Typologies of Consumption

April 18th, 2007

ridgemonthomes.jpg
Artist and photographer Mark Luthringer’s online version of his ‘Ridgemont Typologies’ – set to open in exhibit form at the end of May in San Francisco – is an intriguing, if conflicted, attack on mass American consumption. Though I can’t say his exact methods, Mr. Luthringer tried to create a visual ‘vocabulary’ of various suburban comforts – from exercise equipment to car taillights to mall roof lines – displayed in a giant repetitious grid of information.

The resulting pieces can be quite striking and poignant, achieving the artist’s goal of “examining the excess, redundancy, and meaningless freedom of our current age of consumption.” To this end, the work is at its strongest – both visually and symbolically – when it looks at consumer goods; the sheer variety of cell phone models or RVs a testament to over-the-top living.

Yet, his pieces on architecture lack the power of his other images, not because they are artistically dissimilar, but because his subjects are already so alike. Pictures of McMashion doorways – seemingly taken in one development – only shows a small detail from a landscape that is already repetitive on a truly frightening scale. Compared to an aerial photo of the same development – the endless rows of homes, the blank expanses of pavement – picking on doorways or mall roofs is like complaining about the Titanic’s paint job.

Link to Ridgemont Typologies

Popularity: 3% [?]

2 Responses to “Typologies of Consumption”

  1. Laura Says:

    Suburb-hata!

  2. Chris Blow Says:

    Brilliant. Thanks for the link.

    I think the “paint on the titanic” bit is dead on too (though I was blown away by all of the pictures—the attention to the lighting detail is perfect).

    Seems like it is easy to take aim at consumerism through the lens of the design critic, but it is important to remember that there are truly ugly things at work that create the aesthetic of consumption. Obviously Luthringer is getting at this, but frequently I think social-minded design critics end up crossing the line into purely aesthetic revolt:

    “OMFG will you look at that logo?? It’s not even Helvetica is F-ing Arial.”

    Which is useless.

Leave a Reply