Comments on: Intolerable Beauty — Portraits of American Mass Consumption

Intolerable Beauty — Portraits of American Mass Consumption

dhruva — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 02:54:52 -0800

Intolerable Beauty — Portraits of American Mass Consumption "these images take the viewer on a tour behind the façade of the American Dream into the underbelly of our consumer society, where the vast cumulative effects of our individual consumer choices are more visible."

By: fixedgear

fixedgear — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 03:50:47 -0800

I dunno, I see lots of recycling happening. The steel all gets reused, as does the glass. Why should I shed tears for cargo containers? Because stevedores are out of work? Because cheap goods come from overseas? Should I weep for a mountain of sawdust? It will become kitty litter or oil dry. I'm not trolling here, I'm genuinely curious.

By: fleacircus

fleacircus — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 03:52:26 -0800

c.f.

By: Mayor Curley

Mayor Curley — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 03:57:08 -0800

What a pretentious way to preface really good photos. Your photos stand on their own aesthetically, dude. Bullshit isn't the magic ingredient.

By: Turtle

Turtle — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 04:21:03 -0800

Nothing intolerable that I can see, but quite beautiful. I especially like the colorful containers and gas bottles.

By: airguitar

airguitar — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 04:25:04 -0800

These images invite viewers to consider the complexity and scale of the consumerism issue, and to evaluate their own role in the consumptive process. That's not pretentious. He wants his pictures to affirm an idea. Big deal. I wonder though how much he fetches for a print from his photographs of consumerism's underbelly. That's ironic.

By: mountainmambo

mountainmambo — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 04:25:07 -0800

I think these images are beautiful as well. There is nothing wrong with putting one's work within a context or even within the parameters of a project, to help frame a message that the artist is trying to create. Seems that people overall get really upset when art is political. Is the worry that the two should not meet?

By: pemdasi

pemdasi — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 04:37:01 -0800

There is nothing wrong with framing your work in a particular context. However, the artist seemed to be trying to portray a negative view of commercialism and it's by products; when in fact there at least three or four of the pictures depicting recycling.

By: scruss

scruss — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 04:41:00 -0800

I think I prefer Edward Burtynsky for my huge scale industrial awfulness imagery, thanks.

By: mountainmambo

mountainmambo — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 04:43:25 -0800

Paper and wood shavings and bottles do not get recycled forever. Everything at some point winds up as trash in its life cycle. Besides, one can say that despite all the recycling in the photos, the energy consumption and the raw materials used to create those bottles and newspapers to begin are negative factors in the consumption cycle. Not to mention the pollution created by the energy used to create these products.

By: peacay

peacay — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 04:55:37 -0800

The recycling materials are still the products of consumerism. Dude's a bit ostentatious with his choice of words. But he's taking pix of consumerism carcasses whichever way you look at it. Do I write hyperbolically? Very well then I do. But he does really frame his pictures well. Thanks dhruva.

By: TimothyMason

TimothyMason — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 05:00:32 -0800

"Never trust the teller, trust the tale." They are taught to talk this way in the academies, where their professors expect them to theorize their work. The logic of this guy's project is developing aesthetically, but he's been taught to put words on it, so he does. Of course, sometimes discourse and image do have an organic relationship of some kind.

By: Mayor Curley

Mayor Curley — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 05:06:09 -0800

Seems that people overall get really upset when art is political. Is the worry that the two should not meet? I just get upset when something isn't really political and a message is tacked on as an afterthought. Overtly political art hasn't been any good since the Soviets disbanded, anyway. And personally, I'm more comfortable with political art that starts with a message and the presenter then must find a way to make it compelling (as in a propaganda poster or Depression-era photography). The biggest problem I have with the artist in question is that he has to tell me his message-- if his message is there, let me find it. And if I'd need to have an explanation, it's not going to have the effect that he wants, anyway.

By: funambulist

funambulist — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 05:07:13 -0800

Really nice photos. I also loved the rusty colours. And the textures in the stacks of timber. I don't get why some people are so bothered by the statements on consumerism. Even if the photos were crap, that'd still be a valid point to make. Humans do produce tons of waste. If there's a disconnect, it's that he makes it look beautiful.

By: mountainmambo

mountainmambo — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 05:19:53 -0800

I dunno Mayor, when I see pictures of mountains of garbage, I'm thinking politics. The two seem to go together rather well.

