out while you can.

Though I have never figured out why it *could* be illegal to be a communist in a country that so values freedom of thought, speech, or religion. (It must fall into *at least one* of those categories - right? :confused: )

Hard to belive that was less than 50 years ago ...... Poor Ansel probably never knew he was a communist. :)

[tim atherton]

Impossible? The degree of abstraction which allows him to 'illustrate' the scale of consumer waste also dilutes their connection to the real world.


Now, I'm not comparing the two works at all (for which I think Chris will thank me...), just merely saying they are both pieces of art: but, does the degree of abstraction dilute the connection of "Guernica" to the "real world". Quite the opposite.

And one of the things which gives photography it's power to both effect our imagination and make us think is its inherent ambiguity.

[Colin Robertson]

Okay, gotta go to work, but briefly, whilst a degree of 'ambiguity' may be a powerful tool in Art, lets ask this question;
A group of well educated, literate individuals arrive at Chris' exhibition, just after some joker steals all the associated literature, captions and labels. Our art lovers are presented with just the work. How long, if at all, before they deduce the intended meaning of (for example) the block pictures. Or the tooth-pick pictures? Seconds? Hours?? Would it even be possible??

[Colin Robertson]

Oh, and kinda P.S. . can photographs carry 'objective meaning? I'm pretty sure I saw a Don MCCullin photo of a grieving Indian mother cradling her child dead from starvation. Not hard to interpret.

[Brian K]

Just been to view Chris Jordans website. Perhaps it's only me, but I feel the images have no objective meaning without their accompanying text.


This is an excellent point and one of the biggest problems that I have with contemporary photography. It just seems that so much photography today needs an accompanying essay to explain what the artist is saying. I always thought that the artwork itself was supposed to be the expression of the artist, not something that needed explanantion.

Colin's proposed alternative meanings for Chris' work does show a flaw, in my view, with much contemporary art. While it's true that all art is open to interpretation I think the door is opened wider when that art is artificial in it's content. I posted a sample of a contrail photo in this thread, and while it is also open to some degree to re-interpretation, "continental flies to...." I think it's apparent lack of manipulation, it's reality, makes people think first,"that's a lot of contrails" maybe a secondary response might be,"hey we breathe that stuff". While Chris' version might evoke a first reaction of "how many contrails did you have to piece together?" or "How many contrails did you photograph?" or "wow you must have spent a long time in front of the computer" I think the very artificiality of it, and it's exaggeration within that time and space, changes the focus of the images.

I think if Chris is looking to change hearts and minds, or at least convey his message, he held more power with his earlier, non constructed work.

[tim atherton]

Oh, and kinda P.S. . can photographs carry 'objective meaning? I'm pretty sure I saw a Don MCCullin photo of a grieving Indian mother cradling her child dead from starvation. Not hard to interpret.

no you saw a photogrpah of a woman apparently cradling a dead child

you have no idea outside of that whether she was it's mother, that they were indian and that the child died of starvation, without additional context and information or text

almost none of what you state about the photograph comes just from the photograph itself.

[Marko]

Okay, gotta go to work, but briefly, whilst a degree of 'ambiguity' may be a powerful tool in Art, lets ask this question;
A group of well educated, literate individuals arrive at Chris' exhibition, just after some joker steals all the associated literature, captions and labels. Our art lovers are presented with just the work. How long, if at all, before they deduce the intended meaning of (for example) the block pictures. Or the tooth-pick pictures? Seconds? Hours?? Would it even be possible??

Let's say you open your favourite newspaper in the morning and realize that due to some funny glitch, only the images were printed this morning, but no text. On the very front page, above the fold, you see a photograph showing smoldering ruin of a high-rise in a cityscape you don't recognize.

Since it is just a straight photograph, no manipulation, no compositing but no caption either, would you be able to tell what are you looking at? Would it be about:

a) An earthquake
b) A terrorist attack
c) A catastrophic fire
d) Building collapse due to a construction error
e) Something else

What would be your advantage there as opposed to seeing Chris' work without captions?

