In the context of this class, a capture is synonymous with a piece of data. It seems, then, that any collection of data could be considered a typology. For this reason I think it is inaccurate to consider “capture” a single medium–perhaps it generally categorizes the devices we use to make typologies, but I think the type of data itself should be considered the medium.
The article’s definition of objective seems to be “a recognizably real representation” of the world. By this definition, I don’t think many contemporary capture technologies create typologies that are necessarily recognizable nor representational> Especially in art, sometimes artists. but they are definitely real. This makes me realize it’s interesting to think about what is “objective” and what is real. Is reality the realness of objects in physical space? or of our eyes perceiving the signifier and our brains interpreting that as a signified? or of the schema we’ve learned to remember at the cognition of the object? Does an object have to be a physical thing or can it be a thought? There’s layers and layers of reality.
The question of reliability is a bit more complicated. I think it comes down to the purpose of the typology. If the data in the typology was created purely for measurement, then obviously it is reliable. This data exists only to describe, and they are generally predictable because they describe reality. But when capturing became an art and emotion and interpretation got thrown into the mix, art typologies could not simply exist; they commented, caused, and affected. A typology created for art has opinions of its own, and it shows the world through a filtered lens.