|
|
1.3 AppropriationsAppropriation has developed a somewhat specialized meaning in discussions of modern art: it means to place an object or image in a context with which it is not conventionally associated intending thereby to unsettle our normal expectations and lines of interpretation. One source of such practices was Marcel Duchamp's parade of "ready mades" (urinals, metal bottle racks, bicycle wheels mounted on stools) exhibited as art so as to place High Art in question. No text is involved in these cases, just the common objects and the gallery context, and the practice was oppositional in the sense that High Art could not see such objects as significant or beautiful shapes. A second source is political cartooning, in which the texts of politicians are parodically illustrated with the sense of "what this really means is ..." or "what will happen is this..." |
|
The "will be" is an important distinction, however, since Heartfield's special technique of what we might call photo-caricature makes no use of the convention of the truth-telling image that exposes lies and impostures of political slogans and promotional fliers. Jefferson Hunter traces this convention in American social documentary photo-essays of the 1930s by Dorothea Lange, Laurence Stallings, Frederick Barber, Margaret Bourke-White, and Archibald MacLeish. This polemical use of photography subsided during and after the second World War, but was taken up again by the new radicals of the 1970s such as David Plowden and Victor Burgin. Burgin varies the convention in a number of interesting ways. |
|
|
I am not sure how readily the image would make sense with no context, but in a collection of pictures that deal with the contradiction between manipulative, obfuscating culture (ideology) and real material conditions (Burgin's Between), it is not hard to see this picture as an exposure of the racist overtones of pale=beautiful. That is, we have ordinary people waiting for a bus on a nondescript street corner in modern Britain, among whom the camera's gaze falls on a woman who is distinctly not pale and who does not qualify as one of the targeted audience of the fashion magazine spiel. Another well-known image from this series combines a text celebrating a recent Yves St. Laurent collection as "a ramble through Eastern Europe" with a picture of an Indian woman technician working on some sort of electronic switching array. |
Figure 1.29 |
In this his perhaps most famous piece from these
series, Burgin reverses the formula to make the
image one drawn from commercial advertising and
the correcting context a verbal one, but
integrating the text as if it properly
accompanied the image in an advert.
"Possession"was done at the time of an exhibit of
contemporary artists in Newcastle. The Arts
Council asked for some publicity posters, and
Burgin responded with "Possession" 200 copies of
which were pasted up
on the streets of Newcastle. Photographs, as noted, do not lend themselves to typification very well, and on the whole, Burgin uses his camera to capture bits of the material world as touchstones to rub against various fine languages such as fashion, tract developer talk, and English country home real estate puffery. That is, the formula is what Hunter calls "Smug Texts and Truth-telling Pictures" (Hunter, 17). Burgin's images evoke documentary: they are black and white, most appear unposed and taken with either daylight or available light, making them sometimes grainy and high-contrast. The exception is "Possession," which is obviously posed in studio with professional models and lighting. Rather more complicatedly, Burgin also evokes other languages more agreeable to his general politics but also recognizably abstract, theoretical, dogmatic and self-righteous, namely the languages of Left sociology, feminism, fetishism (commodity and otherwise), and psychoanalysis. These he also puts to the test. And too, some of the texts are snatches of narrative, even dialogue, but what all of these texts have in common is that the photographs that accompany them do not illustrate the texts in any conventionally direct way. And the texts are chunks of discourses floating out there in the heteroglossic soup. The juxtapositions are rarely so directly oppositional as the upending of glamorous consumerism by the inequity of property ownership in Britain. |
|
|
This image pushes toward the unstable group, since it would be fairly easy to turn on the text and reinterpret it in the light of the picture—"Oh yeah? Well at least I don't have to listen to you, Professor!" |
|
|
The actual image on the subway wall is also idealized image —one the the great commercial icons of all time—but there is no viewer to look at it (other than us). It is economical to see a parallelism between text and image, provided we step into the position parallel to the woman customer. We are not told what the woman was thinking or feeling, and we too are left to our own thoughts, which may turn more in the direction of self-examination than socio-political critique. |
