Search

The image works well with the description. How might it change if there was no description?

As a computer user.

Visceral - confusionEmotional - pleasingIntellectual - organized 

I understand this image as an ethnography of labor or workplace ethnography. The author is working on this digital platform through multiple points of entry.

The subject of this image is organization.

I am reminded of the phrase "information overload." I think this image is questioning the form or organization as it is difficult to read the print and are forced to focus on the placement of items.

The detail in this image is overwhelming. I had to sit with it for several minutes as I reordered my lines of sight, making sense of the organization of the chart. As a historian (and thus with little to no background in the sciences, nor with any specialized knolwedge of molecular chemistry), I would have been clueless without your caption. This leads me to ask - how can one alter this image so that it's more readily legilble to non-specialists? 

To this end, I wonder if editing the image to pair with a similar graphic that removes or "translates" some of the molecular jargon into easily recognizable uses for these compounds (i.e. that you idenitify PFOA as a "key consitutient in Teflon production", though PFOA are not shown on this chart.)

This image encourages one to consider the visibility of toxicity. I find it fascinating that you've collapsed toxicity to the most micro of structures to challenge our conception of toxic visualizations. 

This collage contemplates the banality of toxicity and its overwhelming whiteness. How are the mundane activities of powerful white people steeped in toxicity? Together, the images make a critique of indiscernable toxicity in the everyday lives of white settlers. Some of the faces look at each other, as if in a continuous conversation, but across places and times.