The ties between artwork and the political beliefs of the Berlin Dadaists was strong, they hated expressionist art because it said nothing of the current social circumstances. Photomontage evolved directly out of Dadaism, allowing artists to comment on social and political problems. “For the Dadaists, photomontages mechanical, impersonal qualities offered a powerful antidote to what they considered expressionist self indulgence”2. So in a sense Photomontage came about as a weapon of social realism.
Dada artists quickly began using photomontage as a political weapon.
-
Dawn Ades Photomontage (London: Thames and Hudson, 1976), p11.
- Photomontage, David Evans and Sylvia Gohl p13
The most prominent of these was John Heartfield, who worked extensively with the German communist party. Heartfield is a good example of a political artist. He worked throughout his life on montages, most satirising German politics. He even changed his name to Heartfield as a form of protest. Here is an example of Heartfields early work depicting the First World War through montage. It is titled “After ten years: father and sons” It shows young cadets being led by a German general, with the skeletons of their dead fathers overlooking them. This gives a clear message that does not need explaining. Heartfield is warning of the dangers of another war, if Germany chooses the wrong leader. Germany’s current situation was that of political and social unrest, people wanted a military figure to lead the country.
In creating this image he has predicted history, as this becomes a reality fifteen years later. This is also an important image because it shows Heartfield moving away from dada and towards a more composed image. The image has three clear composites, taking up a specific area of the picture. Previous photomontages by Heartfield were much more erratic and Dada like, with lots of objects in a muddle together. This showed the potential for Photomontage in politics. “Dadaism went on to develop artists such as John Heartfield, who daringly took on the German political power in both World Wars.”3
So we have understood that Heartfield, originally a Dadaist moved onto photomontage as a means to express political opinions. This suggests that photomontage has important values that make it very useful in persuading people. Dada was erratic, and difficult to comprehend. With Photomontage Heartfield was able to speak to the masses with his work. “His works were political propaganda aimed at a wide public, not private works of art”4
Additionally it seems that photorealism plays a key part in the use of photomontage and its power. Even though the photographs are stitched together they still give the message in a clear and more reliable way than cartoons or paintings. “Although clearly symbolic, their effect is all the more powerful because they are real objects”5
This realism is key to the success of photomontage. It helped firstly to bring modern art and political critique to the masses and secondly it posed real views in photographic form. They were more serious than cartoons.
An artist that disobeys this idea is Hannah Hoch. While most of her work is abstract and very different to Heartfield, she still used her artwork for political reasons. Her own political beliefs of feminism come through in her work. An example would be Strong armed men (right).
3. Dada essay, www.artessay.com/levgrav/2359u59/40/dada5849-3584/0u0/
4. Dawn Ades Photomontage (London: Thames and Hudson, 1976), p13
5. Dawn Ades Photomontage (London: Thames and Hudson, 1976), p14
Although a subtle feminist piece, it shows idea’s of Dadaism and also of a theme regular in her pieces, that of men and women becoming one. This is a simple idea yet important. It conjures up ideas of a modern utopian society, something that was in many minds at this time. It also conveys an idea of social equality, something rarely discussed in 1920’s Europe. Photomontage has allowed her to express this idea of equality in a blunt way, the edges of the montage clearly visible. In fact with most montages this bluntness is perhaps a key factor in making the images interesting. The imperfections of the image make it much more interesting than carefully created montages. It makes photomontage look like a composition of thoughts that are pulled from the mind and pieced together on paper.
Hochs style is different from Heartfield, but important because it is putting forward an opinion through montage. It creates this opinion for the mass audience, to view. Additionally Hoch used montage to create aesthetically pleasing images, using colourful pictures cut from magazines.
These early users of Photomontage influenced artists such as Barbara Kruger, (right) who use photomontage in modern times to critique politics. In this picture Kruger has used a low quality picture of President Bush. This is reminiscent of the low quality pictures of 1920’s magazines and newspapers. The use of red bordered lettering is also taken from early montage work.
Krugers work shows the persuasive strength that photomontage has if used correctly. Her montages are carefully chosen, in this photo in particular line and composition are key. With the text above and below, you are forced to read the upper text first. By using black and white pictures and red text boxes Krugers work is bold and forceful.
Kruger is just one example of a modern artist that has been affected by the earlier photomontage era. Even though the era of photomontage was short-lived, it helped to create a source of art that is both aesthetically pleasing and politically motivating. Especially Heartfield, whose long-term abuse of the Nazi party showed how useful a political weapon photomontage could be. This picture by Heartfield shows Hitler with coins inside him. This almost scientific picture allows the reader to make his own assumptions. It also uses photography to give an air of realism and profundity that would not be accessible in a cartoon.
“By using an x-ray photograph he invites the viewer to see through the press image”6.
Photomontage did have its weaknesses, having associations in style to advertising means that photomontage political work can look too obtuse. That it is merely selling a simple idea to the masses, the masses could either take this idea or mock it. No one wants to be lectured to, so for a political montage to work it must leave enough for the viewer to assume, rather than forcing assumptions.
Photomontage is now part of our culture, it is inescapable. Wherever we turn we see images that have been put together to create an idea. Occasionally in the style of Kruger it re-appears in art form. Yet these artworks still nod towards the ideas of mass culture, such as billboards, advertising and propaganda. Because of this it is questionable whether a political photomontage in modern times can still induce political thought. Also, with the advent of modern computing photomontages are harder to spot, and are associated with deceptive photographs.
Photomontage has potential for political use, and this is clear from the work from post World War one Germany. The style of an artist such as Heartfield is faultless, the only weakness is that a single photograph can be more powerful than several montaged together. Documentary photography has superseded photomontage, and political photographs can be more persuasive because, they are pure realism.
- photomontage, David Evans and Sylvia Gohl, p26
Bibliography
Ades Dawn, Photomontage, Thames and Hudson, 1976
Baird Jay. W, The mythical world of Nazi war propaganda, University of Minnesota Press, 1974
Chomsky Noam, Propaganda and the public mind, South End Press, 2001
Dada essay, www.artessay.com/levgrav/2359u59/40/dada5849-3584/0u0/ Accessed 06/03/06
Evans David and Gohl Sylvia, Photomontage: a political weapon, Gordon Fraser London, 1986
Lasky Melvin. J, Utopia and revolution, Macmillan, 1976
Meecham Pam, Sheldon Julie, Modern art, a critical introduction, Routledge, 2000
Teitelbaum Matthew, Montage and Modern Life, MIT Press, 1992