Antecedentes

While the content of Liberal posters differed from that of their two main rivals, they shared in the adoption of a universal colour scheme. This section demonstrates how all parties began to employ a cohesive style across all their posters and indeed literature. If a viewer could easily recognise that a poster belonged to a particular party, the parties hoped, understanding the

71

CPA: POSTER 1935-09, THE MAN for PEACE SECURITY and PROGRESS, 1935, Grafton Arts Ltd. 72

109

posters message would occur more quickly. Labour’s Soldiers of Lead for example reflected on how posters should be part of a larger campaign, one defined by ‘brevity’ and the ‘cumulative repetition [of] a slogan or fact that sums up the whole campaign’, and which could be ‘rammed home’ to voters.73

This conviction reflected the assimilation of ideas from the broader world of design, such as that promoted by the inter-war modernist movement. In 1925, a member of the Bauhaus Jan Tschichold stated that ‘The aim of typography was

communication’ and ‘Communication must appear in the shortest, most penetrating form.’74

By simplifying the message designers thought there was more chance voters would imbibe it. A 1949 article in Labour Organiser informed its constituency agent readers if they were to

‘pierce the shell of resistance that every individual has built round himself, as protection

against the demands made on him from hoardings, railway carriages, newspapers, and so

on.’75

By publishing Soldiers of Lead Labour showed it thought type crucial to effective

communication. ‘Type is a means to an end’, the document stated, ‘It succeeds or fails in so far as it conveys its message clearly, easily and without strain.’76

Writing in the Labour Organiser Peter Harle, a Labour designer, further articulated the importance of using the best typefaces, instructing readers towards those it favoured, such as Gill Extra Heavy, Karnack, Beton, Rockwell, Gothic Condensed, Playbill, and Ultra Bodoni.77 Transport House literature used these fonts, and the party was clearly interested in promoting an aesthetic uniformity. Uniformity did not end at the edge of printed-paper, however. Party designer Jack Brewer advised that when dressing constituency office windows, any lettering should be in ‘block- lettering or Gill-Sans. This will fit in with the material being supplied by the Publicity

Department.’78

Colour was thought crucial, too. Black ink on yellow paper was encouraged to provide a good contrast. 79 While Labour’s 1950 posters included some black script on a yellow background, the majority of text was in red. Furthermore, in 1951, the party instead chose the startling yellow on black for its text based posters, for example You’re winning the

73

Soldiers of Lead¸ p. 25 74

R. Hollis, Graphic Design: A Concise History (London, 2001) p. 55. 75 _{‘Designing a poster’ Labour Organiser (Oct,1949) 28: 331, pp. 12 – 13.} 76

Soldiers of Lead¸ p. 15.

77 _{‘Designing a poster’ Labour Organiser (Oct 1949) 28:331, pp. 12 – 13.; The same fonts were recommended} in Soldiers of Lead, p. 13.

78 _{‘Designers Advice’ Labour Organiser (September, 1949) 28: 330, pp. 12-13.} 79 _{‘Designing a poster’ Labour Organiser (October, 1949) 28: 331, pp. 12 – 13.}

110

peace and PEACE the way to plenty [Figure 3.8]. Clearly, designers even at Transport House did not always follow their own guidelines.

Figures 3.8-3.10 demonstrate how colour and font were used to create a uniform look. The common motifs were graffiti like font, black-background and ‘VOTE LABOUR’ in the dotted square. With such consistent style, viewers could rapidly appreciate that it was indeed a Labour poster. In centrally produced Conservative posters, combinations of blue and red predominated. The party had formally adopted the royal blue colour scheme in March 1950.

‘One national colour’ was meant to reflect its status as a national party, and in addition Central Office reported that a ‘single colour is more helpful in the production of printed

matter for advertising.’80 The ‘national party’ of course undermined local custom and in some parts of Britain traditions remained, Norfolk being one such example.81 However, there was a clear effort by both parties to create advertising whose universal look made it recognisably Conservative or Labour.