[Tim Hyde]

[QUOTE=Colin Robertson;278998]but I feel the images have no objective meaning without their accompanying text. QUOTE]

First, I don't think many people are going to drop $25,000-45,000 (depending on the size) for this work without knowing it's meaning and background.

Second, I strongly believe that it is to Chris' credit that he does NOT have labels or explanations attached to this work. In the end, I think this fact helps redeem it as art rather than political sloganeering. The fact that one come away with more than one interpretation suggests the sublety and complexity that great art demands.

(Close obsrervers can tell that I'm coming around. I'm certainly not there yet, but I'm coming around.)

[Michael T. Murphy]

How long, if at all, before they deduce the intended meaning of (for example) the block pictures. Or the tooth-pick pictures? Seconds? Hours?? Would it even be possible??

Is there an *intended meaning*? Or multiple meanings?

And which is the artist aware of, or not aware of, and which are real, and which are most important?

Despite "outside information" you may have now - what if Chris *does* think mountains of plastic bottles are cool, and great, and he would like to see the world buried 6 feet deep in them (I would too in some sick way :D )

Is the work then - unimportant?

Go back to Duchamp, if you have a perspective wider than photography (which I think is necessary for this work.) He saw the artist as the midwife, but thought the community really defined the "meaning" of an art piece. Here are three quotes:

"All in all, the creative act is not performed by the artist alone. The spectator brings the work in contact with the external world by deciphering and interpreting its inner qualifications and thus adds his contribution to the creative act."

"I don't believe in art. I believe in artists."

"I have forced myself to contradict myself in order to avoid conforming to my own taste."
As to the time required to "get" the "meaning": My vote is for "Would it even be possible."

Why is Radiohead ultimately so much more satisfying to me than Coldplay? Those infinite layers of complexity that can never be fully deciphered.

I have spent years reading and pondering Duchamp. Lovng him, hating him, being confused, getting fed up, going back again with a new perspective.

It is ONLY ambiguity and complexity that call me back - if it was simple, I would be done and move on (like watching a Disney movie.)

Best,
M.

[paulr]

Let's say you open your favourite newspaper in the morning and realize that due to some funny glitch, only the images were printed this morning, but no text.

this is a nice example. i want to mention a point that it raises that often gets overlooked. even this example provides SOME context for the images. 1) they're in a newspaper. this automatically, almost unconsciously, triggers a bunch of assumptions about how to look at them. and 2) each picture is going to precede and follow other pictures. the relationships between them are going to get us to look at them in ways we wouldn't if we saw them individually. We still don't know what the pictures "mean" ... but our ideas about what they MIGHT mean get narrowed considerably by these two types of context.

with chris's pictures, we see them in an art museum or gallery. that provides a strong context just like the newspaper. and the relationship between the images is also important. in this case, more important, because it will have been crafted by intent rather than editorial accident!

[harrykauf]

It is ONLY ambiguity and complexity that call me back - if it was simple, I would be done and move on (like watching a Disney movie.)

Best,
M.

That has been my problem with the new work of Chris Jordan. I salute him for his commitment and I am not critisizing his message. But for me personally I lost
interest in his work completely because there is nothing for me to look at
anymore. I find myself just reading the text to see what the elements stand for
and quickly scrolling past the images because they are so boring.

[Michael T. Murphy]

I find myself just reading the text to see what the elements stand for
and quickly scrolling past the images because they are so boring.


I think that is part of the problem - most of us have never seen these works!

A 16'x32' image that you phsically approach in a large space, with all of your doubts, insecurities (geez this stuff is expensive, I don't belong in an art gallery, etc.) questions (what is that red color? huh? it keeps shifting) etc. is quite diffent than a JPEG on your monitor.

