As mentioned in my proposal I’d be looking into literature reviews to justify the conclusion of this theory. One literate review ‘Political photomontage: transformation, revelation, and – truth’ – by author ‘Wendy Ann’. Discussing about ‘Walter Benjamin’, ‘John Heartfelt’, ‘Berlin Dada’. Theory’s on the political photomontage and transformation, revelation and truth.
(‘John Heartfelt and Berlin Dada’) – The art of the past no longer exists as it once did, John Berger declared in 1972. It’s authority is lost. In it’s place there is a language of images. What matters now is who uses that language for what purpose. This is a perfect description of photomontage, regardless of whether the resulting pictures are created for aesthetic or political reason. A language of images make possible any number of narratives and interpretations.
~Walter Benjamin, Short History of Photography Benjamin wrote this essay in 1931, more than thirty years before Martha Rosler would begin her Bringing the War Home‖ series of photomontages (1967–1972, and 2003–2008), so it might seem natural that he would be suspicious of photography used for artistic rather than practical purposes. However, he wrote this after Dada artists such as Höch and Heartfield had been making photomontage works for about a decade. In fact, Benjamin actually quotes Tristan Tzara on the same page from which this epigraph was taken, so he was clearly aware of their work at that time. Höch and Heartfield used photographs in their montages in much the way that Benjamin would later approve: they did not rely on the photographs to depict reality, but rather cut them up and combined them in new creations that dared to depict a new truth.
Photomontage is particularly suitable for creating political art because rather than being primarily concerned with such matters as materials, styles, and techniques, viewers are more likely to relate the image back to the events that are shown. That is, the narrative remains the focus, and the clues as to what the arrangement of the components means are right before one‘s eyes. Each individual element has its own set of meanings already attached, and so viewers are at first glance met with a collection of images with which they are likely already familiar, though in another context, such as illustrations or advertisements from magazines or newspapers. It is interesting to note that, Schwitters worked more in collage and assemblage than in the purer photomontage of Höch and Heartfield, and thereby endeavored to keep his works apolitical. He also strove to divest his materials of their original associations in order that they be received as formal elements.
In conclusion to my findings. There are many ways to approach this little idea and one can certainly make a connection here with art and politics. The first is a creative expression, and idea the resonates in some deep, often ineffable way; it travels unaided across time and space, with little or no explanation necessary to evoke a response.