By: funambulist

funambulist — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 05:30:10 -0800

The biggest problem I have with the artist in question is that he has to tell me his message-- if his message is there, let me find it Ok then, fair enough. I also tend to prefer when things aren't "explained" too overtly. But whether there's a political message or not, a lot of artists and especially photographers make a few statements about their work and their focus, even when it's purposefully ambiguous, they usually say something about it. Personally I don't think this guy has done it in a tacky or pretentious way. He's just written three paragraphs about what interests him, it's not a political party manifesto.

By: TimothyMason

TimothyMason — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 05:59:42 -0800

The biggest problem I have with the artist in question is that he has to tell me his message He doesn't tell you his message. His words are a part of the project, but you need not treat them as if they were telling you how to look. On the contrary, you might want to look at them as if they were one of the photographs.

By: airguitar

airguitar — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 06:15:07 -0800

The opposite, of couse, is the artist who says,"it is whatever you think it is", when you want to know what the feck their 'art' is supposed to be. That gets to be just as irksome.

By: Busithoth

Busithoth — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 06:36:58 -0800

I like the pictures. If nothing else, it gives a good sense of the scale. I don't read politics, but it spawns thought on societal choices, anyway...

By: fshgrl

fshgrl — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 06:37:54 -0800

They are interesting photos but I think he should have let them stand on their own merits as i) most of that stuff is seperated for recycling and ii) Americans actually recycle far more of their trash than any other developed country. Knowing that and reading what he wrote really dilutes the message for me and makes me think he didn't do much research. I'm all for political art as long as you get it right: there's a lot to be said about the politics of recycling (unsafe conditions in other countries) and of the scale of waste disposal.

By: warbaby

warbaby — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 06:48:48 -0800

consumption --> waste more consumption, more waste recycleing is a means of expanding consumption. it does not ultimately reduce waste. conservation without reduction of consumption is just windowdressing. waste energy smash the state. nice pictures, but isn't this sort of art another form of conspicuous consumption? eat the rich.

By: RichLyon

RichLyon — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 06:51:47 -0800

fixedgear: I see lots of recycling happening I guess the point is that what you don't see is the other 85% of all waste, which just gets dumped straight in the landfill site. I take this (interesting) site as being a way of inducing folks to consider that point, possibly for the first time.

By: longdaysjourney

longdaysjourney — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 07:00:46 -0800

scruss: Thanks for the Burtynsky link. Beautiful and horrible at the same time.

By: teg

teg — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 07:11:04 -0800

The only problem I have with these pictures is that they aren't big enough to use as desktop backgrounds.

By: Vetinari

Vetinari — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 07:13:28 -0800

I dunno, I see lots of recycling happening my thought exactly. and furthermore, it's precisely the industrial activity of recycling that made these photos possible. Kind of like the boneyard at Davis-Monthan, a way to consolidate surplus military aircraft to increase salvage possibilities, made images of Cold War overproduction so easy to make. As a photographer, I'd certainly trudge around recycling centers and junkyards to look for shapes and forms that would make a good image, but there's no way in hell I'd yank a bunch of cellphones out of a garbage heap to arrange them so. Nice pic, not worth the effort. It's kind of ironic. The better we get at organizing the detritus of consumerism, thus reducing its inherent waste through reuse, the easier it is to create aesthetically pleasing art denouncing such waste. Politically, pictures of dumps are a lot more damning, but a lot less interesting and wholly ineffective in getting the audience to think about much of anything at all.

By: elpapacito

elpapacito — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 07:17:18 -0800

The cell phone photo is, imho, the most interesting one. At least in Europe cellphones have reached in last 2-3 years the minimum possible dimensione before becoming unusable , because the keyboard is already too little and they almost disappear on yourself. Cellphone manufactures try to find new features like BlueTooth , MMS, SMS, colored screens NOT to increase sales, but to keep a sale level constant so that they don't lose their market share and keep a positive income of money. It's in their best interest to make phones that will last no more then a couple years or to push people into buying a new one. The pile of old cellphones is a pile of probably perfectly good cellphones that only need minor refitting, probably a broken LCD and a spent battery..but if you try to have it repaired you'll see that it's often more expensive then buying a new one. The blame bucket goes to technician, who sometimes honestly blame the company asking premium prices for spare parts, who in exchange blame distributors and retailers who shift the final blame on the -consumer- which is me you and them. Consumer being the evil incarnate, as he would like a repairable cellphone but doesn't want to pay 70% of the price of a new phone for a repair ..HOW DARES he antiamerican evil ! So he buys cheap cellphones , hopes never to have to repair it..then he sees a new shiny cheap cellphone and buys it and gets all the blame from some environmentalist who correctly points out a software upgrade or a minor modification can do wonder for some phone. Then of course the realization, WASTE is treasure ! No wonder mafias are involved in waste treatement and disposal, expecially of illegal disposal of expensive waste. No wonder that if you go against the interest of powerful people, you'll see that any attempt at reducing the vicious effects consumption cycle isn't going to attract sympathy.

