Search

The caption can be modified to include more narratives of the toxic relationships in Flint. This would help situate various scalar phenomena already discussed in the caption.

The artifact captures the widespread, interconnected, and intertwined realities of the toxicities at various scales in Flint. It utilizes the process of protest to unravel dialectic between economic and ecological realities.

The visualization indicates a very personal form of economic pursuit: engaging in subsistence agriculture requires a lot of intensive labor. Yet this work renders a toxic product that they then must sell in order to ensure economic prosperity. On the outside the plants do not appear as toxic or dangerous per se, but rather well-tended. But they are inherently toxic, and this shows how misleading toxicity can be as visual cues fail us. Family farmers are often conveyed as being safe to purchase food from, and taking greater care to provide healthy food.

One minor note is the difference between the red tomatoes conveyed in the caption and the image itself which shows green tomatoes: was this intentional/does it matter? I think the caption could further the message by providing a specific definition of "toxic subsistence agriculture": why is it toxic? Because of the pesticide? Because of the social circumstances that rendered the farmers having to use pesticides? Or both? A bit more elaboration on this would be helpful.

The image was taken by the ethnographer. One aspect that is interesting is the uniformity in color--predominantly green, a color that is often used to symbolize environmentally sustainable and healthy. Yet this is misleading due to the composition of the plants themselves, which are inherently toxic from the minute they sprout.

It may help to have an image that more closely aligns with the caption's quote, so as to create a greater deal of cohesion between the two. In addition, it would help to see different angles of the garden, as well as some sign indicating how these plants are toxic (if there are any). 

This visualization conveys the manner in which toxics and the economy are intertwined, as well as the potential for the economic to entrap people in a viscious cycle that propogates the toxic. It conveys the large scale of the issue, as well as the manner in which toxicity is not always fully apparent--one cannot know these tomatoes are toxic unless one reads the caption or does a test for pesticide content.

This image belies what its caption reveals: it looks like an idealized setting, where fields are bounded by forest and simple dwellings nestled among them. The greenhouses appear small enough to be for personal use. Only the caption reveals what is truly going on. The tension between the image and the caption creates a feeling of unease-one can't trust their own senses in analyzing an image; additional information is needed. The message is the insidious omnipresence of toxicity--it's everywhere, even if you can't see it.

My suggestions stem from my own curiosity and background in agriculture: if the farmers aren't growing for themselves, how does that change the selection of crops that they grow? If this is called subsistence agriculture because the money supports the farmers, how is that different from any kind of farming in which the harvest enters a market? In other words, what makes this location unique, if anything? When did this location make the switch from subsistence agriculture to toxic subsistence agriculture? What events precipitated the transition? Is this livelihood precarious?

This image appears to be taken by the ethnographer. Its composition is pleasing, eliciting traditional landscapes. The intermingling of structures, roadways, and flora leads the eye from the left to right, and off into the distant hills. While there are traces of humans present, people are absent. This could be intentional, perhaps the photo is more concerned with the landscape and human intervention than with the people who engage in the interventions themselves.