Search

By using this image, the author sinks us quickly into the dense reality of extortion and violence in Guatemala. What is tricky, is that the veiwer (in the U.S.) likely has no reference points to understand and interpret the many signs and symbols portrayed. The images are playful and cartoonish, making an outsider likely to misinterpret their meaning. The caption, however, deftly narrates several of the layers that coexist in the image, helping us quickly understand the conditions of injustice and cultural idioms that they represent.

Both in the essay intro and in this piece itself, some key details are missing. 1. Briefly, why has extortion and political violence become so prevalent in Guatemala? 2. Why are bus drivers such a common target? Also, ethnographically, I think we could use some discussion of what leads to the perpetuation of this problem-- it must be more complex than indifferent politicians (why indifferent?) and unethical (how so?) journalist.

This image is a piece of artwork, interpreted by the ethnographer. As noted before, the dense layers of meaning that the author can unpack in this image make it a suitable tool for deep diving into the problem of political violence and art in Guatemala. 

I think this needs elaboration. What is helpful about the concept of toxicity when contemplating daily violence in Guatemala through this image? What is toxic in this situation and how does toxicity offer a helpful tool for ethnographic thinking? What are the conditions that generate a state of toxicity linked up with everyday extortion (why toxicity and not corruption, poverty, terror and so on...)

Since it is art, not really. I do think that more of the imagery could perhaps be interpreted in the annotation.

This image is particularly dizzying, consisting of multiple overlaying messages and symbols. It requires the viewer to constantly shift their gaze between individual pieces and the whole, a mode of attention not unlike that required to apprehend toxicity. 

I'm curious whether the toxicity the contributor wishes to communicate would come through better if the image was juxtaposed with another image, perhaps one that more explicitly depicts the work and violence of bus driving. Without the caption, it is difficult to understand what sort of toxicity the author is attempting to convey.

I'd like the author to more explicitly address toxicity in the caption. While the reader/viewer is led to read violence as toxicity in the image captions, it would be interesting for the author to elaborate why the lens of toxicity is appropriate for theorizing violence.