Chris Jordan

Pain Killers, 2007     60x63"

Depicts 213,000 Vicodin pills, equal to the number of emergency room visits yearly in the US related to misuse or abuse of prescription pain killers. http://www.chrisjordan.com/gallery/rtn/#pain-killers

Skull With Cigarette, 2007     98x72"

Depicts 200,000 packs of cigarettes, equal to the number of Americans who die from cigarette smoking every six months. Based on a painting by Van Gogh. (Same Link as above)

   
            Chris Jordan's photographs are an examination of or our culture as a whole in relation to the roles we play as individuals in regards to consumerism and commodity culture(first point in relation to the textbook). His images present this idea as one large constructed image, created out of thousand of tiny images that are meant to represent this notion of the often times unrealized part we play as one person in the overall picture when it comes down to consumption within our society. All of his photographs in terms of how they were constructed, is done through a compilation of thousands of tiny digital photographs that are arranged in a fashion to re-create ( such as in the second image) bigger pictures when viewed as a whole and from a distance. The way in which the pieces are viewed and constructed are very much akin to his concept, too. When viewing the picture from a distance, you are presented with one complete image whose sum of all parts forms this beautifully rendered photograph .However, when viewed up close, the image is broken down into thousands of tiny individual photos. The first mode of viewing may be a representation of our society as a whole and it's apathetic approach to over-consumption and waste; creating a falsely constructed and possibly ignorant prospect of how we function as a society. The latter view is an up close, in your face depiction of the reality of the situation when it comes down to consumption and societal views on it; providing an overwhelming sense of consumption, coupled with statistics that Jordan provides to further substantiate  his concept. Jordan does view his projects as photographs and not digital collage.
         This would be the second point of debate that the book could provide when examining his art. Does Jordan's work fall more under the category of Digital art or photography? He labels his work as photography which I'm not in disagreement with, but it really does call into question the nature of photography. Clearly these are digitally compiled images that may not use traditional forms of photography to construct a photographic image. But does his work clearly communicate something of the real in comparison to a straight photograph? I believe that there is no question about the labeling of his work as being photographic in nature because it is just as effective in communicating his ideas about consumerism and commodity, if not more effective because of the scale in which he is capable in working with due to the digital basis of his pieces.    
        Another concept from Liz well's book that also ties into the argument aforementioned, is the section about photography in a “ techno-progressive” time line. The passage discusses the nature of the the photograph in parallel to the its cultural and technological advancements and how history has been more concerned with the technological advancements and the differences it has brought in critical discussion about photography ( in concern with film vs digital) and the cultural aspects of the photograph were lost in this focus. Kevin Robins explores the idea about these discussions about photography and the digital revolution of the medium and how it really is nothing new, rather it is an old and recurrent idea, tracing back to the time when photographs were joined with science as a way to rationalize photography. So while many critics have been too heavily focused on the changes digital technologies have brought about to photography, Robins is in disagreement with this focus, stating that digital technology isn't a break in photographic practice, it is rather a new way of practicing these old ideas. He goes on to state that if anything, digital manipulation is in a sense, the most sophisticated way of gathering and asserting ideas about the world not possible before and in a manner that is congruent with the older , positivist ways of conducting photography.

Each one of these places seemed so familiar to me, but all were completely new environments and whose visual components seemed to differ so greatly than the non-tangible emotional  feelings that each of these places create.I like these images because it feels like they can evoke these emotions that cannot be seen.

   

Image one: In terms of formal qualities, I really enjoy the light on the side of his face, it gives the portrait a very dramatic feel.This photograph was really one of the first images that I took for our project, and while I felt it could fit into my project, in the end it just wasn't the strongest of shots.

Image two: While I do enjoy this photo for its aesthetic aspects,this photograph makes me recollect the night and the events that occurred during that time and this is really the reason why I like it. Seven people living in one room, techno, booze, and a grown man wearing a gillie suit  while riding a wooden horse.And no, it wasn't Halloween night.

Image three: The lighting in this shot was what attracted me the most. It really does a great job of adding this very ambiguous feel to the photograph; turning a moment of the ordinary into something more interesting. 

