There is also a great contrast in the lighting. Firstly, between the light forearms and the rough shadows behind the arms. In this case, the arms seem to sparkle at every glance; it creates a grand effect where the gloomy background makes the two arms stand out incredibly.
Finally, the texture and even the tone had a great deal of contrast in the photograph. Again, there is evidence of a extremely rough background and very rugged working class hands. The rough puppeteer hands represent the government, you could say she uses the rough hands to symbolise masculinity, power and even toughness. Moreover, the other hand is similar, however, there are differences. It represents the citizens; it is feeble, strangled in wire and being controlled by the other hand, the ‘government’. To conclude, the textures play a key role in the development of the idea of power, as well as the contrast in lighting.
Tina Modotti grew up in an extremely marginalised and poor environment. The way the government didn’t help her family during their rough periods and suffocating them in to labour would have been one of the several reasons that influenced her. Equally important, her personal experiences of constant labour and hunger would have made her come to the conclusion of disliking the government. In my opinion, the way the government had no control over her dropping out of school and letting her go into child labour would have influenced her to produce works that comments on marginalisation in society, the depression and the repression of working class citizens.
The photograph symbolises the marginalisation of the working class. It shows how the government controls the working class’s every move and how it dictates there every step. It represents a government which bullies and manipulates its citizens and shoves them into a corner to suffocate, like the strangled hand in the photograph. It marginalises them for being different, as seen in ‘To kill a mockingbird’ with Tom Robinson, which in all cases is an extremely feeble thing to marginalise someone or thing over. We must understand and accept change, not abuse it.
I think it is an excellent photograph. Firstly, it is a clever metaphor, which insults the government and proves an essential point. The working class shouldn’t be dictated by a corrupt and nasty government. Moreover, the contrast between the light around the forearms and the rough, dull background seems to illuminate the arms, as if they were glowing in the moonlight. Finally, the rough texture on the hands and especially on the government’s one symbolises power, which in my opinion other than marginalisation is a mayor theme.
I could use some of her ideas in my piece of art work. At the moment I am producing collage that consists of lots of black and white photographs of feet. There is going to be a huge contrast between the central, poor, shabby looking foot and the rest, this will hopefully help to symbolise the marginalisation of the poor and the problem with unfairly distributed money. Firstly, I could have the middle foot (the disabled one) rapped in thick wire. It is being controlled by all the other feet, who are the puppeteers. They are the rich class so therefore, they marginalise the poor because of there lack of money and even freedom. The central foot’s fate is in the hands of all the other personalities (feet). Like Tina Modotti’s photograph, my piece of art would represent a metaphor, showing how the rich dictate and marginalise the poor. Similarly, how we spend money ad fuss over unnecessary items, for instance a pair on expensive Nike trainers or a pair of golden ear rings. On the other hand, the poor, inn most cases, can’t even afford education, or even health services, which is vital for our survival in life. In conclusion, this is what I would like my message to be, I would hopefully try a produce one similar through my piece of art work.
