“O beautiful for heroes proved/In liberating strife/Who more than self their country loved/And mercy more than life” (America the Beautiful, Katharine Bates). As children in the United States, the melody and lyrics of America the Beautiful became a part of our history, engrained in our minds as teachers and parents taught us just what it meant to be an American. One of the lesser known verses of the song, written above, sheds a little light on the unselfishness of the era during which it was written. Humanity was concerned with achievement and building toward a freedom-filled future, working with others to do what was best for their community and society as a whole. The world was a simpler place to exist and coexist with both people and the environment. So what happened?
Chris Jordan’s newest exhibit, titled “Running the Numbers”, attempts to show us what happens as global warming, consumerism, and environmental destruction replace “amber waves of grain”, “purple mountain majesties” and “the fruited plain” in today’s society. Wide open fields and barren deserts have become a thing of the past as corporation after corporation expands its empire, and individuals look for new ways to expand their wealth. Simply put, American society is no longer focused on the good of humanity and building toward an environmentally-efficient future; instead, society is no longer even the operative word as individuals focus solely on their own needs and desires while building toward their own personal future. No longer do we live in a society where one individual focuses on the effect they have on their neighbor or the environment. Individualism is an integral part of American society, and Jordan’s exhibit highlights that as he tries to hammer home the point. In an interview, Jordan explains, “one of the huge problems that faces our society right now is […] the tiny incremental harm that every single one of us is doing as an individual” (Jordan interview, The Morning News, 2007 ). His photographic talent in “Running the Numbers” illustrates this very idea and puts into pictures what statistics have proven to us for years - - Americans are wasteful.
The “Running the Numbers” exhibit proves that Chris Jordan is well aware of the footprint that has trampled the United States. In trying to demonstrate this point to those not able to see it, he effectively combines his photographic genius with statistics that describe how wasteful our society has become in recent decades. He uses statistics, taken from multiple sources and seen in multiple places, as a basis for the picture he creates with his photography. Take, for example, this statistic: “One hundred million toothpicks, equal to the number of trees cut in the U.S. yearly to make the paper for junk mail” (Toothpicks, 2008). Now, a picture of toothpicks, all lined up - - not interesting nor eye-catching. However, this is where Jordan’s genius takes center stage. With that number of toothpicks, he created a beach scenery that looked peaceful, revealing no hint of the America that is slowly being destroyed with our consumption and poor habits. He understands the mindset of the U.S. society. Statistics have been around for years but no one seems to pay attention; instead, they wait until a picture of interest and beauty displays, in a different way, the numbers that have been in front of our face for so long.
Jordan’s exhibit sheds a new light on statistics as a way to motivate people into action, but to what end? His exhibit will not reach the entire world or even just the United States despite the best of intentions. His technique of repetition and the tricks he plays on the eye make the exhibit something to experience. But what impact will these pictures have on the thoughts of the American people? His pictures might be worth a thousand words, and some important statistics, but that does not mean they will spur even a thousand people into action.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Sunday, February 8, 2009
"The satisfaction in the good is bound up with interest"
Kant writes that a concept of an object is not necessary to find it beautiful Instead, he writes, "flowers, free delineations, outlines intertwined with another without design, and called [conventional] foliage, have no meaning, depend on no definite concept, and yet they please." Kant lays this out for us, yet does not explain exactly what it is that makes them beautiful...or at least in a way that I understand!
To me, the part of an object that makes it beautiful is its intangible qualities and the experience that we have with that object. Take for example, the drawing that your kindergarten daughter creates for you later in life - - it is something that you might regard as beautiful but not because it follows conventional art theory or expertise. It is beautiful because of the intent with which it was created and the intangible "love" that you know went into that drawing. The lines might not be straight and the colors probably won't complement each other, but despite that, it is still a beautiful work of art. I think that this follows the point that Kant is trying to make as he argues, "it is part of the experience of beautiful objects that they should affect us as if they had a purpose, although no particular purpose can be found." Pieces of art are able to affect, move and interest us without being created with a hidden intent or purposeful message - - it is even possible to find something beautiful that was created "just because" even though most art critics would deem this shocking!
I think that too often, critics and the public get caught up in the intent behind the art and miss the intangibility of a work. They forget to stop and think about how it makes them feel and the sensation that it gives them - - another of Kant's topics in his writing. We find ourselves guilty of looking to see if the artwork is "good" or "not good" which leads us to define whether or not these pieces follow a concept. If we were simply to interpret these paintings, sculptures, and buildings based on how they make us feel, the sensations in those feelings might help us to stay in touch with those intangible qualities - - I think that those draw the most interest.
