Advertisement

Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 460–469 | Cite as

Seeing the city: photography as a place of work

  • Carlo Altamirano-Allende
  • Cynthia Selin
Article

Abstract

During the Futurescape City Tours, sponsored by the Center for Nanotechnology in Society, citizens engaged in an urban walking experience that involved observing, documenting and deliberating about the past, present and future of technology in the urban environment. Central to this experience was the use of photography as the place of work where the citizen-photographers created a visual language to grant meaning and structure to their experience and deliberations. Drawing on Barthe’s (1980) idea of semiology as a construction of meaning through the exploration and identification of systematic regularities of signs and objects, as well on Benjamin’s (1999) notion that there is no photography without discourse, this paper demonstrates what these individuals see as their relationship to their city as portrayed through photographic observations. This paper aims to empirically illustrate the uses and power of an image to mediate discourse and representations of technological change in the city. Further, it opens a scholarly conversation on role of visual cultures in the construction of the necessary capacities among individuals to critically reflect on their role as technological citizens toward better understanding pathways to sustainability. To do so, we conducted a visual ethnography of the participants’ photographic images and captions. By pushing the boundaries of photography beyond an artistic practice into the realm of public engagement, we demonstrate the ways in which “a camera is a tool for learning how to see without a camera,” as Dorothea Lange once stated.

Keywords

Public engagement Sustainability Photography Cities Technology Anticipatory governance 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Center for Nanotechnology in Society research team at Arizona State University: Kelly Campbell Rawlings, Kathryn de Ridder-Vignone, Jathan Sadowski, Mindy Kimball, David Guston; and the 2013 Futurescape City Tours national research partners: Gretchen Gano, Thaddeus Miller, Kevin Jones, Roopali Phadke, and David Tomblin. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under NSF Cooperative Agreement No. 0937591. Any findings, conclusions, or opinions are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the National Science Foundation.

References

  1. Barben D, Fisher E, Selin C, Guston D (2008) Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: foresight, engagement, and integration. In: Hacket E, Amsterdamska O, Lynch M, Wajcman J (eds) The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 3rd edn. MIT Press, London, pp 979–1000Google Scholar
  2. Barthes R ([1964] 1967) Elements of semiology (trans. Annette Lavers & Colin Smith). Jonathan Cape, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Barthes R (1982) Camera Lucida: reflections on photography. Hill and Wang, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Benessia A, Funtowicz S, Bradshaw G, Ferri F, Ráez-Luna EF, Medina CP (2012) Hybradizing Sustainability: towards a new praxis for the present human predicament. Sustain Sci 7(Suppl 1):75–89Google Scholar
  5. Benjamin W (2002 [1940]) The arcades project (trans. Eiland H and McLaughlin K). Belknap, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Benjamin W (1979) ‘Surrealism’ in one-way street and other writings. NLB/Verso, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Berger J (1982) Appearances. In: Berger J and Mohr J, another way of telling. Vintage, London, pp 81–130Google Scholar
  8. Callon M, Lascoumes P, Barthe Y (2009) Acting in an uncertain world: an essay on technical democracy. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. Campbell K (2005) Theorizing the authentic: identity, engagement and public space. Adm Soc 36(6):688–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coenen F, Huitema D, O’Toole Jr. L (1998) Participation and the quality of environmental decision making. Environ Policy 14Google Scholar
  11. Cover R (2004) Working with images, images of work. In: Pink S, Kürti L, Alfonso AI (eds) Working images: visual research and representation in ethnography. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Davies SR, Selin C, Gano G, Pereira AG (2011) Citizen engagement and urban change: three case studies of material deliberation. J Cities. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2011.11.012 Google Scholar
  13. Foley R, Wiek A (2013) Patterns of nanotechnology innovation and governance within a metropolitan area. Technol Soc 35(4):233–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Foth M, Hearn G, Klaebe H (2007) Embedding digital narratives and new media in urban planning. Proceedings Digital Resources for the Humanities and Arts, Dartington, South DevonGoogle Scholar
  15. Funtowicz S, Ravetz J (1993) Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25(7):739–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gee D, Harremoes J, Keys J, MacGarvin M, Stirling A, Vaz S, Wynne B (2001) Late lessons from early warnings: the precautionary principle 1898–2000. European Environment Agency, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  17. Guston D (2008) Preface. In: Fisher E, Selin C, Wetmore J (eds) The yearbook of nanotechnology in society: presenting futures, vol 1. Springer, New York, pp v–viiiGoogle Scholar
  18. Guston D (2013) Understanding ‘anticipatory governance’. Soc Stud Sci. doi: 10.1177/0306312713508669 Google Scholar
  19. Habermas J (1975) Legitimation crisis. Beacon, BostonGoogle Scholar
  20. Hall Peter G (1998) Cities in civilization. Random House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Johnson-McGrath J (1997) Who built the built environment? Artifacts, politics, and urban technology. Technol Cult 38(3):690–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mezirow J (2000) Learning to think like an adult: core concepts of transformation theory. In: Mezirow J (ed) Learning as transformation: critical perspectives on a theory in progress. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp 3–33Google Scholar
  23. Nöth W (2011) Visual semiotics: key features and an application to picture ads. In: Margolis E, Pauwels L (eds) The SAGE handbook of visual research methods. SAGE Pub, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Pink S (2006) Doing visual ethnography: images, media and representation in research. Sage Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Pink S (2009) Doing sensory ethnography. Sage Publishers, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Selin C, Pereira AG (2013) Pursuing plausibility. Int J Foresight Innov Policy 9 No.2/3/4: 93–109Google Scholar
  27. Selin C, Banks J (2014) Futurescape City Tours: a novel method for public engagement. Guidebook for Practitioners, Center for Nanotechnology in Society, Arizona State University.Google Scholar
  28. Selin C, Gano G (2015) Seeing differently: enticing reflexivity through mediated participation in place in the Futurescape City Tours. In: Gubrium A, Harper K (eds) Engaging participatory visual and digital methods. Left Coast Press. [in press].Google Scholar
  29. Selin C, Sadowski J (2015) Against blank slate futuring: noticing obduracy in the city through experiential methods of public engagement. In: Kearnes M, Chilvers J (eds) Remaking participation: science, environment and emerging publics. Routledge [in press].Google Scholar
  30. STEPS Centre (2010) Innovation, sustainability, development: a new manifesto. STEPS Centre, BrightonGoogle Scholar
  31. Stirling A (2006) Analysis, participation and power: justification and closure in participatory multi-criteria analysis. Land Use Policy 22(1):95–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tschakert P, Dietrich KA (2010) Anticipatory learning for climate change adaptation and resilience. Ecol Soc 15(2):11Google Scholar
  33. UNFPA (2007) State of world population 2007: unleashing the potential of urban growth. United Nations Population FundGoogle Scholar
  34. United Nations’ World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our common future. Oxford University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  35. Winner L (1986) The whale and the reactor: a search for limits in an age of high technology. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© AESS 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Nanotechnology in SocietyArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.Department of Management EngineeringTechnical University of DenmarkKongens LyngbyDenmark

Personalised recommendations