Each of the ten straight photographs at the beginning of the article is a depiction of real-life, white, tenant farmers in the rural South. The faces of people in the portraits suggest hard work, humility, and resilience and the scenes capture the tangible evidence of intense poverty. With the exception of the photograph of the little boy on the ground, the gazes of the people in the photographs are sharp, as if they are looking directly at the observer. The pictures can claim objectivity because they are not overly dramatic or seemingly scripted, but rather hint at a “day in the life of a tenant farming family” by capturing the personalities of each of its members. It is of no coincidence that this is precisely what the photographers/authors were given funding to do. Yet the authors nuance their purpose by saying, “The photographs are not illustrative” (30). In a sense, they are discrediting the objectivity that the photographs evoke. Walter Evan and James Agee warn the viewer/reader from assuming that their photographs capture the complex human emotions and situations of all white, tenant farmers and families. Furthermore, they are claiming that there is no agenda behind their work. The way I understand it, they are not saying “this is the way it is,” but rather, “this is the way we saw it.” They depend on the “anti-authoritative human consciousness” of the observer to decide the truth (30). The authors say, “If complications arise, that is because they are trying to deal with it not as journalists, sociologists, politicians, entertainers, humanitarians, priests, or artists, but seriously” (30). A sociologist would use the photographs to analyze a demographic group. The politician would use the pictures for propaganda to support his platform or make policy. All examples interpret the photographs as interpretive and attach a use value to their objectivity. But this is not the intention of the photographers/writers. They describe their purpose as an “independent inquiry into certain normal predicaments of human divinity” and admit that the collection is scattered and paradoxical (30). Each picture is a feeling, an attempt at knowledge, or a piece of information; they are not intended to document a truth. I feel as if the photographers/authors are humble and well intentioned people, but in their attempt at disaffiliating themselves from a bias or motive, they ignore the way in which all photography is a medium of artistic expression. I would have to agree with Alfred Stieglitz that even the most objective photographs are influenced by the subjectivity of the photographer.