3.2.3 Photography

Simplification did not just come through colour and font. The drive to convey a posters message in the most expedient time possible, led designers to remove all detail from images that was irrelevant to the posters core point. A comparison between the 1951 Conservative poster, after four years LABOUR [Figure 3.11] and the 1931 National Government poster, WEIGHED UP AND FOUND WANTING [Figure 3.12] demonstrated this. The artistic rendering of the scales had given way to a flat graphic representation. By 1951, artistic detail was old, outdated, and superfluous.

The greatest innovation in expressing information quickly, during the period, however, came in the use of photography. Although rare, photography had appeared in election posters before 1939, Safety First being only the most famous, or perhaps infamous, instance.82 Moreover, as shown already, the photograph did not completely displace the work of cartoonists or draughtsman in 1950 and 1951. Labour liaised with News Chronicle cartoonists

80

CPA: CCO 4/4/228, Letter to S.H. Pierssene to Colonel Cavendish, 1 February 1951, Party Colours 4. 81

CPA: CCO 4/4/228, Letter to S.H. Pierssene to Colonel Cavendish, 1February 1951, Party Colours 4; The Nuffield study reported variations in colour in local propaganda Nicholas and Butler, The British Elections of 1950

82

CPA: POSTER 1935-13, GOOD MONEY, 1935, Downgate Printing Company; CPA: POSTER 1935 14, AND WHAT WILL YOU VOTE FOR MADAM, 1935, Grafton Arts Ltd; CPA: POSTER 1935 -16, THEY BROUGHT US FROM THE SLUMS TO SUNSHINE Studio Son Limited.

111

Victor Weisz (otherwise known as ‘Vicky’), Arthur Wakefield Horner who produced

cartoons for Tribune and the News Chronicle, and in 1951 the satirist Ronald Searle, famous for inventing the girls of St Trinians. What happened to the posters designed by these figures is sadly unknown, the minutes of the policy and publicity sub-committee being unclear.83 The fact that Labour was talking to such eminent cartoonists – Vicky was described by Randolph

Churchill as a ‘genius’ – demonstrated the belief that politicians still felt they still had a role

to play.84 During the 1950 campaign, Labour re-employed Daily Mirror cartoonist Philip Zec, who had undertaken significant work for the party in 1945.85 Despite employing a famed cartoonist, however, Labour did not get cartoons. Before his employment at the Mirror Zec had worked in commercial advertising, and his output for Labour reflected his first rather

than second career. Thus, Zec’s 1945 and 1950 posters were fiercely simple, containing a

strong central image, a succinct slogan and minimal use of colours [Figure 3.13].

Had photographs replaced Zec’s drawn figures, the posters would have communicated the

same message. Zec had created appealing images of real people, but the fact remained that technology existed for photography to do the same and do it more effectively. Designers certainly thought photographs were more attractive to voters than drawings. One of Labour’s in-house team, Peter Harle, stated that an ‘appealing photograph’ was a ‘never failing’ way of getting people to look at your posters. Photography had the ability to resonate with the

masses, because it more accurately evoked how they now saw the world. ‘Lots of people take their own ‘snaps’ when on holiday’ wrote Harle ‘so that a well presented and interesting photograph immediately strikes a chord.’86

Visual theorist John Berger reflected on the

public’s easiness with photographic images, claiming they did not view photos as art and

therefore did not think of photography as ‘beyond them’.87

Labour had given considerable thought to the use of photography before 1950. Soldiers of lead stated that if a photograph (or drawing) was to be used make sure that it was ‘good’ and

to avoid the ‘grey and jaded photograph without life or sparkle’.88

In contrast to Labour, the Conservatives did not given use of the medium quite such systematic thought and ultimately

83

LHASC: Labour party Policy and Publicity Committee, 28 May 1951.

84 _{For Churchill’s opinion of Vicky see, M. Bryant, Dictionary of Twentieth Century Cartoonists (Aldershot,} 2000) p. 238.

