Yes, but, is it photography??

[Darin Boville]

I thought that Chris's "Denali Denial" was the best piece in the series. To me, the meaning was quite clear, and it required no explanation.

Hold on...you feel that the idea of Mt. McKinley as a sacred place for Alaskan Indians is represented clearly in the work? That the choice of the Ansel photo is clearly because it is "sacred" to photographers? (I've always found it to be one of his weaker works, myself...)?

From what I see, the vehicle was chosen because it is a huge, wasteful thing (an obviosu choice), the wordplay was chosen because it sort of jumps out at you when pondering environmental themes (an obviosu choice), and the Ansel photo was chosen because it was a picture of a mountain by the same name and was a picture that represented the opposite of what the Denali vehicle stands for, pure, un-ruined nature (another obvious choice). There's nothing about Indians in this work of any other of Chris' that I know of that would justify such a claim. There's nothing that I know of that would justify any claim for this photo to be sacred to photographers--the Ansel candidate in that regard is Moonrise, or go for Weston's Pepper No. 30.

So there are some very weak links here, maybe non-existent ones.

But don't get me wrong--the work (and new direction by Chris) has interesting potential--I wouldn't spend my time here otherwise!

By the way, now that I see the explanation for the Mt. McKinley photo I'm even more bewildered about the Sunday afternoon painting...what was the thinking behind the choice of that work--the only thing that strikes me is the so-called pointillism technique used for the work...unless there are French Indians that I am unaware of...

[chris jordan]

Hi guys, I must say that putting my work up against Picasso's "Guernica" is a pretty tall order. I think of Guernica as being one of the most emotionally powerful pieces in the history of visual art. If any of my work ever has one hundredth of the effect that Guernica has had, then I will consider myself a successful artist.

With that said, I did make my "Valve Caps" piece very close to the size of Guernica (the same width but not as tall), and using a similar tonal scale based on shades of charcoal and gray. It is intended as a quiet and obscure reference that few people will probably ever get. The estimated number of people who died in the bombing of Guernica is between 250 and 1600, far less than the number of Americans who die in single-vehicle SUV rollovers every year in the US. Is any of that portrayed directly in my Valve Caps piece? No. Is it something that my Valve Caps piece might cause a reflective person to wonder about? Maybe if I'm lucky.

The Seurat piece is a play on pointillism and the concept of pixels (where the "points" are brought up to date as being aluminum cans), as well as referencing a painting about people taking their leisure back when taking your leisure didn't involve quite as much consumption as it does now. If you think about people taking their leisure in a park today, it involves parking lots filled with SUV's, people with cameras, iPods, coolers filled with beers and pop, etc. So I was interested to reference a painting from a time when people were portrayed taking their leisure without so much "stuff." Is it deep and profound and moving? I don't now; for me it is cool and ironic and kind of funny.

Some people will get all this stuff by looking at the piece and reflecting on it; others might get it from reading commentary by a curator or critic; others might get it in some other way (like having it spoon-fed by me), and plenty of others will never get it at all. Self-reflection is not something that can be forced; that part of the process is the sole choice of the viewer. All I can do is put my own best effort out there, and then it's up to the viewer.

I will say that I am delighted by all this controversy. It is hard to hold it, especially the mean comments, which hurt (just put yourself in my shoes for a sec), but it is also great to receive so much honest and un-mediated feedback. My work is intended to provoke, and clearly that is happening, so in a strange and uncomfortable way this is all very affirming.

[julian]

The estimated number of people who died in the bombing of Guernica is between 250 and 1600,

there has been some new research published this week where someone has actually gone round the registers of deaths and thenumber is between 100 and 125. I'll dig out the reference...

[chris jordan]

Kirk, the reason I did the big 'splanation for Julian is that he's a Brit living in Spain, so he might not know a few of the things we Americans know about the meaning of the word "Denali." Hence I can understand why he missed the point of that piece. But maybe he still thinks the whole project needs a theoretical rethink despite my 'splanation...

