In their article “The Image of Objectivity” Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison examine in detail the images in scientific atlases from the late 19th to early 20th century. Their examination shows two trends. The first one is, the issues connected with the subjective representation of the images that concerned scientists in the 19th century. With several examples, Daston and Galison, show how different scientists dealt with artists who painted the images for their atlases and how the scientists tried to minimize the subjective artistic input. Simultaneously, the article also shows the birth of objectivism from 18th to the 20th century.
When it came to images in their atlases, the main goal scientists had in the late 19th century, was the idea that the images had to be “true to nature.” Scientists wanted to show “typical” images of human bodies or floral species, but scientists had different interpretation of “truth.” During that time there were two dominant ways to show images in scientific atlases – the ideal way and the characteristic way. The ideal way was to portray images that were the perfect representation of the body or organ they wanted to show. Here comes the paradox. The ideal image portrayed, excluded any peculiarity that exists in reality, meaning this image may not exists in real life, even though they claimed it was “true to nature.” So, to show the perfect or ideal body, organ or species the scientists judged and interpreted what was to be included or excluded from their representation of nature. The second approach, the characteristic one, illustrated images that were combination of ideal image and the actual state of the body or the organ they were showing.
The invention of the analog camera and picture taking changed how scientists view the subject of objectivity. The presence of the camera in society rendered all images that were painted by an artist to be called a depiction. Since the camera was a mechanical instrument, scientists viewed the images generated by the new apparatus as more objective, or mechanically objective to be precise. The reasons were few. The first one was the camera can take many identical pictures, so it was a model of standardization. Second, the camera did not interpret the images, it just took them. So, the camera was seen as instrument of authenticity. And third, the camera was present at all times, but it took pictures only when the scientists operated with it, thus the camera was sees as silent observer. To summarize, the images taken with the camera were not only seen as more honest than artistically produced images, but they were seen as mechanically objective, because humans were not involved in re-producing them.
But the camera did not end the objectivity debate because, as it was observed, the images taken by the new technology varied based on few factors. The variation of the images depended on the location of the camera, the x-ray tube or the object. Further, it was noticed that the images taken with the camera might not include all the details presented in the object. By late 19th century, the mechanically taken images changed the burden of objectivity to the reader of the image. This new direction of objectivism was marked by the self-control of the scientists. Meaning, the scientists were trying to manage their own prejudices, but at the same time they were not afraid of moral judgment against their piers. This process grew to a complete mechanical representation of all the body parts and species by the mid 20th century. The images were showing all the imperfections characteristic for the specific object that was photographed.
This shift in objectivism shows the different moral approaches of the time. The scientists from the “truth to nature” period were trying to show the perfect or the ideal image of nature, even though that image may not exist in real life. While the scientists from the period characterized by mechanical
objectivity were required to show what was exact, specific and characteristic of the object they will photographing. Thus, by using mechanical instruments they were showing the real world.
The invention of the analog camera and picture taking changed how scientists view the subject of objectivity. The presence of the camera in society rendered all images that were painted by an artist to be called a depiction. Since the camera was a mechanical instrument, scientists viewed the images generated by the new apparatus as more objective, or mechanically objective to be precise. The reasons were few. The first one was the camera can take many identical pictures, so it was a model of standardization. Second, the camera did not interpret the images, it just took them. So, the camera was seen as instrument of authenticity. And third, the camera was present at all times, but it took pictures only when the scientists operated with it, thus the camera was sees as silent observer. To summarize, the images taken with the camera were not only seen as more honest than artistically produced images, but they were seen as mechanically objective, because humans were not involved in re-producing them.
But the camera did not end the objectivity debate because, as it was observed, the images taken by the new technology varied based on few factors. The variation of the images depended on the location of the camera, the x-ray tube or the object. Further, it was noticed that the images taken with the camera might not include all the details presented in the object. By late 19th century, the mechanically taken images changed the burden of objectivity to the reader of the image. This new direction of objectivism was marked by the self-control of the scientists. Meaning, the scientists were trying to manage their own prejudices, but at the same time they were not afraid of moral judgment against their piers. This process grew to a complete mechanical representation of all the body parts and species by the mid 20th century. The images were showing all the imperfections characteristic for the specific object that was photographed.
This shift in objectivism shows the different moral approaches of the time. The scientists from the “truth to nature” period were trying to show the perfect or the ideal image of nature, even though that image may not exist in real life. While the scientists from the period characterized by mechanical
objectivity were required to show what was exact, specific and characteristic of the object they will photographing. Thus, by using mechanical instruments they were showing the real world.
RSS Feed