The social definition of photography by Pierre Bourdieu

This essay from Bourdieu's book (Bourdieu, 1990) is not easy reading - the quotation we are asked to comment on as a project is a good example of Bourdieu's sometimes contorted writing, not helped by a tendency to repeat words in the same sentence, as in this example:

 "How, under these conditions, could the representation of society be anything other than the representation of a represented society." (Bourdieu's emphasis).

Bourdieu readily switches from anecdote to philosophy to semiotics and back to anecdote; there is a lack of precision. His writing, intentionally or otherwise, is class based and clumsily patronising in places:

"Without a doubt, photography (and colour photography especially) entirely fulfils the aesthetic expectations of the working classes." (Why colour photography especially - is Bourdieu suggesting that it provides a differentiator or that somehow colour image more closely resembles high art that the working classes can only aspire to understanding?)

"...the taking of photographs always provokes a certain unease, especially among peasants, who are most often condemned to internalize the pejorative image that the members of other groups have of them...."

It is important in this context to understand that Bourdieu was writing about the practice of photography as a sociological study. He noted and tried to rationalise that photography was a pursuit of the masses. Perhaps the clue is in the title of the book from which this chapter is taken: Photography: a Middlebrow Art".  In other writings beyond the reach of this analysis he set out how classes distinguish themselves from one another, often by having interests that are difficult for others to imitate (note 1).

Bourdieu discusses photographic portraiture at length, particularly that there is an aesthetic, a series of norms in the practice. This is more useful analysis, as it does help distinguish the amateur photograph that at best might be seen as art almost be accident, from a more specific attempt to use the medium as an artistic pursuit. He acknowledges that photography is not just a means of capturing reality, but is "only ever the result of an arbitrary selection." He has to acknowledge that there is no genuine objectivity in the medium else his premise that there are class differences in the way photography is used and viewed can have no basis.

Bourdieu tackles the issue of how practitioners and viewers of the "Middlebrow Art" consider the dialectic between photography as merely reproducing interesting and beautiful objects or scenes, and as an art form. The former is what he terms the 'barbarous taste': that which "bases appreciation on informative, tangible or moral interest" in images and rejects any kind of symbolism or appreciation of the how. Interestingly, this is a very similar argument to that of Fry discussed in the chapter on Form in Howells and Negreiros, albeit he considered that it was traditional art as viewed by the upper classes that aimed for ever higher levels of realism, whereas the democratisation of art would  lead to viewers considering works of art as an expression of imaginative life rather than a copy of actual life (Howells and Negreiros, 2012).

The heirarchy of legitimacies

Bourdieu continues in his condescending tones towards the working classes:

"...deprived by definition of the norms of good taste, the working classes always seek objective principles which are the only things capable, in their eyes, of forming the basis of an adequate judgement, and which can only be acquired by a specific or broad education."

Photography is in Bourdieu's view more favourable to the working classes because the 'popular aesthetic' can be grasped more easily and viewers are less likely to demonstrate ignorance of "consecrated norms and obligatory opinions."

Bourdieu argues that different cultural meanings have non equivalence in dignity and value; there is a gradation of what he calls "cultural legitimacy". At one end of the spectrum are the consumer pursuits (Bourdieu quotes jazz, cinema and photography as examples; at the other are works of more scholarly nature: sculpture, painting, theatre are examples. The latter are in a "sphere of legitimacy", the former in a "sphere of the legitimizable". (There is a tacit implication in Bourdieu's thesis here that photography and the like could become fully consecrated arts). He identifies also the "sphere of the arbitrary" including cookery, decoration, sporting occasions. 

Despite the patronising overtones of Bourdieu's thesis, he does have a point that there are cultural differences between the pursuits of different sections of society. We tend to talk less theses days of different classes as there is more fluidity within society but it is true that the middle classes are not seen often at Bingo or Wrestling or greyhound meets; the working classes tend not to frequent theatre or opera or art galleries. We just tend to take these things for granted; perhaps it is too difficult or not politically correct to consider them. 

Bourdieu tackles too the uneasy relationship photography has with the "consecrated arts". He argues that attempts to  legitimatize art are bound to fail because they cannot counteract what he calls the 'social key to photography', i.e. it is not viewed by the interested parties as a legitimate artistic pursuit, ergo it is not. What he fails to point out is that this may change: fashions change among the cognoscenti of the art world, and society changes too such that cultural pursuits that were once the preserve of certain sections of society take on a wider appeal. Football is a good example as it is now de rigeur for anyone to claim support for a team, even 20 years ago it was viewed as more of a lower class sport to follow.
 

Note 1: This argument has resonance also with academic studies of media and related subjects. I mention above how intense and unintelligible parts of this text are, and set out similar thoughts in Part 1 about the writings of Althusser. There is, one feels, an academic insecurity that somehow leads to the use of obfuscatory language to explain a relatively simple concept in order to give the impression that the concept itself is more profound and important than perhaps it is.

References:

Bourdieu (1990) Photography: a Middlebrow Art (Polity Press) pp73-98

Howells and Negreiros (2012) Visual Culture. Revised 2^nd ed. Cambridge: Polity Press