[Martin Miller]

Chris, the fact of your making this post suggests that you have some anxieties about your new work. This is probably true for us all but must be especially acute when your very living depends on your making good choices for building on your previous success. My comments are offered in the spirit of helping you sort through your conflicted feelings and thinking. My own take is that four of your new works, Prision Uniforms, Office Paper, Shipping Containers, and Tire Caps are worthy successors to your previous work. I think that Prision Uniforms is an absolutely stunning work both in its micro and macro effect! However, it lacks the conceptual link to your previous mass-consumption theme, and this may be a serious shortcoming in the contemporary art-photography world where consistent concerns play an important role in defining an artist's signature style. It is my favorite of all the new images, but it seems like it belongs to another portfolio yet to be fleshed out. The other three works are consistent with your previous concerns. All four images have a mosaic, minimalist quality that is also consistent with your previous style. With the added dimension of statistical meaningfulness in the agregation of basic units, I believe that these new images represent an appropriate growth in the depth of your artistic vision.

I'm afraid that I cannot say the same for the other images. Again, these are just my impressions, and they will be helpful only to the extent that they resonate with your existing concerns. To me, the photomosaics are a bit campy and, rather than being difficult to read, they are a bit too obvious. They overburden the viewer with the message. The subtle seductiveness is gone with these images where it is still present with the four I first identified. Another thought that strikes me is that the Denali and Seurat images seem calculated to capitalize on the current vogue of referencing historical art, e.g., Wall and Sherman. This may not have been your intention but others may also see it that way as well. I'm sure that it must be difficult to hear all these criticisms before the ink (not to mention your sweat) is hardly even dry, but I hope some of it will help you clarify your thoughts.

By the way, I think that one can get a pretty good idea of how they will look in person from the way you presented the successive image magnifications on your website.

All the best, Martin

[Martin Miller]

One other thing - I would love to hear the story of your photographing those prision uniforms. :-)

[julian]

. But maybe he still thinks the whole project needs a theoretical rethink despite my 'splanation...

Got back too late last night to answer you Chris, I'll try now over the first coffee of the day! I hope you feel honoured because I think I'm writing and thinking about this more than I did in ALL of my posts last year!

I hope also you realise I'm not attacking you, but giving you a serious and considered response to a serious body of work you've put together. You are a serious, talented, dedicated artist who deserves having your work taken seriously, hence the length of my posts. I'm taking this series very seriously!

You are also trying to make a political point. You are trying to question something you see as a 'bad thing'. So I think it is fair to question how you are doing this. I also think, that, as you know me, I can dig a little deeper without causing undue offence. I'd much rather do this over a glass of something, as I think the internet is a bad vehicle for this kind of discussion. I'm quite convinced that this series is pivotal for you, that next series will benefit enormously from what you have undergone with this work. But by placing yourself in this series in a sector of the conceptual art camp, you are inviting people to look at and critique your theory here. So in that vein...

I used to use the guernica a lot when I was teaching as it is an example of a kind of art that is about a particular event, from a particular political standpoint, but the method it uses to get it's point across is totally different from that of the kind of conceptual art that you are now producing. As an opposite it is useful to make a comparison. I also know how much that piece moves you. I admit I have a problem with some types of conceptual art as I'm an old fashioned modernist in many ways.

My disquiet boils down to two main areas, 1. the role of the viewer and 2. the ability of the artwork to stand on it's own without reliance on text.

When someone sees your pics for the first time, how can they engage with it? I imagine they will think about the craftsmanship, the beauty or otherwise, awed at the scale, but how can they engage with, or create some sort of personal meaning, from the work itself? When you explain your work you have very specific references and meanings in mind. To understand these meanings I need a text. I need you to explain the significance of Mt McK (please don't tell me you are trying to do work only for a US audience!), I need you to tell me about US car makes, I need you to explain the realtionship between the mosaics. Once I have that I say 'Oh, now I get it' I stay a moment longer to see if I can make anything else out of it, decide I can't, and I move on. The work doesn't stand on its own. No matter how educated in aesthetics I am, now matter how much art I view, or how much effort or time I put into looking at the work, I can't get anything more out of it.

The same with the tyre caps. You need to explain to me their significance, I need a text. Without the text all I can get is a superficial response to their beauty.

My role as viewer is to read the text and evaluate whether you are succesful in transfering the text to the image. I am limited in my response and forced into a subservient role to the artist. The artist is Wise Leader and I agree and feel suitably chastened. Now the artist is treating the viewer in exactly the same way as those who you are criticisng. The artist instead of challenging the modus operandi of what it is trying to challenge, is using it's tactic in the artwork.

