This article was downloaded by: [Axel Philipps]On: 12 August 2015, At: 01:46Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG

Click for updates

Popular Communication: TheInternational Journal of Media andCulturePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hppc20

Defacing Election Posters: A Form ofPolitical Culture Jamming?Axel Philippsa

a Leibniz University HannoverPublished online: 11 Aug 2015.

To cite this article: Axel Philipps (2015) Defacing Election Posters: A Form of Political CultureJamming?, Popular Communication: The International Journal of Media and Culture, 13:3, 183-201,DOI: 10.1080/15405702.2014.974759

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15405702.2014.974759

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Axe

l Phi

lipps

] at

01:

46 1

2 A

ugus

t 201

5

Popular Communication, 13: 183–201, 2015Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1540-5702 print / 1540-5710 onlineDOI: 10.1080/15405702.2014.974759

Defacing Election Posters: A Formof Political Culture Jamming?

Axel PhilippsLeibniz University Hannover

Even in this media-centric age of the Internet, newspapers, television, and social networking, elec-tion posters are a significant form of communication in political campaigns. They are strategicallyplaced to promote candidates and convince voters. However, viewers are not just passive receivers;they can also reciprocate and “jam” an election poster. This article offers an explorative approach tosuch practices to study their creation and usage. Two distinct examples of defacement are chosen andexamined. Both of these reacted to the Social Democratic Party of Germany’s (SPD) election cam-paign for the German federal election in 2005. The election took place after widespread protests anda loss of confidence in the SPD and its chancellor. The investigated posters showed parallels to polit-ical culture jamming, though parody or disturbing effects are not true of all modifications. Electionposters are also used as a medium to communicate politics from the grassroots.

Visual forms of protest and resistance are diverse. Each category differs from others and has itsown individual style. Protest is a collective action that focuses on social problems and formu-lates alternatives. In contrast, resistance is both an individual and collective action that primarilyoccurs anonymously and discretely. These can include oppositional behaviour, dissent or rejectionwithout aiming to create social upheaval or the establishment of utopia (Scott, 1985).

The forms of protest that social movements adopt, such as demonstrations, rallies, or strikes,are characterised by visual elements such as flags, posters, banners, pamphlets, and specifictypes of clothing (Fahlenbrach, 2002; Philipps, 2012). Political groups and subcultures, includinganarchists and punks, also use visual material such as posters and apply technology and tacticsof appropriation, inversion, and defacement. They share these resistance practices with stencil-graffiti artists (i.e., Banksy), who mimic the official advertising typography, symbols, and photos(Rafferty, 1991), and the culture jammers who deface well-known advertising motifs using theadvertisers’ own means and techniques, thus producing “subvertisements” (Lasn, 2000; Carducci,2006; Schölzel, 2013).

It is clear that the defacement of election posters can be attributed to resistance practices.However, are these defacements a mode of “political culture jamming” (Cammaerts, 2007;Warner, 2007; Farrar & Warner, 2008; Schölzel, 2013)? Research so far has not focussed on the

Correspondence should be addressed to Assoc. Prof. Dr. Axel Philipps, Leibniz University Hannover, Institute ofSociology, Schneiderberg 50, 30167 Hannover, Germany. E-mail: a.philipps@ish.uni-hannover.de

Color versions of one or more figures in the article can be found online at http://www.tandfonline.com/hppc.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Axe

l Phi

lipps

] at

01:

46 1

2 A

ugus

t 201

5

184 PHILIPPS

reconstructive analysis of election poster amendments and, as such, this article will investigatethe characteristics of modifications carried out on such posters. What is specific to the practice?Which incorporated forms of knowledge are documented in the creative interventions? The doc-umentary method of interpreting pictures (Bohnsack, 2008, 2013) opens up the possibility ofreconstructing the formative principles for modifying election posters.

In order to do this, two creatively altered election posters from the 2005 German federal elec-tion campaign are taken as examples and analysed. The 2005 election campaign is of specialinterest because it followed a political crisis within Germany. Reforms of the employment sectorin particular had caused widespread protests and a loss of confidence in the chancellor, GerhardSchröder, and the leading political party the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD). Theselected defaced election posters allow a discussion on what political culture jamming means inthis context and what it does not. This article provides an initial approach but is unable to exploreall variations.

The text is divided into three sections. The first section deals with the existing research onelection posters and the practice of culture jamming in order to understand the technique ofdefacement. The second part introduces the methodology used in the study. The picture analysisconsists of a thorough study of two posters: one that has been modified subtly and another explic-itly. The section is preceded by a short description of the background to the election that formedthe framework from which the chosen posters emerged. The study ends with a comparison ofboth practices and with concluding remarks.

ELECTION POSTERS AND CULTURE JAMMING

For a long time, social sciences paid little attention to investigation of pictures (Burri, 2008) anddealt primarily with election posters’ ideological content and symbols (Bonnell, 1997; Seidman,2008; Warnke et al., 2011). Other studies examined the strategic considerations of politiciansregarding the use of posters (Dumitrescu, 2009, 2012; Dermody & Hanmer-Lloyd, 2011) andreached two conclusions. First, even in this age of advertising in newspapers, on television,and on the Internet, posters remain a significant form of communication in election campaigns.Second, the major parties produce pictorial representations of politicians and candidates, whichdemonstrate power through visual presence in order to elicit votes. In contrast, the smaller polit-ical parties tend to concentrate on communication of content and ideology (Dumitrescu, 2010;Deželau & Maksuti, 2012; Vliegenthart, 2012).

Studies on the perception and reception of election posters have shown the importance of thesein contrast to other forms of communication. For example, Dermody and Scullion (2003) docu-mented the greater level of attention given to posters, rather than to newspaper advertisements,among adolescent, first-time voters in Great Britain. With the help of eye-tracking methods, Geiseand Brettschneider (2010) further showed that pictorial elements in election posters increase thelikelihood of attracting viewers’ attention. They claimed that recipients primarily focus on thephotographic image before they take note of the written content and party logos.

