Dave MaceyMA                     Photographer

Discuss the photomontages of Peter Kennard John Heartfield in relation to political subversion.

 

“Manipulation of the photograph is as old as photography itself” (Ades, P7, 1986) and yet the photomontage did not appear until the beginning of the 20th Century.  But when photomontage did appear it became clear that the strengths of the new art form could be used for propaganda and also political dissent.  Consequently the photomontage has established a tradition of rebellion, protest and dissent that has helped to define the new art form.

 

Photomontage has its roots firmly set in the Dada art movement at the beginning of the 20th Century, as it is claimed that the technique was initially created by John Heartfield and George Grosz, who were affiliated to Dadaist movement in Berlin.  Grosz, who is quoted by Richter, claims that “on a piece of cardboard we pasted a mismatch of advertisements for hernia belts, student song-books and dog food, labels from schnapps- and wine bottles, and photographs from the picture papers, cut up at will in such a way as to say, in pictures, what would of been banned by the censors if we said it in words.” (Richter, P117, 1964) Consequently, the photomontage was created to circumvent the censors, which means that there has always been an emphasis on subversion and protest within the art form. 

 

With this subversive element, it is possible to see the influence that Dadaism had on the new art form, as one of the defining elements of Dadaism is of refusing to conform or comply.  Richard Brettell, when discussing Dadaism states “if there is an anti-movement in the history of modern art, it is Dada.  Its name is nonsensical; its membership was shifting and unpredictable; and its aims had more to do with randomness, total freedom of expression, absurdity, and abandon than with the construction of a new aesthetic system for replication by other.” (Brettell, P42, 1999) This influence can be seen within the photomontage, with different objects from photographs cut out and then stuck together creates a sense of freedom that reality can be warped and manipulated in new ways. 

 

Also, the essence of the way the images within the photomontage are arranged shows the influence of collages and photomontage can be interpreted as a close relation to this art form.  The nature of taking an object out of its original context to be placed within another to form a different interpretation is influenced by the collage.  In the collages by Picasso he would often take one object and then change it to form a different object, thus altering its definition, but still referencing its origins and the photomontage works in a very similar way.  By creating the possibility to alter and manipulate the definition of the represented meaning by placing unconnected objects together, opens up a whole range of possible and differing outcomes. By having this flexibility, the Dada group in Berlin saw the potential to use photomontage as a vehicle for protest and as Mary Acton suggests “The meaning comes from the juxtaposition of ideas rather than a logically constructed and shaped argument” (Acton, P129, 2004)

 

But the difference between a collage and the photomontage is that the collage was used mainly for aesthetic reasons whereas the photomontage relied more on the juxtaposition of ideas and meanings.  By doing so there is a clear distinction between collage and photomontage, the collage uses a range of materials and relies more on aesthetics whereas the photomontage uses just one source, photography, but references different definitions.  Mary Acton also notes the difference when she states “One very important distinction needs to be made and that is between the use of collage for purely aesthetic meaning, as with the cubists, and collage used to communicate meaning; here you may sense echoes of the comparison we made between early modernism and Duchamp and Dada.” (Acton, P127, 2004)

 

By linking photomontage to dissent it was able to reflect the influences of Dadaism, that of anti-establishment rhetoric by linking prominent politicians of their time to themes that would avoid.  Also photomontage became prominent in the use of propaganda because of its ability to manipulate and produce a definition that suits a dissenting voice.  Acton also notes “This shows the use of collage composition for political propaganda through the juxtaposition of photographic images.  The theory behind photomontage is also interesting in that the photograph started to be recognised as a means not just of recording the visible world, but to communicate meaning” (Acton, P127, 2004)

 

Propaganda exists to manipulate public opinion either favourably or negatively and is often seen as a tool for controlling public opinion.  The regime of the Nazis was particularly keen to use propaganda to further its own destructive ends and Hitler can see the benefit of propaganda when he states “The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses’ attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision.  The whole art consists in doing this so skilfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real.” (Hitler, 1943, P164)

 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

By looking at the photomontage The Meaning of the Hitler Salute (fig1) we can see various elements at work.  This is a montage of Hitler being dwarfed by an anonymous industrialist behind him, placing money in Hitler’s hand whilst making his salute.  The text at the bottom reads “little man asks for big gifts” and the smaller text between Hitler and the anonymous figure says “Millions stand behind me!”. 

 

The most striking element to this montage is the relationship between Hitler and the industrialist standing behind him.  Because of the difference in size there is the suggestion that the relationship is uneven and the bigger figure is more dominant.  Then there is the gesture of handing money to Hitler, which then raises the issues of control, bribery and manipulation. When you consider that when this montage was produced Hitler was the most powerful man in Germany, the element of subversion is used to good effect.  Basically it is asserting that Hitler is being paid to look after the interests of the industrialists, which then suggests that he is ignoring the interests of the populace.

 

With the picture of Hitler itself he looks far from being powerful and fierce, but more middle aged and tired.  There are bags under his eyes, a slight double chin and the mouth is downturned, suggesting that he is past his prime and that his vigour and energy are spent.  This portrait of Hitler suits the montage perfectly and compliments the sentiment that he is not in control, but is instead being controlled by the industrialists. 

