I’ve carried on making examples of montage with the conservative manifesto using found images. The first element that I have noticed is because of having a source of unlimited images, the internet, it means that I can introduce elements that would not be possible if I was relying on my own images. Consequently I feel that I can achieve more than what I could before with the photomontage and I can begin to tackle subjects from a more political point of view.

Also during my reading I have come across the notion of antithesis and how this is used within languages. Antithesis is the difference between the objects depicted to make each object more obvious, so for example an apple next to an orange makes them both stand out because of their different colours. Graham Clarke in Photography makes the same point when talking about how we read a photograph. He says “Thus, what the image begins to reflect is that, like a language, its meanings work not through similarity but through difference” (Clarke, G. The Photograph, P29-30)

So, with the use of antithesis, using the difference between objects I can put unsuitable objects in the same frame and they will then contrast and the clash of definitions is what gives the photomontage its power. So, to have a mother and child playing with real gun whilst surrounded by alcohol and drugs clashes with the sense of the innocence of childhood and the security of traditional values. It then raises questions about how valid those values are and how valid those values are in todays world.

I’ve also stuck with turning the writing the other way around because I really do like the notion that it is sort of understandable and requires more effort to decipher. This I do think is a fair reflection because politicians do not always speak clearly and can often spout gibberish whilst making it sound important and understandable. Also, when the word Conservative is printed in a big font I've started changing the colour of the first three letters and then making the rest of the word black. This is having the effect to highlight the "con" in conservatives and seems to work well with the imagery.

I am also using the sign saying “Keep calm and carry on, we’re all in this together”. I like the way that it parodies and mocks the saying “we’re all in this together”, which the prime minister was very fond of saying. Another technique that I have also started using is to turn the original images into B&W. This started because the politician can be seen as being ‘grey’, meaning that their morals and standards sometimes lack conviction and will only follow a certain viewpoint if there is the chance of personal gain.

But one last point that I would like to make is that the montage does seem to be the voice of protest. I earlier searched the internet for right wing political photomontages and all I found were left wing parodies of right wing politicians. I then did a search for left wing photomontages and the results were really similar, that I found more examples of parodies of right wing policies or politicians. I know this isn’t a very scientific example, but I am coming to the opinion that the photomontage is mainly used as a left wing protest tool. This could be because it’s founder John Heartfield was a communist during the 1920s and 1930s in Germany, which was during the rise of Adolf Hitler. With this being the case, it raises the possibility that the photomontage was developed because of the situation and hasn’t shifted its allegiance because it fits the protest movement so well and so has become a tradition of the art form. The work produced by Peter Kennard would also support this notion, especially with the work he has done with CND.

With mentioning Peter Kennard he currently has an exhibition at the Imperial War Museum in London. So in 2 days time I am visiting London, primarily to see this exhibition and then I will probably visit the National Portrait Gallery and see the Taylor Wessing portrait prize.