I think we need to personally see the work *before* we decide. I know that was true for me with Jeff Wall, even after 20 years of seeing his work in art magazines.

It was also true for me with Duchamp, I spent days in the Philadelphia Museum of Art with his work ... sometimes a book, or a scrap of paper.

Best,
M.

[Vaughn]

I think that is part of the problem - most of us have never seen these works!
Best,
M.

I think you are correct. The scale of these pieces is part of the work. Looking at these images on a computer screen is like judging the quality of a music performance by watching it on TV with the sound turned off.

Of course, those who hate or disbelieve the "message" will find plenty of excuses to dislike the work...just as those who believe the "message" will find reasons to love the work. We see what we want to see.

The success of this work will be in how it gets people to see what they did not expect to see. And the scale of the pieces seems to be an important part of that.

Vaughn

[walter23]

I have nothing but respect for him.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I find it ironic that the people to whom this work is aimed for and might be able to afford these prices are precicely the people who are the greatest culprits of consumerism. The person who has the huge house that requires the equivalent energy of a small town to light, probably uses hundreds of gallons to water the lawn and most likely has a big gas guzzler to get to the gallery....

[Marko]

I find it ironic that the people to whom this work is aimed for and might be able to afford these prices are precicely the people who are the greatest culprits of consumerism. The person who has the huge house that requires the equivalent energy of a small town to light, probably uses hundreds of gallons to water the lawn and most likely has a big gas guzzler to get to the gallery....

And you make much better argument when you are not screaming or insulting others. :)

This is a good point, but on the other hand, isn't it kind of fitting in a poetic justice sort of way that these people would pay so much money to have such a huge reminder of their own wasteful ways looking them right in the face in their own home?

Can you propose a better way to make them think about it?

[poco]

I find it ironic that the people to whom this work is aimed for and might be able to afford these prices are precicely the people who are the greatest culprits of consumerism. The person who has the huge house that requires the equivalent energy of a small town to light, probably uses hundreds of gallons to water the lawn and most likely has a big gas guzzler to get to the gallery....


This gets to the main disconnect, and only problem, I see with the work. You can well imagine someone hopping in their private jet to go check out the prints before adding one to their collection...thus forcing Chris to add another contrail :eek:

But I don't see any way around this irony and applaud Chris for his well intentioned efforts and stunning results.

[Kirk Gittings]

This gets to the main disconnect, and only problem, I see with the work. You can well imagine someone hopping in their private jet to go check out the prints before adding one to their collection...thus forcing Chris to add another contrail :eek:

But I don't see any way around this irony and applaud Chris for his well intentioned efforts and stunning results.

If these people are the main culprits, then his art is well targeted.

[paulr]

If these people are the main culprits, then his art is well targeted.

and there's a difference between who gets to see the work and who gets to own it.

museum and gallery exhibits, where the work can make its biggest impact, are cheap or free.

books, which can reach a lot more people, are pretty affordable.

and proceeds from books as well as from very expensive prints can be given causes, if the artist chooses to do so. this artist sometimes does.

so i don't see any great disconnect or irony in selling prints of work like this for a lot of money. for one thing, it allows a very small percentage of the audience to fund the making of work, which the rest of us can enjoy for next to nothing.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

That has been my problem with the new work of Chris Jordan. I salute him for his commitment and I am not critisizing his message. But for me personally I lost
interest in his work completely because there is nothing for me to look at
anymore. I find myself just reading the text to see what the elements stand for
and quickly scrolling past the images because they are so boring.

LOL...thank you for writing this, if I had done it I would have been run off for dissing the artist.
This was also my problem and the reason I questioned the environmental "relevance " of this work. Statistics are always dehumanizing, no matter how well they are illustrated. I stopped looking when I got the guns example. My feeling was, hmm..more of the same.
If the message is that important then it should come through regardless of the size of the work. Much like Brian Kosoff's contrail shot, it looks great in a small thumbnail, I am sure if he printed it in a 20x24 size then he would probably get a WOW as well. But the message is conveyed regardless of the size.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

If these people are the main culprits, then his art is well targeted.

