I like it as it is. Perhaps I would try to combine this picture with a different one, not the “bodies in the water picture.” Both photos are great and make sense together. However, I think the author can be more playful with visibility and “focal points” and use a picture where the thermal power plant is in the front and fishing practices are in the background… out of focus, in the dark.
This is a picture taken by the author. As I have already mentioned, I like the light and the composition of this picture (more than the first one). It is captivating but also very telling —there are two stories in it —front ground and background —fishermen and power plant.
I would like the author to unfold her interlocutor’s affective reference to a “scary” landscape before the arrival of the plant —is no longer scare a prevalent emotion in this place? Aren’t people scared of the toxicity that the plant brings about? Has scare been displaced by other emotions?
I am not sure about the last part of the caption; I think that toxicity is not absent in the picture—it is pretty much there.
I also think that it would be lovely to unpack visibility as bifocality —I see a great opportunity to talk about these two 'economic' practices (fishing and energy production) at the same time.
I like this image. The picture and the caption capture ethnographically two different yet related practices: they are in the same toxic landscape, albeit their relation to toxicity and toxic materials is different. As with the other image, I like the dynamic between dark and light, and this picture is not as obscure as the first one, which is good.
The picture, however, might complicate what the author suggests, that “this sensorial transformation of place, from jackals to smokestacks, is where toxicity becomes visible.” Visibility, as evoked by the image, is more nuanced and oscillating—it seems to be about bifocality.