Search

It draws attention to the role of the activist in toxic pollution and the nature of activism itself, particularly through the experience of Diane Wilson.I think the image is situated well in the overall photoessay. The last paragraph about the potential visit isn't necessary, though.A comment could be made on the experience of women in toxic activism, too, perhaps noting the toxic masculinity inherent in the petro-culture of many large scale polluters.

See previous comment about toxic masculinity and petro-cultures."It indicates a dynamic of activism in a toxic environment (in the double sense) -- e.g. not being taken seriously, being talked down to. It also points to the different stakeholders involved in the fight againstt Formosa, such as shrimpers depending on their livelihood." - this could be elaborated. I don't really get the 'double sense'. Apologies if I'm not reading it correctly.

Found image, book cover.Aesthetic - it connects the broader project to a discursive realm of activists, characters, and stories around toxicity in relation to Formosa.

No

The visualisation highlights that there are people/activists working to fight toxic pollution. I think the caption could reflect this better. It could also highlight (as previously mentioned) the fact that there is a gender power relation going on here between the female activist and the hyper-masculine polluting culture she is fighting against. For me, this is the message really conveyed by the visualisation.