A Lawyer’s Prerogative

My first impressions of Chris Jordan’s “Running the Numbers” exhibit were those of curiosity, awe and annoyance. My curiosity arose from just a glance at the photographs. They were so large, yet appeared to be nothing (excluding a few). The first print I stopped at was entitled “Plastic Bottles.” I looked at it from a distance, and then took a closer look. I was surprised to find that it was actually plastic bottles. It made me very curious as to what the rest of the prints were. The next photo I looked at was entitled “Cans Seurat,” which was very well put together. I especially liked that it was a picture, not just a blur like so many of the others. After touring the entire art exhibit it was clear to me that his purpose was to awe his viewers. He wanted people to think about what each print represented and perhaps take home a message they otherwise would not have from a bunch of statistics. My annoyance arose after contemplating his art. I was annoyed that I did not know where the statistics can from, and I was also annoyed that the statistics were not timely. However, I think his intentions behind the prints are noble. While some could take his exhibit as solely a political attack, I took it to be an awareness campaign with a twist.

I looked up what the art critics had to say about Chris Jordan’s “Running the Numbers,” and while I did not find many helpful synopses, I found out something even more interesting. I did not know that Chris Jordan was a lawyer who later became a photographer. This knowledge made his exhibit so much more believable, yet also made me question his motives. I have a great respect for lawyers and believe that they are highly educated, as well as hard working. However, I also know that lawyers are taught to perfect the art of persuasion and argumentation. It is obvious to me that Chris Jordan was trying to persuade his viewers to look at issues of crime, cup consumption, and toothpick production in a different light. He emphasized the vastness of America’s consumption and depicted it in a way that inspired a feeling of guilt, a lawyer-like tactic.

Further, after reading an interview that Chris Jordan had with Bill Moyers of PBS, I felt differently about him still. He explained many of his pieces and how he stumbled into an interest in each subject, and then he ended his interview with this quote:

"I want people to realize that they matter. Because, to me, that’s the key. When you stand back from the print you see the collective. And as you walk up close, you can see that the collective is only made up of lots and lots of individuals. There is no bad consumer over there somewhere who needs to be educated. There is no public out there who needs to change. And that’s kind of the underlying message that I’m trying to convey. It’s each one of us." – Chris Jordan

He really seems genuinely concerned about individual participation for the betterment of society through this quote, but what about his piece entitled “Ben Franklin?” Besides the basic election of our leaders, how can an individual prevent billions of dollars from being used to fight a war?
All questions aside, I do believe that Chris Jordan’s intentions were to focus on the individual, but bias and politics were not left out. His “Prison Uniforms” created an atmosphere of negativity about society, but also inspired me to consider my actions and reflect on those of my acquaintances. I also had a chance to see “Barbie Dolls,” and think this print targets issues surrounding the individual’s self perception, but also criticizes doll manufacturers for introducing the “perfect body” into a unique society. I believe that Chris Jordan’s work is truly impressive from a processing standpoint. It takes patients and skill to be able to incorporate photographs like he did. I applaud his attempt to create a powerful image out of statistics, and hope individuals will find something inspiring about at least one of his prints.

Kant

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

What Kant is saying here is that when objects are left to representation, the imagination sees them as it pleases and thus beauty can be found. I think that he is saying that as our imagination fails, our senses fail as well, and all beauty is lost.

This idea relates to Kant's idea that "That which pleases the senses in sensation is pleasant." If we do not imagine what an object is, then we do not fully experience its beauty in our senses, and therefore we cannot be pleased by the object.

I think that Kant's arguments come full circle. He starts describing his ideas, and then adds on to them, and then again. In the end, he seems to end up right back where he began his argument.

I can relate to the discussed concept of Kant when I look at a photograph. If it is a photograph that I took, I look at it and imagine what it was like at the time the photo was taken. This makes the picture all the more beautiful. When I look at a photograph that someone else has taken, I do the same thing. Only this time, I am imagining what the situation was and experiencing it for the first time with all my senses. Once I have done that, when I look at the photo, it is all the more beautiful to me.

Another way that I relate to the idea that Kant proposes is when I am experiencing nature. When I go somewhere natural, I often have a memory that I associate with it and will call that memory to mind when I am in that same setting. If I have not experienced something in a particular setting, I often will experience something beautiful when I am there. When I see a picture, or am in that same setting again, I will imagine the beautiful experiences I have, my senses will be awakened, and I will find beauty and pleasure in the image I am wittnessing.

Hume

Hume discusses the notion of a standard of taste. Taste being something that is shared between all men. Hume believes that all sentiments are accurate and unique, but that at their base they imply the same taste. I do not agree that everyone has the same taste. I think that some people are drawn to certain types of artwork that others are not. Taste varies based on many aspects of your lifestyle, including religion, education, and family life. However, I do think that being raised in a similar culture meshes our tastes to a degree.

I think that both paintings on the UH 440 blog have their own unique qualities that make them intriguing. I would say that they are both tasteful to me because they do not make me want to close out of the page. However, they may represent something that could be distasteful to some people. The paintings could represent the idea of evolution and man’s development from monkeys. To a person with exclusive religious convictions, these paintings might be really distasteful.

We do not know what the artist’s intent was by just looking at the paintings and therefore, to some philosophers, we cannot truly analyze the artwork, but to others, we just must possess the proper qualities. Hume discusses the notion of the perfect art critic. He describes them as being delicate, practiced, comparative, free of prejudice, and in possession of good will. If we do not all possess theses qualities, then does our opinion matter? Does our definition of taste matter? And if one person has the qualities listed above, then wouldn’t they be more qualified to judge a piece of art, and therefore their taste would be more correct.

But if we argue that all men have the same root taste, then aren’t we degrading the role of the perfect critic? Or is Hume simply stating that we have the same taste, but the art critic is the only one who knows how to apply the true meaning?

Hume also says that a true art critic is hard to find, but once you find one they are easy to distinguish. This makes me question Hume because we, as a class, have not yet identified a philosopher that we have deemed the perfect critic. Could it be that many people possess qualities of a critic and together, through a content analysis of their combined reviews, we could truly determine the quality of a piece of artwork; and in doing so use all of our person specific tastes to agree upon a “standard?”