(OCA, Context & Narrative, 2017 Edition, page 97 & 98)
How has Erwitt structured this image?
I identify three components: the road-surface, the subject, the background. Erwitt adopted a big aperture and/or a telephoto lens in order to blur the background and the part of the road surface, in order to point out the subject(s).
The subject is cropped so that we can see only the legs of the bigger dog and (I suppose) the woman and the small dog.
The viewpoint is at the same level as the small dog.
The image sports a complete symmetry, so that it is divided in three stages both vertically and horizontally.
The image sports a complete symmetry, so that it is divided in three stages both vertically and horizontally.
What do you think the image is "saying"?
I clearly see that the small dog is on a lead and that it cannot move on, since the lead is tight, while I cannot see the big dog's lead. I am pushed to imagine that the big dog is more by the side of the woman than on a lead, like they have a sort of complicity.
In my opinion the image sends a message about the "big" taking control of the "small", where the "big", animal and human, collaborate in order to dominate the "small".
The "odd family".
However I even noticed that the woman is between the two dogs: does it mean that this human being feels better with her canine friends than with other human beings? Does it say that human being feel alienated and feel more comfortable with the human's best friend? Do they shape a sort of family? The small dog wears a dress like a baby boy, isn't it?
I found, in a webpage about Erwitt, (accessed on june 1st, 2018) the following answer to the question "...Are you, in a sense, talking about humans, when you shoot dogs?...": "...Of course. I ever thought that dogs are human being, just with more hairs...".
I clearly see that the small dog is on a lead and that it cannot move on, since the lead is tight, while I cannot see the big dog's lead. I am pushed to imagine that the big dog is more by the side of the woman than on a lead, like they have a sort of complicity.
In my opinion the image sends a message about the "big" taking control of the "small", where the "big", animal and human, collaborate in order to dominate the "small".
The "odd family".
However I even noticed that the woman is between the two dogs: does it mean that this human being feels better with her canine friends than with other human beings? Does it say that human being feel alienated and feel more comfortable with the human's best friend? Do they shape a sort of family? The small dog wears a dress like a baby boy, isn't it?
I found, in a webpage about Erwitt, (accessed on june 1st, 2018) the following answer to the question "...Are you, in a sense, talking about humans, when you shoot dogs?...": "...Of course. I ever thought that dogs are human being, just with more hairs...".
How does the structure contribute to this meaning?
The low level viewpoint and cropped image overemphasizes the size of the big dog and the woman well together, while it drives the attention on the small dog. We can see the small dog entirely and its sad expression as well.
We do not see what lays outside the frame: we can imagine the woman leaning her hand on the big dog's neck, in a sort of closeness or even complicity as I wrote before.