By: three blind mice

three blind mice — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 07:33:31 -0800

By: funambulist

funambulist — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 07:35:44 -0800

Hm, I get the impression the objections are not so much about the fact there is a "political" message, but about the specific content and target of that message... I doubt it'd have been a problem if he'd been talking about China. Besides, the "Statement" doesn't even mention recycling (which is nowhere near target levels, even in countries with higher recycling rates and lower energy consumption than the US). It says: I also am becoming more interested in the cultural aspects of our consumerism, in contrast to its better-documented environmental effects.

By: clevershark

clevershark — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 07:40:27 -0800

It's in their best interest to make phones that will last no more then a couple years or to push people into buying a new one. Your mistake is in limiting that thinking to cell phones. Everything's made to only last a few years nowadays, from phones to home appliances to cars. No one can make money selling one unit of whatever every 20 years.

By: recurve

recurve — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 07:45:02 -0800

Recycling is a step in the right direction, but it is still only a half measure. The other half of the equation would be to design products to be recycled. That said, his photos are still a testament to our waste--that the massive through-put of materials our economy demands is unsustainable. Someday, we will design things to be recycled. So that plastic bottles won't need massive inputs of energy to be made useful again, while spewing out pollutants in the process. Then people can take beautiful photos that speak to our ingenuity, not our folly.

By: clevershark

clevershark — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 07:54:31 -0800

I doubt it'd have been a problem if he'd been talking about China. I think we have a winner!

By: matteo

matteo — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 08:06:31 -0800

great post, thanks. LA's truly excellent Kopeikin gallery has three very good Jordan pages

By: Kwantsar

Kwantsar — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 08:14:34 -0800

Your photos stand on their own aesthetically, dude. Bullshit isn't the magic ingredient. Well put.

By: fungible

fungible — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 08:41:58 -0800

Reminds me of what people said about Koyannisqatsi when it came out. Godfrey Reggio was trying to show the destructive, overconsumptive nature of the human race through high speed photography and massive wide shots - yet most people's reactions were "Cool!" Nice shots, though. Kind of like Andreas Gursky, only smaller and without people.

By: muckster

muckster — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 08:59:48 -0800

Koyaanisqatsi was my first thought looking at this, too, fungible.

By: Mayor Curley

Mayor Curley — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 09:07:11 -0800

I doubt it'd have been a problem if he'd been talking about China. You're full of it, and so are your condescending friends in the black turtlenecks. I'm aware of the environmental and social repercussions of american consumerism. I've read Veblen, okay? We have one car because I don't want to use too much gas. I just plain think the message of the guy's work is a weak, distracting tack-on to great photos. It has nothing to do with the denial you're wrongly attributing to me. Keep your smug asides between you and your barista, you condescending prick.

By: furiousthought

furiousthought — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 09:11:19 -0800

Those are large prints, 4 by 5 feet most of 'em. I'd imagine the dimensions help convey the sense of the enormity of waste better than what we're seeing on the computer screen. But in this presentation - yeah, it's mostly just really pretty, and if he'd said "My goal is to show the hidden natural splendor that occurs even in our grimmest industrial refuse" or whatever I'd be none the wiser. Edward Burtynsky, linked above, does seem to do better with the environmentalist/ expressionist angle. I dunno about people getting their backs up about how we Americans really do recycle a lot. If we're better about it than anyone else, then show the pictures in other countries!

By: scheptech

scheptech — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 09:52:53 -0800

These are really nice, and technically fine, pictures. Some of the wood product ones are quite beautiful. No doubt they're making a few dollars fo the artist (these big high-quality prints aren't cheap to produce). Ironically enough they create a certain amount of nasty waste themselves, one wonders how many had to be produced before these few keepers, how much material was utilized learning the craft, how much fuel was burnt getting around the whole time... Also ironically, one presumes the profit, honourably earned, will be spent on consumer items?

