Chris Jordan photography

Tigersoap

The Living Force
I have stumbled on new works by photographer Chris Jordan, who always cast an interesting perspective on consumerism.

These photographs of albatross chicks were made just a few weeks ago on Midway Atoll, a tiny stretch of sand and coral near the middle of the North Pacific. The nesting babies are fed bellies-full of plastic by their parents, who soar out over the vast polluted ocean collecting what looks to them like food to bring back to their young. On this diet of human trash, every year tens of thousands of albatross chicks die on Midway from starvation, toxicity, and choking.

To document this phenomenon as faithfully as possible, not a single piece of plastic in any of these photographs was moved, placed, manipulated, arranged, or altered in any way. These images depict the actual stomach contents of baby birds in one of the world's most remote marine sanctuaries, more than 2000 miles from the nearest continent.

_http://chrisjordan.com/current_set2.php?id=11

see other works here :

_http://chrisjordan.com/

I put it in creative act because I think this is also the duty of the artist to portray reality as objectively as possible when possible.

What do you think ?
 
The albatross pictures are truly disturbing... :cry:

In his other works, I wasn't real fond of the cigarette/skeleton mural. In the close-up a good number of the cigarette packs are American Spirit - one of the healthier brands available, OSIT. I didn't really see the objectivity there. Some of the other murals on plastic bottles, cell phones, handguns and whatnot were decent though.
 
I must say this is an interesting form of art. The albatross pictures made me very sad and kind of angry at ourselves-the human race. Though I think the picture was meant to be seen that way.

RyanX said:
In his other works, I wasn't real fond of the cigarette/skeleton mural. In the close-up a good number of the cigarette packs are American Spirit - one of the healthier brands available, OSIT. I didn't really see the objectivity there. Some of the other murals on plastic bottles, cell phones, handguns and whatnot were decent though.

I noticed that picture and thought it odd that there were so many American Spirit labels compared to Malbro or any other brand. His other ones were interesting, most of them made me shake my head in disappointment and sadness at the reality of what it was portraying, like the tuna one.
 
See him speaks of his works here :

_http://www.ted.com/talks/chris_jordan_pictures_some_shocking_stats.html


As far as I can tell, the Chris Jordan seems really genuine in trying to help people get awareness about American consumerism and its consequences.
But he is lacking other source of informations (mmm for example...the SOTT) for his ideas and it's only normal then that it transpires into his works but I could be wrong.
 
Tigersoap said:
I have stumbled on new works by photographer Chris Jordan, who always cast an interesting perspective on consumerism.

I put it in creative act because I think this is also the duty of the artist to portray reality as objectively as possible when possible.

What do you think ?


RyanX said:
I didn't really see the objectivity there. Some of the other murals on plastic bottles, cell phones, handguns and whatnot were decent though.



This is what Mouravieff and Gurdjieff said about ART (objective art)

Boris Mouravieff GNOSIS The Esoteric Cycle said:
In the esoteric sense, Symbols are always revealed, and their deeper meaning is precise and cannot be subject to free interpretation, since, whether expressed in human words, diagrams, or works of Art, they express objective truths that have been reached in a higher state of consciousness. Therefore a symbol that is of value esoterically speaking could be partly or completely understood, depending on the level of consciousness reached by the one who tries to understand its meaning. But the measure to which it is understood will not change its general meaning, which will remain the same whatever the level of comprehension. It cannot be otherwise, since, as we have said, revealed symbols give access to a world that is situated beyond simple subjectivism. It is ruled by objectively valid ideas, of which theyare the expression.

In other words, these symbols are messages intended for those in search of the Truth. They are transmitted from a higher world to the world here below, and not from man to man, as in the symbolist schools of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Every symbol which has some esoteric validity therefore contains in itself a sum of real knowledge — of Gnosis—touching on certain aspects, facts, or laws of the noumcnal world that is beyond our senses. Simultaneously, it offers a key that helps us to decipher its deepest integral meaning.



ISOTM said:
"Why, of course not!" I said. "Art, poetry, thought, are phenomena of quite a different order."
"Of exactly the same order," said G. "These activities are just as mechanical as everything else. Men are machines and nothing but mechanical actions can be expected of machines."



ISOTM said:
"At the moment it is not yet clear to you," G. once said, "that people living on the earth can belong to very different levels, although in appearance they look exactly the same. Just as there are very different levels of men, so there are different levels of art.

"I do not call art all that you call art, which is simply mechanical reproduction, imitation of nature or other people, or simply fantasy, or an attempt to be original. Real art is something quite different.

Among works of art, especially works of ancient art, you meet with many things you cannot explain and which contain a certain something you do not feel in modern works of art. But as you do not realize what this difference is you very soon forget it and continue to take everything as one kind of art.

