Erik Kessels, Photographer, Prints Out 24 Hours Worth Of Flickr Photos (PHOTOS)

Thanks to Facebook and Flickr, there's no doubt photography is a hobby pursued by the masses.

To visualize its ubiquity, artist Erik Kessels printed out every Flickr photo uploaded over a 24-hour period, reports Mashable.

With mountains of images filling rooms, he then dumped the piles in the What's Next exhibit at The Future of the Photography Museum at Foam in Amsterdam, Tecca notes.

"We're exposed to an overload of images nowadays," Kessels told Creative Review.

"This glut is in large part the result of image-sharing sites like Flickr, networking sites like Facebook, and picture-based search engines...By printing all the images uploaded in a 24-hour period, I visualise the feeling of drowning in representations of other peoples' experiences."

Comments

[Rebekah Modrak]

11:06 AM on 01/12/2012

I'm having a flashback to the 1980s culture police after reading all these posts. Erik Kessels work allows us to experience - in real, physical terms - our current fascination with images of ourselves. Whether you love or hate this work, it should be an artist's choice to consider environmental factors alongside other aspects of a work of art. Woe the day when environmental criteria and censorship determine what we (as artists) make or whether the artwork should be considered valuable. If this is the lens through which we judge art, Rodin's The Thinker wouldn't exist (mining material, heating bronze in 900 degree furnace, etc. - huge carbon footprint ...), Titian's Venus of Urbino and other paintings wouldn't have been made (use of toxic mercury for red coloring), Christo and Jeanne-Cluade's The Gates in Central Park wouldn't have been installed (excessive use of material), and the Louvre should be closed (too much energy to heat, cool, and light the space).

The purpose of a project like Erik Kessels and any good creative project is to MAKE US THINK and if you disagree with it, so much the better. To dismiss it based on material use is overly simplistic. The amount of money and natural resources that are put into art are extremely minimal compared with the resources that go into Beyonce's wardrobe, snail mail requests from the March of Dimes, US Defense research projects, or the creation of Pokemon cards. Perhaps better targets for your environmental activist energy.

[Ishmael BabaGaia]

08:22 AM on 11/16/2011

OH WOW....how much ink and paper did she use? Good Lawd...

[RRRay]

03:57 PM on 11/15/2011

Artistic license, driving drunk. Thanks Erik for adding a mountain of detritus and spent energy to our ever growing mess.

[Jesse Burnette]

02:23 PM on 11/15/2011

A creative person could have easily conceptualized this without literally printing thousands of photographs.

[Verity1025]

01:34 PM on 11/15/2011

This brings up the question of what should be considered worthy of being called art. I realize people will never agree on this, but somewhere in the equation is whether a piece has any reason for existing.

I would argue that too much of what is called art today is just a gimmick.

In the past a certain style remained in vogue for years, even centuries. Now we demand something new and more outrageous every day. This doesn't give artists much of a chance to develop something of lasting value.

But I could be wrong.

[mrm3]

11:50 AM on 11/15/2011

These are austere, conscious times.

Yet art continues to be lavish and indulgent. Give me a break.

[Drama Llama]

11:41 AM on 11/15/2011

Ahhh no wonder my HP stock went up...Keep buying that printer ink bro'

[thegiver]

09:38 AM on 11/15/2011

or, he could have donated the money to charity.

but alas, compassion isn't everyone's thing these days. they need to find creative ways to burn money.

[seckhoff]

08:45 AM on 11/15/2011

Ugh. An environmental disaster. Call Sherrie Levine! At least she would have stopped with a couple dozen. Off with his head.

[Golyadkin]

08:22 AM on 11/15/2011

This is the environmental equivalent of starting a small forest fire in the name of art. I'm all for art, but this is excessive and wasteful.

[hursh 4 ever]

12:19 PM on 11/15/2011

I favorited your comment... but at the same time, things like this also are good for the economy... the people who make the paper, ink, printers, reporters who get money for writing articles about this... lumberjacks... the stores that sold all the ink paper blah blah blah... money is circulating... just saying....

[MissFrijole]

08:14 AM on 11/15/2011

The rainforest mourns the loss of 40,000 trees that were sacrificed for this "art project." Thanks for wasting all that paper! Even if it does get recycled, it is still a waste of gallons of ink, resources, time and energy. Get a job and contribute to society, rather than making this! I love art in all its forms, but this is just an egregious slap in every environmentalist's face.

[mrm3]

11:50 AM on 11/15/2011

"get a job"

truer words have never been spoken on HuffPo re: art

[hursh 4 ever]

12:17 PM on 11/15/2011

eh if you look on the bright side... it kinda sorta also helps stimulate the economy... the people who make the printers, papers, ink, the lumberjacks... the people who sell all that stuff... news reporters who write stories about it...

[AnaM]

07:48 AM on 11/15/2011

So I'm guessing they only printed the photographs with collective commons licenses?
As for the supposed 'waste'.
I'm so sick and tired of political correctness about this type of art. This work, it's an installation of photography, illustrates the immensity of the web and the glut of information, raising a lot of interesting discussions (apart from the pedestrian response of disgust). Using photoshop would not have achieved the same effect.

[alsm9]

10:25 AM on 11/15/2011

The "glut of information" isn't as important an issue as the glut of waste in western culture. It's not politically correct to point out this waste here, it's spot on.

[beasteben]

10:27 AM on 11/15/2011

Her smile while looking at someone else's picture discounts your idea about "glut". I think she is amazed at all the stories that occur within 24 hours, and how immense and beautiful it is.

Though she used a lot of paper doing it :(

[beasteben]

10:29 AM on 11/15/2011

correction: "his"

[JellyBeanKing]

07:25 AM on 11/15/2011

How do I get back the couple of photos that I uploaded by mistake ?

It was cold ! :(

[killswitch667]

06:57 AM on 11/15/2011

I'm not a fan of this, nor can I say I understand it. However, the comments here are a bit disturbing. Are we in 1860's Russia? Since when does art need to have a utilitarian dimension? So it's a waste; as if the mass mailings of campaign materials, grocery store flyers, and millions of credit card offers aren't waste, orders of magnitude greater.

[oxjr]

07:47 AM on 11/15/2011

But people are allowed to have their opinion. Art is about the conversation. Once the art is out there it is out there. The artist wanted to create ''the feeling of drowning in representations of other peoples' experiences" - instead he evoked feelings of contempt over the waste. Still a powerful reaction.

Personally I find the piece gimmicky and too literal.If the artist never described the intent of the piece it would have been more interesting.

[ThinkOnThis]

06:42 AM on 11/15/2011

It's not a waste of paper. It's valid art, and good art. It brings forth a reaction from people.

Of course he produced a mountain of trash. But don't we all?

If people happen to see this work and are repulsed by it, and carry that thought with them, they will be less likely to make trash in similar fashion. If, say, 100,000 see this work and choose to make a few less printouts of their own photos, or hang on to that "obsolete" digital camera for an extra couple of years, then this artist's mountain of trash will have contributed to a net loss in trash produced worldwide.

Think about it...