The visualisation communicates the temporary visibility of toxicity in the river through algal blooms, as well as the immediate yet incomplete solution: manual removal. The picture illustrates how an immediate 'solution' might in fact perpetuate the underlying problem.
I think the caption could be elaborated to include more information about the consequences of the toxic sewage in the river, and also on the religious function of the river.
The image is a picture taken during ethnographic fieldwork by the author. The composition is really intereting - the figure scooping algae from the river divides the picture in two, with the polluted shore below and the algae above. One can see two people taking pictures through two shadows reflected in the river, and this seems to suggest the presence of the ethnographer in a way. The picture is taken from above, which anonimyses the figure and places the algal blooms as the centre of attention.
I don'y have any suggestions to enrich the image, I think it communicates a lot as it is. If the presence of the figures taking the photographs was to be highlighted, perhaps the contrast could be increased. But that could take away from the focus of the photo and the caption, which is on the river, toxicity and the algae.
This picture and the caption tells us not only about the presence of toxins in the river, but also how they become visible through ecological patterns in the form of the algal bloom, and how they become invisble again through limited solutions related to social forces, such as religious practices.
This image reflects the ethnographer's gaze, from above and behind, upon what is presumably a quotidian activity (one assumes that algae is being raked out of the river). It is interesting that the shadow of the ethnographer is literally present here, in the upper left corner of the image. Pollution in the form of discarded trash is visible in the frame, the most obvious reminder of the toxicity of the place. Equally indicative, however--as the caption makes clear--is the algae itself, which is thriving on untreated wastewater flowing into the river.
This image is beautiful. I was curious to hear more about what exactly the figure pictured here is doing with the rake and the algae—presumably attempting to remove the algae? Is this a common practice? Does it help alleviate the toxification of the river at all, or is it more an aesthetic effort? And what does it mean for there to be “religious stretches” of the river?
The image and caption highlight the cyclical nature of public attentiveness to the toxic issue of algal blooms here in a very interesting way. The presence of the worker highlights the labour that goes into managing toxic sites.
The caption could be extended to be more analytic and discuss toxic spaces/landscapes more generally. It is quite short. I like what is written but there are a number of things that could be explored in a little more detail. For example, who manages the river pollution? What are the discourses that circulate around the river pollution?
The author took this image, I assume. It is notable that it is taken from above the person working in the toxic river. This highlights a power dynamic of those who are able to stand above and observe (be unaffected in the same way) by the pollution (at least in terms of proximity in their working conditions). The shadow of the author is also an interesting but perhaps unrelated comment on the presence of the researcher in their work. I wonder if this could be tied into the caption perhaps?
