As a computer user.
As a voyeur or intruder.
As a stranger.
I'm somewhat uncomfortable admitting, and yet will anyway, that images like this remind me that I have much more in common with the purchasers of a service like this than I do with the working people who end up poisoned by mercury or whatever. I live in Southern California, so I know I'm exposed to all sorts of horrific pollution (in the air, surely in the water and soil too, this having been the center of aerospace research and industry for the length of the Cold War). That said, I associate pollution with preventative regulation and public-sponsored, sometimes even public-executed, cleanup efforts (think Superfund). Thinking of this Peruvian example, I'm reminded that Latin Americans, especially poor workers out in Amazonia, are living lifes much closer to the utopian fantasies of Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman. For them, a Swiss pollution clean-up company might be the closest thing they'll see in their lifetimes to the work the E.P.A. does here in the U.S. That's abhorent to me as a beneficiary of state services here. But I'm also exposed to the infrastuctures which do arise in a neoliberal setting. I'd call this level of regulation and caretaking negligent and minimal, but at the same time, these services are more than nothing. Rand Paul would likely look at this image and conclude that corporate welfare does function. These companies do clean up after themselves because the total destruction of the environment would constitute a risk to their investments and their future.
Voyeur, out of context, questioning.
This image forces the viewer to asses themselves so as to ascertain whether or not they are "at risk of infection." It creates a general sense of being threatened. The faces have been cut out, which might make some more inclined to imagen themselves or their loved ones as one of the individuals being depicted. However, it is also likely quite othering for many viewers who are not cisgendered, heterosexual, white, and looking to conform to hegemonic conceptions of what constitutes "family."
I think the image is compelling to think more about what kind of subjects are addressed in the attempt to "offset" the effects of toxic fashion. Reading it as neoliberal along the lines of Wendy Brown (2015) is tempting. The potential consumer subject is both responsibilized (consume ethically!) and confronted with the eco-financial dimension of one's consumption (watch your toxic savings!). Here, the image points to the necessary data infrastructure for knowing toxicity this certain way, which is presented by the "dashboard." It would be interesting to see if this dashboard approach will be further personalized in the future or, like in the image, keep a rather vague notion of the subjects or collectives the emissions are saved for.
This set of images incite an intuitive and emotional response. Perhaps the power of these images lies on the fact that, when presented together, it embodies the ways in which the research sphere and public alike have racialized the victims of toxicity. This visualization denote how these institutional images of this sort have always been problematic. As a non-u.s citizen who was not born in North America, I would like to know more about how regional prejudices and focuses infleunce these forms.
This image interpellates me as not only a toxic subject, but as someone who contributes to toxicity. The perfume that I potentially wear, the hair products at my hair salon, or even my lotion can cause chemical sensitivity in people around me. In particular, those who lack access to healthcare and are service workers tend to bear the ramifications of our actions.
I am unsure how to be interpellated as a subject as I am at once a lifetime contributor to climate change in CA as well as a current/potential victim of this cascade.
As a native of Los Angeles, I have witnessed the smog worsen over the years. These photographs serve to complicate and add nuance to how people have conceptualized smog as a problem in LA. In the first picture, we are able to see and understand how smog can interupt the daily lives of LA natives as it seems like the person in the image is affected by the smog. The other two images also highlight the way that smog has increased in LA, but you can also see more buildings and I wonder how the expansion of infrastructure in downtown LA has contributed to the smog in LA and how it has interrupted the ability to build public transportation in a way that does not destroy marginalized communities (e.g. the current situation with Metro in the Crenshaw area that has contributed to the displacement of Black people and Black organizing as well as contributed to gentrification). Additonally, the building of corporations have not been addressed in discussions about smog and I wonder how your visualizations can contribute to those discussions at a more nuanced level. For example the exapansions of downtown LA as a business hub has been considered to have a positive economic impact, but it has contributed to the traffic and amount of parking lots and condos that have had to be built to accomodate employees, while simultanenously contributing to the toxicity that homeless people deal a couple of blocks away from the financial district.