On the one hand, I agree with Burtynsky when he states that he is not trying to tell people how to think of his images. I believe that images are subjective. It’s the nature of a photograph to me. You see an image, you understand what’s happening in the image, and form an understanding of the photograph. However, I don’t agree with Burtynsky when he states that his photos are apolitical. The images that he takes are a reflection of nature and how society impacts nature. Society are nature are often chartered by the nation they are in. They are controlled by the values of politicians and the politics of that specific region. Our society is also dictated by politics. For instance, when he takes a photograph of a factory with hundreds of workers, focused intently for hours on making an iron, it is political. That image alone makes you wonder, “why are there this many people making irons?”, “Who are they …show more content…
They would help my argument because his images evoke the viewer to ask questions. Why are these children, who don’t look affluent or well off, are sitting on a pile of e-waste? When these questions arise, the answers will highlight policies and political attitudes that exist to contribute to the actions taking place in some of Burtynsky’s melancholy images. In all, as I was watching the film, I kept thinking about how the politicians of China, Bangladesh, and the U.S. contribute to the downfalls of globalization and industrialization, Don’t get me wrong -- it’s great that people can find work in these industries and factories. But the greatness doesn’t compare to the danger it will cause to those working in and around those