My eye is first drawn to Camila's hand and follows the direction that she is pointing. In the explanation, the filmmaker explains what Camila is pointing out and the image is effective in allowing us to feel a part of the moment, the tour of toxic materials as they enter Camila's barrio. Although a still image, it is easy to feel the movement of the moment that is captured.
Due to the scope of the image, my eye first went to the broader expanse in the background. It wasn't until reading the explanation that I looked closely enough to see the transposed rods from the exhibition. I wonder if there isn't any way to scale this differently so that this could be conveyed more clearly as it seems to be the most salient point of the image.
I first noticed the hand in the blue bowl of milk that is transposed over the background of the traditional kitchen. While the explanation does an effective job of explaining the composition and significance of the traditional kitchen and the blue plastic bin of milk, the hand in the bowl is a bit distracting - is there any way to remove it? Or is the hand there to say that it (symbolizing humans) can be cut by development (the razor)? If so, perhaps the angle of the hand could be changed? It looks unnaturally placed so it took me awhile to even figure out what was going on with it. Also, as the argument is that the material interventions are slowly taking over the "traditional" way, it might be interesting to increase the scale of the razor?
My first focus stayed on the rectangular box that says “baby box” -> then the above orange box and its contents-> Finally, my gaze ended up at the two banners on the right pictures. While my eyes moved around these images, I tried to digest how these visualizations captured the toxicity of Shannon’s theme. The images capture a way of contemporary Korean society dealing with illegitimate children, who are with disabilities or unwanted, through religious organizations and adoption agencies.
This is the first image in your dataset that includes human subjects. Given that your other visualizations show data sets and visualizationsn of micro subjects, how does the inclusion of human subjects - or their exclusion - challenge our definition of "ethnography?"
My gaze is fixed first on the face and then upon the word "alien".
My eyes moved from the top down, eventually focusing on the bottom two images. It was a little more difficult to discern the purpose of the last two images, and thus, I spent more time on them.
In each individual image, I first noticed the people in the image and then the background. The words came last. For the complete image, I simply scanned left to right.
The still communicates the evidentiary authority that judicious courts and broaded public courts of opinion ascribe to images, while also pointing to how images alone are insufficient- the Senator is also holding a physical snowball. Knowing the context of this image makes it feel like a meme-able image. The still communicates the latent potentiality of images as serious and humorous depending on their recontexualization. There are multiple paradoxes at play in this still.
My eye wanders in search of human bodies - I see initially the (environmental) impacts of humanity without the human subjects themselves. What happens to this area after it has been mined of its value in gold?