This visualization challenges viewers to move beyond thinking of toxics as a designation—the closure of possibilty—toward considering (anti)landscape as living spaces. In this way, the visualization provides a critical opening, a way to develop notions of temporality within toxic worlds.
The definition of anti-landscape is interesting and novel to me. As a concept, it is applied very well to the corresponding image. The sentiment/message/argument of the visualisation and caption seems to be to point out the eeriness of toxic landscapes whereby they become unusable by humans, although they must be managed by humans; inferring a presence in the landscape, but one at a distance that allows it to be safely absent. The signpost in the image (which is highlighted in the text as elusive) draws attention to the colonial and dispossesive nature of toxic landscapes well.
As mentioned in the previous annotation, it might be nice to have more context as to the place: why is it there? Could the eerie 'non-native' sign be elaborated upon? Otherwise the caption is very thorough, and explains well the idea of anti-landscape.My only comment on the 'anti-landscape', however, is to think about landscape as something that doesn't necessarily need to be of use to humans. What kinds of things are able to use this landscape in our absence?
The image seems to be taken by the author.I like the choice of black and white as elaborated in my first annotation. It also has the aesthetic of a traditional landscape photograph, which - combined with the anti-landscape comment - offers an interesting paradox that gets the viewer thinking. The scale of attention is interesting, too.. I wonder what would be visible in the rest of this landscape in terms of the scale of the infrastructure and toxicity.
I like the image as it is. I think the caption could be improved by a brief bit of context but that is all.
There are links to my own work here on radioactivity that are interesting. I think the image highlights the importance of visualising toxic places in general due to their (often) invisibility. Here, the vast infrastructure to manage the toxicity in the landscape is only a ghostly reminder of the unseen toxicity that lies beneath it. This could be emphasised alongside mention of the way the waste beneath might have a 'semblance of life'. The absence of humans/life in the picture also suggests toxics are incompatible with life itself.
The caption of this image is rich with a reading of the map and the implications of the locations of the West Lake Landfill and other toxic sites, including the contaminated water that drains into the Missouri River. I am wondering if the analytic purchase of this image could be enhanced by having these connections illustrated by arrows and/or circles, or perhaps in even more creative ways. I'm thinking here about how meteorologists sometimes illustrate currents and flows over the top of their background visualizations to illustrate their argument.
This image and caption combo illustrates the aspects of place that google maps does and does not show. There are visible highways and rivers, small icons and titles identify nearby shops, eateries, and other municipal and industrial sites. The data to the left, including the ratings and the sarcastic image of the young blond man, also captures a bit of the sarcastic online discourse circulating around this place. What is not captured, however, is the lived experience of this place as toxic.
I honestly think the caption of this image is quite strong. The only thing I might suggest is to be a bit more explicit in the critique. As in, are these elisions just absences or are they more like disavowals? What do these absences/disavowals tell us about the intended purpose of google maps? How are these purposes being subverted or reinforced by the users, and to what effect?
This image is a screenshot and is therefore a sort of co-creation, but one that is intended to critically appropriate and comment on the original purpose of the screen-content of that shot. This makes me think of photography, in that the art and the meaning is determined by what Allana has decided to include and exclude from the screen at the moment of capture. She did not create the content, but she zoomed in enough to identify toxic sites and the nearby communities and businesses that they impact.
