"Running The Numbers" Review

As I walked out of Chris Jordan’s Running The Numbers exhibit, I was left with a sort of humbled and self-conscious feeling, as if I had just been scolded for something I was not aware I had done. Running The Numbers provided an almost raw look into the vast realm of American consumerism, using unique and creative methods to induce viewers to think about the mundane and banal aspects of our resource-intensive lives.

Running The Numbers is a collection of digitally manipulated photographs that depict the large-scale consumption humans regularly partake in today. Images of such things as the number of cell phones retired in America every day (426000) or the amount of shipping containers passing through U.S. ports every twelve hours (38000) are the characters in Jordan’s story of consumerism, and Jordan’s works show these objects—laid out in the actual amounts he mentions—in creative, artistic ways. Standing wide and tall, the large physical size of Jordan’s photographs create an almost surreal atmosphere in which to ponder the subject matter at hand. Works such as Prison Uniforms (2007) sit at nearly 25 feet long and half that distance high, leaving the viewer feeling rather minute next to such an object, which, I imagine, is Jordan’s intention.

Jordan uses a unique method of incorporating both the large and small scale to increase the impact of his work. Take, for example, the aforementioned Prison Uniforms. The huge scale strikes viewers first, and from a distance one could surmise that the work is nothing more that a large monotone reddish-brown panel. Moving closer, though, it becomes apparent that the color comes from a countless number of minute orange stacked prison uniforms. Jordan’s description informs us that we are actually looking at 2.3 million uniforms—a depiction of the number of American incarcerated in 2005. Walking through the exhibit quickly becomes a game of sorts where the object is to figure out exactly which shameful aspect of our culture Jordan is depicting.

The images in Running The Numbers are only half of the equation that is Jordan’s collection. The other half lives on a small, inconspicuous sign posted next to each photograph where statistics describing the associated images are located. As the uniqueness of each image draws viewers in, it is the statistics that relate what Jordan is really trying to impress upon his audience. Numbers we would likely not otherwise know, such as the number of aluminum cans used ever thirty seconds (106000, from Cans Seurat (2007)) are shown in sticking manners, effectively and uniquely carrying Jordan’s message. It could be called into question whether the use of such statistical data, which Jordan culled from other people’s sources, really constitutes art rather than some form of photojournalism. I feel, however, that the manner in which Jordan transforms pure statistics into a poignant visual element is unique among art and serves to make his audience think about their actions.

In describing his own work, Jordan says “my hope is that these photographs can serve as portals to a kind of cultural self-inquiry.” While Jordan’s message may not reach the majority of the American’s he criticizes, the passion he puts into his work serves as a stark reminder to us all that individual actions add up to make a bigger picture that, ultimately, we are all responsible for.

Judging Stuff

First of all, I must disclaim that I had an incredibly hard time deciphering Kant’s dense, cluttered writing style. Despite reading and re-reading pages from both the book and packet, I still do not have a solid idea about what Kant is really trying to say.
The question relating judgment of objects to beauty is interesting. Earlier, Kant discussed how beauty can be almost like a physical property of an object, something measurable and defined. Therefore, if we judge objects solely according to concepts, we are not truly judging an object’s beauty. These concepts, as I interpret it, are things in our heads such as feelings and reactive emotions to a particular object. I feel Kant is saying that if we apply our emotions to judging something, we are not truly judging its beauty. This of course applies only if we subscribe to the notion that beauty truly is an intrinsic quality to an object that cannot be changed.
Personally, I partially agree with the above statement. I feel that there are some things, such as nature, that have elements of “pre-installed” beauty. Going back to what I took away from Conniff’s article, I feel that nature has particular qualities of beauty that appeal to all people throughout the world, thus making beauty universally applicable to nature—something that is just a part of what it is.
At the same time, I also feel that beauty follows the personal whims of whoever is judging an object beautiful. As we have discussed previously, our personal take on any object (both in judging its beauty and any other qualities we may judge it on) is both a product of its natural qualities and our personal experiences that shape our judgments. I may judge something beautiful that another person judges oppositely. In this manner, I agree with Kant’s sentiments that judgments are universal and necessary. People expect others to agree with us on our particular opinions of an object. Each person has their own ideas regarding the qualities of an object, and it is this constant tugging of different ideas that gives us many unique perspectives on just about anything.

Subjective Perceptions

After reading Hume’s On The Standard of Taste, I had my strongest opinions concerning the first part of his essay. I have to agree with his views regarding individual’s particular sentiments on objects. Hume states “…a thousand different sentiments, excited by the same object, are all right: Because no sentiment represents what is really in the object.” This could not be truer in my opinion, as my personal views of art are strongly anchored by the notion of art largely being a product of a viewer’s perception, in addition to the original intentions of the artist. To explicate this, Hume discusses beauty. Beauty is a quality that is solely in our minds, as it is an intangible idea that every person perceives slightly differently. In reading this, I thought back to our discussions on Plato and his views on reality versus ideas. In much the same manner as I see ideas being an extension of reality, I feel sentiments on art or any other subjects are simply an extension of our personal take on the matter. Our own take is based on a myriad of experiences unique to each individual that have shaped us as a person, thus placing us in the position to judge an object in a number of ways different from others.
Now, not every person has had sufficient life experiences to make an informed opinion on every matter. There is simply no way. As a result we look to other, more learned and specialized scholars, to guide us in shaping our opinions on matters we perceive. This may, I feel, be the rough standard of taste Hume was trying to seek out. Other people specialize in something—such as the wine critic example Hume cited—and others (such as non-wine critics, which includes most people) look to these specialists to provide a standard of which to judge things by. I do not feel that standards are absolute, as any person could create their own. However, the concept of “taste” is an interesting one, as it is highly subjective.