Why? Do you really think they give a damn?

[Kirk Gittings]

Like teaching in general, if you really, really reach a few people, it is worth the effort.

[archivue]

between pop art and marketing, using statistics... nothing really new there, but from a marketing point of view that's a clever work !

[paulr]

between pop art and marketing, using statistics... nothing really new there, but from a marketing point of view that's a clever work !

pop art? you mean like warhol? what's pop about it?
if ithere's nothing really new to you, maybe you can point to someone else's similar work?

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Like teaching in general, if you really, really reach a few people, it is worth the effort.

But do ou really think they are being reached, or the people getting this work are doing so more for bragging rights? Nohting wrong with that, but not really for advancing an environmental conciousness.

[Brian K]

I find it ironic that the people to whom this work is aimed for and might be able to afford these prices are precicely the people who are the greatest culprits of consumerism. The person who has the huge house that requires the equivalent energy of a small town to light, probably uses hundreds of gallons to water the lawn and most likely has a big gas guzzler to get to the gallery....

Ouch, that's me. Except I never water the lawn, and besides the SUV, I also drive a hybrid. However as I was using the equivalent amount of energy as a small town I took matters into my own hands and installed a power plant (see attached photo) in my back yard. It puts out enough to power my dry mount press.....

[Vaughn]

Ouch, that's me. Except I never water the lawn, and besides the SUV, I also drive a hybrid. However as I was using the equivalent amount of energy as a small town I took matters into my own hands and installed a power plant (see attached photo) in my back yard. It puts out enough to power my dry mount press.....

Would you mind if I come over and plug in an extension cord? I need to power up a 1000W Merc vapor lamp for some carbon printing...you'll never notice a difference on your meter.

Vaughn

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Ouch, that's me. Except I never water the lawn, and besides the SUV, I also drive a hybrid. However as I was using the equivalent amount of energy as a small town I took matters into my own hands and installed a power plant (see attached photo) in my back yard. It puts out enough to power my dry mount press.....

Well, looks like you got the power, I can go and hook you up with a 1000/min desalinization plant an dyou will have the water for the lawn.... I don't know what we can do about you getting in your jet and going to the exhibition though....although I now know how you got those contrails, your pilot must hate you for telling him to drive around for hours... :)

[claudiocambon]

This discussion,as Tim Atherton has said, mirrors interestingly the dicussion about Fenton's pictures in the Lounge, in that many people judge these pictures on the basis of a psychological assessment of the artist and his motives, without looking hard enough at the work itself and judging it on its own terms as much as possible. Such assessments are completely arbitrary without any concrete evidence to back them up and do not contribute intelligently to a discussion of the content of the images; without any knowledge of the artist himself, they are only suppositions, baseless ones at that.

For what it's worth many artists were every keenly aware of their commercial value. think Nadar, Picasso, Giuseppe Verdi, just to name off a few. Should we hold it against the quality of their work? I don't think so.

I think Chris' work is a very intelligent attempt to portray an issue that is so large, in a way we can't see it in its entirety. Much of our societ functions along these mechanisms of which we are a part, but over which we or may not have much control. The way he has visualized the tragedy of the commons, the individual and the whole, is very compelling to me.

[walter23]

I recall reading books in the 70s predicting our overpopulation and collapse right about... now... or maybe it was 2000 or 2005...

If anything, we ought to be having more babies in the first world, not less.


Don't be an idiot, Frank. It's so simple it's not even common sense. Eventually, and who knows when that eventuality will come, the human population will exceed the carrying capacity of the planet.

