In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Toward a Conclusion: A Focus on the Visual Culture of Activism J. KERI CRONIN A s the essays in this volume attest, visual culture is an integral part of activism.Words like“spectacle,”“witness,”and“visuality”have become expected and essential components in dialogues about activist efforts. Indeed, one could argue that without these qualities, it is extremely difficult to engage in acts of protest and social resistance. From educational posters and leaflets to the media spectacle that often accompanies reportage of activism, the visual and the political are inextricably linked. Photographic and filmic images, in particular, have been a powerful weapon in the arsenal of activist groups. Photography, in fact, is central in many of the chapters in Imagining Resistance, from the“sight bites”described by Ruth Phillips to the importance of the photographic documentation of John Lennon and Yoko Ono’s anti-war campaigns outlined by Louis Kaplan. One might point also to Greenpeace, one of the best-known environmental activist groups, which relies heavily on this type of visual culture in its campaign efforts.1 From the early days of its existence, environmental activists working under the Greenpeace banner have skilfully used the camera to capture still and moving images of what they see as environmentally detrimental activities.2 These images serve not only as“evidence”of environmental destruction (indeed, the concept of “bearing witness” is an important part of Greenpeace campaign initiatives), but they also bolster popular support for Greenpeace campaigns and causes. In spite of much scholarly writing on and dialogue about the subjectivity of the photographic medium, the camera remains central to activist and educational efforts precisely because of notions of “photographic truth” that have been part of the discourse of photography since Louis-Jacques-Mandé Daguerre first spoke publicly about the daguerreotype at the Academy of Arts and Sciences in Paris in 1839.In addition to opening up debates about“truth” 243 and “documentary”—contentious issues no matter what the photographic subject—activist use of photography also raises questions about issues around environmental sustainability, human health, and social justice as a result of the material qualities of the image-making process itself. In other words, while camera-based images are an important—and some would argue essential —element of activist work, it is important that the full implications of this relationship be recognized. What this conclusion addresses is the following question: Are the politics of the image-making industry subject to sufficient activist attention? This is a question that has guided my thinking about the visual culture of environmental activism. On the one hand, the immediacy of the photographic image (whether film-based or digital) has the ability to capture attention , to tug at emotions, and to sway opinions. Simply put, there is a reason why environmental advocacy groups such as Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund, and the Sierra Club rely so heavily on photographic images. From photographs showing wide-eyed baby seals as part of animal activist campaigns against hunting to calendar images of pristine-looking Rocky Mountain peaks, the visual culture of environmental activism has been consistently used as a means to gain support for environmental issues. On the other hand, however, the very industry and technologies that form these politically charged images are themselves the focus of activist efforts. Eastman Kodak, for instance, one of the most well-known imaging companies, has come under fire for many of its industrial practices in recent decades.3 In spite of its“green”-sounding name,“Kodak Park,”the main site of Kodak’s productions in Rochester, New York, has been described as New York State’s “top-ranked manufacturing polluter” and is the focus of ongoing campaigns by grassroots environmental organizations such as the Buffalobased Citizens’ Environmental Coalition.4 Eastman Kodak’s manufacturing and production processes, in particular, have been the primary focus of much of the environmentally concerned activism targeting this well-known corporation .5 For instance, Eastman Kodak has admitted to several violations of environmental legislation.6 Further, in 1998 the New York State Labor and Environment Network (NYSLEN) argued that Kodak employees and residents living in and around the cities where Kodak operations are based face increased health risks.7 According to the NYSLEN and the United States Federal Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), workers and citizens who live near Kodak production centres had been exposed to high levels of toxic substances including dioxin, hexavalent chromium, and methylene chloride.8 Imagining Resistance 244 [3.145.74.54] Project MUSE (2024-04...

Share