Yes, but, is it photography??

Hi guys, I've just posted a new series on my website that will surely cause some controversy around here, judging from the recent thread about "message versus medium." To convey the issues that are the essence of this project, I have had to part with some cherished aspects of the photographic process, and I do so with no small reluctance. These images are not as easy to sit through as traditional photographs; they do not carry the same aesthetic sense of light, color, depth, and composition that can draw the viewer into a beautiful photograph of an otherwise frightening subject. So the project has some limitations that I have to face right off the bat; in any event I welcome your thoughts and comments.

Cheers from Seattle,

~cj

www.chrisjordan.com

Chris, your work has always stood out to me as something 'cool'. This new project is no exception. I love your work

Wow! This is a great way to put statistics into perspective. How long did you work on this - it must have been a monumental effort to produce these images. Where could I see them hung on a wall?

To my admittedly amateur mind there is nothing blasphemous about any of this: it is digital photographic art with a specific objective in mind. I just saw quite a few examples of digital photographic art at the Photo LA show yesterday: one was an enormous mural-sized print showed a ground-level, fish-eye view of a New York City street scene juxtaposed against a background high elevation mountain ice field (or something similar). I wasn't quite sure what the artist was saying with the piece, but it was visually striking and attracted quite a bit of attention. There was no sense of outrage that I could tell that the image was clearly a digital creation.

Chris, I think your new series communicates its message effectively and is extremely well done. Bravo!

At least some of it is photography. But all of it is art. I'm especially fond of the tribute to Seurat.

This project in particular reminds me of Andy Goldsworthy's sculptures.

Nice work. Good luck with it.

Very interesting and inspiring. Keep up the good work.

Chris,

I agree it is very interesting indeed.

Rich

Interesting project, I would love to see it in person, good job Chris

Dave

My wife, who is a graphic designer/artist, says its very good graphic artwork. Graphic design is about conveying a message which this work does very well.

Fascinating. Are the originals being shown? How are they presented? I feel this could be a very powerful installation.

Photography? not to me. Art most definitely.

As you know Chris, I'm a big fan of yours, so please take my comments in the light they are intended, someone who respects your work and obvious talent but has a few quibbles with your new work.

I'm sure these will be successful, they will sell. They are in the same vein as Warhols soup can. The concept is clear, and I have no doubt they look great, but i think the aesthetic - the philosophy, is a bit glib. You could repeat this idea with different objects ad nauseum, but what does the viewer get? IMO just a picture representative of a statistic, the art version of a pie chart. As a viewer I can't take anything else from these, I can't investigate my feelings apart from a 'yup, thats bad'.
Unlike your earlier work, there is no way i can 'play' with these images (in the modernist sense). I get them, then move on.
I often visit your site and look at your work - I 'get' something more each time as your images invite a close contemplation over time. With these, I don't think I can as i don't think there is anything to 'get' beyond your very clear explanations, and a tip of the hat to your intelligence and sense of humour.
As I said, I'm sure they are immaculate and will sell well, but i can't help thinking that this is a postmodern hole that is hard to get out of

Photography?

It has a component definetly.
I woldn't be concerned with that problem, you are growing immensely as an artist and now you are willing to explore new venues.
It takes guts and bravo to you.
I feel the impact is there, and you still come through at your best when color is involved.
The images of the containers and prison uniforms are striking, I don't go crazy for the B/W's but overall, Chris, beautiful and important work.

Very good and like it very much!
Good luck with the sales to. Armin

Thanks for the link to your site

As to the question as to whether or not it's photography - yes it is

As to the message - very well done

I just read an article in Invention & Technology that showed a pile of cellphones awaiting recycling - similar to your shots - maybe it was yours? In any event it gave the visual impression as to how much e-waste is going on & will only continue even more so.

Congrats on a well done theme & photography & the best of luck with wherever you take it.

Regards

Sorry, but here goes the flames.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shadow images

Photography? not to me. Art most definitely.

---

Agreed. I feel kinda like the NY cabbie in "Curious George" the movie. Yep. Seen it. It evokes no emotion whatsoever. It is graphic art. Period. Computer generated. A project any high-school student is capable of, given Photoshop and the time. IIRC there was same basic style work done in mid-late seventies. In particular the cans. Oh yeah, and a gorgeous landscape, from twenty feet away. Garbage (literally) up close. Another NY piece of art-work.

I love your photo work. It boasts of a skill level to attempt to attain. It gives reasons to continue going back for a second look. "How did he do that?" "What was light, lens, filters, time-of-day, etc etc etc"

But all art is not photo, and all photo is not art.

Depicting 106,000 aluminum cans, equal to the number of cans consumed in the US every thirty seconds.
Oh man, that's the hard way to get your daily fiber.

