In this part he is making talking about how through reproducing the work of art it becomes removed from its original cultural context and then uses signs and symbols to re-establish its meaning and definition.

Back in the 19th century the art world was becoming increasing divorced from the real world, there was a chasm opening up between what art was representing and to how people related to it. There was a lack of realism, mainly in the high art genres such as history paintings, which failed to communicate to the average person. So when photography was invented, with its inherent sense of realism, it highlighted the chasm and helped, but did not create, the fundamental shift in the late 19th century and the creation of impressionism.

The point Burgin is making though is similar to this chasm. There is a gap between the reality of the photograph and the intended meaning of the photograph. He makes this point when he states:

Increasingly estranged from their social context by the process of democratisation, they suffered added displacement with the invention of photography and the harnessing of this innovation to the means of mass reproduction (P40)

He then moves onto to talk about using a visual language and having the ability to decipher a scene and the photographer having the ability to reconstruct a definition. He makes the observation that:

It seems to be extensively believed by photographers that meanings are to be found in the world much in the way that rabbits are found on the downs, and all that is required is the talent to spot them and the skill to shoot them (P40)

He is making the point that the photographer can use a set of common symbols and signs within the image for means of communication. However though, he also raises the issue that the removal of the image from its cultural heritage does remove the context of the image, and so affects the aura or its fetishist meaning. This is also supported by Walter Benjamin in The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.

He also sums up part 1 rather neatly when he suggests:

The point is: the basis of any ‘mood’ or ‘feeling’ these pictures might produce, such as any overt ‘message’ they might be though to transmit, depends not on something individual and mysterious but rather on our common knowledge of the typical representation of prevailing social facts and values; that is to say, on our knowledge of the way objects transmit and transform ideology, and the way ways in which photographs in their turn transform these. To appreciate such operations we must first lose any illusion about the neutrality of objects before the camera (P41)

I feel that he is partly right, photography does rely on our common knowledge through society and culture to manifest a visual language, but photography also relies on the way the image is taken by the photographer. If it did not then it would just be a matter of pressing a button because no personal interpretation of a scene would be required and consequently no individual style or authorship would exist.