Strand and Hine would agree that the attempt by some to classify photography as purely objective is allusive. Not only is it incorrect, it stifles the potential of the medium and confines the photographer to an inferior artistic and social status. Strand says, “this objectivity is of the very essence of photography, its contribution and at the same time its limitation” (142). I admire the graceful way in which Strand complicates the ontology of photography. He claims that a photograph has an objective quality derived from its indexical abilities. A camera allows for a perfectly accurate depiction of something that is real, but as Strand says, there is “an intelligence and spirit channeling through a machine” (150). Long gone are the days where photographers assert themselves as proud scientists who claim intellectual status. Strand is suggesting, quite clearly, that the intentions of the photographer enhance the capabilities of the machine. He or she can claim artist status. The desires, beliefs, and motivations of the artist photographer are seen through their selection of subject matter, camera angle, positioning of light, development technique, etc. They camera only objectifies their subjectivity. Strand says, “It is in the organization of this objectivity that the photographer’s point of view towards life enters in” (142). Hine expands on the argument made by Strand and asserts that when photography is used for humanistic purposes, the “sympathetic photographer” (110) becomes a “social worker” (112)
and “Servant of the Common Good (110). Like Hine, he does not deny that the photograph is a reflection of the intent of the photographer. He describes (ok, maybe slightly romanticizes) these photographers as “men ready to give the loving pains of life to the faithful representing of commonplace things” and “men who see beauty in the commonplace things” (113). He plays upon the popular religious dictum, “Let there be light,” (112) to suggest that photography’s most progressive purpose is to shed literal and metaphorical light on current social situations and the real lives of people. Both Strand and Hine argue that by divorcing photography from its marriage to objectivity, the photographer is able to claim new roles as artists and agents of social progress. These photographers are no longer content with being understood as “appendages of the machine,” to use a Marxist phrase. And it’s about time! Objectivity sure sells the photographer short.