Generative AI and the Transformation of Elite Valuations in Photography

Abstract This study examines how mainstream English-language newspapers evaluated entries in AI photography competitions compared to those in traditional photography competitions between 2015 and 2025. Drawing on Bourdieu’s field theory, symbolic capital and boundary construction, the study treats photography competitions as institutional fields where legitimacy is publicly negotiated and views newspapers as cultural intermediaries that translate these negotiations into broader public discourse. Employing a comparative longitudinal qualitative content analysis approach, the study analyzed three corpora constructed using Factiva, comprising traditional competitions, AI competitions, and AI rule controversies, to examine shifts in the evaluation criteria, tone, and timing of newspaper coverage. In traditional competition coverage, newspapers primarily evaluate entries based on established criteria such as technical quality, composition, impact, and social significance. However, in AI-related reporting, the focus shifts to the authorship, information disclosure, fairness, category relevance, authenticity, and public trust. The tone of the reports also varies across different corpora: traditional reports are mostly neutral or supportive, while those in the AI field tend to be more skeptical. Later, as the debate intensified, reports increasingly focused on procedural issues, emphasizing rule changes, disclosure requirements, and institutional oversight. Eventually, the evaluative paradigm shifted from photographic quality to boundary conflicts and formal governance.