In tonight’s lecture, as Professor Traub was speaking about his portrait photography and about how he had begun to interview the people he photographed, I immediately thought of Humans of New York, and how the projects seemed very similar. Later, someone brought this up, and I was surprised when he said yes, but Humans of New York isn’t a good photographer. This made me think, because a lot of what I have learned about art is that the value is what the viewer sees. What I might think is beautiful art is not what another person might find to be visually pleasing. However, it seemed that to this artist, there was a clear definition of what is good art and what is bad art (this is clearly his opinion). In high school literature classes, I often wanted to know what symbols the author meant to put in, what the author wanted us to get out of the story, and if she didn’t say, then what’s the point? I’ve since learned that there is a value as a reader in your own interpretation, regardless of what the author might have meant. Listening to Professor Traub tonight felt like listening to that author tell me exactly what I was supposed to get out of his work. It may be easy, but it leaves no room for creative thought.