Capture’s influence on typology and objectivity is a debated topic. Some lean to the side of “the camera cannot lie,” while others say that the camera “does not do justice” to its subject. To capture, one generally uses tools. The more complex these tools become, the more chance bias can appear inherently in the data secured. One can look at Kodak and Shirley Cards as an example of bias in even how a photograph represents its own capture. Furthermore, in the context of art or design, a typology displayed is the result of some curatorial decision. Even to show every photo, recording, or point captured is a value judgement about the data, which is subject to the bias of the curator. To say one captured some datum is to say that datum was processed through a series of filters logical and mechanical, which inherently changes the perception of the subject.
That’s not to say capture is not useful, or reliable. Many tools are predictable, and allow for scientific research. MRIs, X-Rays, thermostats, barometers and other capture tools reliably feed out similar enough data each iteration that we feel comfortable letting it inform our decisions.
In the context of typologies, there is a certain ego to curating a selection of data and proclaim one has discovered or identified some special category. Who is anyone to proclaim that someone is a hero, or that this is a house, while this is a home?