So far, however, there has been no reconstructive analysis of the defacement of electionposters, only discussion that proves the posters are noticed and documents how they are under-stood. An investigation of poster amendments can show what sources the producers of suchdefacements draw upon.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Axe

l Phi

lipps

] at

01:

46 1

2 A

ugus

t 201

5

DEFACING ELECTION POSTERS 185

The defacement of commercial advertising posters is used by culture jammers or AdBusters.The term “culture jammers” was introduced by the music group Negativland and refers to activistswho alter billboards and subvert meaning. Culture jamming in this context means “a rebrandingstrategy” (Lasn, 2000, p. xvi), including defacement, parody, satire, and appropriation that arecarried out in order to change the content of the advertising message, using the same methods andtechniques as the advertising industry itself. Culture jammers intend to “jam” and confront con-sumer capitalism’s “image factory” (Lasn, p. xvi) by replacing it with a noncommercial culture.

The practice of jamming can be traced back to the Dadaist and Situationist movements. Amongother historical reasons1, both movements were particularly concerned about the role of adver-tising and media in political propaganda and consumer capitalism. They intervened, as culturejammers, by reversing, transgressing or subverting meanings (Cammaerts, 2007; Schölzel, 2013).

Culture jamming is politically and socially influential in many ways, from disrupting everydayroutines and deconstructing politics to restricting the power of large companies. Such activitiesinclude TV subvertisements that produce cognitive dissonance when showing the usually undis-closed effects of smoking or consuming fast food (Lasn, 2000). Performance groups such as theBillionaires for Bush, showing relations between companies and politics, were effective in catch-ing the attention of mainstream media (Farrar & Warner, 2008). Culture jammers’ interventionssuccessfully forced tobacco companies to cease advertising on TV and radio (Lasn, 2000).

While culture jamming is generally seen as a form of anti-consumerism, for Carducci (2006) itremains a tactical, playful form of disturbance. In contrast to this, other authors such as Atkinson(2003), Farrar and Warner (2008), Sandlin and Milam (2008), Schölzel (2013), or Warner (2007)argue that through friction and re-coding, culture jamming opens up the potential for change ineveryday thoughts and actions. The viewers, they argue, are stimulated into re-evaluating mes-sages, seeing them from a different perspective and becoming engaged politically. Sandlin andMilam (2008) note that culture jamming tends to enforce opinion by feeding the viewer “correct”interpretations. Furthermore, Littler (2005) referred to the romantic idea of the culture jammerwith regard to social change. According to him, the culture jammers are convinced that they aredealing with “brainwashed” consumers who act in “automaton behavioural patterns” and whoneed to be woken up.

The practices of culture jamming are not limited to anti-advertising: Practices such as parody,defacement, and appropriation are used to equally in various other political contexts. Cammaerts(2007), Farrar and Warner (2008), Warner (2007), and Schölzel (2013) spoke of “political cul-ture jamming,” while Cammaerts describes various forms of political jamming, such as party-likedemonstrations, street art, and fake movie posters. Farrar and Warner (2008) have analysed paro-dies of billionaires for Bush, and Warner (2007) looked at the US political satire The Daily Showwith Jon Stewart. According to Warner, this programme is a prime example of political culturejamming in that its format imitates news reports in order to humorously reveal the contradic-tory positions and representations of political parties and politicians. Schölzel (2013) explicitlyincludes the design of election posters in the category of political anti-advertising in public space.For him, recoding is intended to draw attention to inconsistencies between actual political pro-grammes and political advertising. However, he does not include the reconstructive investigationof defaced election posters.

1For more details see, for example, Cammaerts (2007), Carducci (2006), and Schölzel (2013).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Axe

l Phi

lipps

] at

01:

46 1

2 A

ugus

t 201

5

186 PHILIPPS

A closer examination of defaced election posters shows various forms of execution. Theserange through subtle changes and overt interventions to the destruction of poster material.Cammaerts (2007), for example, describes the campaign of an Antwerp-based multiculturalradio station who, with the support of various groups, campaigned against the propaganda ofthe north Belgian neo-fascist party Vlaams Blok during the 2003 European and regional electionin Belgium. The activists did not just reverse the message of the fascist party’s posters but alsoused the same layout and colours in their own posters. Schölzel (2013) argues that defacementsalso include explicit add-ons as well as the destruction of posters.2 While the material destruc-tion of a poster makes it unintelligible, the other two interventions arguably create new forms ofcomprehension. The difference between the subtle and the overt lies in the fact that the subtlereconfiguration is based on pre-existing and typical election poster structures. Changes thereforeremain largely hidden at first glance. In contrast, explicit changes to the posters are immediatelyvisible. They clearly separate themselves from election poster design and content. Pictures ofpoliticians, for example, are discredited by way of drawn on glasses, horns, beards, gaps in teeth,and other similar additions.

While the subtle and overt defacement of posters can still be classified as political anti-advertising under the term “image pollution” (Schölzel, 2013, p. 290), it is difficult to recognisea form of subversion in the destruction of the material of the poster. The aim of parties and politi-cians to remain in the public eye by means of posters is, indeed, thwarted but these destructiveactions neither open up alternative ways of reading nor do they impel the viewer to reflect on thepolitical system.3 Yet how can alterations are applied without compromising the recognisabilityand readability of the posters? Subtle and overt forms of defacement vary and presumably drawfrom different depths of knowledge. What do the practices tell us about their creators? In orderto consider this two posters, one a subtle and one an overt form of defacement, from the SPD2005 election campaign are examined.

METHODOLOGY

In this article, visual documentary interpretation (Bohnsack, 2008) is used to reconstruct thecharacteristics of election posters’ defacements and the practical methods used. This method-ology does not enter into an investigation of subjective meanings or intentions. The objects ofstudy are not reflections or justifications of the actions of individuals who have modified electionposters but rather study the act of reconfiguration itself. The defacement is seen as the product ofpractical action (frame of orientation), which is guided through incorporated or tacit knowledge.For pictures, in particular, Bohnsack states:

2Examples for subtle defacements in Schölzel (2013) are alterations related to an online call to rework a poster in the2009 federal election in Germany showing the former minister of the interior, Wolfgang Schäuble, with the statement,“We are in shape to warrant security and freedom” (German: ‘Wir haben die Kraft für Sicherheit und Freiheit’).

