ABSTRACT
The problem of being able to distinguish between a ‘working-class’ or a ‘middle-class’ photographer doesn’t seem to us to be of primary importance. Rather, it might be useful to ask how their photographs are decoded and used by various audiences. What we mean by this will become clearer when we have looked at some of the problems involved in producing and using images. The argument that photographers should decide whether to spend their time taking photographs or going into politics is confusing. We believe that photographers are already in politics. This is because the images we make carry ideological messages which, cumulatively, help to shape people’s ideas, values and attitudes. If we are shown enough pictures of women’s bodies, or packets of Daz, then we could probably conclude that society has a value for such imagery. Equally, if we don’t see certain aspects of society then we could conclude that their omission (if we even notice it) is because they are of no importance. In this respect photographers cannot be anything but political. What Roger Mayne really seems to be asking is ‘What is the class nature of a photograph?’1 As this
is so often forgotten or glossed over today, it is this particular question to which we would like to address ourselves.