To me, the part of an object that makes it beautiful is its intangible qualities and the experience that we have with that object. Take for example, the drawing that your kindergarten daughter creates for you later in life - - it is something that you might regard as beautiful but not because it follows conventional art theory or expertise. It is beautiful because of the intent with which it was created and the intangible "love" that you know went into that drawing. The lines might not be straight and the colors probably won't complement each other, but despite that, it is still a beautiful work of art. I think that this follows the point that Kant is trying to make as he argues, "it is part of the experience of beautiful objects that they should affect us as if they had a purpose, although no particular purpose can be found." Pieces of art are able to affect, move and interest us without being created with a hidden intent or purposeful message - - it is even possible to find something beautiful that was created "just because" even though most art critics would deem this shocking!
I think that too often, critics and the public get caught up in the intent behind the art and miss the intangibility of a work. They forget to stop and think about how it makes them feel and the sensation that it gives them - - another of Kant's topics in his writing. We find ourselves guilty of looking to see if the artwork is "good" or "not good" which leads us to define whether or not these pieces follow a concept. If we were simply to interpret these paintings, sculptures, and buildings based on how they make us feel, the sensations in those feelings might help us to stay in touch with those intangible qualities - - I think that those draw the most interest.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Hume and His "Taste"
I found Hume's viewpoint of taste to be interesting, but very selective. His essay of sorts defines the perfect man - - the perfect person to critique artwork and be the ultimate judge as to whether or not it is "tasteful." In my opinion, I do not feel that one person is the "right" person to judge artwork and the artist. No one person in the world has experience in all of the areas that could possibly be painted, so how will they be able to understand the artist's viewpoint, background, reason behind the painting? They won't and that should not be the only way that someone is allowed to make a judgment regarding whether or not the painting is "tasteful".
There is one part of Hume's criteria that I do agree with though. He states that, "before we can give judgment on any work of importance, it will even be requisite, that that very individual performance be more than once perused by us, and be surveyed in different lights with attention and deliberation. There is a flutter or hurry of thought which attends the first perusal of any piece, and which confounds the genuine sentiment of beauty." Too often, I feel that people judge artwork too quickly, without giving thought to the many ways in which it can be interpreted. A person can enjoy a painting at first glance, but to truly judge if it is a "work of art" one must spend the time looking at it from different angles and in different lighting. It is then that we can see the painting as the artist saw it during creation and at that point, it can be judged as tasteful or untasteful.
As far as the two paintings posted, I feel that I can form an opinion on whether or not I enjoy looking at each, but not on the basis of whether or not I think they are tasteful. At first glance, I find the first of the monkey enjoyable to look at despite its uniqueness. However, the second painting is a bit creepy to me - - the head of the man takes up nearly the entire space and his face reminds me of a serial killer sort. As far as whether each of these paintings should be considered tasteful, I do not feel that I can be an appropriate judge. I am only viewing these paintings online, with no ability to look at the way the light hits the canvas or the chance to see it from another angle. I cannot interpret the artists' intentions behind these two paintings and to me that is the ultimate test as to whether or not the subject and subsequent painting should be considered tasteful.
There is one part of Hume's criteria that I do agree with though. He states that, "before we can give judgment on any work of importance, it will even be requisite, that that very individual performance be more than once perused by us, and be surveyed in different lights with attention and deliberation. There is a flutter or hurry of thought which attends the first perusal of any piece, and which confounds the genuine sentiment of beauty." Too often, I feel that people judge artwork too quickly, without giving thought to the many ways in which it can be interpreted. A person can enjoy a painting at first glance, but to truly judge if it is a "work of art" one must spend the time looking at it from different angles and in different lighting. It is then that we can see the painting as the artist saw it during creation and at that point, it can be judged as tasteful or untasteful.
As far as the two paintings posted, I feel that I can form an opinion on whether or not I enjoy looking at each, but not on the basis of whether or not I think they are tasteful. At first glance, I find the first of the monkey enjoyable to look at despite its uniqueness. However, the second painting is a bit creepy to me - - the head of the man takes up nearly the entire space and his face reminds me of a serial killer sort. As far as whether each of these paintings should be considered tasteful, I do not feel that I can be an appropriate judge. I am only viewing these paintings online, with no ability to look at the way the light hits the canvas or the chance to see it from another angle. I cannot interpret the artists' intentions behind these two paintings and to me that is the ultimate test as to whether or not the subject and subsequent painting should be considered tasteful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