3Aside from the content of the posters, their instalment already codifies public space. This occupation of public spacestakes a claim on leadership. Hence, the destruction of the posters documents a rejection of this stance. According toSchölzel (2013), the destructive act as such can trigger reflection on the codification of space. For him, such actions makeit clear that the public occupancy of public space is disputed and therefore always open to alternatives.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Axe

l Phi

lipps

] at

01:

46 1

2 A

ugus

t 201

5

DEFACING ELECTION POSTERS 187

The understanding and the orientation of action and everyday practice through the medium of iconic-ity is mostly pre-reflexive. This modus of understanding is performed below the level of conceptualor verbal explication. Iconic or image-based understanding is embedded in tacit knowledge, in“atheoretical” knowledge. (Bohnsack, 2008, p. 10)

This type of reconstructive analysis builds a foundation for the documentary method of interpret-ing pictures (Bohnsack, 2008). Using this analytical method means that practical experience andhabitual orientations can be reconstructed in a controlled manner. The method of interpretationis based on the assumption that such practices, and the cultural products that result from them,reveal perspectives informed by experience. Consequently, the method focuses less on what therepresented picture means and more on the reason that certain designs are dealt with and howthey have been produced (Mannheim, 1964; Bohnsack, 2008, 2013). Drawing from art history,Bohnsack uses the distinction between iconography and iconology (Panofsky, 1951, 1955) aswell as the basic idea of the iconic (Imdahl, 2006), whereby the picture in its entirety is alwayssimultaneously present. Accordingly, a picture cannot be developed sequentially as in a text butrather the specifics of the picture can only be exposed by the whole composition.

The process of visual documentary interpretation is therefore separated into three sections:pre-iconographic, iconographic, and reflecting interpretation. The pre-iconographic interpreta-tion consists of a description of the picture elements, colours, forms, and their position in theforeground or background of the picture. The visual elements serve as a foundation for aniconographic interpretation of collectively shared meanings. Thus, the iconographic interpreta-tion concentrates on the conventional meaning of what can be seen in a picture. The reflectinginterpretation, in contrast, focuses on the formal design of the picture. For this interpretationprevious knowledge (i.e., conventional meaning) has to be suspended in order to reconstruct themodus operandi. According to Bohnsack (2008), this analytical procedure requires concentrat-ing on Imdahl’s (1996) iconic interpretation. It includes examining the planimetric composition(the picture’s formal structure), the scene choreography (its represented social scenes) and theperspective projection (its objects’ spatiality and corporality). The picture’s inherent principle ofconstruction is finally revealed via (deliberate) comparisons or variations of different ways ofproduction.4

BACKGROUND: GERMAN FEDERAL ELECTION 2005

The election posters chosen for this study were a part of the SPD election campaign for the 16thfederal election held in 2005. This particular election was called early after the president at thattime, Horst Köhler, dissolved the 15th parliament on 25 July 2005. The event was preceded byseveral occurrences. First, the electoral defeat of the SPD that year in North Rhine-Westphaliachanged the ratio in the Federal Council to the detriment of SPD-led states. Franz Müntefering,the leader of the party at that time, spoke of the loss of confidence by the electorate in the fed-eral coalition between the SPD and the Green Party. Second, shortly before this, the chancellor,Gerhard Schröder, had failed to receive a vote of confidence in the Federal Parliament.

4For more details on the analytical procedure and exemplary picture interpretations using the documentary methodsee Bohnsack (2008, 2013) or Philipps (2012, 2015).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Axe

l Phi

lipps

] at

01:

46 1

2 A

ugus

t 201

5

188 PHILIPPS

The federal election was preceded by the SPD/Green Party coalition government’s seven-yearterm in office. In 1998 they replaced a coalition of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), theChristian Social Union (CSU), and the Free Democratic Party (FDP) and, in their second term,carried out a series of controversial reforms. In particular, the legal implementation of proposalsfrom the commission’s report Modern Services on the Job Market (led by Peter Hartz) on theactivation of the unemployed and the restructuring of social benefits sparked nationwide protest(Philipps, 2005; Rein, 2008; Lahusen & Baumgarten, 2010).

In essence, the so-called Hartz IV-reform reduced the rates of payment for the long-termunemployed to the minimum subsistence level.5 Thus, the differential that had existed betweenthose who received payments based on their earlier income and those who were merely allocatedsocial benefits was nullified. The accusation of being inhumane was levelled at politicians whoimplemented this change. Considering the close connection between work and dignity duringthe protests in 2004 (Philipps, 2005), the focus on legal measures to make the unemployed seekemployment was possibly another reason for the outrage. Instead of creating new jobs, the reformonly increased pressure on the unemployed to find work.

SUBTLE AND OVERT DEFACEMENT OF ELECTION POSTERS

The following analysis and interpretation concentrates on the changes made to the election posterschosen for this study. What has changed and how was this achieved? This study does not dealwith the producers’ representational strategies (such as the SPD party leader and Agency Butter,Düsseldorf) but focuses rather on the practical methods and the knowledge of those who modifiedthe posters. The election posters will only be discussed as a model insofar as it is relevant for thereconstruction of the defacements. Nonetheless, the original posters (see Figures 1 and 2) as wellas the defaced posters (see Figures 3 and 46) will be examined to the same extent whereas theiconological-iconic interpretation will concentrate on the alterations.

Subtle Defacement

Original poster. The documentary picture interpretation is primarily grounded in the anal-ysis of the picture’s formal composition. In the first stage of interpretation, common-senseknowledge is suspended in order to concentrate on visual and design elements. As a consequence,analysis starts with formal aspects and includes contextual connotations afterwards.

The formal analysis discloses that the election poster consists of three text blocks in the fore-ground. Letters appear in white rectangles, in a red square, or are self-supporting. The backgroundis grey-beige. In the middle ground, a photographic reproduction of a man in formal attire (jacket,white shirt, purple tie) is shown in a square format. His head, a part of the upper body and his

5In Germany, benefits aligned with the minimum subsistence level means, in effect, relative poverty. In contrastto absolute poverty where there is a lack of vital necessities, relative poverty results from a comparison with the socialenvironment. Statistically, relative poverty is measured using the median of the equivalent net income. Individual incomesthat are around 50% of the equivalent net income of the population are often used as the poverty line.

6The photograph of the defaced election poster “Powerful. Courageous. Humane” (Figure 4) captures only a segmentof the original poster (Figure 2).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Axe

l Phi

lipps

] at

01:

46 1

2 A

ugus

t 201

5

DEFACING ELECTION POSTERS 189

FIGURE 1 SPD’s original election poster with headline, “Those whowant to create work need courage for reforms” (2005). © SPD.Reproduced by permission of SPD. Permission to reuse must be obtainedfrom the rightsholder.

