He is the dude.
He is the dude.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
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.
snipp
Originally Posted by paulr
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 ...
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legal acceptable standards of arsenic in drinking water, dropped the lawsuits against some of the worst polluters and rescinded fines and penalties that had already been levied by the DEA (something which many states sued the Bush Admin over, including Eliot Spitzer when he was NY AG).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.
[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
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.
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:
Lauren MacIntosh
Whats in back of you is the past and whats in front of you is the future now in the middle you have choices to make for yourself:
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.
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)...
You'd be amazed how small the demand is for pictures of trees... - Fred Astaire to Audrey Hepburn
www.photo-muse.blogspot.com blog
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks