perceiving chameleons - membrana · perceiving chameleons martin bayer ... the waffen-ss and not...

2
67 66 membrana membrana Carl von Clausewitz said that war is thus not only a genuine chameleon, because it changes its nature to some extent in each concrete case. When the Prussian general and military philosopher wrote his unfinished work “On War”, he did not have military camouflage in mind. Back then, the soldiers wore colourful uniforms, often designed according to their respective national colours. Standing in linear formation, they fired volleys at close range. Despite the proximity of their enemies, the colourful uniforms were necessary to distinguish between friend and foe, as the heavy smoke from all the guns massively reduced the visibility on the battlefields. Colonial wars, however, were not fought symmetrically; the warriors would not have had a chance against these disciplined European forces. Now, the bright red of the English uniforms provided for excellent targets. British soldiers began to dye their uniforms with mud and tea, and in 1902, all Brit- ish combat uniforms were issued in khaki, derived from the Persian word for soil. During the early stages of the First World War, only some cavalry troops (who, also by their social class, tended to be the most conservative) and the French army still wore brightly coloured uniforms. They soon had to adapt to the new realities of smokeless powder, quick-firing artillery and precise rifles. Aerial reconnaissance was available through planes and zeppelins. Photography provided for visual facts beyond the vague recollection of human observers. Enemy gun emplacements in the back area could be targeted, and troop concentrations revealed forthcoming offensives. Due to these technological progresses, camouflage became a necessity. At first, it was mainly artists such as Lucien-Victor Guirand de Scévola and Paul Klee who painted guns or other equipment. Franz Marc experimented with painting tarpaulins: “I am curious how these ‘Kandinskys’ will appear from 2,000 metres”, he wrote, and when Pablo Picasso saw several artillery pieces passing with painted camouflage patterns, he exclaimed "C'est nous qui avons fait ça!" – It was us who did this! For some artists, it was a way to avoid frontline service, but it still was a dangerous duty. The cubist André Mare was wounded when he prepared a fake observation tree, and many others were killed. While immobile objects can be blended in its surroundings, this did not work for the navies, as the steam engines’ thick smoke was visible for dozens of miles. But what cannot be hidden, can still be made to appear different, especially as before radar had been developed, targeting was a purely visual task. The proposals of zoologist John Graham Kerr were rejected by the British admiralty. But the high losses in the German U-boat campaign led to a second approach. Artists such as Norman Wilkinson and Edward Wadsworth developed so-called dazzle patterns, making it difficult for a submarine to determine the target’s bearing, its speed, size, overall shape and type. Until June 1918, some 2,300 British ships had been dazzle-painted. A study by the admiralty, however, came to the conclusion that the sinking rate was not affected. They still continued to use dazzle, as the crewmem- bers felt much safer on these ships – camouflage, indeed, is about perception. Perceiving Chameleons Martin Bayer Simon Menner, from the series Camouflage. Sniper under the left side of the birch tree. © Simon Menner 2010 www.simonmenner.com At first sight, Simon Menner’s series Camouflage are just landscapes, but on each photo, a well- camouflaged German Bundeswehr sniper team aims at the photographer and thus the viewer. How does the viewer’s perception change with this knowledge? Simon Menner, from the series Camouflage. Sniper right of the small path. Slightly uphill inside the small bushes. © Simon Menner 2010 www.simonmenner.com

Upload: trinhdung

Post on 28-Feb-2019

239 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Perceiving Chameleons - Membrana · Perceiving Chameleons Martin Bayer ... the Waffen-SS and not the Wehrmacht, ... gle and urban areas to be more than slightly different in their

6766

mem

bran

a

mem

bran

a

Carl von Clausewitz said that war is thus not only a genuine chameleon, because it changes its nature to some extent in each concrete case. When the Prussian general and military philosopher wrote his unfinished work “On War”, he did not have military camouflage in mind. Back then, the soldiers wore colourful uniforms, often designed according to their respective national colours. Standing in linear formation, they fired volleys at close range. Despite the proximity of their enemies, the colourful uniforms were necessary to distinguish between friend and foe, as the heavy smoke from all the guns massively reduced the visibility on the battlefields.

Colonial wars, however, were not fought symmetrically; the warriors would not have had a chance against these disciplined European forces. Now, the bright red of the English uniforms provided for excellent targets. British soldiers began to dye their uniforms with mud and tea, and in 1902, all Brit-ish combat uniforms were issued in khaki, derived from the Persian word for soil.

During the early stages of the First World War, only some cavalry troops (who, also by their social class, tended to be the most conservative) and the French army still wore brightly coloured uniforms. They soon had to adapt to the new realities of smokeless powder, quick-firing artillery and precise rifles. Aerial reconnaissance was available through planes and zeppelins. Photography provided for visual facts beyond the vague recollection of human observers. Enemy gun emplacements in the back area could be targeted, and troop concentrations revealed forthcoming offensives. Due to these technological progresses, camouflage became a necessity.

At first, it was mainly artists such as Lucien-Victor Guirand de Scévola and Paul Klee who painted guns or other equipment. Franz Marc experimented with painting tarpaulins: “I am curious how these ‘Kandinskys’ will appear from 2,000 metres”, he wrote, and when Pablo Picasso saw several artillery pieces passing with painted camouflage patterns, he exclaimed "C'est nous qui avons fait ça!" – It was us who did this! For some artists, it was a way to avoid frontline service, but it still was a dangerous duty. The cubist André Mare was wounded when he prepared a fake observation tree, and many others were killed.