|
|
There are quite a number of other pairings in these series from 1976-78 that set off text against image in ways that are comic or oblique in the sense that there must be some third term or context not accessible to the viewer that links image and text. When the relation becomes undecidable, we have left appropriation and entered the region of the unstable, which is dealt with in the next section. |
![]() Figure 1.32 |
The image by David Plowden at the left appears in his Hand of Man (1971) collection and again in his retrospective Imprints (1997). On the facing page appears Emma Lazarus' famous "Give me your tired, your poor" sonnet. Jefferson Hunter reads this combination in relation to another in the book and concludes that they all can be ranged under the rubric of 'Glorious things we say/Crummy things we do' (not Hunter's words). And he notes that slaps upside the head like that grow less effective as they grow more frequent: "It is all too easy to turn language into a slogan and to replace argument with clashing juxtapositions" (18). Though it is hard to believe Jefferson's comments had much to do with it, Plowden dropped all ironic captioning in his retrospective collection Imprints (1997) which includes this and a good number of other, formerly captioned ones. More likely, as with McCullin, over time the photograph and how it may resonate are more important and more special than the slogans and self-righteous superiority of exposing the lies and the hypocrisy. The example is complicated by the image itself exhibiting what film theorists call "montage within a frame (or shot)" of the "collision of ideas" type, where the two things to be read as contrasting occur not in a sequence of frames but within the single frame. So there is "contradiction" within the image and between the image and the poem. Most likely we have a truth-telling image played off against corrupted words, but what truth does the image tell? That there are dumps in Jersey City from which you can see the Statue of Liberty? It is good for the image that it appears without Emma Lazarus's sonnet, because the sonnet, speaking as the Statue, suggests that the Statue and the American promise she represents has been somehow abandoned, forgotten, dishonored, betrayed or travestied, with the photograph as evidence. As an argument, that is very weak: dumps are not betrayls of the American promise. Reading it that way is not only reductive, but specious as well. For within-the-frame montage to convey a contradiction ("collision of opposites," dialectic) the viewer needs to be primed by context, unmistakeable symbols, or overt polemic (Heartfield's Nazi bayonet through the dove of peace--although that also changed over time). If the contradiction is not obvious and familiar, the combination results in a looser, more evocative trigger for reflection. 11 In a textbook example of collision-montage within the frame, Herbert Zettl says of an image of the heads of an old woman and infant that it emphasizes the impermanence of man, but, absent any supporting context, it could as well emphasize the renewal and transmission of enthusiasm for life (320). |
![]() Figure 1.33 |
"2-3-4-D: Digital Revisions in Time and Space" is a set of image installations by Esther Parada that deal with the texts of colonialism and photographs of monuments and of contemporary life in Havana, Cuba. The typical installation has several panels with the earlier ones displaying components of the final large image. In the image "Native Fruits" (1991-2), two texts appropriated from the 1892 Columbus and Columbia: A Pictorial History of the Man and the Nation are placed around and over a composite image of Havana street life. Also superimposed over the street scene is a period etching depicting the land fall of the conquistadors and their welcome by natives bearing fruits. In the lower panel, however, the overlays of colonialism are removed and the people break through the screen of colonialist thinking. In others of the series, the youth of modern Cuba appear wearing the red scarves of young Communist Pioneers, to underline and affirm the break with the colonial past. (See the discussion in the Photomontage chapter for another from this series.) Here, as with the majority of these appropriations, the image is the privileged window onto the living present reality, the text is the window onto the (to our minds) preposterous thinking of the colonial past. |
|
|
The ironic counterpointing of text and image is stable and quite decidable in the next example. Each issue of Wired includes a 4 page (2 double) spread before the Contents page which cites a line or two from a featured article later in the magazine and functions as a teaser (or highly graphic "abstract") for the article. The sentence to be quoted and graphicked is usually long enough to support the two stage setup (double page one followed by double page two), as for example additive or contrastive pairings, or cause and effect. |
|
