Can photographers be objective? What does subjectivity offer to the audience? Is objectivity a myth ? What is the function of a documentary ? What is the role of subjects in documentaries?
I think it's important to understand that filmmaking, like any art form, is a representation of the artist on a particular subject. This makes any documentary a subjective lens to look at something. Even with a subject that can be essentially objective, the choices made by the filmmaker creates a subjective element. I think this needs to be understood before looking at any piece. But with that being said, it is still important to take the piece of work seriously, and not disregard it because of its subjective nature. It is the point of view of the filmmaker that creates the heart behind what is being said and the focus he or she has. Subjectivity can be the best part of a documentary if looked at in an artistic and meaningful way.
I don't think that photographers can ever really be entirely objective. Unless the "photographer" is a security camera that shoots always and indiscriminately, the photographer is even if nothing else making the decision to shoot this, and not that. What untold stories are contained in the photographs that are never taken? We may never know.
I don't think that this is necessarily a bad thing, as long as we are willing to acknowledge this lack of objectivity. People love objectivity- we look for a supposed impartiality in our news, and have a passion for "just the facts." However, just as much as we love facts, we love human subjectivity, as long as the latter isn't confused for the former. By considering the fact that nothing will be objective in its presentation, we acknowledge the power that a subjective point of view provides. A documentary I shoot not only describes the culture that I am depicting, but my sociological positioning as a white, straight, American, &etc female. As long we are not pretending to be objective and without bias when we are not, I think objective and subjectivity are both valued.
Shaniqua, I personally feel that it is nearly impossible for a photographer to be objective. For candid photos the photographer still chooses what is or isn't worthy of taking a picture of and in planned photos the photographer chooses how to arrange the subjects in that photo. Although a photography may try to remove all biases, the choices made when taking a photo removes any objectivity.
How important is "authenticity" in documentary? Is a film that uses deliberate editing to "forge a desired truth from the chaos of existence" (like the reflexive mode) less "real" than one which seeks to observe or allows the subject to help shape the narrative?
Why would a filmmaker choose to present a subject through a certain mode? What kinds of subjects or documentaries benefit from which kinds of storytelling modes?
Why is it important to understand the history of documentary film and/or the subject-filmmaker dynamic? Do you agree that the power imbalance between subject and filmmaker renders certain documentary modes (expository, observational) more problematic than other modes?
I think that that relationship between subject and filmmaker is partly what makes documentary so special, but I agree that it does at times become problematic. The observational mode claims to present subjects in an unaltered state: no interaction from the filmmakers. Which, obviously, is not possible, unless the subjects are being filmed without their knowledge and permission (and unless we're talking about, say, March of the Penguins, where the subjects are animals, this would be completely unethical), they know that the camera is there, and the camera is going to change their behavior. Maybe not a lot. Maybe not at all, save for the occasional nervous glance into the lens. But as we will never see the subject without the camera present (as the camera presence is all that allows us this opportunity in the first place), we can't know how much they are being affected. I don't think that these challenges necessarily invalidates this mode, but it's important to acknowledge these tricky areas, and account for them when possible.
I think that the importance of authenticity in a documentary depends on the viewers expectations. If the viewer expects that a documentary should present the hard cold facts then they would be upset knowing that it has been deliberately edited. Whether a film uses the reflexive mode or observational mode I feel that it is important for people to be critical viewers and understand that no matter the documentary it is showing a point of view.
Sophia, I would agree with you on the authenticity depending on the viewers expectations. I think the more knowledge you have in the field the more authenticity you would expect. I think my expectations when watching a documentary is that their exist no true authenticity, so I have the expectation that I will not see 100% authenticity. I do agree with the class that it is from a certain point of view and we must understand that.
Chapter 1
ReplyDeleteCan photographers be objective?
What does subjectivity offer to the audience?
Is objectivity a myth ?
What is the function of a documentary ?
What is the role of subjects in documentaries?
I think it's important to understand that filmmaking, like any art form, is a representation of the artist on a particular subject. This makes any documentary a subjective lens to look at something. Even with a subject that can be essentially objective, the choices made by the filmmaker creates a subjective element. I think this needs to be understood before looking at any piece. But with that being said, it is still important to take the piece of work seriously, and not disregard it because of its subjective nature. It is the point of view of the filmmaker that creates the heart behind what is being said and the focus he or she has. Subjectivity can be the best part of a documentary if looked at in an artistic and meaningful way.
DeleteI don't think that photographers can ever really be entirely objective. Unless the "photographer" is a security camera that shoots always and indiscriminately, the photographer is even if nothing else making the decision to shoot this, and not that. What untold stories are contained in the photographs that are never taken? We may never know.
DeleteI don't think that this is necessarily a bad thing, as long as we are willing to acknowledge this lack of objectivity. People love objectivity- we look for a supposed impartiality in our news, and have a passion for "just the facts." However, just as much as we love facts, we love human subjectivity, as long as the latter isn't confused for the former. By considering the fact that nothing will be objective in its presentation, we acknowledge the power that a subjective point of view provides. A documentary I shoot not only describes the culture that I am depicting, but my sociological positioning as a white, straight, American, &etc female. As long we are not pretending to be objective and without bias when we are not, I think objective and subjectivity are both valued.
Shaniqua, I personally feel that it is nearly impossible for a photographer to be objective. For candid photos the photographer still chooses what is or isn't worthy of taking a picture of and in planned photos the photographer chooses how to arrange the subjects in that photo. Although a photography may try to remove all biases, the choices made when taking a photo removes any objectivity.
ReplyDeleteChapter 2
ReplyDeleteHow important is "authenticity" in documentary? Is a film that uses deliberate editing to "forge a desired truth from the chaos of existence" (like the reflexive mode) less "real" than one which seeks to observe or allows the subject to help shape the narrative?
Why would a filmmaker choose to present a subject through a certain mode? What kinds of subjects or documentaries benefit from which kinds of storytelling modes?
Why is it important to understand the history of documentary film and/or the subject-filmmaker dynamic? Do you agree that the power imbalance between subject and filmmaker renders certain documentary modes (expository, observational) more problematic than other modes?
I think that that relationship between subject and filmmaker is partly what makes documentary so special, but I agree that it does at times become problematic. The observational mode claims to present subjects in an unaltered state: no interaction from the filmmakers. Which, obviously, is not possible, unless the subjects are being filmed without their knowledge and permission (and unless we're talking about, say, March of the Penguins, where the subjects are animals, this would be completely unethical), they know that the camera is there, and the camera is going to change their behavior. Maybe not a lot. Maybe not at all, save for the occasional nervous glance into the lens. But as we will never see the subject without the camera present (as the camera presence is all that allows us this opportunity in the first place), we can't know how much they are being affected. I don't think that these challenges necessarily invalidates this mode, but it's important to acknowledge these tricky areas, and account for them when possible.
DeleteI think that the importance of authenticity in a documentary depends on the viewers expectations. If the viewer expects that a documentary should present the hard cold facts then they would be upset knowing that it has been deliberately edited. Whether a film uses the reflexive mode or observational mode I feel that it is important for people to be critical viewers and understand that no matter the documentary it is showing a point of view.
ReplyDeleteSophia, I would agree with you on the authenticity depending on the viewers expectations. I think the more knowledge you have in the field the more authenticity you would expect. I think my expectations when watching a documentary is that their exist no true authenticity, so I have the expectation that I will not see 100% authenticity. I do agree with the class that it is from a certain point of view and we must understand that.
ReplyDelete