FIGURE 2 SPD’s original election poster with headline “Powerful.Courageous. Humane” (2005). © SPD. Reproduced by permission of SPD.Permission to reuse must be obtained from the rightsholder.

right hand can be seen. All these elements can be separated into parts of the same size, whichcan be divided by three lines. The main elements of the poster are positioned in the middle, at theintersection of these vertical and horizontal lines. Because of this layout, two points of intersec-tion fall on the portrait and one falls on the slogan “Those who want to create work need couragefor reforms.” Thus, these two elements assume prominent positions in the overall picture. Thecentral line, furthermore, links the man’s right hand with the slogan. The line along the outer

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Axe

l Phi

lipps

] at

01:

46 1

2 A

ugus

t 201

5

190 PHILIPPS

FIGURE 3 Defaced election poster (see Figure 1) now stating “Thosewho want to create poverty need courage for reforms” (found in Giessen in2005). © Projektwerkstatt in Reichskirchen-Saasen. Reproduced by per-mission of Projektwerkstatt in Reichskirchen-Saasen. Permission to reusemust be obtained from the rightsholder.

FIGURE 4 Defaced election poster (see Figure 2) with added ques-tion and answer “Forgotten Hartz IV? IN-Humane” (found in Berlinin 2005). © Michael Westdickenberg. Reproduced by permission ofMichael Westdickenberg. Permission to reuse must be obtained from therightsholder.

right edge of his palm, the thumb and the elongated line from the apex of the thumb and theindex finger to the fingertip connect the visual representation with the message in the text. Thisaction of an open hand, with the thumb pointing upwards, refers to the written version of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Axe

l Phi

lipps

] at

01:

46 1

2 A

ugus

t 201

5

DEFACING ELECTION POSTERS 191

man’s otherwise inaudible speech: The inaudible becomes visible if one follows the hand move-ment. The act of visionary speech and its content are thus simultaneously present in the picture.In addition, the white text blocks are left justified. In contrast to a closed block-text format, thisopen form conveys the performance of the spoken word. It is not the typeface on the paper thatconfirms the manner of representation but rather the flow of words. As such, this presentationstrengthens the sense of spoken speech. In the same way, the white rectangle links the logo to thephotograph of the man by overlapping the middle distance and foreground. Hence, the “couragefor reforms” applies to the political party (logo) and the man. His posture, together with his openmouth, finally increases the impression that he is in the process of speaking. More than this, hisgaze, directed into the distance, suggests that he is reciting a vision directly from his mind’s eye.It is therefore not a private thought but an official one, as the “work clothes” (i.e., tie, starchedwhite shirt, and a black suit jacket) as well as the grey office curtains indicate.

The poster showing the former chancellor Gerhard Schröder in the 2005 federal election. TheSPD’s campaign slogan was “Confidence in Germany,” which is also visible on the poster. Thisslogan could be seen on all the posters that were used nationally and addressed the SPD vote ofconfidence in the run up to the elections. With this slogan the SPD proclaims its confidence inGermany. From the SPD’s perspective, the public, as well as parliament, may have lost confidencein the SPD/Green Party government; at the same time, however, they still believe that “Germany”(meaning the German people and their political representatives) have done the right thing beforeand will do so again in the future.

The SPD’s willingness to act is demonstrated by their headline, “Those who want to creatework need courage for reforms.” This corresponds to their other election themes such as takingresponsibility for social justice, peace, modern family politics, fair wages, or nuclear phaseout.The theme of the election poster as discussed here relates explicitly to the Hartz IV-reform, whichwas implemented with the aim of halving the number of unemployed people (or creating employ-ment). The theme suggests that the SPD were at least prepared to transcend boundaries (courage)in order to change existing circumstances (reforms).

Modified section. The reconfiguration of the letters took place in the central element of theposter. In terms of design, the process of defacement was based on the pre-existing poster, whichmeant that modifications were made using more or less the same font, proportions, and colours.On the poster, in the upper section in a white rectangle, the letters “bei” have been removed fromthe word “Arbeit” (work) and substituted with “mu,” resulting in the word “Armut” (poverty).The modified letters have been written in the same black tone on a white background and use asimilar font. As a consequence, the alteration fits relatively well with the overall picture and onlyafter closer examination is it apparent that the modified letters differ from the originals. They are,for example, larger than the letters to the right and left, they are also closer together and slopevertically (in comparison to the typography of the letter ‘M’ in the headline). In addition, thereis a blotch of colour (blue) in the lower left corner of the defaced election poster. Such stainsusually are intended to taint or discredit election posters and candidates.

The subtle defacement of the word “Arbeit” (work) to “Armut” (poverty) also causes a shift-ing of the poster’s meaning. The term “Arbeit” has positive connotations; through work goodsare produced and workers’ livelihoods are secured. The formulation “create work” has less to dowith making goods and more to do with giving people the opportunity, through employment, toindependently provide for their own subsistence. The protests against the Hartz IV-reforms have

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Axe

l Phi

lipps

] at

01:

46 1

2 A

ugus

t 201

5

192 PHILIPPS

shown, among other things, that employment is highly valued. The protesters saw in employ-ment the possibility of a life with “dignity” (Philipps, 2005). The headline “Those who wantto create employment need courage for reforms” was likely to be met with agreement by theelectorate, particularly when such an action, as the statement suggests, required determination.The reformulation in “Those who want to create poverty need courage for reforms” produces,in contrast, a reversal of meaning. Poverty implies a state of need, a life consisting of lack andinsufficiency. In the Federal Republic of Germany there is a consensus that poverty is unaccept-able and must be combated (Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales, 2005). To consciouslyand deliberately create poverty is thus perceived as reprehensible. In light of these aforemen-tioned “reforms” and the introduction of a new benefit scheme (ALG II), “poverty” refers to thereduction of unemployment aid to the poverty line (most recently 53%). ALG II is paid to allunemployed people after one year of unemployment, regardless of how long they had previouslybeen employed. The reduction of benefit rates was of central concern to the protesters (Philipps,2005). Moreover, the defacement of the term “work” into “poverty” creates a clear contradictionwithin the SPD context. The notion “create poverty” contradicts the SPD’s statements that theparty aims for “liberty, justice and solidarity” at this time where liberty is understood as “beingfree from humiliating dependencies, from poverty and fear” (Berliner Programm, 1989, p. 12).