This is simple ecology (and I mean the mathematical science called ecology). Ecology is actually virtually the same as economics, if you're more open minded to that language. In ecological terms, a species reproduces beyond the ability of its environment to provide resources and it either quits reproducing or it dies back. In economic terms, at some point demand will exceed supply and the cost of living will go up. How far that price goes up depends on how many babies we make. I don't think any of us really want to see the consequences of supply being completely unable to meet demand.

[paulr]

Predictions of the earth's carrying capacity get tricky. It might be able to sustain 15 billion people ... at the standard of living of rural india. Or one billion, at the standard of living of middle class U.S.

The way it actually plays out is through inequality. we don't actually hit a wall, we just start throwing the economy/ecology out of balance, and some suffer more than others. The people with the most wealth and power won't start feeling a real pinch until things have been in decline for a long time.

I suspect the first real zen slap will involve petroleum, and will hit us first-worlders in the next decade.

[Tim Hyde]

[QUOTE=walter23;279451] It's so simple it's not even common sense. QUOTE]

Wow. It must be comforting to be that self-certain! I think Yeats had some things to say about such passionate intensity.

[Brian K]

[QUOTE=walter23;279451] It's so simple it's not even common sense. QUOTE]

Wow. It must be comforting to be that self-certain! I think Yeats had some things to say about such passionate intensity.

Tim, it is simple, eventually demand far exceeds supply. It is inevitable. Nothing on this planet is infinite, it may seem infinite when there's only a few million people, but if we manage to get our number up to 20 billion or more we'll see how finite clean air and water is, land to live on and grow food on, places to dump our waste products,energy, etc.

When I see one of those mothers on TV being celebrated for having given birth to ten children, I don't think that's great, I think how selfish. Her need to perpetuate her DNA trumps the needs of all of us? And what quality of life is she creating for the future generations of her offspring?

We're on a lifeboat floating in space, it only has so much food and water and can maintain only so many people. Why do so few people comprehend this?

[Michael T. Murphy]

Well, Chris is linked from Radiohead's main page, about 3 links down from the top. THAT is good enough for me - case closed! :D :D


I remember when we were young, we would drink the water directly from Lake Superior, it seemed so clean. The largest fresh water lake in the world - how could it ever become polluted? Well, it is .... and we were probably being poisoned with taconites from mining operations at the time anyway.

As James Cambell says, we need new myths - religions - to fit our global reality. The old tribal myths no longer work.

The closest I have found is Buddhism.

Here is a link to the Metta Sutra, which the 100,000 protestors and monks in Burma were chanting whenm they were gunned down .... (metta means compassion or loving-kindness)

http://www.bpf.org/html/whats_now/2007/documents/Metta1-pg.pdf

This is what should be done
By one who is skilled in goodness
Having glimpsed the state of perfect peace,
Let them be able, honest and upright,
Gentle in speech, meek and not proud.

...

Also, let them not do the slightest thing
That the wise would later reprove.
Let them cultivate the thought:
May all be well and secure,
May all beings be happy

..

Whether visible or invisible,
And those living far or near,
The born and those seeking birth,
May all beings be happy

...

Just as with her own life
A mother shields her child,
her only child, from hurt
Let all-embracing thoughts
For all beings be yours.

Cultivate a limitless heart of goodwill
For all throughout the cosmos,
In all its height, depth and breadth --
Love that is untroubled
And beyond hatred or enmity. .....




And, yes, this is 100% on topic! The question is - how do we conduct ourselves, going forward, to ensure a future for our children.

Best,
Michael

* FREE BURMA - BOYCOTT CHINESE OLYMPICS *

[Marko]

This being the 21st century, what we really need is more science rather than more religion and/or myths. The existing ones have only contributed to the overcrowding and dummification of the populace.

[Vaughn]

This being the 21st century, what we really need is more science rather than more religion and/or myths. The existing ones have only contributed to the overcrowding and dummification of the populace.

