The Art of Consumption and Everyday Life

Profiled in the Toronto Star today, Photographer Chris Jordan have captured or digitally composed provocative images of the things we consume in everyday life but also statistics that we may not be able to grasp intuitively. For example, this work from his "Running the Numbers: An American Self-Portrait" is titled, 'Plastic Bags, 2007'.

It's description: "Depicts 60,000 plastic bags, the number used in the US every five seconds".

The actual print is 60 x 72". It's BIG. If you zoom in to actual size:


And if you were to take the time to count each plastic bag, you would find all 60,000.

All his images are thought-provoking, and very reminiscent of Edward Burtynksky's work, Manufactured Landscapes, creating art out of the mundane materials of western society. If I was to apply Chip and Dan Heath's principles from "Made to Stick" about how to communicate ideas effectively, Jordan's work would pass with flying colours:

Simple - The images are simple. In the "Running the Numbers" exhibit, It's one item, one number, one message.
Unexpected - The images appear abstract, until you look closer and find an everyday item.
Concrete - These aren't computer-generated products (although some are digitally composed together), but images of real things.
Credible - The numbers in his statistic has to match the numbers in the image. Otherwise, he'd lose all credibility.
Emotional - The shock is in making an abstract statistic into something tangible and can be grasped.
Story - It is a very short story about the different impacts we make collectively as a society.

As he says, he's not trying to guilt anyone, but to show what each person's everyday life looks like in aggregate. Whether we choose to do change something about it is another thing entirely. Do check out his other sets on his website, "Intolerable beauty" and "In Katrina's Wake".


Both images from http://www.chrisjordan.com

Will photos change anything?

So now we have photographic evidence that shrimp trawlers in Asia are damaging the seabed (and therefore, ocean habitats) with their clean sweeps, thus proving moreso what scientific papers have said previously.

Will this actually change those practices?


I'm not holding my breath.

What Energy Savings?

I'm shocked...shocked I say, to hear that arbitrarily changing an already arbitrary method of keeping time resulted in NO energy savings.

I mean, why should we put our efforts into real energy conservation efforts when we can just keep moving time back and forth and make it look like we're trying to do something?

Faux Green vs. Faux Green

Alright already.

Conservatives: You mocked anyone who tried to give a damn about the environment but changed your tune just a few months ago when public opinion shifted against you on the environment file.

Liberals: You had the chance to try to change our behaviour towards the environment and you barely lifted a finger.

Conclusion: YOU'VE BOTH SUCKED since 1993 on this issue. Can you all now admit your mistakes, quit your sniping, and move on to doing something actually constructive?