“Can”did Awareness

“Can”did Awareness
“Chris Jordan Running the Numbers” Review

In examining American society, it is evident that we are a nation of consumers. So often, the public is only made aware of the consequences associated with our consumption through lengthy speeches made to politicians, wordy news publications, and dried out television segments. In my opinion, such avenues are fruitless in promoting consumption awareness and change, as they are uninteresting and difficult to conceptualize. Only the media pieces that vividly illustrate the enormity of the issue successfully promote awareness and initiate change. One such example is the anti-smoking campaign that has swept the country, in which disturbing images of the health effects caused by smoking are shown along with creative anti-smoking messages that are clear, concise, and to-the-point. The anti-smoking campaign has been successful in reducing the number of smokers, while initiatives pertaining to reducing our dependency on gasoline at an individual level have been slow to ignite.

During my visit to the WSU art museum, it was clear that Chris Jordan, an ex-lawyer turned professional photographer, realizes the importance of the visual aspect of human comprehension. As an artist, Chris Jordan fuses together photographs of consumer products to create a piece of art that demonstrates the sheer scale of American consumerism. Each image portrays a vast quantity of consumer items – two million plastic bottles, one hundred million toothpicks, 2.3 million folded prison uniforms – and includes a statistic to put the quantity in perspective. Jordan, in his website, conveys that society overlooks our enormous levels of consumption because we are unable to wrap our heads around the numbers. By providing a visual representation, Jordan, has made the statistics comprehendible while subtly imposing his personal critique on imperative social issues that revolve around environmental waste, criminal justice, drug abuse, and product consumption.

I was particularly interested in three of Chris Jordan’s pieces when I was viewing his exhibit: Plastic Bottles (2007), Skull with Cigarettes (2008), and Cans Seurat (2007). The element that struck me most about these photographs was the clever additions Jordan made to each piece to direct the viewer into a particular reaction. In my opinion, Jordan predisposes his photographs to ignite a reaction from the viewer that is consistent with his views on consumerism.

In Plastic Bottles (2007), Jordan effectively encouraged a negative reaction from the viewer by making the shocking terrain appear to travel back as far as the eye can see. He achieved this by making the bottles near the front of the photo appear large and detailed, while the bottles in the back of the photo diminish in size making the landscape appear never ending. While Jordan could have illustrated the statistic by making the bottles appear flat, I believed he created the photo as he did with the intention of evoking a negative reaction towards America’s consumption of canned beverages. I speak from personal experience as my initial reaction, after viewing the photo, towards American consumerism was one of waste and excess.

I appreciated how Jordan was able to vividly associate death with cigarette consumption by arranging cigarette packs to illustrate a skull in Skull with Cigarettes (2008). He effectively did this while staying consistent to his style of art as the photograph depicted 200,000 packs of cigarettes, equal to the number of Americans who die from cigarette smoking every six months. Again, he could have just illustrated the stacked packs of cigarettes, but instead he directed the viewer into a particular response by creating a broader image of a skull. I believe he created this photograph to make viewers aware of the ultimate consequence that arises from American cigarette consumption.

I was intrigued by the angle Jordan took in Cans Seurat (2007). The majority of photographs I saw during my tour created by Jordan appeared to condemn American consumerism. In Cans Seurat (2007), it is as if Jordan beautifies and applauds the number of aluminum cans used by Americans every 30 seconds by assembling 106,000 aluminum cans into an eye pleasing park scene. The photograph reveals a delicate contrast between natural scenery and processed metal. When I initially viewed it I assumed the statistic would revolve around the quantity of cans American’s recycle every hour, but, to my dismay, it was the quantity of cans Americans use every 30 seconds. I believe Jordan altered the photograph, making it visually similar to one of Georges-Pierre Seurat’s pieces, to draw the attention to the piece.

I enjoy the passion and creativity of Jordan’s art work. He chooses to focus on real consumerism issues that are affecting a real society. In my opinion, while I support his work and the awareness he is seeking to promote, I believe it will have little difference in the grand scheme of things. In accurately illustrating the enormity of an array of consumerism issues, Jordan belittles the individual contribution. In my opinion, his pieces enabled me to justify the number of plastic airplane cups I use because it doesn’t significantly increase or decrease the total number used Americans every year. Additionally, Jordan’s statistics become dated rapidly—further supporting the notion that his work will have little influence on American consumerism.