85 _{L. Beers, ‘Labour’s Britain fight for it now’, The Historical Journal (2009) 52:3, p. 688.} 86 _{Labour Organiser (Oct, 1949) 28:331, pp. 12 – 13.}

87_{J. Berger, ‘Understanding photography’ in A. Trachtenberg (ed.) Classic Essays on Photography} (Connecticut, 1980) p. 291.

88

112

regretted the decision. A London area report sent to Central Office following the 1950 campaign highlighted the evocative imagery of a Labour poster that featured an image of the

Jarrow march [Figure 3.1]. ‘We consider the socialist made a very effective use of

photographs showing unemployment between the wars, while we relied solely on figures and

graphs’. Photographs had persuaded where data had not (in twenty years time poster

designers would reverse their opinions on this). The report went on, ‘In view of the fact that the biggest increase in unemployment occurred between 1929 and 1931 when there was a Labour government in office, it should be possible to illustrate this with pictures taken during

those years.’89

The comment perhaps expected more of photography than it could possibly deliver, but it highlighted the belief that it could help deliver a posters meaning swiftly. Others in Conservative Central Office noted the Jarrow posters success. Worker Vyvyan Adams also spoke of the billboards impact. ‘Many commentators have repeated ad nauseum’

he wrote ‘– that the Labour Party’s Jarrow Marchers poster had a deadly effect.’90

While Labour had success with its photograph posters, the use of this type of imagery was not in itself a guarantee of success. Good image selection was required alongside good design.

One of the Conservative party’s publicity officers complained of It’s Commonsense [figure

3.14]

the Bulbrook head [the name used in party minutes of the poster] with the pointing finger defeated its object of arresting the passers-by attention by superimposing the finger on the face, which does not show up too clearly. Had the pointing finger been positioned slightly to one side, clear of the face, it would have been far more effective.91

The stern Bulbrook head with its foreshortened finger deliberately evoked Alfred Leete’s recruiting poster BRITONS “WANTS YOU” [Figure 3.15]. Two of the three salient points Paul While identified in the Kitchener image – the ‘gaze’ the pointing finger and the ‘YOU’ – were evident in the Bullbrook head.92 However, those factors which had combined to make the Leete image so memorable, were lacking in the Conservative poster, largely because of the failings highlighted by the Conservative official. Such is the arrangement of face and

89

CPA: CCO 600/14/2, Chief publicity officer reviews of election during 1950. 90

CPA: CCO 500/24/20, Review of publicity Department, 15June 1950, Organisation Dept G.E. 91

CPA: CCO 600/14/2, Chief publicity officer reviews of election during 1950.

92 _{P. White, ‘Grabbing attention: the importance of modal density in advertising’ Visual Communication (2010)} 9: 371, p. 373.

113

shoulder, forearm and hand, the method of pointing is strangely un-authoritative. The man’s arm is not (and anatomically cannot be) outstretched. Kitchener’s on the other had most

definitely been. Moreover, while Kitchener’s authority was emphasised in his military

bearing of uniform and moustache, the same was less evident in the open-necked shirt and braces of the man in the Conservative image. Although intentionally evoking the Kitchener image, there were other concerns with the poster. Presumably, the Conservatives intended the

poster’s message to come from one working class voter to another, from equal to equal. Yet

to achieve this it evokes symbolism from a poster based on authority. The Filed Marshall spoke from a position of authority to the intended viewer (those who had not yet enlisted). By evoking Kitchener, however, Bullbrook appears to be telling or shouting rather than acting from the intended position of equivalence.

This was not the only problem the Conservatives had when using photography. The iconography of the family in family – happiness – and a home [Figure 3.16] is discussed below. It is, however, another example of a poorly composed image. Dad’s right hand vanishes into absent space between Daughter and dog. Had the photo not been a montage of

shots, Mum’s right hand would be on the arm or shoulder of her son, rather than vanishing

behind his back. It was clear that despite the expertise of C.P.V in running campaigns, the Conservatives remained unable to maintain quality of design across the spectrum of posters produced during the election.