Is photomontage over? Does the juxtaposition of recontextualised photographic fragments, once the mainstay of critical avant-garde practice and radical activism in the burgeoning media age, carry any cultural and aesthetic urgency in the paradigm of the digital? Does the medium still have the power to rattle, agitate, or even shock with its pictorial and conceptual disjunctions? This special issue confronts such questions by exploring the possibility that photomontage has indeed run its course; that it may no longer serve as a point of critical inquiry, a potent object of historical research, or a forceful contemporary practice. We borrow our query from a 2014 two-day symposium run by the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art with the title ‘Is Photography Over?’ For those in attendance, the primary point of concern was a dramatically shifting photographic practice and culture that caused a sense of unease among photographers, curators, historians, and critics alike. A 2017 symposium we staged in response at the Developing Room, an academic working group at Rutgers University dedicated to photography research, proposed that the question equally holds for the practice of photomontage, particularly in the face of graphics editing programs such as Photoshop and filters like those available at Snapchat. In turn, this special issue now proffers that where image-makers once had to laboriously scour archives and cull illustrated periodicals for their images, and thereafter wield scissors, scalpels, and tweezers before applying glue with care, now all they need is a computer connected to the Internet. The mouse and pointer glide over the intangible where sharp blades once sliced through physical matter. The new conditions have democratised the production and distribution of montage. They have even transformed its name and conceptual origin – once aligned with specialised industrial labour – to ‘mash-up’ or ‘meme’, which implies the effortless, seamless overlays and recombinations typical of the information age. Once completed, a digitally manipulated image can sail through the Internet’s ether and prompt further reconfigurations, modified by varying human contexts in a form of digital genetic mutation. Ten years ago, in an Artforum article we republish in this issue, photographer Charlie White provocatively suggested that montage has been denuded of its political edge as a result. Where once John Heartfield and Martha Rosler used the technique as a public platform to challenge image regimes of fascism or of Cold War consensus, now younger makers avail themselves of this richness for shallow politics or quick personal expression. The new click and drag impatience, as White describes it, leads to political flops, missteps, and failures, such as when a 2001 jihadi demonstration in Bangladesh featured a poster that had accidentally appropriated a Bin Laden image from the satirical website Burt is Evil. In the global slapdash world of cut-and-paste ease, the innocence of Sesame Street inevitably meets Middle East and South Asian tumult over the grimacing mug of Burt. Email for correspondence: zervigon@rutgers. edu; S.Kriebel@ucc.ie

中文翻译：

---

蒙太奇结束了吗？摄影史特刊

蒙太奇结束了吗？重新语境化的摄影片段的并置，曾经是新兴媒体时代批判性前卫实践和激进行动主义的支柱，在数字范式中是否具有任何文化和美学紧迫性？这种媒介是否仍然有能力以其图像和概念的分离而发出嘎嘎声、鼓动声甚至震撼人心的力量？本期特刊通过探索蒙太奇照片确实走上正轨的可能性来解决这些问题；它可能不再作为批判性探究的点、历史研究的有力对象或强有力的当代实践。我们从 2014 年旧金山现代艺术博物馆举办的为期两天的研讨会中借用了我们的问题，主题是“摄影结束了吗？” 对于出席的人来说，主要关注点是急剧变化的摄影实践和文化，这引起了摄影师、策展人、历史学家和评论家等人的不安。我们在 2017 年在罗格斯大学致力于摄影研究的学术工作组“开发室”举办的一次研讨会上提出，这个问题同样适用于蒙太奇的实践，尤其是在面对诸如 Photoshop 和滤镜之类的图形编辑程序时那些在 Snapchat 上可用的。反过来，这期特刊现在表明，图像制作者曾经不得不费力地搜索档案并挑选插图期刊以获得他们的图像，然后在小心地涂抹胶水之前使用剪刀、手术刀和镊子，现在他们只需要一台连接电脑到互联网。鼠标和指针滑过无形的地方，锋利的刀片曾经切过物理物质。新的条件使蒙太奇的制作和发行民主化。他们甚至将其名称和概念起源——曾经与专门的工业劳动力对齐——转变为“混搭”或“模因”，这意味着信息时代典型的轻松、无缝的叠加和重组。完成后，数字化操作的图像可以在互联网的以太中航行，并促使进一步的重新配置，以数字基因突变的形式通过不同的人类环境进行修改。十年前，在我们在本期重新发表的一篇艺术论坛文章中，摄影师查理怀特挑衅性地暗示蒙太奇因此被剥夺了其政治优势。约翰·哈特菲尔德和玛莎·罗斯勒曾经将这项技术用作公共平台来挑战法西斯主义或冷战共识的形象政权，现在年轻的制造商利用这种丰富性来进行肤浅的政治或快速的个人表达。正如怀特所描述的那样，新的点击和拖拽不耐烦会导致政治失败、失误和失败，例如 2001 年孟加拉国的圣战示威活动中，海报上不小心盗用了讽刺网站伯特是邪恶的本·拉登图片。在全球随随便便的草率世界中，芝麻街的纯真不可避免地会遇到中东和南亚因伯特做鬼脸而引起的骚动。通信电子邮件：zervigon@rutgers。教育; S.Kriebel@ucc.ie 现在，年轻的制造商利用这种丰富性来进行肤浅的政治或快速的个人表达。正如怀特所描述的那样，新的点击和拖拽不耐烦会导致政治失败、失误和失败，例如 2001 年孟加拉国的圣战示威活动中，海报上不小心盗用了讽刺网站伯特是邪恶的本·拉登的一张图片。在全球随随便便的草率世界中，芝麻街的纯真不可避免地会遇到中东和南亚因伯特做鬼脸而引起的骚动。通信电子邮件：zervigon@rutgers。教育; S.Kriebel@ucc.ie 现在，年轻的制造商利用这种丰富性来进行肤浅的政治或快速的个人表达。正如怀特所描述的那样，新的点击和拖拽不耐烦会导致政治失败、失误和失败，例如 2001 年孟加拉国的圣战示威活动中，海报上不小心盗用了讽刺网站伯特是邪恶的本·拉登的一张图片。在全球随随便便的草率世界中，芝麻街的纯真不可避免地会遇到中东和南亚因伯特做鬼脸而引起的骚动。通信电子邮件：zervigon@rutgers。教育; S.Kriebel@ucc.ie 例如，2001 年在孟加拉国举行的圣战示威活动中，一张海报不小心盗用了讽刺网站 Burt is Evil 上的本拉登图片。在全球随随便便的草率世界中，芝麻街的纯真不可避免地会遇到中东和南亚因伯特做鬼脸而引起的骚动。通信电子邮件：zervigon@rutgers。教育; S.Kriebel@ucc.ie 例如，2001 年在孟加拉国举行的圣战示威活动中，一张海报不小心盗用了讽刺网站 Burt is Evil 上的本拉登图片。在全球随随便便的草率世界中，芝麻街的纯真不可避免地会遇到中东和南亚因伯特做鬼脸而引起的骚动。通信电子邮件：zervigon@rutgers。教育; S.Kriebel@ucc.ie