In Jordan’s defense, I don’t think he is using his art to initiate change in the way his viewers consume. I believe Jordan’s goal, as an artist, is to promote awareness pertaining to American consumerism issues and to get each individual thinking about how he/she contribute to each consumerism issue.

Photo Above: Skull with Cigarettes (2008) by Chris Jordan

Kant’s Belief That Taste is Aesthetical

Kant writes: "If we judge objects merely according to concepts, then all representation of beauty is lost." (p. 106).

What (on earth) does he mean? Which other Kant-concept/idea could you connect this statement to? Give it your best shot in a not too long blog.

Kant is reinforcing his position that the judgment of taste is aesthetical through his statement, “if we judge objects merely according to concepts, then all representation of beauty is lost.” Kant believes that the beauty of art is not distinguished by a judgment of cognitive understanding for an object, but instead by aesthetical meaning. I completely agree with Kant, for if society were to strictly critique art on a cognitive level then each piece of art would merely have a title and become a definition rather than a form that is sentimental and beautiful.

In judging objects according to only concepts, Chris Jordan’s photograph illustrating 2.3 million folded prison uniforms would be exactly as it is represented by the text statistic. The piece would signify the exact same thing to everyone in society because of the objective nature by which it was judged and it would fail to promote awareness about criminal justice by evoking emotion.

We know that Kant’s position holds valid to society today because art pieces have different meanings to different people. Kant’s thought that the determining judgment of art is subjective is further supported by the cliché that “the beauty of art lies within the eyes of the beholder.”

I feel that Kant’s belief regarding the judgment of taste connects to elements of Hume’s idea pertaining to “the standard of taste.” Hume expressed that “beauty is no quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty.” Through his statements, Hume essentially communicated if we judge objects merely according to concepts, then all representation of beauty is lost because beauty results from individual meaning and sentiment. It is evident that both Kant and Hume agree that the judgment of taste is aesthetical and that beauty is derived by subjective means.

Image Above:
Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804)
www.stumpertenrod.de/mf_08_immanuel_kant.jpg

David Hume Review on Aspects of “On the Standard of Taste”

After reading the section on David Hume (p. 78-92) discuss your relationship to the notion of “taste” (e.g. is either, both, or none of the provided two paintings tasteful).

In the section on David Hume, pertaining to “the standard of taste”, Hume expressed that “beauty is no quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty.” Hume’s perspective on beauty reinforces the cliché that beauty lies in the eye of the beholder.

I was intrigued by the method in which Hume conveyed the impossibility of creating a standard of taste among men, as an individual’s preferences are highly influenced by sentiment and factors related to the delicacy of the imagination, personal prejudices, experience derived from practice, and formed comparisons. I agree with Hume in that all sentiment is right, or rather no sentiment is wrong, and due to the diversity of opinion among humans it creates a situation where it is impossible to define real beauty or deformity.

Although Hume is unable to define absolute beauty and absolute deformity, he effectively communicates the parameters for which what is real can be considered tasteful. He expresses that taste is entirely based on personal palette as “to seek real beauty, or real deformity, is as fruitless an enquiry, as to pretend to ascertain the real sweet or real bitter.”

In referencing Hume’s philosophy on taste, I find neither of the paintings to be tasteful on many levels. First, coming from an entirely objective stance with minimal prejudices, I find deformities or inferior beauty in both the paintings. The painting of the monkey holding a flower, in my opinion, combines the superior beauty of a flower with the inferior beauty of monkey as I see monkeys to be a substandard of human beauty. In no logical circumstance can an individual obtain anything more than mediocrity from a mixture of greatness and commonness.

The portrait of the man is also not tasteful. There is no beauty associated with the painting that registers with my palette. I am unable to relate to the man’s appearance, style of dress, and facial expression. I find the painting similar to the story mentioned about the kinsmen who pronounced the King’s wine to be satisfactory if it weren’t for the hint of leather taste or the distinguishable iron taste left from the key with a leathern thong in the hogshead. The painting, at a fundamental level, illustrates the sweet beauty of a human, but takes a sour turn with the apparent displeasing characteristics in it.

