Chris Jordan has garnered a good deal of attention recently for his photographs depicting the scale of Western consumer culture. His works fetch widespread praise and serious prices, but Jordan is still dogged by the lack of penetration of his political message:
I decided to do the ugliest picture I could think of: an image of 125,000 cigarette butts. That’s the number that are littered around the world every second. I got 5,000 cigarette butts and I photographed them over and over, stirring them around, until I had an image of 125,000 cigarette butts. My intention was that it would be this disgusting, extremely edgy image. I hung it in my show and everybody flocked to that image and they were talking about how beautiful it was.
From Nicole Pasulka’s interview with Chris Jordan for The Morning News, located here.
One of Jordan’s problems is well known: photography has a nasty tendency to beautify its subjects, regardless of how despicable a photographer wants them to appear. Since that’s a well-covered quandary in the annals of photography, I’d like to set it aside for now in favor of a more basic question: What, exactly, is Chris Jordan’s goal?
In some of his works, Jordan takes on consumerism, using jet trails and soda cans in an attempt to turn his lens on the grotesque excesses of Western culture. (The image above, Cans Seurat, employs the number of soda cans used in the U.S. every 30 seconds.) It makes him appear part of the solution, rather than part of the problem–if Jordan’s work doesn’t shrink any landfills, at least he makes people think about what they’re doing, right?
I’m not so sure. On the whole, reasonably well-educated Westerners (the top tier of whom represent Jordan’s target market) are already well aware that the environment is endangered by their daily behavior. Witness the fad of buildings and corporations “going green,” magazines putting out special “green issues,” and other contagious environmentalist phenomena. I don’t begrudge Jordan for cashing in on the trend, but it seems ridiculous that he should calim to be raising awareness about a problem that’s otherwise under the radar.
Speaking of awareness–do we have any concrete evidence that it changes anything? Most social activism is founded on the principle that , if people were only aware of what was going on in the world, they would do something about it. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that we are more aware of what’s going on around the world now than ever before, as we’re hammered on all sides with information about the degradation of the environment, the genocide in Darfur, and unsanitary conditions across the globe. Yet these conditions persist. Reasonably engaged people are familiar with many of the difficulties in the world, but the solutions don’t seem to be forthcoming. They say that “awareness is the first step” to solving problems. Maybe it’s time to ask what, exactly, the next step is.
Whatever it is, Jordan’s work–and I think probably art in general–does not appear capable of addressing it. Instead, Jordan keeps trying to raise awareness, focusing not just on consumerism but guns, cigarettes, and whatever else is supposed to offend the right-minded of the twenty-first century. The sheer breadth of enemies Jordan attacks is, more than anything, what makes me question the intelligence of his project. His images of guns and cigarettes mourn the way objects waste human lives; his images of soda cans and garbage mourn the way living humans waste objects. At the current cultural moment, his position–at once in favor of the endless increase in number and quality of human lives and the health of the environment–is contradictory and untenable. You almost want to pat him on the back and say: “Look on the bright side, Chris: think how many cans of coke will never be consumed by the human lives destroyed by guns and cigarettes!”
For future projects, Jordan would like to continue taking morally unassailable positions on irresolvable problems:
I want to do an image that relates to the number of unwanted dogs and cats that are euthanized every day in the U.S. They euthanize more than 10,000 dogs and cats a day. I want to find dog and cat collars, I only need a few hundred and then I’ll just photograph them over and over. I want to make a Mandala made out of cell phones; it would be my last cell phone image, that will relate to the number of highway injuries and deaths that occur because people are talking on their cell phones. There’s something like 300,000 highway injuries and 4,000 highway deaths directly attributed to people talking on their cell phones.
Pasulka, op. cit.
If past performance is any indication, gallerists and collectors will rally around him, firmly positioning themselves in the “correct” camp and easing their own guilt in the process. Meanwhile, Chris Jordan has achieved the only coherent goal that he seems to have: to become known far and wide as An Artist With A Social Conscience.
Image © Chris Jordan.




{ 2 } Comments
In response to the post “Chris Jordan’s Confused Conscience”
I don’t necessary disagree with your assertions about Chris Jordan and the tendency in certain social circles to play at charity or awareness. However, I am left with two impressions of this post.
1st, You criticize Jordan for having no proof that art raises social awareness. There is a large body of literature out there on this topic. But then you turn around and make assertions about the foundations of social activism and Jordan’s bandwagon jumping? Perhaps Jordan’s work is necessary in fueling the fire so to speak in these movements… I’m not sure I endorse that, but I am struck by countering a lack of evidence with a lack of evidence
2nd, I have to be honest it comes across that art raising awareness is contemptible to you? I find this debate always very interesting people who feel they must be explicitly political criticizing people who are not and people who are not criticizing people who try to be. Hm… can’t we all just get a long? But in all seriousness many people only understood global warming through artistic means, through film and photo if you will… Now whether you do or don’t believe global warming is “real” it is real in consequence because we are now acting out of a result of it… those actions are directly impacted by image makers, because it is through images that people gain their information about the world these days (though probably not the images of Chris Jordan admittedly)
It is my sincere hope that I am clear in what I’m saying here. I enjoy the post and the blog overall. Thought-provoking and interesting!
Alexander
http://hoganalexander.blogspot.com
In response to Alexander Hogan:
Thanks for commenting. In response to your first issue, I wasn’t criticizing–or didn’t mean to criticize–Jordan for his lack of proof about art raising social awareness. I was trying to respond to Jordan’s belief that his art WASN’T raising social awareness (evident in his quote) by positing a few reasons why: the contemporary art audience doesn’t suffer from a lack of awareness, Jordan’s choices of issues are both obvious and somewhat contradictory, and art may not have that much impact on awareness in general. You’re absolutely right that I have no evidence for that last item–I was simply musing on possible explanations.
You’re also right on point two…art designed to “raise awareness” has a tendency to raise my hackles. That’s not true in every case, but certainly in Jordan’s, which I consider a somewhat sloppy approach to politics that inadvertently exposes contemporary debate for the shallow theatrical show that it is. That said, I do think Jordan’s work is sort of interesting, and sort of pretty…
291
{ 1 } Trackback
[…] project, though, is what he says about artists’ political statements, which relates to my old post on Chris Jordan: “‘Poor people need money,’ Muniz says. ‘You need to help them directly. I […]
Post a Comment