Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
i'm sure his litigation background makes him a compelling speaker especially given that the topics are ones that people can't help but cream themselves over. unfortunately the art is so simple, so benign, and so obvious. not to mention, anything but unique. i dub him captain obvious. seattle is strong on photographers, but chris jordan is not one of them.
I liked his work better, and thought it was much more artistic, when it was actual photographs and not composites. They ARE illustrations, and are very high-quality versions of what you might see in a USAToday info box -- "these represent the number of prisoners", etc. His new work is profoundly unsubtle, and thus damaged as art. He's just an advocate now.
(I think that last sentence might have been my own overly earnest phase.)
you see poetic, i see opportunistic unless all proceeds went to the victims. ethics are a big part of art, wouldn't you agree. See Spike Lee. And if he did, I still don't know if it is really art (see above: simple, benign, unoriginal, and obvious)? I guess that is the problem I see with his work in general. Nice to know I'm not the only one. Unfortunately, as long as there are people who only see the poetic and don't consider the larger institutional ramifications, art in general will suffer.
sorry, but you should know better or at least you should consider not the value of the impact, but the importance of the art. or at least consider what this intolerable art means to the future of seattle art. we are suppose to be didactic, through simple visuals. is that what you want? seems to me that is what jenn was talking about in terms of the vacouver problem? we as concerned citizens realize the impact of global warming, we read magazines just like you and the artist. we probably read things that you do not. anyways... we do not need art to tell us that. at least in the didactic fashion that he seems to excel in. i guess that is the lawyer in him, he knows best. his photos still leave me completely and horribly with an unethical taste in my mouth and if someone can please tell me why it isn't, let me know. it is an extreme example of everything that is against the seattle art historical timeline. as it does not allow for further discussion past itself. am i wrong?
For me, the photographs of New Orleans gave the destruction more of a context. The images are devastating and beautiful at the same time, and the message about global warming is urgent and powerful. Calling them "opportunistic" is like saying anytime a disaster happens and people document it they are being exploitive. And yes, all proceeds from the book (which is now sold out) were donated to Gulf Coast relief charities. Consider the ramifications of that, jerkface.
It does some of what art can do but it does so only in a simple and manipulative way. It is a shallow form of art and it's ambitions go only a little beyond what a TV commercial does or a billboard (and I've seen much better in both media). Who wouldn't be touched by an in your face example of waste in the world? You would have to be totally crass. I've seen the starving children on TV and black lungs (etc.) on the billboards both have given me a visceral feeling as I breezed by them, but they are far from art. I can't say that Jason's photographs are any more then adequately designed backdrops for his cause, good cause though it may be.
The thing is, he is doing something interesting and in a very successful way. But to push your art in a similar direction will only enslave you to a world of cheap objects and simple minded aesthetics.