In the future, the photograph will not be the model for the painter in the old sense of academic models, but his documentary aid in the sense in which, in our day, files of daily newspapers are indispensable to the novelist . . . the painter of tomorrow will use the photographer's eye.
As we know, cubism was a reaction on the part of painters to the invention of photography. Photography and cinema made struggling for exact likeness childish.
In the last few years, the manufacture of cameras such as those of the newspaper photographers, the principle of which is very similar to that of cinema cameras, has brought about an absolutely new school of photography,... thanks to the technical perfection of the camera, photography in its turn has abandoned the studio and lost its static, academic character—its fixity. It has mixed into life; it has gone everywhere taking life by surprise: and once again it has become more revealing and more denunciatory than painting. It no longer shows us human beings posing, but men in movement... The photograph... today stops at nothing. It is discovering the world anew.
As [John Heartfield] was playing with the fire of appearance, reality took fire around him... The scraps of photographs that he formerly manoeuvred for the pleasure of stupification, under his fingers began to signify.
Photography intervenes in a very strange way. It makes the streets, gates, squares of the city into illustrations of a trashy novel, draws off the banal obviousness of this ancient architecture to inject it with the most pristine intensity...