Modern day cowboy, photographed using tintype. TEXAS REPRESENT (Cowpunchers’ll punch your lights out). I have to say this is one of my favorite pictures :)
A couple days ago, we learned about subjectivity/objectivity in photography vs. art vs. moving pictures (dear God let’s just call it PAF – photography, art, and film because I’m tired and will not waste 3 seconds writing such things over again). Admittedly I did skip out of class during the break, because my professor sometimes has no idea what he is talking about. His favorite mode of teaching us, is to show a breathtaking photo or film or a piece of brilliant art, face us, and say with a smirk on his face, “What do you make of this?” What do I make? WHAT DO I MAKE? I make a million things of it, none of which I can say in the duration of sentence. There are those people who can raise their hand and argue with so much confidence of a know-it-all, “This is a picture of Hilary Clinton getting snubbed by Barack Obama. ” And then repeat it again as if no one heard. And then my smirky teacher can turn, sit for an uncomfortable amount of time, and use one of his four ambiguous responsive sentences (“Yeah, absolutely,” “Ok,” “Definitely,” “Good point”). Thanks for interjecting your lame bias opinion that is just representative of what something The Enquirer cooks up in their dungeons underneath the sewers. And although I disagree, there’s not enough words to say what I mean. Lame.1
I think there’s no possible way in the entire world any visual form of explaining or PAF can be objective. Every single person sees PAFs differently, and its because our the infinite combinations of experiences that grow everyday. They cause us to innately judge, and even if you have lived every moment with someone, you will still feel differently (I’m getting into another arguable subject, so I’m just going to reverse and run right out of there). No one can completely agree with another’s viewpoint, and if they do, they’re just lying to themselves, or worse, biologically mutating into a sheep. Anthropologists criticize vehemently against subjectivity in work, when objectivity is something they certainly cannot do. Hypocrites of the worst kind.2
photo off JPG
So what do I make of it? Think about it this way. I see a piece of PAF, any PAF, and my brain fires up. Those neurons are working overtime to take it all in. That’s why the words that come out of my mouth are so generic. Things like, “That’s so awesome,” and “Wow,” aren’t the things that I mean to say. I’m just at loss for more advanced words. My vocabulary doesn’t exceed the level of 5th grade until its all over. And I’m not kidding. I love film. I love photography. I love art.3-4 I love what they do to me.
I’m suddenly very tired at the words ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’.
1 I am saying lame a lot.
2 Please don’t persecute me brethren of anthropology. I like anthropology. PEACE. Also I’m not saying criticizing is bad, its necessary, but no piece can ever be “criticized objectively”… impossible!
3 Psychologists say that by putting art last, I am subconsciously admitting that I rank art above the other two. If that were true, this whole post would be null, totally subjective, and contradictory to the vague and unwritten point I am trying to make. Yeah too bad its true.
4 The word ‘love’ kind of looks stupid consecutively in four sentences. It’s like when you’re in high school and you only say ‘like’ and ‘totally’. “Totally, I’m like so like there.” Giggle.