The analytical point made by the ethnographer is compelling. He uses an image of a dog to visually represent ordinary nonhuman-human interactions in the toxic chernobyl zone to call attention to the persistence of life and care that emerge in toxic places.
This is the ethnographer's image and shows a puppy peeping out of a door. It works on an affective level and draws readers in emotionally and makes them think about why there is a puppy poking its head in this manner at a place which is out of the frame. When read along with the caption it makes us think about the contrast between toxics in Chernobyl and the proliferation of life and connections between humans and nonhumans in a place like this.
Toxicity is at work in this visualization in the sense of Chernobyl as an abandoned toxic place which is contaminated, in the process of being remedied perhaps. Toxicity can be understood through the material effects of radioactivity. Toxicity could also be read into the ways in which human-nonhuman relationships become managed in a place like this--is this relationship also carrying the same toxicities of the place?
I don't have anything specific to add. I just wonder if more of the Chernobyl being a toxic, abandoned place can be pulled into the image itself--maybe through the background being in black and white, while the puppy is in color?
The ethnographic insight is afforded by a reading of the dog's breed and the identities of the people. Together, this image and commentary give insight into the complex dynamics of the Zone, which concentrate/play out on the body of the dog. With this documentary-style image, the ethnographer communicates the interplay of international and local values, the (toxic) history of the Zone, and the politics of inhabitation of the Zone. The sentiment is the discomfort and intrigue generated by the collision of worlds - of wild and domestic, of human and animal.
This artefact is created by the ethnographer. It is a documentary-style image; it gives the impression of being in a rush, of capturing a brief moment. There is vitality and anxiety in this image.
The visualization and caption could do more to really render the various dimensions of toxicity in this space. It’s not explicitly mentioned.
I wonder what it looks like from all sides? From different vantage points? After adding more to the caption it might help to think about the focus of the image more: would it help to have mor of a close up of the actual earth? The line between newly cleared and not cleared? To focus in on the people and conversations in the photo? To blur certain parts of the photo? Right now, my focus is on the people in the center of the photo. Is that what you want it to be?
The image is a photograph taken by the contributor. The frame is interesting because it looks very much like a sort of ethnographer’s eye sort of view. It’s from a very positioned vantage point at the corner. Inside the tape? There’s a clear juxtaposition between the green and lush vegetation and the barren, newly cleared land.
The caption should be extended. Some questions/comments to think about”Describe in more detail the process of demining.Historicize the land a bit more. Brief history that led to the point of the deminig.Politicization around the demining of this area?Background of how certain areas are picked for deminig?More information on the removal of vegetation.Just think more information needs to be added on this to start to complicate things more and get at some of the messy layers.
