phy, although it is often difficult to bracket his images in
just one of these categories. He married Princess Mar-
garet in 1960, the first commoner to marry into Queen
Elizabeth II’s family. He has published numerous books
and has exhibited frequently. A major retrospective of
his photographs was held in London in 2000 and New
Haven in 2001.Further Reading
Beyfus, Drusilla.Photographs by Snowdon: A Retropective.
London: National Portrait Gallery, 2000.
Cathcart, Helen.Lord Snowdon. London: W.H. Allen,
1968.
Glenton, Robert.Once Upon A Time: The Story of Anthony
Armstrong Jones. London: Anthony Blond, 1960.
Harrison, Martin.Appearances 1945–. London: Cape, 1991.
Snowdon.Assignments. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson,
1972.
Snowdon. Sittings 1979–1983. London: Weidenfeld &
Nicolson, 1983.
Snowdon.Snowdon on Stage. New York: Rizzoli, 1996.
SOCIAL REPRESENTATION
One of the most elusive concepts in the study of
photography, social representation not only de-
fines a particular photographic practice or subject
matter, its terminological ambiguity also gives rise
to a cluster of questions that point to core issues
concerning the nature and power of photography.
Strictly speaking, all photographs depicting people
and their environment should qualify as examples
of social representation,but the term is most often
reserved for portrayals of various social groupings
(e.g., Amerindians, women, Rastafarians, teenage
parents, barbers, inhabitants of the area around
Tokyo’s Chuo Park), which attempt to provide
insights into the everyday lives of these commu-
nities. More often still, and somewhat problemati-
cally, given the tenuous equation of concepts, the
term refers specifically to photographic portraits of
groups on the economic or political margins of
mainstream society.
The whole concept of social representation—the
idea that looking at photographs will afford the
viewer some ‘‘truthful’’ or authentic glimpse of
the subjects’ lives or values—is firmly rooted in nine-
teenth-century notions of photography’s evidential
character. Even today, with general sophistication
concerning the final print’s possible manipulations
or the camera’s perspectival restraints immensely
increased and many modern techniques (e.g., digital
or infrared photography, X-rays) attenuating the
idea of resemblance, the photograph is still accepted
as having a special, and especially trustworthy, rela-
tion to reality. It is impossible to overemphasize the
constructed nature of all representation—someone is
always depicting someone else for a particular pur-
pose with a specific audience in mind—but precisely
because representation constructs rather than re-
flects a reality, and because of photography’s unique
status in the public imagination, images of people
have profound political significance. How photo-
graphs portray a certain group may determine how
others view and treat its members in daily life; it may
also influence the way the group sees and defines
itself. Forever showing poor people exclusively in
situations that connote victimhood—squalid, over-Snowdon (Anthony Armstrong-Jones), Princess Diana
Holding Her Newborn Prince William.
[#Bettman/CORBIS]SOCIAL REPRESENTATION