Quantifying the Need for Change in American Society

The exhibit Chris Jordan: Running the Numbers provides a startling view of American consumption and society. He gives a glimpse of statistics that are nearly incomprehensible due to shear size. The large numbers that he works with allow for striking images that force one to try to fathom what the number means. Further, his artwork preys on the curiosity of the viewer to examine the manipulation of familiar objects. His pieces are educational while allowing the viewer to appreciate works of art.

All of Jordan’s pieces seem to depict statistics of things that are detrimental to American society. For instance, Oil Barrels (2008) shows 28,000 42-gallon oil barrels that are burned in the U.S. every two minutes. This statistic is crucial to policies regarding energy use, and it demonstrates American dependence on unsustainable practices. In addition to pointing out an over indulgence in consumption, Jordan tackles issues that affect the well-being of Americans. He makes a very strong statement against tobacco use in Skull with Cigarette (2008), which depicts a gruesome smoking skeleton composed of 200,000 packs of cigarettes that represent smoking related deaths in the U.S. every six months. His focus on the negative statistics about American lives reveals a motivation for dramatic exposure of issues that society should address with more vigor. Even though the staggering numbers in his work make one person feel rather insignificant, he almost challenges his viewers to not be part of his statistics or at the very least lower their effect on the numbers.

Jordan is able to reach out to a broader audience by widely varying his style. Plastic Cups (2008) is completely abstract and incorporates organic shapes and patterns of stacks of plastic airline cups. In contrast, Toothpicks (2008) is a gloomy landscape with realistic clouds and fields of toothpicks that look similar to wheat. These two pieces were done in the same year, which indicates that Jordan purposively alters his style to convey messages. Some pieces merely look like patterns, such as the Japanese tatami mat appearance of Prison Uniforms (2007), while others are recognizable depictions, such as the representation of Seurat’s A Sunday on La Grande Jatte (1884–86) with aluminum cans in Cans Seurat (2007). In addition to the styles of these pieces, he also does portrait-like pieces and abstract works with specific geometry to them. He appeals to a larger audience by showing statistics through art that ranges from abstract to ordered patterns to replications of well known art pieces. This makes his collection much more successful, since it really depends on the ability to touch as many people as possible.

America has a reputation of consumerism and excesses, but Jordan’s collection could possibly be even more effective if he produced works that used statistics from other nations for comparison. This would also require more background information, since statistics are heavily dependent on population sizes. Nonetheless, it would provide a much greater perspective on the American statistics, which could have a greater impact on viewers. To be able to see how Americans consume versus another country or collection of countries may encourage viewers to think beyond the size of the numbers to question gross excesses and unsustainable practices. While there is significant focus on the statistical aspect that Jordan uses in his pieces, they are still art and show tremendous skill and versatility. The wide variations in his style demonstrate his knowledge of art. Even though his work is connected to quantified aspects of American life, many of his pieces can stand alone as works of art that are as worthy of viewing as any other graphic art.

Kant and the Judgment of Beauty

It is like Kant is saying that a person should inherently know when something is beautiful. Judging beauty based on concepts is like being told what is beautiful and then stating that an object is beautiful based on that prior knowledge for comparison. It seems like having a preconceived idea of what is beautiful taints an observer’s judgment. In another sense, it could refer to technicalities of what should be beautiful. For instance, a beautiful object should have appealing colors and an organic shape. Kant argues that the judgment of beauty should not be based on pleasure but rather pleasure should be derived from it. Again, it is like an object should radiate beauty to the observer. The observer should stop and notice the beauty before seeking enjoyment of it. Further, if a person is too quick to judge everything that is encountered on the basis of known ideas or facts, then the beauty of certain objects will be lost on the observer. For instance, a person encounters a decorated glass serving dish and notes that it is an object with which to serve food. Then, the person encounters a decorative piece of glass and wonders what it could be used for. In fact, the decorative piece of glass is only for display and is supposed to evoke a sense of beauty, which is lost to the mind focused on concepts.

On the judgment of beauty Kant states, “But this universality cannot arise from concepts; for from concepts there is no transition to the feeling of pleasure or pain . . .” This statement comes after Kant’s argument that beauty judgments may be deemed logical and involves concepts but in reality are purely aesthetical. Here, he makes it seem like concepts are related to reason and have no bearing on a judgment made on something more abstract like beauty. A judgment can be thought of as something concrete based on reason and logical thought, but for Kant a judgment of beauty cannot be based on that. However, a true judgment of beauty is something that may be universally related to, which makes it seem more concrete.

A Taste of Art

In a sense, taste refers to whether a work of art is deemed good or bad. Hume makes the argument in “Of the Standard of Taste” that sentiments about an object must be correct but opinions can be wrong. This is an interesting thought that people can have any kind of emotional response to a piece of art, but most likely none of their opinions is the right one. It is reminiscent of there is no right or wrong answer to a non-factual question, in regard to feelings toward artworks. However, someone must deem a work as right or wrong enough for a museum. Their taste is probably much more refined in the sense that they can judge with a stronger background the different elements of the art piece, like the subject matter and the use of medium. Hume also points out that if everyone’s sentiments were the same then there would be a clear definition of beauty. Art might then take on a much narrower scope. Further, there would much less opportunity for discussion on whether something is beautiful or not. Taste seems to provide a mode for selecting art that is enjoyable to the individual, and it offers a point from which to discuss and ponder art.

I suppose what I will use to judge taste is the following question: would I want this piece of art in my home or office? I honestly would not like either painting, the man or the monkey, in my home, office or any other place I commonly or uncommonly encounter. The man appears creepy, like a stalker, and the monkey is quite unsettling due the resemblance of a human portrait. Even though both appear to have required significant skill on the part of the artists, my emotional response is what dictates my decision that neither are tasteful. My ideal tasteful painting is a landscape, such as one described by Conniff, with wide-open spaces and a couple of trees. However, I can certainly appreciate a five-year-old’s version of such a landscape and not find it tasteful. Thus, I believe my version of taste is based on my own sentiments and on my novice judgment of the skill of the artist based on technique, perspective, lighting, shading, etc.