The defacement suggests a planned, prepared, and technically demanding act. Observationsand measurements were carried out at an earlier stage so that the modifications integrated into theoverall poster. The composition is not explicitly changed and no new visual elements are added toit. Thus, the reconfiguration creates a sense of confusion in the viewer. There is no direct, explicitevidence of modification to the poster, which conveys the idea that the SPD has altered theirstance to one that is contradictory to their previous message. Finally, the modification of con-tent in the text not only has an effect on the message but also on the poster as a whole. GerhardSchröder is no longer represented as someone who is determined to create more work for peoplebut rather as someone who, undaunted, proceeds to exclude them from social participation. Thisreversal makes him into an oppressor who limits freedom (“create poverty”) rather than actingjustly by giving people opportunities (“create work”). The effect of confusion, furthermore, isenhanced because the modified poster contradicts the SPD’s public image and self-presentationand that of Gerhard Schröder. The party programme clearly states it will combat humiliatingdependencies and poverty. However, knowledge of the SPD’s party programme is not necessaryin order to catch the attention of viewers. In a country like Germany, known for its social marketeconomy, the seemingly blatant directness of the headline is jarring. Nonetheless, the confusioncaused by the altered poster is temporary. Before the viewer fundamentally changes their under-standing of SPD policy, they might notice a difference between defaced and nondefaced postersof the same type. Also, on closer examination, the viewer becomes aware that the modificationhas slight variations so that the defacement emerges. What remains is not a changed perspectivebut a reference that will reoccur in other situations.

The reason for the addition of the blotch of colour is less simple. It is obviously an additionalmark that it is neither subtle nor confusing: People can easily recognise it. Hence, one couldargue that different modifiers added it subsequently. However, it is also likely that it was placed incombination with the more subtle other defacement. On the one hand, the stain’s placement (in thelower left corner) does little harm to the election poster as a whole or to central components and onthe other hand, due to its position and high colour saturation it could be employed simultaneously

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Axe

l Phi

lipps

] at

01:

46 1

2 A

ugus

t 201

5

DEFACING ELECTION POSTERS 193

as an attractor and distracter. It attracts viewers to look at this poster and distracts views awayfrom the subtle defacement.

Overt Defacement

Original poster. To begin with the formal analysis, the poster is constructed of three layers.The colour of the upper section of the background is beige and this gradually changes into white.A man is in the foreground, seen from the side but with his head turned to look at the viewer. In aclose-up his upper body is visible but the most prominent part of the picture is the face. The logoand election slogan are in the middle section as well as three white rectangular blocks with text.This election poster has similarities to the poster mentioned above in terms of its reuse of pictureand text elements. It shows a portrait of a male, a political party’s logo, the election slogan and aheadline on a white background. The elements here are laid out in different way to the previouslydiscussed poster and the content of the headline is different.

The portrait of a man is central, partially covering the logo in the background. The logo andthe attributes in white blocks are less dominant although positioned in the middle of the overallpicture. The text takes up more space than the logo so that, together with the portrait, they formthe main elements of the picture. The central lines that connect the picture and text elementsare extensions of the shoulder and the edge of the suit collar. They link the visual representationof a smiling man with the written characteristics “powerful,” “courageous,” and “humane.” Inthe scenic choreography, the man’s posture and sidelong glance give the impression of forwardmotion: He appears to move energetically toward the list of attributes. The representation showshim in action, which increases the sense of steadfast determination.

Since the three attributes are connected to the man and align with the logo’s upper and loweredges, these attributes, consequently, could stand for the political party (here the SPD) and the for-mer chancellor, Gerhard Schröder: The represented politician personifies the attributes and theybecome associated with him. The characteristics pick up on themes already present in the posterseries: “Powerful” implies steadfastness to a particular position as a ruling party; “courage” standsfor the determination to tackle problems and take risks (such as the labour market reform); and“humane” expresses the desire for social justice (as expressed in the SPD’s party programme).

Modified section. On the empty part of the poster there is now a sprayed question,“Forgotten Hartz IV?” In front of the word “Menschlich” (“humane”) an “UN” (“IN”) has beenadded. While the “N” is found on the white background of a text block, the “U” sits on the per-son’s left cheek. The defacement of the election poster formally occurs explicitly and in a clearlyvisible manner through additions to a main element of the poster. However, the modificationof the portrait supports the defacement. Of course, words and other design elements are added,meaning that the changes are mainly found on the white text blocks on the right hand side of theposter. Nonetheless, the person portrayed is slightly affected by the “U” on his left cheek. The“UN” primarily shifts the correlation of picture levels: the portrait retreats into the background,partially covered by the word “Un-Menschlich” (in-humane). This, together with the additionalquestion, results in the list of attributes moving into the foreground. The newly inserted questionregarding the Hartz IV-reform re-contextualises the attributes so that they no longer represent anoverarching meaning; they become subordinated to the added question. This is also true of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Axe

l Phi

lipps

] at

01:

46 1

2 A

ugus

t 201

5

194 PHILIPPS

portrait. Alternative forms of discrediting the picture such as the drawing on of beards, glasses orspots, are obviously avoided. But the letter ‘U’ marks the person with a scar. Hence, the personportrayed is tagged as being inhumane.

Furthermore, the sprayed additions individualise the defaced election poster. Although theuppercase letters on the poster influence the manner of writing, the irregular, smaller sprayedletters clearly set the modified posters apart from those that are unaltered. This form of execu-tion implies a more spontaneous and direct confrontation with the poster’s message comparedto the examined subtle defacement. The design elements used are not the same as those of theposter (e.g., the word “Menschlich” (humane) is changed for a creatively altered “Unmenschlich”(inhumane)7, producing a discrepancy between levels of meaning). The individual who modifiesdoes not play with the techniques of election poster design and content but understands it as aserious act. The defacement does not merely confuse: it takes a stand. The meaning of the electionposter is altered and used as a clear comment on the Hartz IV-reform.

This spontaneous stance expresses a certain attitude. It is not about contradictions but unful-filled expectations in relation to politics. The moralistic outrage (inhumane) refers to the politicalimplementation of the Hartz IV-reform, although the blame is not just placed on ex-chancellorGerhard Schröder. His portrait, for example, was not altered in any way by visual symbols of inhu-manity or evil such as horns (symbolic of the devil), fangs (symbolic of carnivores or vampires),or a small moustache (symbolic of Adolf Hitler).

