response
1. the analysis steyerl makes about the implications around visual/design standards for images is an analysis i've never really seen before or even stopped to think about, due to the fact that even i have a baseline instinct to dislike or disegard "poor images" as she calls them. in many ways, the development of technology has been hallmarked by visual clarity—graphics get crisper, pixels get smaller, colors get brighter, etc etc. at the end of the day, it is a reflection of the capabilities of the technology. this on its own seems like a neutral fact to me, and is what made it hard for me to digest her arguments at first. however, i came to realize— the world of technology is in fact steeped in issues of classism and capitalism. thus, the very implication that the standards for "good" and "bad" visuals can be dictated by this technology implies that these standards inherit the same class implications.
2. the part where steyerl mentions there were no images because there were no "good" images to be found of the topic was interesting to me. it made me think of when nasa released the photo of the black hole and a lot of people were like wow what a disappointing and blurry image—how else are technological (or other) limits impacted by corporate standards of "good" images?
back home