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.