The judgment inhumane refers to politics that are normally considered powerful and coura-geous. These two attributes remain similarly unaltered; they are neither scored out nor reversed(e.g., weak, cowardly). The words appear unproblematic. Politics must be powerful and coura-geous, implying a general acceptance of government. To govern means to act powerfully andcourageously on the one hand and on the other it is measured according to degrees of humanity.To what extent is the welfare of the governed taken into account? A breach of the duty of publicwelfare already played an important part in the protests against the Hartz IV-reform in Leipzig.The protesters accused those in power of moral transgression and berated them for their neglectof the weak and powerless (Philipps, 2005, 2012).

Comparative Analysis

A comparison of the subtle and overt defacement of the posters examined here has revealedsimilarities and differences. What they have in common is that their resistance practices werecarried out covertly and without conveying utopian aspirations. Moreover, the same medium(election posters) was used for the action, and in both cases the effects of the Hartz IV-reformon the unemployed was the focal point. By adding the text “create poverty” or “inhumane,” bothhighlight the issue of the reduction of benefits for the long-term unemployed to the minimumsubsistence level.

The subtle defacement differs from the explicit in terms of the manner of reconfigura-tion and the underlying guidelines. This alteration has similarities to political culture jamming

7At a different location the same poster underwent an alternative alteration. In this instance the word “Menschlich”(humane) was substituted for the word “Machtgeil” (power hungry) using the same font, size and colour.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Axe

l Phi

lipps

] at

01:

46 1

2 A

ugus

t 201

5

DEFACING ELECTION POSTERS 195

(Cammaerts, 2007; Warner, 2007; Farrar & Warner, 2008; Schölzel, 2013). The means and tech-niques of election poster production were applied in order to carry out the modifications and thusthe intervention was initially hidden. In this way, the viewer approached the poster with the expec-tation of seeing an original. The reversal of content triggered confusion when the actual messageconflicted with the one expected. For the defacement culture jammers transform the meaning bymimicking the style and design of an election poster—sometimes in a humorous way.8 Politicalculture jamming relies on this moment, hoping “to force passive political spectators to becomeactive participants in the event, decoding and reinterpreting the multiple narratives” (Farrar &Warner, 2008, p. 292). Resultantly, they play tactically with the ascribed meanings and self-images of parties and politicians in public spaces in order to temporarily reverse them andconsequently cause confusion.

Both subtle and overt forms of defacement have this in common; they frustrate public rep-resentations of parties and politicians. However, in contrast to the subtle alteration, the explicitvariation first takes a clear stance in relation to the visual and textual representation on the elec-tion poster. Since the intervention clearly changes the form and content of the poster, a viewer isable to quickly recognise the statement conveyed by the reconfiguration. Even if the result wasa reversal of the content or symbolism, one could only accept or reject this stance. The subtledefacement is not that straightforward. It rather uses inconsistencies within political programmesand the actual policy to disclose possible lines of conflict. Based on such contradictions the sub-version aims to blur how the intervention was made. Secondly, reversing messages and mimickingthe design and layout of the original poster requires knowledge and skill in order to copy visualfeatures and elements. In addition, effective alterations sometimes need professional equipmentand technology. Hence, one could argue subtle rebrandings of election posters are professionallyapproached in contrast to more amateurish overt defacements. However, professionally and ama-teurishly defaced posters are an alternative mode of mass communication with the control overmessages in the hand of their producers. In the same way as politicised street art, the defacementof election posters “gives expression to groups that otherwise could not comment upon or supportcurrent or perceived social problems” (Chaffee, 1993, pp. 3–4). People who have limited accessto the media appropriate election posters to inform and persuade. Defacement and street art, thus,are partisan, making “no attempt to be neutral, value free, or impartial or to weigh the facts. Itspurpose is to advance a cause or an idea” (Chaffee, 1993, p. 8). Both practices, furthermore, arenonmonopolistic and democratic. Since they are cost-effective and often require little expertise,they are accessible to all regardless of ideological perspectives. However, Chaffee also stressesthat street art is characterised by “direct expressive thought, using an economy of words andideas, and rhetorically simple discourse” (Chaffee, p. 9; emphasis in the original). Reducing mes-sages as well as icons to be concise and to the point is typical of politicised street art (Philipps,2015) and overt defacements, while dissonance and distortion are pivotal in the case of subtledefacements.

Nonetheless, not all overt defacements are distinct to political culture jamming. Forms of this,broadly speaking, are overt modifications such as the addition of moustaches and fangs (figure 5

8A poster in the SPD’s election campaign 2005 stating, “Those who want peace must be committed” (German: “WerFrieden will, muss standhaft sein”) was altered into “Those who want to have sex must be friendly” (German: “Wer fickenwill, muss freundlich sein”).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Axe

l Phi

lipps

] at

01:

46 1

2 A

ugus

t 201

5

196 PHILIPPS

FIGURE 5 Defaced election poster “Chancellor for Germany” (found inLeipzig in 2013).

or Marcel Duchamp’s L.H.O.O.Q.). If such additions exaggerate or turn visual and public repre-sentations of politicians and candidates upside down they are satirical modifications. Satire andparody are characteristic of political culture jamming (Cammaerts, 2007; Warner, 2007; Farrar&Warner, 2008; Schölzel, 2013). However, overt jams provide viewers with a “correct” interpre-tation (Sandlin & Milam, 2008). First, it is clear that the added meaning is external; original andmodified can easily be recognised. Second, used additions are well-known symbols (i.e., fangsor Hitler’s moustache to signify attributes of evil).9 Hence, onlookers are not confused aboutmeaning.

Finally, the examined overt defacement is not a parody but offers a specific political per-spective. It is neither confusing nor humorous. The modifier has a standpoint and articulatesstraightforwardly her or his view on a political issue. However, since the uneven spraying and theunbalanced use of space on the poster indicate a spontaneous action, I argue, this overt defacementis an expression of moral outrage:

Moral outrage is anger that we consider justifiable. We may feel angry for other reasons, but we donot feel that we have a basis for moral outrage unless we can justify a claim that either our personalrights or what we regard as basic human rights are being violated. (Goodenough, 1997, p. 4)

Hondrich (2002) defines moral transgressions as something similar to this. According to him,“communities” that share specific values and norms understand political or economic actions to

9Müller (2012) also mentions politicians presented as Borgs (a pseudo-race of cybernetic beings in the Americansci-fi series Star Trek: The Next Generation)—the embodiment of evil.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Axe

l Phi

lipps

] at

01:

46 1

2 A

ugus

t 201

5

DEFACING ELECTION POSTERS 197

be moral transgressions when the (expected) result of political or economic measures contradictstheir values and norms. Dissatisfaction with changing circumstances is visible in consumer boy-cotts (Lindenmeier, Schleeer, & Pricl, 2012), in letters by animal rights activists (Walls, 2002),or in defaced election posters.