Hi guys, thanks for all of your interesting thoughts. Julian, your comment raises one of the issues that is difficult for this series, which is that the pieces have a drastically different effect in person than they do on the web. The little JPEGs give you a general sense of how they will look in person, but it's like the difference between watching a movie on the big screen versus seeing it on an iPod. For that reason I had some reservations about putting this series up on the web at all, but I decided to to it because it will reach people who might be interested in seeing (or arranging) an exhibition. Judging them from the little web images unfortunately misses the real essence of what they are about, which can only be experienced in person, but that's a limitation of this project that I'll have to deal with.

best,

~cj

Yeah, I wouldn't want to blab too much about these without seeing them in person. Your website sketches the idea, but this work is obviously going to be about first-person experience. I'd very much like to see them in person, based on the sneak preview.

But without having seen them, I'd be inclined to think of them as conceptual art that uses photography. Depending on the scale and the presentation, they might even end up feeling like installation pieces.

But I don't know how much is to be gained by worrying about categories. I'm more interested in looking at what the work tries to say, how it says it, and what the experience of looking at it is like. Unless you enjoy mulling over categories for its own sake, I'd let the curators worry about what shelf to put them on.

Finally, as a graphic designer (day job) I'd be quick to dismiss the idea that this work is graphic design. Graphic design is a commecial pursuit, done for hire to communicate clients' ideas and sell their products and services. This work is personal; it explores your own concerns, and by its nature is anti-commercial, not commercial.

Nicely executed but it's just predictable liberal dogma. Can the Guantanamo Bay and Global Warming pieces be far behind?

In the end it won't move people but only preaches to the chior. You need more of an edge if you're going to promote your brand of propaganda.

Sorry to be blunt, but ax-grinding can have a paradoxical effect if you turn up the volume too far. In the context of your work to date, this latest is perilously close to self-caricature.

I think it's very effective communication.

The problem, however, is not how much we consume - It's how many of us there are.

If you cut the world population by 10, a lot of these ecological problems go away.

Some nations are aware of this, others have their heads buried in the sand.

Simplistic, after a few examples truly "ad nauseum". A self-caricature? Involuntarily, unfortunately and very surely yes, beating the dead horse is yet another expression for it. But dreaming of a deep impact (heavens!) - how far can one's simplicity go? If this works on the Vietnam wall - why not making a visual fractals in form of a cemetery (hospital, etc. you know) from all the cigarette butts smoked in one hour in the US... you got the idea... Heavens..!

Cool!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken Lee

I think it's very effective communication.

The problem, however, is not how much we consume - It's how many of us there are.

If you cut the world population by 10, a lot of these ecological problems go away.

Some nations are aware of this, others have their heads buried in the sand.

---

I do not agree.
Do you mean that our obsession (in the US) with buying, buying and buying doesn't create extra waste?
Do we need to upgrade continuosly our cellphone?
I could go on and on....

I hope I didn't sound harsh, Ken, it wasn't meant confrontational.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by domenico Foschi

I hope I didn't sound harsh, Ken, it wasn't meant confrontational.:)

---

I don't think you were being harsh, Maesto :)

Your point is well-taken: Being concerned about overpopulation doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned about wastefulness.

They are both becoming more important every day.

Since you asked for opinions...

I think what you have here is an idea for an interesting direction but the idea has not had enough time to "cook" yet, and I doubt very much seeing the full-sized originals would mitigate that sense (indeed, it would likely augment it...see below).

You need another layer or level of depth to this to make it interesting (at least to me).

For example, you depict a zillion aluminum cans as a comment on our culture which allows/encourages vast over-production and over consumption of certain goods. The work is all about excess.

Yet the work has no self-awareness to it on this very topic. These are extremely large prints (dare I say excessively large?) which in and of themselves represent and contribute to the problem you are criticizing. It is further worrying that, as you claim, you need to see these full-sized for them to "work" since only a small number of people will ever see them in that size--reproductions in the New York Times simply won't do.

It will an irony too great for me to see these purchased and displayed by people who wish to demonstrate their commitment to environmental awareness.

In fact, I'm tempted to do a work in the style of Chris Jordan where I make a huge print made up of thousands of reduced ten foot test prints of your images!

So, again, I think you are starting down an interesting and possibly productive road here--sort of a Hans Haacke for the post-Vietnam generation--but something is missing...

I would suggest that the "unexpected" is missing...seeing lots and lots of products piled up is only unexpected, briefly, on the first viewing.

Anyway, since you asked...

--Darin

(edited for spelling--my two-finger technique leaves something to be desired...)

Off topic,
but it needs to be said.

Ken, fantastic work!

Your compositions, tonalities....
You have been working hard lately!
Some of the pieces are just masterful.
I bow to you, sir.

Absolutely fantastic. I don't know why you would think there would be a problem with this, but I am curious as to how large format photography was involved as an element in the production of this work, and if so why you choose use it.

The simple identity of medium and size is greatly appreciated, indeed, I could not have really imagined the scope and impact of the work without it.

Thanks for sharing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBrunner

Absolutely fantastic. I don't know why you would think there would be a problem with this, but I am curious as to how large format photography was involved as an element in the production of this work, and if so why you choose use it. It is not photography, but it is very well seen digital art that apparently uses photography as an element.

The simple identity of medium and size is greatly appreciated, indeed, I could not have really imagined the scope and impact of the work without it.

