I’m interested in the way that these two series embrace a sense of humor. There’s something funny about looking at a photograph of a dog running after a car, or a squirrel staring down a camera. Is it even funnier when these photos are presented in the context of “art"? Each photographer has taken up a position where their photos can be appreciated in a light way, while also staking out some more serious artistic ground. Judging from what they have to say about their work--and it’s worth reading Divola’s full statement--I’d say that maybe Panar is coming from below (dogs becoming art) while Divola is coming from above (art becoming dogs). This just means that Divola seems more conscious of his position as an artist.