Search

While the visualization shows a postal-like picture of what is labeled as 'the lake effect', the ethnographer presents as with a different understanding, much more complex and even opposite to the sunny postal. The combination of this image and caption is nicely developed. The reflection about pure, as opposed to toxic, will connect the author with a very rich anthropological tradition  (Mary Douglas comes to my mind). 

The notion of what is toxic about Michigan is slightly confusing, is it politics? Is it the storm? Is the way in which the city is organized?  

This image works very well to problematize the way in which Michigan is portrayed, which contrasts with the ethnographer's local experience. 

It is quite clear that Michigan is not as "pure" as in the picture, but perhaps the notion of what is toxic about it could be further developed. 

As the author states: the story is not pure.  The image portrays the complications of toxicity perfectly.  There is a past, a present and a future to all toxic stories.  The historic events that led to the beginning of toxic practices; present practices to live with toxicity and what those actions will affect what is left of the toxic environment.

More than a way to elaborate the caption,  I'm curious about what happened to the place afterwards? Was the demolition a result of community decision or was it done by the company itself?  Did they have concrete projects in mind for the place before the demolition? What were the projects?

I like the aesthetics of the image a lot, everything about it is “beautiful”: the light and especially the “action” in the image.   There are very few times when you can capture a specific “action”. I also love the contrast between the destruction in progress and the peacefulness of the people in the canoes in the water.

I personally like the image a lot and think that it tells a clear story as is.

Toxicity is not a static thing; it is in constant change.  Even when we try to put an end to a toxic way of living there are consequences that are usually unknown.  There is no going back.

This image is striking in how it shows a building which is being pulled down, and is set against the water and the shoreline. The commentary shows that it is an image which is supposed to be about renewal and newer meanings of pureness, but that the story is more complicated and might not even be entirely toxic. Just reading the commentary or even just the image, I don't get that story of layered meanings. I would suggest layering some of these meanings into the image.