Thanks for sharing.

---

Is art supposed to make you think?

ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!

"Office Paper, 2007
Digital C print, 6x8 feet

Depicts 30,000 reams of office paper, or 15 million sheets, equal to the amount of office paper consumed in the US every five minutes."

Just curious. Does this include the paper the images were/will be printed on? It is kinda hard to decry the evils of clear-cut timber practices from the top of a wooden crate.

The more pertinent question is not 'is it photography' but 'is it any good'. Well if it's meant as a poster for some green cause then, well... we've seen this many times before but why be picky. If it's meant as art, then it fails on charges of triteness and shallowness.

Warhol's soup cans (and the many derivative works that followed) had the advantage of not telling you what to think, thereby clearing that art-bar of raising questions without forcing an answer down your throat. So now we have yet another rehashing of a 40 year old idea, but now considerably worse than the original(s), and yet another series of photomosaics.

For those who think it's a lot of work, or for those who want to make their own, just Google for photomosaics. But no, the lack of effort is not the offensive part: the lack of intelligence is. Seeing derivative work from Mr. Jordan is not a first, but who knew he could dumb others' work down as well as copy it?

If you're going to do this sort of thing, you might as well make a statement. How about Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rove as a Mt. Rushmore mosaic composed of bleeding and dismembered bodies? That could garner some attention.

Yes, it is photography. And judging from the conversation here, it's very effective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Randy H

Just curious. Does this include the paper the images were/will be printed on? It is kinda hard to decry the evils of clear-cut timber practices from the top of a wooden crate.

---

Don't you think that's a bit of a specious argument? For one thing, it's a stretch to interpret a piece like that as saying "using paper is evil." If anything, the work seems to be commenting on colossal scale of industrialized production and consumption. Something we all participate in (Mr. Jordan included), but something represented much better by day-to-day mundane examples than by a very small edition piece of art on paper, no matter what its size.

I also think it's unhelpful to hold the messenger to higher standards than other people. I've never gotten a sense from Chris that he's preaching from a soap box, talking down to us, or considering himself separate from the problems he explores. I see him screaming out "look what we're doing!" not "look what YOU'RE doing."

I agree with everyone who finds work that's purely agitprop to be uninteresting. If the only thing going on in this work was a condemnation of industry, or capitalism, or humans, it would be a big yawn for me. Whether or not i agreed. But I see more going on. For one thing, the work is pretty. The graphic forms, the almost fractal looking repetition, the interplay of detail and textures at different scales, are all mesmerizing. There's a kind of terrible beauty. It's much like the experience of looking at New York City from an airplane or a high window. The scale of it is at the same time breathtaking and horrifying. It stands simultaneously as a monument to dozens of things that are admirable and regretable about our species.It doesn't offer the viewer any obvious explanations or answers. If it was Chris's intention to create simple propaganda, then I think he failed beautifully.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neil poulsen

Is art supposed to make you think?

ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!

---

Great art is supposed to "grab you in a headlock, rough up your composure and then proceed in short order to re-arrange your sense of reality"

which may or may may not include thinking/re-thinking

Well, it makes me glad we decided never to have children.

...and no, it's not "photography"--it's photographIC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken Lee

The problem, however, is not how much we consume - It's how many of us there are.

---

Exactly. This planet is well beyond it's "carrying capacity" for humans. And those who don't understand this will have it smack them over the head in the coming years.

The real problem is going to come down to food. Our agricultural productivity right now is very high, but it's based on cheap oil. The vast majority of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides are based on oil. Mechanized farming runs on oil. Transporting food from where it's grown to where it's consumed by train, plane, and truck takes oil. Today in the USA, it takes a liter of oil to put a pound of beef on your table. What happens as the price of oil rises??? And if you haven't noticed, the price of a barrel of oil on the world market has doubled in the last few years, so this isn't a hypothetical "it's not going to happen in my lifetime" question. It most assuredly is happening in our lifetimes.

It's been estimated that agricultural productivity as been increased from 3-5x (depending on the crop) because of oil-based fertilizers and other products, oil powered machinery, and oil powered transportation. As the price of oil rises, so too does the cost of food. Either due to the price of oil alone, or through the cost of lowered productivity due to the lack of oil-based fertilizers and pesticides. While this is going on demand is rising because the population is increasing. Any way you look at it, this isn't going to be pretty.

Yet only China is putting in a good faith effort to curb its population. And even they say their population peak will occur several decades from now. The voluntary curbing of populations takes generations.

If Mr. Jordan's art makes anyone think about the vast amount of resources being consumed by humans and makes them think that maybe this is a bad idea with really bad ramifications, well, I'm all for it. It's pretty clear that we can't depend on governments or religions to guide us.

Precious few are willing to step up and call attention to the obvious. An amazing number of these are artists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neil poulsen

Is art supposed to make you think?

ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

~cj

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank Petronio

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

---

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

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

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

ade.

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frank Petronio

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by adrian tyler

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

---

Yeah, that's a lovely thought.

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