"In this late age of civilization, as our previous myths and religions grow old, science has arisen to take their place, offering new names for the same old cloud of unanswered questions. The new scientific paradigm presents a shimmering, unknowable reality full of mysterious quarks and pions and gluons and antiprotons and strong and weak forces, leaving us, in the end, with uncertainty, except for the probability that we still don't know anything."

Wes Nisker, "Crazy Wisdom"

"Atoms are not things" Werner Heisenberg

"When it comes to atoms, language can only be used as in poetry." Niels Bohr (father of quantum mechanics)

Be aware, Marko...in a way, you are just suggesting replacing myths with myths...

Vaughn

[Marko]

Be aware, Marko...in a way, you are just suggesting replacing myths with myths...

No, not really. I'm merely suggesting questioning them. All of them. That's the main difference between myths and science, you see - the former aim to provide answers to all questions, while the latter aims to question all answers. :)

In another famous man's words:

"The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go"

[walter23]

Predictions of the earth's carrying capacity get tricky.

That's true, but you don't need to know the numbers to know that population, and The Economy, cannot grow indefinitely, unless we come up with a technology that manufactures food and energy (and copies of that technology) for nothing. I'm not betting on that one.

[walter23]

It's so simple it's not even common sense.

Wow. It must be comforting to be that self-certain! I think Yeats had some things to say about such passionate intensity.

People eat things. Things have to grow. Growing things takes up physical space in finite cultivable lands on a finite sized planet.

This isn't fanaticism. It's simple algebra. (Or calculus if you want to start thinking about population dynamics and exponential growth). The fact that the planet is larger than you can imagine doesn't mean it's infinite. It's not larger than I can imagine, and ignoring my perspective it's demonstrably finite. You can get on a Jet Powered Aerocraft and circumnavigate the globe if you don't believe me.

You don't have to know what the numbers are (carrying capacity of planet), unless you're some cranky old selfish coot who hopes to die of a heart attack before there are any consequences for you.

[Don Miller]

At first I thought Chris was doing sculpture, like this:

http://www.hammer.ucla.edu/exhibitions/46/

Of course if you make graphic art with photoshop at print it really, really big, it's the same thing.....

[Michael T. Murphy]

Our brains are programmed - evolved - to think in terms of holistic images (pre-verbal images.) That gives rise to archetypes, dreams, ie: myths.

You do not overturn millions of years of evolution in 100 years. We are programed to work visually - we as artists *must* undertsnd that.

New myths? Batman, McDonalds, Best Buy, American Girl, Linsey Lohan, et. al. And with infinite copyright for large corporations, we cannot take our myths back, even once they enter the public domain! Go try to make your *own* Snow White movie!! :D

Read Jung. Read Campbell. The image, dream, myth is primary in the construction of our brain (collerctive unconcious; wisdom of the body.) The verbal is secondary.

If we don't understand how image/myth functions, we are at the mercy of the corporations and our govenmenmt.

What is wrong with tribal myths? It is always good vs. evil, us vs. them. We can't *afford* that kind of thinking anymore in a global society!

"All beings, one body." Because it is true! That is the story - *myth* - of evolution!

We inhertited the precusrosr to eyesight from a bacteria 4 billion years ago. Our ancestor. Should be a sacred god to photogs :D

And at the end of space/time? Still something, or nothing? What is *beyond* the absolute speed of light? 12 dimension string theory?

Damned if I know! But I love my son; that is all I need to know. That love needs to propogate to the future, or *all* life is doomed, because we can destroy it.

The higher regions of the brain, ultimately, are merely a servant of the heart and the feelings of the old brain. It is a late addition from an evolutionary standpoint.

In fact, it is an additional *organ* of evolution, that allows us to evolve from learning as well as genetics (as do many of the older facilities we share with the dog. etc.) But, no heart, no existence over the long term. The brain is *guaranteed * to "f" us up on it's own! (See Dr. Strangelove, Hitler, and the Marquis de Sade.)