And yet there is an enormous difference between your art and the art of which I speak. In your art everything is subjective—the artist's perception of this or that sensation; the forms in which he tries to express his sensations and the perception of these forms by other people. In one and the same phenomenon one artist may feel one thing and another artist quite a different thing. One and the same sunset may evoke a feeling of joy in one artist and sadness in another. Two artists may strive to express exactly the same perceptions by entirely different methods, in different forms; or entirely different perceptions in the same forms—according to how they were taught, or contrary to it. And the spectators, listeners, or readers will perceive, not what the artist wished to convey or what he felt, but what the forms in which he expresses his sensations will make them feel by association. Everything is subjective and everything is accidental, that is to say, based on accidental associations—the impression of the artist and his 'creation'" (he emphasized the word "creation"), "the perceptions of the spectators, listeners, or readers.

"In real art there is nothing accidental. It is mathematics. Everything in it can be calculated, everything can be known beforehand. The artist knows and understands what he wants to convey and his work cannot produce one impression on one man and another impression on another, presuming, of course, people on one level. It will always, and with mathematical certainty, produce one and the same impression.

"At the same time the same work of art will produce different impressions on people of different levels. And people of lower levels will never receive from it what people of higher levels receive. This is real, objective art. Imagine some scientific work—a book on astronomy or chemistry. It is impossible that one person should understand it in one way and another in another way. Everyone who is sufficiently prepared and who is able to read this book will understand what the author means, and precisely as the author means it. An objective work of art is just such a book, except that it affects the emotional and not only the intellectual side of man." "Do such works of objective art exist at the present day?" I asked. "Of course they exist," answered G. "The great Sphinx in Egypt is such a work of art, as well as some historically known works of architecture, certain statues of gods, and many other things. There are figures of gods and of various mythological beings that can be read like books, only not with the mind but with the emotions, provided they are sufficiently developed.

In the course of our travels in Central Asia we found, in the desert at the foot of the Hindu Kush, a strange figure which we thought at first was some ancient god or devil. At first it produced upon us simply the impression of being a curiosity. But after a while we began to feel that this figure contained many things, a big, complete, and complex system of cosmology. And slowly, step by step, we began to decipher this system. It was in the body of the figure, in its legs, in its arms, in its head, in its eyes, in its ears; everywhere. In the whole statue there was nothing accidental, nothing without meaning. And gradually we understood the aim of the people who built this statue. We began to feel their thoughts, their feelings. Some of us thought that we saw their faces, heard their voices. At all events, we grasped the meaning of what they wanted to convey to us across thousands of years, and not only the meaning, but all the feelings and the emotions connected with it as well. That indeed was art!"



Ok after what Gurdjieff and Mouravieff have said about objective art, and trying to find something that comes close to this description I've been searching and found La Pietà by Michelangelo wich is in St. Peter's Basilica.


When I look at this, comes a shock and a great feeling wich I can only describe as a kind of repentance.

Repentance and birth of an inner strength that pushes me to try to know the mother creation to which I belong, to live and to consciously participate in it. I don't want to be dead lying in the arms of creation.

Now, I can't assure this is real objective art but it is the closest I am able to come. Maybe someone can give more details or a better approximation.
 

Attachments

  • 300px-Michelangelo%27s_Pieta_5450_cropncleaned_edit.jpg
    300px-Michelangelo%27s_Pieta_5450_cropncleaned_edit.jpg
    30.7 KB · Views: 4
Hi Ana,

I am sorry but this wasn't about objective art.
What I am speaking about is someone who tries to represent as objectively as he is able, what he sees and feels as important about consumerism in the US. Like a reporter would, he is just reporting facts and numbers under a visual form, I never said he was doing objective art.
Two different things imho.

By the way I don't think the creative acts section is only about objective art ;)
 
Tigersoap said:
Hi Ana,

I am sorry but this wasn't about objective art.
What I am speaking about is someone who tries to represent as objectively as he is able, what he sees and feels as important about consumerism in the US. Like a reporter would, he is just reporting facts and numbers under a visual form, I never said he was doing objective art.
Two different things imho.

Ok, sorry then :-[, I just was trying to convey that perhaps the term objectivity is not appropriate in these cases OSIT

Tigersoap said:
By the way I don't think the creative acts section is only about objective art ;)

No, I don't think so.
 
i like the intention of message, i think that the greatest pieces of art are those that can connect reason with emotion in a conscious way, in other words, have an emotional reaction with logic ideas flowing almost immediately after it.

His style of art specially with me works as a mirror to my behavior and tells me how unaware most of us are of the huge impact of our seemingly small actions on the universe around us.

thanks or the link, i like it a lot! :):D
 

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom