Chris Jordan: But Is It Art?

It was difficult to look at the works of Chris Jordan at face value and to view it simply as art. The obscure messages that each portrayed was not identifiable at times and I had to read the caption in order to comprehend what I was looking at. It became a challenge/competition to guess what the message was in each work before reading the caption. After seeing the museum, much of Jordan’s work looked repetitive and seemed like brainless compilations of mass amounts of certain products. However, despite how convinced I am that I would never own a work by Chris Jordan, there is a significant amount of art value that cannot be avoided. His works fit some of the many definitions that art has had throughout time.
The most beautiful piece that I found in the museum was the “Toothpicks”. Looking at it from a purely aesthetical perspective, it dealt with nature and was very stimulating. Richard Conniff would probably say that my interest in the nature aspect of this picture is due to my genetic heritage. To refresh what “Toothpicks” is, it is initially a prairie that is completely flat with no trees. There are very impressive weather patterns in the picture as well, which make the sky clash with the calm, smooth, sea of grass. After looking at it closer, you see that the grass is actually millions of toothpicks lined up to represent, again, our mass consumption of trees. I was really impressed since Jordan emphasized our tree consumption twice in the picture. First, there are no trees present, making it seem like a barren landscape with no shelter. Second, the grass is made of toothpicks, the product of trees and the reason why the picture is of a prairie. Depending how you interpret the picture, “Toothpicks” was very aesthetically pleasant and the double emphasis on tree consumption made it more influential. However, I was a little baffled after reading the caption. Apparently, Jordan opposes junk mail, which I have no interest in, especially since I already recycle much of my paper. Jordan was probably trying to emphasize mindless consumption of trees for useless production of junk mail, but all his other works are on such a grander scale. I thought he would have protested all paper consumption in order to impress viewers with a much larger picture and statistic. His focus on junk mail was odd, but after remembering what makes up the bulk of my own mail, it makes sense since, despite how much paper Americans waste, junk mail really serves no purpose and most of the time, people don’t even open their junk mail. Initially, I thought that Jordan’s pictures were not time worthy and in a matter of a few years would be completely outdate, but I decided I did not have to view his pictures statistically. Even if Americans recycle more and decrease consumption in the future, his works will always be a reminder of an era when his social message was justified and influential.
At first glance I was not impressed by the museum. Chris Jordan just seems too predictable and, with the exception of his first work protesting consumption, very unoriginal. Then I realized that I never viewed junk mail as a waste or saw guns as such a threat. His purpose is to raise awareness of the underbelly of America. I would consider his pictures primarily as a social movement, but I would also consider them art because some of the pictures were aesthetically stimulating. Also, the standard for art today also seems to be very low. If a dot on a canvas is art, Chris Jordan has definitely accomplished much more.

Kant is Cool

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

We need to judge objects based on our own sensations in order to view them as beautiful. There is no representation of beauty if we know, hear, or learn about something's beauty. People need to be able to sense the object as it is in order to be satisfied. Kant writes that "all private sensation can only decide for the observer himself and his satisfaction" (pg 106). Kant believes that beauty is determined on the individual level, and concepts do not justly represent beauty.

Kant says that "everything which pleases without a concept would be counted as pleasant" (pg 105). I think that this concept closely resembles what Kant was getting at in the prompt. If someone can find pleasure in something without the influence of concept, then the object of pleasure is in fact pleasing and not falsely represented. Kant also uses a rose example in which he decides through his judgment of taste that a rose is beautiful. This is purely an aesthetical judgment in which he can describe beauty. This is considered "singular judgment". However if becomes a comparison of multiple singular judgments, such as "roses in general are beautiful", then it is no longer only aesthetical, but logical. It becomes conceptual and loses its representation of beauty.

Taste

I think that both paintings are tasteful and I would consider them art. Both have a stimulating effect, making the viewer curious as to what the settings of the pictures are. I believe that if a piece of art can cause a reaction in the audience, it is tasteful since it then has made a purpose of itself. Even if the art is repulsive, it has stimulated a reaction. Now comes the question of is it good or bad taste. I guess the artists who created both paintings had some message that they are attempting to communicate through their art, however I don’t understand what it is. So to me, I think the paintings are tasteful, but the artists had bad taste for painting something so obscure. On the other hand, I may have bad taste for not liking or understanding the paintings. I want to say that all art has taste because someone is bound to like it, but I don’t personally find all art tasteful. But who is to determine taste and who do you evaluate in your process. Does the artist, the art, or the observer have taste? Attempting to determine taste is sort of a dead end since it is similar to a philosophical question where there is no right or wrong answer. If something isn’t tasteful, is it not art? I would say that it is still art, since I already concluded in my essay that everything is art. I’ve been told that I do not have very good taste, but I think that there shouldn’t be a standard for taste, since it is very individualistic. If I have good taste, that just means I like what society has determined to be good. Being told that I have bad taste is complimentary and would rather have my own unique taste. In the case of the paintings, I don’t think that my taste aligns with the taste of the artist, which is why I don’t enjoy looking at them.