Jacknis

It was interesting to see what Mead & Bateson planned to accomplish during their two year study in Bali. Like all recorded documents, it seems that, although carefully thought out, the two were unable to completely remove bias in their studies. In the conclusion, Meade and Bateson refer to “disciplined subjectivity,” and Meade goes on to talk about how “there is no such thing as an unbiased report … it is comparable to a color-blind man reporting on a sunset.” As two professionals in their field, the two went through great lengths to document honestly (not necessarily in an unbiased manner). They carefully noted photographs, whether they were posed, whether the observer was aware of the photographer’s presence, whether the event was a reenactment… I thought technology had a big role in this methodology, and the study would yield much different results if conducted today, rather than with World War I era technology. The essay mentioned certain events taking place during the day when traditionally they occurred at night, and how “three rolls of film” were used during one event. With complex night-vision cameras, modern unobtrusive lighting, image stability, and the ability to capture thousands of more images with each “roll” of film would definitely alter both their actions and the project’s results. Three films, as implied by the passage, was a lot for one event, and the crew had to call for more film. But what if the photographers could instead snap continuously, capturing the “in-between” scenes, and gathering background data that they otherwise could not afford to record?