The caption can be elaborated further to discuss how any of the contaminants found on the site are more closely connected to the nearby river, to the Flint water crisis, and to other forms of everyday toxicity encountered by residents in the community (ex. would groundwater from the site leach into the river?_ If, as the author mentions, the site has become a symbol for local revival efforts, what notions of “environment” and “clean-up” are projected onto it and what kind of politics are these concepts connected to? For example, a bit more could be included about the working class nature of the site, and who the audiences are who go on tours- what are the stakes and potential problematics of emergent forms of ‘toxic tourism’? Have any other community groups formed different forms of commitment to the site, or to other locations of previous GM impact in the area?
The caption of this visualization can be elaborated to include a bit more detail regarding which types of “blight” have been targeted and what the rationalization behind these campaigns are. More information about the author’s focus on the connection between urban renewal and social or material forms of toxicity is needed.
This image can be enriched by increasing the contrast so that the SRO map is more visible, as well as increasing the overall size of the image. In its current size it is difficult to appreciate the important detail on the map of SROs being targeted, as well as the language used in Columbia’s historical description. Adding another visual of what is considered blight may also add to the image.
Not enrichment, just actual questions: does all fishing take place at night? Thinking of other rivers in India and the ways their images are mobilized as spectacles of toxicity and death, what does the river look like during the day? How does Velu’s understanding of Chennai as a different place affect his understanding of marine life?
The caption layers multiple concept and ideas. It complicates my understanding of the inter-relationship between leisure (wetsuits) and industrial pollution. The connections drawn between surfing, male military personnel and the petrochemical industry were interesting if a little difficult to follow. I would love to see even more explicit connections made to the image
Based off the graffiti in this image, I wonder - who travels near the storm drain? Where is it located in relation to the city of Flint? Does any graffiti refer to the water crisis or other issues you describe?
This visualization is missing a useful caption - so the main way this could be elaborated on would be to include more information! Much of the text from the introduction to the photo essay could be used to explain why the author chose to show a found picture of an archive room. Where is the archive room? Was it not possible for the author to photograph it herself? Why use a found picture - does this tell us anymore about the toxicity of the place and how it is accessed? What does the location have to do with the his/story being described? Why is this important - without it, the photo might just be any old archive anywhere. It could in fact be of interest as it is an archive that predominantly addresses this imbalance of histories and voices.
I feel like image 1 might benefit from some contextualization (unless you find it purposeful to reveal it to the reader at a later moment). Where is it? Why are you interested in it? What does the technical wording on the sign mean? What do we gain from considering the landfill as an "anti-landscape?" Thinking of Joshua Reno's work, how does the liveliness of decomposition and the transformation of matter that happens underground/in a landfill complicate our understandings of them?
I think I'd like to know more about the nature of the publication the photo appears in. Contextualizing the photo will help me to understand its message. Who is the intended audience of this newspaper? And who actually reads it, intended audience or not? Who writes for and publishes this newspaper?