I had a hard time deciphering the writers definition of the term “non-human” photography. Is “non-human” referring to the subject matter? Does “non-human” have something to do with the mode of capture? Wasn’t sure about this.
From a very simple standpoint a “non-human” thing is something that is not human – so the photographic equipment, the computers for processing the captured data, the helicopter carrying the camera equipment, etc. The text implies that as technology advances the process of imaging becomes more dominated by these “non-human” elements, in some ways contemporary photography is less human. But photography has always been in defined by the image creators relationship to some technology. The writer suggest’s that the new technologies for capture are intensifying and changing the photographers relationship to the technology.
The most compelling implications of the text was the idea that photographers have always been inventors, and in many ways experimental capture is not a new pursuit, rather the world of experimental capture is just expanding as we’re presented with new technologies.