The artifact illustrates the existence of multiple toxcities, that are growing in forests due to various factors like deforestation. It presents the narratives of war and peace that are affecting pluriverses of forests. Here, the artifact presents a case of forest as a victim.
The visualization and caption convey the mundanity of toxicity--the little fires that do not seem important yet are indicative of a much broader issue of "wildfires" as responsible for destroying hundreds of hectares of forest, not merely small patches due to traditional burning practices. That which is used as part of a traditional practice (fires) also has the potential to unleash devastation, as well as render certain groups of people scapegoats for the cause of the fires ("small" cattle owners).
It would be helpful if the author incorporates the notion of toxic places a bit more in their caption. Presently, the caption ends on a rather sudden note and does not quite conclude (and it is unclear how the number of cattle feeds into the argument). A little more theorization may also help to identify the ethnographic message, perhaps by concluding the caption with a tie-in back to the concepts in the second paragraph.
This is a photo taken by the ethnographer during their fieldwork. What is notable about the photo is the fact that the caption is about fire and its subtly as an indication of toxicity in certain instances--the photo encapsulates this very well, with solely little clouds of smoke visible surrounding the person. Such shows the traces of the fire without being too overt, but which the ethnographer calls our attention to. It captures the unremarkable yet stealthily important fires, the likes of which are slowly disappearing hundreds of hectares of forests, purposefully.
None that I can think of--I think the image conveys clearly its ethnographic import. It may help to explain in the caption who the person is in the image, so as to have some more contextual knowledge to place them.
The visualization and caption combination convey the notion that toxics can sometimes be relegated to the background, particularly when there are other more obviously precarious situations/toxicities occuring in its proximity. Toxicites at times can become everyday and "usual," indicating how people adapt to the toxicities and their effects whether intentionally or not. Perhaps one walks through the landscape and inhales the smoke, perhaps even questioning it, but at the same time that does not render the fire to someone a dramatic indication of danger and its potential to kill.
The caption and the image are complex, complicated in their implications and entanglements with personal sensorial experience and the muddled definitions of the language we use to talk about the issues of contamination. The image seems straightforward, but caption questions the notions of 'tradition' in landscape practices, scalability in agricultural practices, and even the idea of cause and effect in the ways we tell the stories of deaths 'caused' by the fires. The caption, therefore, reveals all the unstable layers of ways-of-knowing upon which our epistemology of toxicity is built.
I find the caption generative, meaning that it could be elaborated but that I appreciate that it prompts questions without too much elaboration. I don't think it's necessary to add more.
The image itself is created by the ethnographer. It seems like a snapshot, not particularly thoughtfully composed, but capturing an important moment. The haze is apparent in the atmospheric perspective of the surrounding jungle. I am struck by the lack of hurriedness of the fire-starter. He is relaxed and seems to be moving slowly through a routine that has come to shock the outside world only recently.
No. It's stunning, and in combination with the caption has a striking effect.
