“When we do get inside the frame, we see a wittily cropped picture which, at first glance, gives the illusion that we’re looking at two people and a small dog. Then we see the joke. The humour could be the thing that makes a less discerning viewer think they’ve ‘got it’ and move on, failing to really look at the rest of the picture, but for those who continue to look there may be more to uncover” (Boothroyd, 2019)

The image has been structured to ensure that the small dog is the focus of the image. We are seeing all of it, unlike the human and the larger dog. We are not looking down at it, we looking at it straight on as if we are kneeling down. It stands out next to the vertical lines of the legs. Everything in the frame draws our attention to the small dog.

It’s hard to judge what the image is trying to communicate without reading more about Erwitts’ intention. But he wants us to concentrate on the dog so whatever it is it has to be about the small dog and perhaps its relationship to the human and the larger dog. It appears to give the impression that there is a difference relationship between the human and the small dog and the human and the large dog. The 2 sets of legs seem to be overlapping as if there is a connection there, a similarity. The space between the legs and the small dog seems to be saying that this is a different relationship. The legs appear quite relaxed, compared to the small dog who looks quite tense. The taught lead also gives the impression that the small dog is not as relaxed as it’s companions. In my own experience small dogs such as this do tend to be more lively, nervous, loud and unpredictable than large dogs so this would fit that scenario. It is also often the case that these small dogs are given lots of care and attention by their owners, almost to the point of treating them like children or babies and the fact that this dog is wearing “clothes” gives the impression that this is a bit of a “pampered pooch”.

It would be difficult to suggest that Erwitt was trying to highlight the plight of the underdog by structuring the image this way, its hard to see it that way if we have already surmised that this might be the opposite and in fact may well rule the roost as far as both human and the larger dog are concerned. It would be equally difficult to determine if Erwitt preferred humans to dogs just by looking at the picture. He himself admits that it wasn’t a conscious decision to take photographs of dogs.

A few years back while looking through my inventory of pictures to assemble a retrospective book and exhibition of random photographs taken on my travels, I was surprised by the preponderance of dogs. Obviously, my sympathy for the creatures was deeper than I had imagined. (Erwitt, 2008)

His sympathy for dogs is apparent in his series Dogs,  but I think it would be too strong a statement to suggest that he preferred them to humans in general, but I think he may have found them a refreshing change from the trails and tribulations often encountered when taking pictures of human subjects.

“….And dogs make easy, uncomplaining targets without the self-conscious hang-ups and possible objections of humans caught on film” (Erwitt, 2008)

I didn’t feel that Erwitt was conciously trying to make any big statement about “underdogs” or trying to give “everyone a voice”. It could be seen this way but I don’t think that was his intention. I think he had an eye for a great photograph, saw the potential with this scene as being humorous, different and a way of showing these small but large in personality, dogs in a good light.