Following my argument, defacements reveal underlying expectations that exist in relation topolitics, parties and politicians and give a sense of political sentiments (see also Figures 6 and 7).They refer to and inform about hidden conflicts on which politicians and the media rarely focus.While the examined subtle defacement points to perceived policy inconsistencies, in the overtdefacement the attitude of those who have very little power, yet simultaneously recognise theasymmetry of power in society, is articulated. Through both forms of intervention, dissatisfactionand disappointment concerning changing circumstances—in particular the reduction of benefitsfor the unemployed—are the central theme. Yet the performed defacements fail to go beyond

FIGURE 6 Defaced election posters with erased party logos and addedanarchy icons (found in Leipzig in 2013).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Axe

l Phi

lipps

] at

01:

46 1

2 A

ugus

t 201

5

198 PHILIPPS

FIGURE 7 FDP election poster “Online data are yours! Protect onlinedata, oppose surveillance, support civil rights – Only with us” crossed outwith “Lie” (found in Leipzig in 2013).

pure rejection. No progressive ideas or utopias are developed or put forward. Nonetheless, onecan expect that even political jams are not progressive at all; sometimes they “serve to ridicule,humiliate or victimise the common enemy or the personification of evil at that given moment”(Cammaerts, 2007, p. 84).

CONCLUSION

This article has examined the defacement of two selected election posters. Until now, research haseither focussed on the strategies carried out by political parties and politicians regarding the useof election posters (Dumitrescu, 2009, 2010, 2012; Dermody & Hanmer-Lloyd, 2011; Deželau &Maksuti, 2012; Vliegenthart, 2012) or has investigated forms of defacement and meaning reversalin politics as political culture jamming (Cammaerts, 2007; Warner, 2007; Farrar & Warner, 2008;

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Axe

l Phi

lipps

] at

01:

46 1

2 A

ugus

t 201

5

DEFACING ELECTION POSTERS 199

Schölzel, 2013). But to what extent is a modification of election posters a form of political culturejamming?

My analysis proves the proposition that defacing election posters is a form of political cul-ture jamming. There are instances of humorous and confusing modifications. Posters are defacedby borrowing the means and techniques of advertising and they create shock through a reversalof meaning. However, the explorative analysis of subtly and explicitly altered election postersundertaken here has also shown that an undifferentiated observation of the varied forms of elec-tion poster modification hides disparities. In both cases the representational intentions of politicalparties and candidates, of course, are frustrated but while in the overt modification the electionposter is used as medium to add a personal comment the subtle defacement is more profes-sionally approached. The hidden subversion combines a reuse of the original layout with policyinconsistencies in order to confuse.

Defacements, like politicised street art, are an alternative mode of communication to themasses to highlight issues and social problems or to propagate ideologies (Chaffee, 1993).Since election posters provide an opportunity for anonymous reactions to contemporary politics,defacements reveal political sentiments and lines of conflict. Variations in the form of defacement,in addition, indicate differences among the people who either professionally re-brand electionposters or use existing posters simply as a medium to add their own message. Hence, defacementsbring into the spotlight what people think and feel about particular political parties, their candi-dates and their programmes. Thus, the investigation of defacements can work as a “seismograph”to detect politics from below. What is communicated through such an alternative channel? Whatis seen as relevant? What is seen as problematic? Such findings can add information to, andenhance insights from, media analyses and opinion surveys.

The type of analysis carried out here, however, does not allow for any conclusions about theeffect of defacement on the viewer. It is possible that such interventions applied to the design ofelection posters could confuse the viewer but it is not self-evident that the changes make recipientssee politics in an alternative way.

The examined practices stem from different knowledge and experiences. What is missing isan analysis of the experience of the viewer that is evoked by such practices. Posed as a ques-tion: To which spheres of experience do the practices of election poster defacement refer? Inorder to find more general answers to this question, future investigations must not only incor-porate such socio-historical experiences but should also carry out comparative analyses of otherdefacement practices. Nonetheless, the exploratory analysis revealed distinctive practices and fur-ther aspects should be examined. Are there other differences regarding defaced election posters?Who is behind the defacement and what are their intentions? To what extent do such defacementsaffect election campaigns? I assume additional investigations of such visual interventions willoffer a promising field of study.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to thank Ralf Bohnsack, Heike Kanter, Marion Müller, Hagen Schölzel, Trevor Wardleand the two anonymous reviewers for their instructive commentaries and discussions on earlierversions of this article.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Axe

l Phi

lipps

] at

01:

46 1

2 A

ugus

t 201

5

200 PHILIPPS

ORCID

Axel Philipps http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0834-6025

REFERENCES

Atkinson, J. (2003). Thumbing their noses at ‘the man’: An analysis of resistance narratives about multinationalcorporations. Popular Communication, 1, 163–180. doi:10.1207/S15405710PC0103_2

Berliner Programm. (1989). Grundsatzprogramm der Sozialdemokratischen Partei Deutschlands. Retrieved from http://www.spd.de/linkableblob/1812/data/berliner_programm.pdf

Bohnsack, R. (2008). The interpretation of pictures and the documentary method. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 9.Retrieved from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0803267

Bohnsack, R. (2013). Documentary method. In U. Flick (Ed.), SAGE handbook of analyzing qualitative data (pp.217–233). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bonnell, V. E. (1997). Iconography of power. Soviet political posters under Lenin and Stalin. Berkeley, CA: Universityof California Press.

Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales. (2005). Lebenslagen in Deutschland – Zweiter Armuts- undReichtumsbericht. Drucksache15/5015. Bonn.

Burri, R. V. (2008). Bilder als soziale Praxis: Grundlegungen einer Soziologie des Visuellen. Zeitschrift für Soziologie,37, 342–358.

Cammaerts, B. (2007). Jamming the political: Beyond counter-hegemonic practices. Continuum: Journal of Media &Cultural Studies, 21, 71–90. doi:10.1080/10304310601103992

Carducci, V. (2006). Culture jamming. A sociological perspective. Journal of Consumer Culture, 6, 116–138.doi:10.1177/1469540506062722

Chaffee, L. (1993). Political protest and street art. Popular tools for democratization in Hispanic countries. Westport,CT: Greenwood Press.