By: fshgrl

fshgrl — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 10:00:23 -0800

I doubt it'd have been a problem if he'd been talking about China. I don't understand? Where do you think this stuff is headed, both the lumber and the junk? Overseas. If he followed the waste it to China and did a series on the dangrous condiitons some of this stuff is salvaged under or followed the wood to Japan: that would be an interesting photo essay.

By: funambulist

funambulist — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 10:24:00 -0800

Good grief. No need to get that upset about a simple observation. I don't know anyone who wears black turtlenecks (!). Don't even know who Veblen is. Wasn't being condescending, just got the clear impression that commenters who pointed out how the US does a lot of recycling seemed more annoyed not with the simple fact there is a political statement accompanying the photos, or with the way it's worded, but with the fact it is focusing on American consumerism (not even recycling) rather than in other parts of the world, like, Asia. That if he'd showed pictures of pollution or waste in other parts of the world too he'd be "getting it right". But the guy's American, he takes photographs of places in the US, and writes that his own personal interest is in the cultural effects of consumerism in America, rather that specifically environmental ones. There's no "getting it right" here because he's not publishing statistical charts, he's declaring his own personal focus and opinions. If you don't like that the photographer makes an overt political statement at all, fair enough. If you don't share his concerns and interests, fair enough, too. But that seems to me a different thing from getting on the defensive as if he was denying Americans do any recycling, or bashing America as a whole, or saying the entire industrial and urban system should be destroyed and everyone go back to living on the prairies without any electricity. He isn't even talking about recycling... he isn't even making comparisons between America and the rest of the world or saying any country other than America has achieved the optimal state of things... I don't know, it just seems to me it takes a lot of effort to turn a simple statement about the effects of consumerism into such a controversial matter.

By: funambulist

funambulist — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 10:46:25 -0800

If he followed the waste it to China and did a series on the dangrous condiitons some of this stuff is salvaged under or followed the wood to Japan: that would be an interesting photo essay. fshgrl, you're making my point for me: you're saying he should have taken photos of waste in other countries, that would have been ok. But why? He's not making a documentary, a scientific paper or a reportage about the global issue of waste disposal and recycling, he's a photographer and he's declaring his intent of his photos is to: "... examine the phenomenon of American consumerism... invite viewers to consider the complexity and scale of the consumerism issue, and to evaluate their own role in the consumptive process." Look, I'm not arguing with the right to dislike his approach, or his photos, or his views, that's a matter of preferences. But I think you're reading too much into that statement and at the same time not reading what's there: he's talking of consumption, and showing pictures of the waste products of that consumption, not of how and by which routes they are ultimately disposed of, and how and in which quantities the US recycles or exports waste to other countries and how bad or well it's handled once it's exported, and which country is better and which is worse at waste disposal and recycling. He doesn't even say, the US has the highest levels of industrial production and consumption in the world - which is a simple statement of fact, based on non-debated statistics, but he doesn't even make that kind of comparison. It seems to me it's obvious that he chose to focus on American consumerism as that's where he lives and works. There's other photographers and artists in other parts of the world who focus on their own local enviromenment, political intent or not, consumerism or not, in the country they live in and know best and travel around for inspiration. I genuinely don't get what's so controversial or radical in his words, honestly.

By: crunchland

crunchland — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 10:47:19 -0800

You have to be pretentious to justify spending all your time at the city dump. Still, that photo of all those cellphones is staggering. 2000 years from now, if mankind hasn't obliterated itself, archeologists will have a field day.

By: TimothyMason

TimothyMason — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 11:15:16 -0800

I genuinely don't get what's so controversial or radical in his words, honestly. Nothing whatsoever; they are, indeed, commonplace. The people on here who have seen the need to react to them as 'a message' are feeding a fairly low-grade troll. So the question might be, what is the aesthetic function of this particular troll. Or, to put it another way, when a plastic artist writes about her/his work, what is it that s/he is doing?

By: ROU_Xenophobe

ROU_Xenophobe — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 11:29:56 -0800

I get the impression the objections are not so much about the fact there is a "political" message, but about the specific content and target of that message... I doubt it'd have been a problem if he'd been talking about China Your impression is wrong, mostly. The objections aren't "OMG, don't dis Amerkuh!" The objections are (mostly) "If you wanted to express yourself about or document consumer waste, you'd have done better to photograph landfills instead of recycling facilities and transportation networks." The subjects that he is photographing work against his own argument, at least partly, and the objections is that he was taking pictures of the wrong stuff. I guess the recycling facilities and container hubs were more photogenic, but they really they have less to do with "the underbelly of our consumer society" than a big landfill, garbage barge, toxic waste dump, piles of rejected chips outside a fab, heaps of fly ash, abandoned open-pit mines, and so on. And dude, talking about consumerism without knowing who Veblen is is really speaking from profound ignorance. Go read Theory of the Leisure Class or a decent summary thereof.

