I can agree that the camera is not completely objective. Although it does capture the images and the moments objectively, the very presence of a camera can influence how people act. It may dampen people's actions or it may strengthen.
The questionable portion of this article is when the author describes the extent to which the camera is influencing the people. The author asserts that the Hauka people have learned to admire the camera.
"Europeans are not supposed to be afraid of anything. They don’t care, they break taboos, they do what they want, and I think that the Hauka represent the same behavior, which is very important: people who are afraid of nothing, people who don’t care." (58)
The author then asserts that the camera spurs the people to break their own taboos to slaughter the dog. The Hauka people are apparently conjuring up the camera as they would conjure a spirit. The camera is a part of the white colonial powers.
However, this analysis seems to be exceedingly objective. It doesn't seem to be possible to prove this assumption based on the evidence given. The author talks about the mimicking and duality between the Hauka people and the Camera people, but this too seems based on assumption and fact rather than empirical data. Are these assertions things that can be proved?
No comments:
Post a Comment