This is the only way out:

Just as with her own life
A mother shields her child,
her only child, from hurt
Let all-embracing thoughts
For all beings be yours.


Best,
Michael

[walter23]

Should be a sacred god to photogs :D

My god is a lowly mollusk with a pinhole lens eye!

http://www.weichtiere.at/english/mollusca/eyes.html

[tim atherton]

Oh, and kinda P.S. . can photographs carry 'objective meaning? I'm pretty sure I saw a Don MCCullin photo of a grieving Indian mother cradling her child dead from starvation. Not hard to interpret.

there's a fairly good article with discussion on this whole topic which I just came across


http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/10/pictures-are-supposed-to-be-worth-a-thousand-words/

[Michael T. Murphy]

My god is a lowly mollusk with a pinhole lens eye!

Thanks Walter! I like that article a lot. :D :D

Here is metaphysics from the Metta Sutra:

As you stand, walk, sit or lie,
So long as you are awake,
Pursue this awareness with your might:
It is deemed the Divine Abiding - here and
now.

[dslater]

Chris Jordan was the guest on the Colbert Report tonight. Some here have questioned whether what he's doing is art. I think it is definitely art - he is using his photographic skills to point out the results of our disposable culture - something most people don't want to think about because it makes them uncomfortable. After all, isn't that what art is really about - showing society uncomfortable things about itself so people are forced to think?

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Chris Jordan was the guest on the Colbert Report tonight. Some here have questioned whether what he's doing is art. I think it is definitely art - he is using his photographic skills to point out the results of our disposable culture - something most people don't want to think about because it makes them uncomfortable. After all, isn't that what art is really about - showing society uncomfortable things about itself so people are forced to think?

Awww hell, I wish you had not asked this, because I cannot help but wonder if it really makes the viewer think? Having been to many gallery openings I can just imagine how it will go.

Those who are not there to show off their knowledge, drink the wine or try to pick up the girl in the little black dress will be looking at the prints and going "wow, these are really big" those who don't know anything about photoshop will be saying " I wonder where he took these shots" or "damn he must have spent a lot of time standing up all those cigarrettes" or some will be saying "are those Berettas? Where can I get some of those?" or "look, there is my cell phone, no wonder there are so many of them in the trash, it is a POS!"

As I said before, the work is clever and very well done, but I think it suffers from desensitation. After looking at a few of the panels, people will stop getting the message and will start to look a the work itself. This is good for Jordan, but not necessarily conducive to introspection.

Is it art? I think it is, in fact he has taken digital in a new direction and this is good to see.

[Jeremy Moore]

Here's Chris Jordan on the Colbert Report:

http://tinyurl.com/39mmts

[Michael T. Murphy]

Some here have questioned whether what he's doing is art.

What Chris is doing has *much* more in common with the contemporary art world than most of the work I see from most photographers.

Honestly, I think photographers are the least broadly educated of artists and have the least perspective on the art world of any group of artists that I have encountered. (Aside from the folks that do watercolors of flowers.)

That is, they are, in general, *very* conservative! :)

If you want to talk more broudly about art, we have to start by adressing conceptualism. That means Duchamp, Bueys, folks like Yoko Ono and Damien Hirst and Jeff Koons and Paul McCarthy. I rarely see those types of discussions on any photography forum.

I have to admit I am somewhat mired in the backwaters of traditional photography. :D
But I still love the classic/historical conceptual work, and much of the more imaginative newer work.

In the art world, there are two groups: photographers, and "artists using photography." The first group, overall, is the ghetto group, and prices are about 10% or less of the folks in the 2nd group. They run in different circles and show in different galleries, with a few notable exceptions: Gursky, Wall, Struth, Crewdson, etc.

Best,
Michael

[paulr]

What Chris is doing has *much* more in common with the contemporary art world than most of the work I see from most photographers.

That's close to what he's said himself. He's stopped calling himself a photographer ... maybe to avoid annoying more traditional photographers.