Usually Wired's graphic serves the bit of quoted text; the next example is unusual in its relation to the quoted words. Gary Wolf's featured article in June 1999 Wired profiles Sir John Templeton and his investments in religion, specifically in showing that good religion is good business. The two double-page spread is built on lines from one of Templeton's operatives (Charles Harper) and is neither explicitly endorsed nor derided in the text of the piece. In context, it both celebrates the triumph of world capitalism and outlines the next area for it to annex, namely the realm of moral values. |
|
"Mirage" first appeared with a white background in 1995; augmented with sound two years later as one of a set of six pieces that appear online as "The Glass" along with an introductory note by Giles Peaker. 12 These pieces include sound. Broadyway's general headnote says "Using reworked 'found' images and sounds, key aspects of the complex relationship between the west and the so-called third world - political, social and economic- is explored." The general theme is colonial exploitation and the method is showing the contradictions. Invoking Brecht's famous line about how photographs do not reveal social relations, Peaker points out that Broadway includes the contradictory parts as separate panels which overlay each other as aspects of the complex social situations; they are not necessarily resolved into a harmonized composite image, any more than the nexus of conflicting interests and perceptions which are the real object of representation can be resolved. As Peaker says about Broadway's use of photomontage in this set, "montage works to make us aware of those images as traces of reality - a reality which can't be 'pictured' but can be thought." Broadway also includes a link to his complete thesis, which traces the conceptual complex "realist montage" through the theoretical writings of Brecht, Lukács, and Benjamin and the practice of Heartfield, Léger, and Eisenstein. Visually, the construction in five of the six pieces is that of three or four blocks arranged vertically with some overlap and linkage, but with no common frame or space. The overlaps, by using variable transparency, avoid the interruption of form typical of collage. The effect leans toward the diagrammatic rather than the scenic. The six pieces of "The Glass" are not just visual, however, but audio-visual: each image has four or five sound clips associated with parts of it (roughly the separate layers) in a Director display that fades them in or out as the mouse moves over the image and allows several to be heard at once. This is a rather exact audio equivalent of photomontage ("soundcollage"). In the case of "Mirage," the clips are a bit of monologue on misperceptions of the Arab, a TV news report of the ticker-tape parade given to welcome US soldiers back from the Gulf War (complete with an interview with a soldier), a background droning as of aircraft engines, sounds of a well fire billowing flames, a newsreel commemoration of Israeli independence, and a few measures from the Lawrence of Arabia theme song. These clips greatly enhance the presence and specificity of the attitudes and events depicted, furnishing a partial answer to Sontag's point that "functioning takes place in time" and hence "Only that which narrates can make us understand." 13 The version with sound takes a long time to load and on my machines the sound has to be teased out somewhat, as if one were turning the dial of an analog radio tuner and receiving broadcasts from the mid- and later 20th century. The power of these emblems does not arise from new or original "thoughts" about colonialism. It comes from the sheer intensity with which the "thought" is realized with a little work from the viewer. This work is especially impressive in that compared to Heartfield, say, there are no villians to hate (and depict)—no Hitler, Goebbels, Goering—and no swastikas, salutes, and goose-stepping. And let no one say that this is pure image: it is imagetext, though some text is heard rather than seen, some is in captions and background, and some is in the appended thesis itself. Peaker's and Broadway's discussion of "digital realist montage" makes the useful point that images cannot literally show contradictions—not, at least, the profound and systematic ones that characterize late Capitalism and colonialism. The real on this view is abstract (which is not to deny that it is created and maintained by material bodies and forces), and so, given what is generally said about the anchoring of images, most especially photographs, to physical objects with contours, textures, and surfaces, they come close to representing abstractions. Broadway takes advantage of the loosened reference to the world that comes with digital images and montage. The parts of these images do not cohere in a single representational space: they cohere as aspects of a historical-political phenomenon; they are tokens for attitudes and events, signifying by synecdoche. |