Search

In the previous annotation, I acknowledge that the absence of people might be intentional, but it leaves me with many questions. When a family makes the switch from traditional subsistence farming to toxic subsistence farming, I assume it is for economic reasons. Postioning a farmer or their family somewhere in the frame might verify that. What goods have come from the transition to toxic subsistence farming? What do farmers and their families wear? Or is the wealth all transferred elsewhere, off of the farm?

I stated earlier that this image excludes any straightforward mention of toxics. Toxics don't factor into our Western notions of traditional landscape. But in combination with the caption, the image reveals that they are in fact everywhere, and we can't trust our eyes to reveal them.

The image, without the supporting caption, is commonsight, showing us the everyday presence of biomedical products that commands life across different geographies. But the image is asking us to reverse the question of biomedicine, not as a cure for weakened bodies but as an agent that weakens particular bodies. 

The caption can definitely work though the complexity of the history of evangelization and the introduction of modern medicince. When did embrace turn to detest? Can embrace and detest exist simultaneously and be measured by the body?I am aware that detest might be too strong a word but I'm curious to know why the bottle of syrup still sits on the table, if it is understood to weaken the body. Is there a tension there that can be elaborated on?

Reading the image and caption together, we might want to reorient how toxic histories work the everyday of certain populations. Can histories of cure be contempraory measures of toxicity? 

I think this is a very well framed photograph that is effective at telling the story the caption ascribes it to. I don't have any recommendations pertaining to the image itself.Spitballing ideas, I wonder if in the context of a physical exhibition it might be possible to accompany this image with sounds of rumbling truck traffic from the nearby road.

This visualization provides a clear sense of the proximity between everyday life and the infrastructure of extractive industries, while also juxtaposing the essay's three apparent main characters: the Waorani, the forest, and the oil roads. The subject of the child evokes anxieties about the future of Waorani bodies and about the heightened dangers of childhood exposure to toxins. The shadowing at the edges of the image center the child as the focal point, and the pipes form a natural break between the foreground of the road and the background of the forest.

I might suggest extending the caption to provide more nuance and depth to the description of Waponi Kewemonipa and the elements that threaten it. How does the Waorani notion relate to the more broadly invoked concept of buen vivir? Also, it might help to include more information related to the forces at play in the shift of the Waorani toward village settlements along the oil roads. How did they live before this shift? What drew or pushed them toward the roads? 

This photograph nicely captures the three main elements of the caption (as described in my annotation above). It also pairs very well with the preceding image, which is a still life of objects stacked on a table in an indoor setting. The photograph effectively provides the viewer a sense of standing on the road, despite the fact that the road itself is not visible. This effect is perhaps my favorite part of the photo.

This visualization frames the infrastructure of oil roads as an existential threat to Waoranis' embodied experiences of wellness. The proximity of the child's body to the oil pipeline makes immediate the stakes of this threat. With that said, the caption leaves room for unpacking at greater length the specific ways in which experience and describe both wellness and 'becoming weaker.' What are some of the symptoms of exposure to invasive pollutants?