Dermody, J., & Hanmer-Lloyd, S. (2011). An introspective, retrospective, futurespective analysis of the attackadvertising in the 2010 British general election. Journal of Marketing Management, 27, 736–761. doi:10.1080/

0267257X.2011.587826Dermody, J., & Scullion, R. (2003). Facing the future: Young people’s awareness of the 2001 British general election

advertising campaigns. Journal of Public Affairs, 3, 152–165. doi:10.1002/pa.143Deželau, T., & Maksuti, A. (2012). Slovenian election posters as a medium of political communication: An informative

or persuasive campaign tool? Communication, Politics & Culture, 45, 140–159.Dumitrescu, D. (2009). Spatial visual communications in election campaigns: Political posters strategies in two

democracies. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.Dumitrescu, D. (2010). ‘Know me, love me, fear me’: The anatomy of candidate poster designs in the 2007 French

legislative elections. Political Communication, 27, 20–43. doi:10.1080/10584600903297117Dumitrescu, D. (2012). The importance of being present: Election posters as signals of electoral strength, evidence from

France and Belgium. Party Politics, 18, 941–960. doi:10.1177/1354068810389644Fahlenbrach, K. (2002). Protest-Inszenierungen. Visuelle Kommunikation und kollektive Identitäten in

Protestbewegungen. Wiesbaden, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag.Farrar, M. E., & Warner, J. L. (2008). Spectacular resistance: The billionaires for Bush and the art of political culture

jamming. Polity, 40, 273–296. doi:10.1057/palgrave.polity.2300104Geise, S., & Brettschneider, F. (2010). Die Wahrnehmung und Bewertung von Wahlplakaten: Ergebnisse einer

Eyetracking-Studie. In T. Faas, K. Arzheimer, & S. Roßteutscher (Eds.), Information - Wahrnehmung – emotion(pp. 71–95). Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer.

Goodenough, W. H. (1997). Moral outrage: Territoriality in human guise. Zygon, 32, 5–27.Hondrich, K.O. (2002). Enthüllung und Entrüstung. Eine Phänomenologie des politischen Skandals. Frankfurt am Main,

Germany: Suhrkamp.Imdahl, M. (1996). Giotto, Arenafresken. Ikonographie, Ikonologie, Ikonik. München, Germany: Fink.Imdahl, M. (2006). Ikonik. Bilder und ihre Anschauung. In G. Boehm (Ed.), Was ist ein Bild? (4th ed., pp. 300–324).

Munich, Germany: Fink.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Axe

l Phi

lipps

] at

01:

46 1

2 A

ugus

t 201

5

DEFACING ELECTION POSTERS 201

Lahusen, C., & Baumgarten, B. (2010). Das Ende des sozialen Friedens? Politik und Protest in Zeiten der Hartz-Reformen. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Campus.

Lasn, K. (2000). Culture jam: The uncooling of America. New York, NY: HarperCollins.Lindenmeier, J., Schleer, C., & Pricl, D. (2012). Consumer outrage: Emotional reactions to unethical corporate behaviour.

Journal of Business Research, 65, 1364–1373. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.09.022Littler, J. (2005). Beyond the boycott. Anti-consumerism, cultural change and the limits of reflexivity. Cultural Studies,

19, 227–252.Mannheim, K. (1964). Beiträge zur Theorie der Weltanschauungs-Interpretation. In K. Mannheim (Ed.),

Wissenssoziologie (pp. 91–154). Munich, Germany: Luchterhand.Müller, M. G. (2012). Resistance is futile! In P. Dander & O. Enwezor (Eds.), Bild-gegen-Bild, Image counter image (pp.

47–61). Köln, Germany: König.Panofsky, E. (1951). Gothic architecture and scholasticism. Latrobe, PA: Archabbey.Panofsky, E. (1955). Meaning in the visual arts: Papers in and on art history. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor.Philipps, A. (2005). ‘Weg mit Hartz IV!’ Zu den Montagsdemonstrationen in Leipzig zwischen dem 30. August und 04.

Oktober 2004. Berliner Debatte Initial, 16, 93–104.Philipps, A. (2012). Visual protest material as empirical data. Visual Communication, 11, 3–21. doi:10.1177/

1470357211424675Philipps, A. (2015). Defining visual street art: In contrast to political stencils. Visual Anthropology, 28, 51–66.

doi:10.1080/08949468.2014.880034Rafferty, P. (1991). Discourse on difference: Street art/graffiti youth. Visual Anthropology Review, 7, 77–84.Rein, H. (2008). Proteste von Arbeitslosen, In R. Roth & D. Rucht (Eds.), Die sozialen Bewegungen in Deutschland seit

1945 (pp. 593–611). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Campus.Sandlin, J. A., & Milam, J. L. (2008). “Mixing pop (culture) and politics”: Cultural resistance, culture jam-

ming, and anti-consumption activism as critical public pedagogy. Curriculum Inquiry, 38, 323–350. doi:10.1111/

j.1467-873X.2008.00411.xSchölzel, H. (2013). Guerillakommunikation. Genealogie einer politischen Konfliktform. Bielefeld, Germany: transcript

Verlag.Scott, J. C. (1985). Weapons of the weak: Everyday forms of peasant resistance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Seidman, S. A. (2008). Posters, propaganda, & persuasion in election campaigns around the world and through history.

New York, NY: P. Lang.Vliegenthart, R. (2012). The professionalization of political communication? A longitudinal analysis of Dutch election

campaign posters. American Behavioral Scientist, 56, 135–150. doi:10.1177/0002764211419488Walls, J. (2002). The campaign against “live exports” in the UK: Animal protectionism, the stigmatisation of place and

the language of moral outrage. Sociological Research Online, 7(1). Retrieved from http://www.socresonline.org.uk/7/1/walls.html

Warner, J. (2007). Political culture jamming: The dissident humor of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. PopularCommunication, 5, 17–36. doi:10.1080/15405700709336783

Warnke, M., Fleckner, U., & Ziegler, H. (2011). Handbuch der politischen Ikonographie, Vols. 1 & 2 (2nd revised ed.).Munich, Germany: Beck.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Axe

l Phi

lipps

] at

01:

46 1

2 A

ugus

t 201

5