I would like to start with this quote from The Intolerable image; “We must challenge these identifications of the use of image with idolatry, ignorance or passivity, if we want to take a fresh look at what images are, what they do and the effects they generate.” p.95, Ranciere reveals that shocking images, those who portray an message of “truth” behind the “spectacle,” achieves more or less of its purpose. Ranciere affirms that there is no “intolerable” image, but, that an image of something intolerable can be seen within the context of an image. He claims that there is an ability to trick or deceive the spectator from the gaze. For example, Ranciere says “This opinion is widely accepted because it confirms the traditional thesis is that the evil of images consists in their very number, their profusion effortlessly invading the spellbound gaze and mushy brain of the multitude of democratic consumers of commodities and images.” This affirms, on page 96, that what we see on the media are those who control it, and those who are knowledgeable at interpreting the images that we are shown, that somehow we do not choose what to “watch” he continues “The system of information does not operate through an excess of images, but by selecting the speaking and reasoning beings who are capable of ‘deciphering’ the flow of information about anonymous multitudes.” p.96. Ranciere seems to be criticizing classism, he mentions how photography or the photograph belongs to a “system of visibility” and to me, it seems like photographers (artists) are not found within this realm. This hegemony is maintained through those who are part of the class system and those who maintain a status quo allowing to not there be a system that manages institutions of media and, on page 97, Ranciere suggests “it is overturning the dominant logic that makes the visual the lot of multitudes and the verbal the privilege of the a few. The words do not replace the images” Meaning that we must work towards eradicating the systems that allow to control what images show, a text in a image of “horror” amplifies the image’s meaning. On the other hand, Azoulay on The Spectator is Called to Take Part, through an Arendtian approach, explains how spectators, photographers, and photographed subjects treat each other as sovereigns even when one can be no less operated than the capacity of operating. She claims that the civil contract of photography is as old as photography itself and the theorierical discourses on photography belong to the visual arts literatures. But, Ranciere mentions that we need to overturn this system because the notion of photography belongs to these systems, such as the literature or visual culture. Azoulay also points out to the relations between the photographic act, the photographed person, the photographer, and the spectator, she mentions that “these subjects are not mediated through a sovereign power and are not limited to the bounds of a nation state or an economic contract.” Therefore, photographers become visible, they are seen and are identified with the power that governs them. Beltran’s essay on Undocumented, Unafraid, and Unapologetic affirms how Social Media has become a “space of appearance“ for the DREAMers, as Rancière mentions, it gave them a “system of visibility,” prior to the internet, they could not “creating new spaces in which the undocumented are not objectified members of criminalized populations who are simply spoken about but instead are speaking subjects and agents of change” Beltran says on pg 81. She also draws onto this idea to “Queer” the politics of migration where “coming out” claims sovereignty and state power, a way to defy visibilities. Beltran recognizes a connection between immigrant rights, activism, and sexuality, where both parties are “coming out of the shadows” as she claims on page 89.