"Paradigms and Purposes" Review on the Perspective of “Versailles and Kant”

Choose one perspective from Freeman’s Chapter 2, “Paradigms and Purposes,” that particularly stands out to you and discuss it.

After reading Chapter 2, “Paradigm and Purposes,” I decided to focus on the perspective proposed by Kant, regarding the gardens of Versailles, because I felt his attitude towards gardens and art was intriguing. Kant classified gardens as a form of art in that,

“[L]andscape gardening… consists in no more than decking out the ground with the same manifold variety (grasses, flowers, shrubs, and trees, and even water, hills, and dales) as that with which nature presents it to our view, only arranged differently and in obedience to certain ideas.”

I believe Kant’s characterization and criteria of art may have had an influence in the now popular definition that art is a thoughtful rearrangement of elements. Under such a definition, a garden undoubtedly qualifies as art because it is a combination of naturally found items strategically placed by the gardener.

Kant admits that, “it seems strange that landscape gardening may be regarded as a kind of painting,” but after giving the statement some thought, I noticed remarkable similarities between a gardener creating a garden and a painter creating a painting. Despite the fact that each artist is using a different palette, the gardener using a palette of plants and the painter using a palette of colored paints, both are thoughtfully arranging their materials in a way to evoke an emotion or convey meaning.

In my experience, gardens are overlooked as a form of art because they don’t fit the social norm for what we, as a society, perceive as art. One can’t fit a garden the size of the garden of Versailles in a museum, and one is unable to capture its continuously changing aesthetics in a photograph that freezes time. The text conveyed that gardens were not perceived by Kant to be one of the highest forms of art. I disagree with Kant’s viewpoint as gardens, with the exception of animals and humans, are the only other form of “living” art. I refer to gardens as “living” because every garden continuously evolves and progresses with age. The artist is only able to manipulate a garden, as the final masterpiece is ultimately designed with the cooperation of another power regardless if you consider that power to be God, Mother Nature, or the disposition of life in itself. In that sense gardens qualify as a higher form of art and lead me to agree with Horace Walpole’s assessment that gardening is along with poetry and painting as the “three sisters or graces”.

Image Above: Gardens of Versailles

“The Natural History of Art” Review

Is our DNA “a sort of ghostly puppet master” (96) determining our aesthetical preferences?

I believe there is partial truth in the statement that DNA is “a sort of ghostly puppet master” in determining our aesthetical preferences. It seems both probable and reasonable that humans, to a degree, are predisposed to have certain preferences. The philosophy that our idiosyncratic tastes may have a biological basis is conveyed quite persuasively through Conniff’s explanation, pertaining to survival, of why humans prefer habits rich with water, large trees, open space, and distance views.

Additionally, in my opinion, art is uninhibited in that it isn’t only visual. Sounds, by avenue of music, and culinary arts, serving as a corridor to taste, can be forms of art so long as each stimulates a sense or evokes

an emotion. The notion that humans, without conditioning, are allured by smooth sounds of nature and are fond of the sweet taste of sugar further suggest that genetics plays a role in determining instinctive preferences.

While Conniff made convincing arguments that our aesthetical preferences are depicted by our genes, I believe that the environment also plays an instrumental role. In the struggle between nature and nurture, nurture must play an influential role in our preferences as it most appropriately explains the vast amount of variability among art that humans are fond of. Genetics at best provides a foundation for our unconscious preferences, while, consciously, our preferences are defined by experiences, environmental conditioning, and social norms. If biological components were the primary determinant of our preferences then it would seem likely that my three brothers and I would all be attracted to the same types of art, but in reality we each enjoy dissimilar music, wear different clothing, are pursuing unique career paths, and participate in different extracurricular activities. Based on my personal observations, the variation in preferences and individuality we seem among humans can’t be explained without a nurture aspect being factored into the notion that nature governs our preferences.

To read article, visit https://notes.utk.edu/bio/greenberg.nsf/0/f60081ef35fba95c85256e6e006a2a77.

Image Above: Joan Miro "In Woman and Bird in the Moonlight" (1949)