Search

The Puppies of Pripyat is a surprising injection of warmth and normality into the space of the Zone. The Zone's connection with non-life is undermined and complexified by this domestic image. It reminds me of an 'ordinary affect' offered by Kathleen Stewart: the border guards on the US/Mexican border take care of wild animals they find on their patrols. Their everyday lives are shaped by these adventures of animal rescue and support, not necessarily chases and brutal captures.

I want to know what this image means for toxicity. Does the image imply a non-toxicity alongside toxicity, life in the face of non-life? Or is is a commentary about the transformation of the landscape from toxic to non-toxic, from non-life to life? And so does toxicity exist on a kind of spectrum?

This image is created by the ethnographer. It is notable for its everyday nature - a snapshot of normal, domestic life. The commentary is what sets this image off: linking the image to the Zone, the viewer becomes aware of the image's import, its weightiness where there was probably none before.

I like this image as it is, with the commentary alongside. I might have said it would be interesting to get a visual reference to the Zone in the image, but maybe that would have made it too crass.

This image tells me that toxics do not exist in a dichotomous relationship with non-toxic. It tells me that toxics exist on a spectrum, and can fuse or coincide with non-toxic life. I think the argument could be extended to discuss the capacity of place to transform, to shift between grades of toxicity, between life and non-life.

This image emphasizes life and care in a space of toxicity. The caption furthers this message of human/non-human relationships in places of contamination, elaborating on how guards' lives of boredom are made tolerable through these animal companions and reciprocal relations of care.

Are there other layers of toxicity this image is meant to provide beyond the literal toxicity of Chernobyl? 

The image appears to be that of the ethnographer's as the source is cited as "author's own collection." This everyday image is juxtaposed against the caption which reveals its relationship to toxicity, despite which life and relationships are simultaneously taking place in the toxic landscape.

I like the image as is because it forms a greater affective response in relation to the caption. 

Life, care, and relationality exist in relation to places of toxicity. Toxicity shapes social life.