Ethnography begs the begs the question, can we ever approach objectivity? And if not, are subjective observations still of worth? Even something as simple as what the ethnographer pays attention to– even ignoring their preconceived ideas about the things they see– completely changes the tone and content of a report. But does it change the validity? With this in mind, I present my own field notes regarding our trip to the High Line. I’m sure my bias will quickly become apparent.

Chelsea Market serves as a contrast. The patrons there are well groomed, their attire is of the latest styles but not out of place, their hand bags are designer, and they are mostly young (early 30s, late 20s) and white. There are more men milling near the entrance, bearded and looking at their smart phones. The shop keepers all appear to be middle class, with soft hands, and a frantic look to them as they try to keep up. The cashier in the bookstore appears to also be the owner, and looks around with disdain at the clientele.

Directly outside, moving down 16th street and along the outside of Chelsea markets, the population drastically shifts. An odd mall patron hangs outside on his phone, but for the most part those on the street are service men, mostly older and of color. They load boxes to the garage looking sections on the Chelsea Market building. They never stand still or loiter like the other men. A single girl, about twenty, runs ahead down the street without a coat.

On the high line, at 14th street, British tourists around 50-65 years of age take a U-turn. They are together, a couple man and female, presumably married, and well bundled for the weather. Big coats, hats, presumably due to the bitter cold. The wife says, “Well, that’s the meatpacking industry over there,” walking towards the staircase back down which prompts the 180 back towards 15th street. There is a guidebook in her hands.

The air is brisk. It’s overcast. 2:15pm. Windy. The general population is well bundled, with some combination of hats and coats and scarves on each of them. The weather seems to affected the public. The seating area at W 17th St is roped off due to hazardous conditions, and the benches are empty. The cold and wind keeps smell away. No one eats.

The buildings surrounding the highline are a mixture of well up-kept older brownstones, re-purposed as restaurants or the like, and modern glass structures with advanced architectural forms. The glass buildings did not appear to be constructed with simple efficiency and utility and mind. They themselves were art.

A man, middle aged, from Brussels, Germany, edged close to this ethnographer as she took the first picture above. When she stepped out of the way, she was able to start up a conversation by asking what he was taking a picture of. It was of the billboard below:

He noted that you didn’t often see nudity like that in America, and that it was even odder to see it with a turtle. A discussion of nudity and sexualization in American media led to a full conversation. At this point, ethnographer Daniel requested to record the conversation, and this ethnographer quickly explained that it was for a class project. They were in a group of four, the original man and his partner Caroline, who was originally from Paris. Terry, a man of comparable age, who was also from Paris. And Luka, a photography student in college of about 20 years of age. They were all happy to talk, even grabbing the cell phone being used to record so that the audio would be clear. They took turns speaking for the most part, explaining pieces of their jobs. Luka was shy and hovered outside the group for the most part. He later confessed his English was bad and I was talking too fast for him. The adults all mentioned that they were in Paris for the bombings, but only as it pertained to their timeline. Caroline worked with an artist and they were all in NYC for his opening in MOMA. As of right now, the artist is known to us as working heavily in mixed media, but no other information is available.

Unfortunately, the audio file is inaccessible as of time of publication, and few notes exist detailing this conversation because it was assumed the audio file contained all the information necessary.

Here we question: what is better– collecting more in-depth information on a smaller population, or collecting a wider range of information on a larger population? What do we do when time is limited? What do we note when attention is limited? Is some data more valid than others?