By: scheptech

scheptech — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 12:22:37 -0800

I think the beauty and craftsmanship of the images works against the message as well. Would work better with a grittier sort of look? They're just too pretty. Anyhow, my guess: the photographer started out taking 'interesting' pictures, and they are definitely interesting in that photographic sense, and then later decided to bring them together under the banner of this popular message perhaps specifically for selling purposes. But I may be getting a little cynical and over-reaching on that.

By: funambulist

funambulist — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 12:31:50 -0800

The subjects that he is photographing work against his own argument, at least partly, and the objections is that he was taking pictures of the wrong stuff. Ok, well, that sounds even more puzzling to me... Why is it the "wrong" subject? He is photographing waste in all kinds of places, landfills included. We don't know how the waste in each picture ends up. Because regardless of how it ends up, it's still all waste produced by humans who live in a highly industrialised and highly consumerist society. Recycling was mentioned only here, in this discussion, not on the photographer's website. I don't see where his stated intent is to depict in documentary fashion the entire process of waste disposal. Recycling isn't free, it has costs too. The fact you can reuse that waste you manage to recycle, thereby recouping some of the costs, doesn't change the fact it is always about handling something that is produced, consumed and then discarded, in massive amounts, daily, by people all over the planet. In this case, it happens to be America. Look, to me, it's simple. I happen to like the photos, not just aesthetically. I think it's fascinating to see piles and piles of waste, photographed with such an attention to shapes and colours and textures, and also find it fascinating to wonder about all the people who owned those products and then discarded them and how they used them before they discarded them, and so on. I can't dissociate the sight from that thought about where those objects came from, because it's waste, it had to come from somewhere. I didn't need a statement to "get" that general 'message', really, it's simple enough to me, seeing the photos, seeing the kind of objects he's chosen to photograph, and how. Aside from politics about the environment, there is also a fascination in wondering how much stuff have I personally thrown away, wondering what it would look like if all the stuff I discarded in my life was piled up high and photographed. It's a very simple but interesting concept. And I think here, in these photos, it's well rendered. So I don't think the statement page adds anything one wouldn't get at first look. All this discussion feels lik over-anlysing what felt like an immediate visual effect. That's my own reaction at least. "And dude, talking about consumerism without knowing who Veblen is..." I'm not talking of consumerism myself, I'm only commenting on the photos I saw and words I read on the site linked in the post. I have no intention in getting into a political discussion on consumerism, in America or elsewhere. But thanks for the reading advice anyway. --- I don't know who's trolling, Timothy. I still don't get it but I'll leave it be. I would have never imagined it'd get so complicated to look at pictures of industrial waste...

By: funambulist

funambulist — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 12:42:54 -0800

shceptech: I think the beauty and craftsmanship of the images works against the message as well. Would work better with a grittier sort of look? They're just too pretty. I know, I had that same reaction too. But I guess the title he chose - Intolerable Beauty - means he's aware of that contradiction and that was precisely what he wanted to achieve. Either that, or, like you say, he slyly tacked on an intent to photos he felt were too abstract... It's possible. But I don't think anyone wound spend so much time photographing only waste, in different cities, if they didn't have a precise intent in conveying that sort of fascination about where it comes from. Well, this is definitely too many words spent talking about trash. Or even beautiful photos of trash. I'm sure glad no one's taking pictures of my bins contents...

By: emdog

emdog — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 12:51:42 -0800

yikes, being able to cite a book/author gives you the authority to one-up someone on the profound ignorance scale. hmmm, let's see; i live in the hills of wv, i piss outside to keep from wasting 1.5gals of water in the toilet, i heat the house with firewood, i drive a waste cooking oil burning '86 diesel, i've recycled three barns to use for a future house etc, etc, etc but....................i can't know about consumerism until i read veblen. i'm also a photographer/sculptor and for jordan to pretend that the message of his photographs is to plead an anti-consumerism case is 'get your art in the gallery marketing' some are even staged?!; gimme a break. did he use a disposable camera? does he develop his own film/recycle the silver salts?

