Both the caption and the image address the divisive production of space. But the image actually goes further than the caption : by defining a given population (one with white children) as desired for bettering the neighborhood, it negatively frames the current population as blight-causing ; through presenting whiteness as a remedy, the image is actually about the toxicity of blackness. The caption, on the other hand, could be more explicit, and mention outwarldly the category that is enforced through the divisive production of space : blackness.
I'm not sure how one would extend the ethnographic message of the caption. I think the strength of the caption, also in relation to the overall point of this photo essay, is that it contextualises what at first glance is an almost incomprehensible image, with the scale being beyond the human in a way. The caption does a really nice job of showing how actually for some people this part of their everyday work life, and how it is also part of economic strategies with consequences affecting people far beyond the company, in the form of tax breaks, job availability, etc.
The caption is extensive already, but I'd like to know who made the second visual (or did I overlook this?). I'd also like to know a bit more about Kenneth and Tane, who they are, how the researcher met them, what they do. It is probably out of the scope of this medium, but I also am interested to hear more reflection on the choice to bring this visual to 'a critical audience,' in terms of how seeing this disturbing visual affected interviewees, and if the project includes any channels of feeding back the second image and the responses of the critical audience to the City of Austin employees who use this slide, as well as their responses to the image and to the critique.
The caption is quite brief and could be elaborated in different ways to extend the ethnographic message. It would be interesting to know more about the political situation that is described, as well as the place that is mentioned, Chennai. What is the extend of the flooding and the water scarcity, how many people are affected, what are their experiences? What is this ritual and how can we understand it in this context?
Not really, I think the ethnographic engagements here are really powerful. However, I am interested to hear more about how people such as Kenneth come into contact with these images. Where are these presentations being made?
The caption of this image is very detailed and explains well the visualisation. It draws attention to the history of the area and how this plays into the ways in which people experience toxicity today. I think it explains everything well. I would, however, tend to avoid referencing in captions like this. Could the point be made without having to reference other people's work like this?
The caption could be extended to be more analytic and discuss toxic spaces/landscapes more generally. It is quite short. I like what is written but there are a number of things that could be explored in a little more detail. For example, who manages the river pollution? What are the discourses that circulate around the river pollution?
The caption should be more analytic if possible. It could highlight how coastal areas are different to other toxic places (drawing attention to this specific site), and highlight the assemblage of actors that are brought into focus (and affected) by the specific event. What do coastal areas tell us about toxicity that other areas don't? Who is affected most in coastal areas? And how does this tie into the coastal economy (and austerity as the caption mentions)? A few more details like this would help the caption to add more depth to what is a good image.
The author lets us know that this sea foam is toxic, but do we know what it is? Where it comes from? Is this a common occurrence? Or is this foam more of a commonplace at this beach?
I would also like to read more about how local residents understand the coast and if, when, and how it is or isn't considered to be a safe place. How is it that kids (like those depicted in the image) are allowed to play here? Is this a widely accepted practice? Or would other residents find this equally appalling?
The caption clearly spells out how the place in question is toxic and how people are responding to this toxicity. I would like to read a little bit more about how this has influenced these residents' understandings and orientations towards radioactivity and how it has impacted their relationship to their home. The caption seems to suggest a bit of brazenness but I'd like to know more! I'd also like to find out how the author's own experiences in this place have influenced their take on the dynamics of toxicity.