If the pictures had some kind of aesthetic slant (with snow it would surely be about subtle tonalities, light and formal studies of drifts, etc), they wouldn't get it. They would need some understanding of the art of photography - which is an invention of western culture. An Inuit would read a photograph simply as a slightly beguiling illustration - meaning they might be able to identify a certain consistency of snow*, but the aesthetic appeal of the pictures would be lost on them. The art of photography isn't universal in that case.
*I read something about indigenous Africans being shown photographs of flies that carried diseases, but they couldn't identify them because the pictures were macro. They had never seen flies magnified before, so couldn't process what they were seeing. In many ways, you can't see what you haven't seen before. A photograph shows the world in two dimensions, so the information is distorted from the get go. Snow, in a photograph, especially if it's covering the entire frame, can appear abstract even to us.