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 12:53:00 -0800

Ok: Some of the images are good, I'd like to see them on the scale they're supposed to be at. But the words are dumb. Here's why: Hey, you're a literate, leftist artsy type. You've seen your modernist shots of factories standing before the sun; you've seen your post-modernist shots of factories collapsing before the sun. When you see shots of cell phones, no matter how many, do you really need to be told that he's working on getting Americans to deal with their consumerism? No, not if you've got half a fuckin' brain. Jordan's mining an area that's already pretty well extant, the "recontextualization" of stock photo aesthetic, with an emphasis on texture as unifying theme. He realizes that just saying that the images should speak for themselves leaves him open to the fact that only about half his images are really all that great anyway, and so he needs to create a context in which the art buying public can more easily insert their ideological dildos. "Aha!" he says, it's in "consumerism." But what do these images really tell us about consumerism? That we use a lot of fucking cell phones? Well, yeah, duh. And we probably shouldn't. But does that really tell us anything? Do we actually end up looking at consumerism in a new way? Does it even, really, highlight internal contradictions within our culture's relationship with consumerism? Not really. I don't fault him, really. He's just coming of age in a post-meaning society, one where clear semiotics have been replaced by an existentialist post-modern fog of similacra and "the text." But he should drop the words and focus on better images. (I do really like the monumentalism of the shipping containers, but I like modernist composition anyway...)

By: TimothyMason

TimothyMason — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:41:17 -0800

Veblen? Good read, certainly, but you don't have to if you don't want to, as the basic thesis is now pretty much out there in the market-place for anyone to pick up. You might want to see what Bourdieu did with it. The again, you might not .

By: peacay

peacay — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 16:08:27 -0800

fshgrl - Americans actually recycle far more of their trash than any other developed country Isn't that just a bit presumptuous? Or do you have something to cite?

By: matteo

matteo — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 16:12:51 -0800

We have one car because I don't want to use too much gas. not to mention, because it'd be impossible to park the second one in that fucking nightmare of a city (for drivers, me I just love it) that elected you Mayor! now wait quietly for your Green Line underground streetcar and don't insult people in turtlenecks ;)

By: Bugbread

Bugbread — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 20:24:01 -0800

mountainmambo : "when I see pictures of mountains of garbage, I'm thinking politics" And when I see them, I'm thinking "boy there are a lot of people in the world". Politics doesn't occur to me. But I've noticed Americans generally use the word "politics" for anything people disagree about which isn't pop culture. The Matrix a good movie series or a bad one? Not politics. Vegetarianism vs. Omnivorism? Politics. Marriage? Politics. Gender? Politics. Race? Politics. So I've become used to it. Right now, though, I think I'm going to engage in some political activity by having a sandwich. scheptech : "my guess: the photographer started out taking 'interesting' pictures, and they are definitely interesting in that photographic sense, and then later decided to bring them together under the banner of this popular message perhaps specifically for selling purposes." My guess as well.

By: XMLicious

XMLicious — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 23:22:24 -0800

They're great photos and the artist makes a good point that consumerism has consequences. But it's ironic that he's making this point and publishing these pictures through the web, which is itself a product of the engine of consumerism and industry... one of the photos, titled "Circuit boards", looks to me like a pile of hard drives.

By: dhruva

dhruva — Sun, 17 Apr 2005 00:01:57 -0800

He says somewhere that the Circuit board thing was taken in studio.

By: mountainmambo

mountainmambo — Sun, 17 Apr 2005 03:51:50 -0800

bugbread: But I've noticed Americans generally use the word "politics" for anything people disagree about which isn't pop culture. Calm down, man. Maybe your aspiration to become Japanese has made you lose your sense of humor. It was a joke. Don't they have those in Japan?

By: Bugbread

Bugbread — Sun, 17 Apr 2005 07:24:25 -0800

mountainmambo : " Calm down, man...It was a joke." I found this bit pretty funny: mountainmambo : " I dunno Mayor, when I see pictures of mountains of garbage, I'm thinking politics. The two seem to go together rather well." My issue about politics was more in respect to the other folks saying it was political who weren't joking. Besides which, I'm not upset or anything, it's just an American quirk I've learned to deal with. I've got a sense of humor (not a great one, but it does exist, promise), but apparently it all disappears when I come into MeFi. I think it's because everyone here is wound up so much tighter than folks in real life. Nothing to do with nationality, I assume the exact same would happen pretty much no matter where I lived.