Search

This image can be understood as ethnographic in that it shows one way in which options for protection against HIV are being publicized.In the design statement, Guilberly discusses the design of the add, but I am curious to know what he thinks about the construction of the photograph of the add. Of course, the add is quite interesting in itself, but personally I would love to know more about the context its placement: where it was discovered, what that might mean about the intended audience, who created it the add, why resort to this sort of rhetoric?

Guilberly is using this image to discuss the divide between the "competing HIV prevention discourses" that frame the pursuit of safe ways to engage in casual sex. This image directly confronts and contests the idea that sexually active gay men should be silent and ashamed. I think there is plenty to work with here for opening up the concept of toxicity, but I would like to know more about what Guilberly thinks personally. Is it the coerced silence that Guilberly finds to be toxic? If so, perhaps that could be indicated in the title of this particular artifact?

Toxic Silence?

The image's subject is the discourse around HIV prevention. This comes through quite clearly.

What I am curious about in this image of the American Dream is who the toxic subject might be. While homeless people are often considered "dirty" and a "plague" on the city, I think that this image attempts to question just who and what is toxic. Is the American Dream itself a toxic "pipe" dream based on impossible-to-achieve socio-economic mobility for all?

This image created by the artist raises several questions for me about representation. Within the incredibly rich graphic novel literature on chemical and social contamination, we have Superman, the X-men, Black Panther, and companion comics. How is this a more amenable narrative approach to get people think about NIMBY and not wanting a landfill, a homeless shelter, or a prison built in the neighborhood? What are the limits and benefits to keeping humans from the frame of the image?

Perhaps what is so striking to me about these images is that there are no people in them. Is this a choice about protecting the dignity of those who find themselves living outside of the "American Dream"? The images themselves do not immediately render themselves llegible to me as subjects of "toxic vulnerability." A more amplified textual analysis would bring the power of the images home. Are there toxic living conditions within the shelters as well?

This almost falls within the realm of propoganda. It combines text and image in ways that is meant to instill fear and judgement. It interpellates the viewer as either responsible and safe, or irresponsible and at risk.

I am curious about where this image comes from. We could see how "you can fuck raw" was located, but this one is left a mystery. Perhaps you could search for an instance in which this image was posted physically/publicly in the world? Or, if it is only digital (which would also be interesting), perhaps you could take a screen shot to show the website as the sort of "digital fieldsite" where this image was discovered. I just think comparing the location of these images might yeild a compelling ethnographic insight.

I am compelled to read the first set of words (in purple) before looking at the rest of the image. Then, I looked at the photo of the nuclear family behind the text. Finally, I read the punch line, written in red at the bottom.