This is a closed loop. The viewer is inside a totalitarian system which it can't escape. Ok, I'm stretching this a bit, but I'm sure you get the point!

Now compare this with the Guernica (hah!). I don't need to know the title, I don't need to know the event. I am free to make my own meanings. All the clues to understanding are in the image. I can agree, or not with the artist. But I am being treated as an equal. I'm not being lectured, the artist is not Wise Leader, I'm being invited to go on a journey with the artist.

I once gave the guernica to a bunch of 11 year olds to describe as they saw fit. They came up with the most amazing list of meanings and stories. If I gave them your pics (or perhaps it is fairer to say, 'if I gave them works from this kind of conceptual theoretical base') would they be able to do the same?

I know my criticisms are more to do with some types of conceptual art in general rather than your pics in particular, but when you take on the responsability for using art as a vehicle for politics, you are doing something very serious and your methods and how you are treating the viewer deserve serious scrutiny. I also realise that I am also bringing my own aesthetic and political agenda to this discussion, but hey, I'm a viewer too.

Anyway, enough from me on this. I've beat you over the head way too much. But thanks for posting the pics. I haven't thought about this stuff in a looooong time, so it was nice to revisit.

And I guess this is the kind of discussion you aere hoping to achieve with the work anyway!

[chris jordan]

Hi Julian, yep, you're right: the titles of my new pieces, and the couple of sentences of accompanying explanation (as you see them on my website), are integral to the works, and will be included when the pieces are exhibited. I can't figure out any way around that. It doesn't bother me too much though, because many works of art require some degree of prior knowledge on the part of the viewer. I suppose every artist hopes their work will be universally accessible so that 11-year-old children will fully "get" it, but in this case I am willing to let that go in favor of trying to address some complex cultural issues.

But you are right-- if someone in Africa sees my Denali piece, they might have no idea what the word means, so that piece does have the limitation of requiring some prior knowledge of American culture on the part of the viewer.

Now in terms of this series being too didactic, hmmmmmmm. Some people are seeing it that way ("typical liberal propaganda," etc.), and others are seeing that all I'm doing is pointing out the quantities, which are factual only, and leaving the rest up to the viewer. The Denali and Hummer pieces contain some judgments, of course, and I suppose there are also implied judgments in my choice of subject matter that could be called didactic. For example, I'm not doing a piece on the amount of dollars contributed to charities by republicans millionaires (maybe I should-- I wonder what size it would be?). But other than that, I don't see that I'm wagging my finger in the Office Paper image, for example, or the Prison Uniforms one. Hopefully it's up to the viewer to form their own judgments about the size of our prison population, or the number of aluminum cans we use, and so on.

It's a difficult line to walk, though, and one that I think about a lot. On one hand I don't want to finger-wag (and I'm sure not in a position to do so anyway), but on the other hand I don't want to be a detached artist who stands back and observes the world from a distance with no apparent connection or point of view. That is one way that I part ways with Gursky; I do feel a need to advocate a position at least somewhat. Our culture is engaging in some insane unconscious behaviours and I'm not comfortable just observing them with detached irony; I want to do something about it. The challenge is to say what I have to say in a respectful and self-reflective way, honoring the complexity of these issues and giving my fellow man the benefit of the doubt. I try to build those concepts into my pieces, but of course it won't work for everyone.

In any event, thanks for your long and thoughtful reply. Too bad we can't sit in the plaza outside the Reina Sophia and share a pitcher of sangria over this subject, while "Guernica" filters down from its hallowed place next door. This subject deserves a good long Madrid afternoon's discussion.

Cheers,

~cj

[adrian tyler]

talking of spain... here are some interesting photomontages by spain's no 1 joan foncuberta, click through to le last six. a nice reference.

http://www.lensculture.com/fontcuberta.html#

all the best chris

adrian

[tim atherton]

talking of spain... here are some interesting photomontages by spain's no 1 joan foncuberta, click through to le last six. a nice reference.

http://www.cefvigo.com/imaxes/vilari%F1o_02.jpg

all the best chris

adrian

hmmm - Fontcuberta:



or lego: