The caption really provides an insight into an ethnographic feeling, one that makes us smile and wonder; after reading the caption I was able to see the image in a new perspective and feel closer to this fieldsite.
I think the caption is powerful as it is. It also makes us wonder about the limits of the visual to show pollution, in my own fieldwork pollution was a lot about smells and noise, which is difficult to capture in an image.
This feels like a very personal image, and it works.
The image is quite good, it should be followed maybe by images showing a bigger scale of the site.
The image does not say much about toxics, but it really works with the caption, because it connects us with feelings, that are part of this place.
The image, but especially the extended caption, says a lot about the tensions and contradictions of living in spaces named and experienced as toxic. Although polluted, disabling, and deadly, these spaces emanate beauty, vitality, and joy. People who dwell on them are deeply affected by them, which is not only felt as harm. The author uses the word love. I would like to know why love is the affective framework.
I think the caption is great, although the title does not particularly convince me. I would like the author to play a little more with the planes/composition of the image. What is at the forefront, and what appears in the background?
I like the composition of this image: the planes, the colors, the lines. It captures the liveliness the caption describes. I also like that it evokes the fieldwork, subtly suggested by the sheets of white paper.
No really. I like the picture as it is.
Both the image and the caption open a provocative ethnographic conversation concerning toxicity: what does it mean to love a contaminated place?But the picture and caption also suggest another question: how can the ethnographer let herself be affected by these paradoxical material-affective relationships?