 

Then we have the shadowy figure towering over Hitler.  He is well dressed, he is wearing a suit which suggests wealth, and also looks overweight.  He is handing over a substantial amount of money and so suggests the connection between money and corruption and as his face is not visible the impression of anonymity and secretiveness is raised.  He appears to be a stereotype of the business man because of those signs and with his size dominating the size of Hitler then suggests that Hitler is being bribed and coerced into performing the will of the industrialist.  

 

Moving onto the text we can see that it supports this notion.  As Barthes noted when discussing the relationship between image and text, that the text “helps me to choose the correct level of perception, permits me to focus not simply my gaze but also my understanding.  When it comes to the ‘symbolic message’, the linguistic message no longer guides identification but interpretation.” (Barthes, P39, 1977).  The title The Meaning of the Hitler Salute reinforces the interpretation that there is a connection between Hitler’s political power and the industrialist’s money.  The explicitness of this action is made even stronger by the title, which supports the secretiveness that is associated with bribery and coercion.   Then there is the text at the bottom, “little man asks for big gifts” emphasises both the nature of the relationship between Hitler and the industrialist, where the industrialist dominates, and then also further reinforces the connection with bribery.  The last piece of text, placed directly between the two figures, says “Motto: Millions stand behind me” doesn’t reference military power or the support of the nation, but rather the millions it refers to is a monetary value.  Again it reaffirms the opinion that Hitler is motivated by greed rather than social justice.  By using this text, the montage is firmly anchored around the belief that Hitler is corrupt and cannot be trusted because his decisions are based on the demands of the industrialists rather than the good of society as a whole. 

 

With this montage we can also see how creative and imaginative John Heartfield was.  By using photomontage imaginatively, he was able to take elements and combine them to make an image that produced a message he desired.  The political message he wanted to deliver was about state corruption and opposes what was a fascist regime, but also reinforces the notion of the photomontage being the voice of protest and demonstrated how suitable this art form is when it comes to opposition.  This gave further reinforcement to what was emerging as a tradition within photomontage, that it was becoming the voice for the protest movement because it was possible to create narratives within the imagery that could not normally be expressed.  There is no possibility of ever photographing Hitler being bribed, but it could be expressed by the use of a photomontage and because of the veracity of the photograph, it adds a level of realism to the final image that could not be equalled by drawing or painting. 

 

Consequently, this is where the power of the photomontage lies, it can create narratives that have a high level of realism, and even though the final image is a fictional construction, and the viewer knows it is fictional, the message that is transmitted appears stronger. 

 

The element of dissent can also be seen within the work of Peter Kennard.  Nearly all of his photomontages are rooted in left wing ideology concentrating on issues such as poverty and attacking the arms trade.  He has had a long association with CND and the peace movement, and through his images challenges the narrative of peace gained through military might.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

the promotion of the impression of an uncomplicated life, of where there is never any trouble.  As Kaufmann states “he portrayed his native Suffolk and one or two other areas in a manner both more naturalistic than that of any of his predecessors and yet imbued with a deeply Romantic spirit.” (Kauffman http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/s/constables-studies-for-the-hay-wain/) 

 

This narrative is then juxtaposed by the insertion of the cruise missiles.  The missiles represent the nature of modern warfare and are symbols of death and destruction, which contrast strongly with the setting of The Haywain. By including the two together, the final message is one of the romantic vision of England is under threat by the weapons of mass destruction.  But it also suggests that the traditional view of England and the romanticised notions are also threatened by the insertion of these weapons.  This is quite poignant because when this image was made there was protests at Greenham Common against nuclear weapons on the British mainland.  Then there is also the notion of the missiles being from America, the creators of the Cruise Missile, and so then also taps into the anti American sentiment that Britain’s defence was being controlled more by Washington than from London. 

 

But by combining these two images Kennard has maintained the tradition of photomontage being used as a vehicle of protest, which reflects the initial inspiration for the creation of photomontage.  Because of the roots of photomontage being embedded in the Dada art movement, which was full of rebellion and anarchy to the point of it being considered an anti-art art movement, a contradiction in itself.  But it is also this heritage that pushes photomontage into being considered as being left wing activism rather than being balanced between the two political spectrums. 

 

So by comparing these two artists, Heartfield and Kennard, we can see how the photomontage has become a vehicle for the protest movement as political dissent has become one of the traditions of the art form and helps to define it.  By being able to create narratives that are believable it has been used in propaganda by different organisations to help promote its own message in a way that makes the message easy to understand.  It can, and often is combined with text, to anchor the definition created, which then strengthens the message, and is usually aimed at triggering an emotional response rather than an intellectual reaction. 

 

Photomontage has proved and is still proving, to be a flexible and malleable art form that can be used to good effect, but with its connections to propaganda and protest movements, also shows that it needs to be treated with an attitude scepticism rather than blind devotion.  

 

 

Bibliography:

 

Kauffman. C.M, (1976) http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/s/constables-studies-for-the-hay-wain/ accessed 27 March 2016

 

Hitler. A, (1943) Mein Kampf (Translated by Ralph Manheim), Pimlico, London

 

Welch. D, (2013) Propaganda Power and Persuasion, The British Library, London

 

Brettell, R. (1999) Modern Art 1851-1929 Oxford University Press, Oxford

 

Richter, H. (1964) Dada art and anti art, Thames and Hudson, London

 

Acton. M (2004) Learning to look at modern art, routledge, London

 

Barthes. R (1977) Image Music Text Fontana Press, London

 

Ades. D (1986) Photomontage Thames and Hudson Ltd, London