The Royal Art of Propaganda
Princess Catherine is the latest in a long line of royals to manipulate her image. Her real mistake was not that the photograph was photoshopped, but that it was done so badly.
What does a photograph say about a moment in time for the subject and for the culture from which it emerges?
We’re a long way from French photographer Henri Cartier-Bresson’s ‘Decisive Moment’. He was famous for being able to capture a paradigmatic moment of movement and stillness and a connection between photographer and subject. His photography was truth, so far as truth is possible in the medium.
Does anyone still expect truth from photography? Thanks to smart phones and social media we are all photographers and broadcasters, but these days the only thing that is decisive about our portraits is how sedimented with artifice they are.
Catherine, Princess of Wales, has stirred up hysteria over a photoshopped family portrait. There were five indications of manipulation which led major photo agencies to reject the image. The tinkering itself appears minor, but was unfortunately ham-fisted. The question is why?
As a photographer I can assure you that working with a group of children is hideously difficult and not something I specialised in or had any fondness for. The most likely option is that she wanted all the children looking in the right direction and smiling, at the same time. I’m sure every parent can sympathise. Since the Palace refuses to release the untouched original, the ‘Streisand Effect’ ensures that speculation continues. While she probably wanted to quell the rumours about her health, she has fuelled them instead.
But it’s hardly the first time that a royal has used manipulated imagery for their own ends. Royal portraiture has long been used to attract advantageous marriages, convey power, evoke awe, and promote confidence in the dynastic line.