This is actually a photo from a wedding I just shot, not the best photo but I just found the entire experience to be pretty interesting considering it was the first one I had to shoot on my own. Commercial photography is a strange thing, I liked certain aspects of it and others I'm still unsure about.

These two guys came into my work and asked me very politely to take a photograph of them. The guy on the left, after I got done showing them the photo, then snapped his fingers and pointed at his glass and demanding that I refill his drink; momentarily unveiling his true character to me( wish i had a photo of that). People are strange creatures, and these two guys exhibit that notion perfectly. 

This photo took me innumerous amounts of attempts to upload to the my blog, it made me start to question if the photo was real or just something I had imagined( only kidding). The light is something I see every single night before i go to bed and usually the window curtain is open; revealing a plethora of gold colored crucifixes and light worn virgin Marys, hopefully I can get a picture of this soon. 

Inez van Lamsweerde, Thank You Thighmaster, 1993.

 http://www.genderstudies.nl/erosandpathos/index.php?pageid=83

Robert Maplethorpe, Ken Moody and Robert Sherman, 1984

http://www.mapplethorpe.org/portfolios/portraits/?i=4 

Both mapplethope and Lamsweerde are addressing how sexuality and the body are portrayed or perceived through popular culture; creating complex images of the human figure that suggests these ideas as well as questions the authority of popular culture, and it's ability to construct prospects of falsely idealized bodies,  as well an attempt to challenge the representation of the body and sexuality, when in concern with misleading identity construction created by the media, in relation to homosexuality.In lamweerde's images, there is this objectification of the body that occurs, however, this is intentionally done in an attempt to accentuate his message behind the work. The figures are lifelike in size, yet they embody this physical nature that is beyond pure size , that represents more a a doll in term of attributes of the face, body details, and postural positioning. The figure evokes this feeling of the unreal, but does so in such an uncanny way that is intentionally done in order to cause the viewer to have to reexamine the figure more than once. The message lamweerde is positing, is about how popular media sources and culture in general, have created a hyperbolic and false body of representation for what the deem to be an ideal form of the female figure. These images question that; utilizing wantonness visual techniques that push this notion onto the viewer in an attempt to question that  norm or perception as well as directly critiquing it.While in Maplethorpe's images, he is very sensuously showing a side of homosexuality that in concept, is quite similar to that of Lamweerde, but in terms of formal visual elements, strikingly different.Maplethorpe's approach is more about displaying these two male, homosexual figures, in a very soft light;evoking feelings of interconnection and passion through the two men, which directly question the homosexual views of mass culture during that time period.Lamsweerde chooses to take a visual approach that will create the feeling of rejection and possibly disgust,which is intentionally done in order to bring out his concept. These artist both share conceptual ideas about identity and the way in which popular culture perceive them due to the media influence that was prevalent then, as well as today.

While I really do feel that I love photography because it is my favorite artistic medium to use for self expression, I still do enjoy using it for documentation of the milieu of my everyday life ( which this still may be considered another form of self expression). I stumbled upon these guys at a time of night that was too late ( or early) for most people, and in in such a drunken state of existence that I found oddly enjoyable. To me these images really brought back so many found memories shared with a group of friends that I don't see enough, but know that the friendships that I have with these individuals are irreplaceable, as well as perdurable .

Answers

Reason for choosing each image:
I would have to say what initially attracted me to the images created by these artists, is there  stylistic abilities as photographers; often times portraying certain scenes with very cinematic qualities.


Write what similarities you find in the two images, and what differences you can see:
Like stated above, I think they both encapsulate this very cinematic feeling, even though conceptually they differ quite a bit.In Prager's body of images, the photographs have such bold and dramatic colors, that are much different than Spano's pictures, obviously because his are all shot in black and white.Yet, despite these two big differences, both images still incorporate these drastic angles and very dramatic subject matter, as well as lighting. I think despite some big conceptual and aesthetic differences ( color compared to black and white), they both still achieve a very similar feel, even though though they are nearly 7o years apart in terms of when they were shot.