I really appreciated the image and its description for how it described the toxicity and its structural forms/violences, particularly McGrath's nod to the juxtaposition between the appearance of order vs the existence of choas. I think this tension, in both its theoretical and visual context, provides an entryway to discuss how toxicity works in late industrialism.
I really appreciated the image and its description for how it described the toxicity and its structural forms/violences, particularly McGrath's nod to the juxtaposition between the appearance of order vs the existence of choas. I think this tension, in both its theoretical and visual context, provides an entryway to discuss how toxicity works in late industrialism. When looking at this image I am reminded primarily of theories of statehood and statepractice.
I think the image is a great example of how an attempt to contain toxicity. As the commentary highlights, this happens primarily through quantification. Together, the subtle placement of the "savings" in the upper left and the idealized photo setting stress the externality and invisibility of toxic fashion.
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!).
Conceptually, the image is striking for its focus on the possibility of abstract environmental savings data to influence consumer behavior. The confrontation of consumers with the distant or hard-to-detect consequences of their purchases seems to be a common strategy in attempts to achieve sustainable practices. In this image, these 'externalities' are further rendered in a financially desirable light as "savings."
This collage was simultaneously very pleasent and confusing to look at. The juxtaposition of images makes one question if they are looking at the same place at different times or different places at the same. This confusing then makes the observer focus on the place, Amazon Corp, while also displacing/destabilzing the observer. I would then disagree with the author that this image conjures an atemporality, and would rather state that this image confures a multitude of spatiotemporalities that work to complicate our hegemonic perspectives of linear time and stable localities.
The now infamous photo of President Trump "dropping toxicity" is certainly held in stark comparison from the destruction of the photo on the left. The photo of the crushed car feels quite settled, concrete, immovable, while the photo of Trump implies movement. What does the juxtaposition of fixed and moving objects tell us about how toxicity functions?
How does toxic masculinity figure into this image, if at all?
Juxtaposing the two images of Puerto Rico and Donald Trump seems like a great strategy. As a person who is unfamiliar with the stories regarding the environmental disaster in Puerto Rico, I felt like the images would gain traction if the irony between them can be more intuitively grapsed. The images convey a sense of humour, which I thought was great, but I think it can benefit from more storytelling. Perhaps this can be elaborated in the commentary: Was the Trump picture ever a meme?, etc.
At first viewing, I was not certain the composition worked at conveying the disrupture happening. However, after looking again, and considering the placing of the text in its homage to horror-camp, it undergirds the jarringly absurd behavior of the president against the reality of suffering experienced by Puerto Ricans everywhere. In many ways, this situation is an example of the loss of words in the face of administrative and popular depravity.