While immobile objects can be blended in its surroundings, this did not work for the navies, as the steam engines’ thick smoke was visible for dozens of miles. But what cannot be hidden, can still be made to appear different, especially as before radar had been developed, targeting was a purely visual task. The proposals of zoologist John Graham Kerr were rejected by the British admiralty. But the high losses in the German U-boat campaign led to a second approach. Artists such as Norman Wilkinson and Edward Wadsworth developed so-called dazzle patterns, making it difficult for a submarine to determine the target’s bearing, its speed, size, overall shape and type. Until June 1918, some 2,300 British ships had been dazzle-painted. A study by the admiralty, however, came to the conclusion that the sinking rate was not affected. They still continued to use dazzle, as the crewmem-bers felt much safer on these ships – camouflage, indeed, is about perception.

Perceiving ChameleonsMartin Bayer

Simon Menner, from the series Camouflage.

Sniper under the left side of the birch tree.

© Simon Menner 2010 www.simonmenner.com

At first sight, Simon Menner’s series Camouflage

are just landscapes, but on each photo, a well-

camouflaged German Bundeswehr sniper team

aims at the photographer and thus the viewer.

How does the viewer’s perception change with

this knowledge?

Simon Menner, from the series Camouflage.

Sniper right of the small path. Slightly uphill inside

the small bushes.

© Simon Menner 2010 www.simonmenner.com

Page 2: Perceiving Chameleons - Membrana · Perceiving Chameleons Martin Bayer ... the Waffen-SS and not the Wehrmacht, ... gle and urban areas to be more than slightly different in their

68 69

mem

bran

a

mem

bran

a

Camouflage was adapted by the early air forces, too. The Germans developed lozenge camouflage. It served to hide the plane on the ground, but also to impede targeting in the air, similar to the motion dazzle of a zebra’s lines. Pretty soon, successful pilots painted their planes in specific colours, to stand out from the crowd. It was an integral part of the “flying circus” squadron’s famousness, led by Manfred Freiherr von Richthofen. Later called the “Red Baron”, he and his red DR-1 triplane became what can only be regarded as an international brand.

Before and during the Second World War, Germany especially did lots of camouflage research. The results are still the basis for many contemporary camouflage patterns. The Reichswehr first issued Buntfarbenanstrich in 1931. Literally meaning “varicoloured painting”, it is mainly known as splinter-pattern. After extensive research for the SS, Georg Schick had developed three main patterns since the mid-1930s. Their original names are lost, but post-war collectors called the patterns plane tree, palm tree and oak leaf. These patterns were only used for the Waffen-SS and not the Wehrmacht, pointing to a second important purpose that camouflage can provide, to form identity and to distinguish oneself. For example, German army tank troops used all-black uniforms, includ-ing a skull badge on their caps. Having been taken prisoner, both their uniform’s colour and the skull led to them being mistaken for SS troops with often fatal consequences. The US army introduced camouflage uniforms for the Normandy landings, but these were quickly withdrawn again, as its wearers were mistaken for enemy SS troops.

Despite the success of camouflage patterns, political decisions led to the continuation (or in Germany, reintro-duction) of unicoloured uniforms after the Second World War. This changed after the Vietnam War, when they proved to be a distinct disadvantage to the US troops. Today, every nation tends to have its distinct pattern or colouring, even if they are often based on the German or the later American, British or French developments such as the US “Woodland”. Specific services such as the air force may have different uniforms, as often do special forces. Of course, this is less based on different operational needs, but to distinguish its bearers. This led to the downright epic failure of the US Universal Camo Pattern (UCP), introduced in 2005. In 2004, the US Marine Corps had issued their first uniforms with the new digital Marine Pattern (MARPAT) – and the army could not allow the always competing Marines to look cooler. UCP, however, is lacking the contrast needed to dissolve the soldier’s shape: From a distance, the uniform looks like a solid grey block. Even worse, the intent was to create a truly universal pattern, for all regions and all seasons. Common sense would have correctly assessed deserts, jun-gle and urban areas to be more than slightly different in their colours. Since summer 2015, UCP is replaced with the “Scorpion W2” pattern, bearing resemblance to the contemporary German Flecktarn, but still lacking contrast.

Disruptive pattern camouflage has become synonymous for military kit. Besides its military use, it is also an icon of its own, a symbol of protest as well as an aspect of fashion. There is camouflage clothing and accessories such as skirts, bags, tops, shoes and underwear, and all possible everyday goods such as pens, lighters, furniture and duvet covers. For Oi! skinheads, military clothing was a symbol of strength and of being outside civil mass society, while US hip hop singers used camouflage as a sign of protest, of self-esteem and urban warfare. During Imperial Germany, countless boys wore navy uniforms, showing their parents’ support for the Kaiser. Some decades later, wearing uniform clothing has become a symbol of subversion. As soon as fashion is the main driver, any such meaning, however, has been reduced to its pure decorative value. But armed forces, too, are subject to such trends.

According to Chinese philosopher Sun Tzu, all warfare is based on deception. Disrupted pattern camouflage can protect a soldier from detection. When a soldier should be seen, for example when patrolling in a peace-support operation, he or she can be easily spotted as a bearer of armed authority. Furthermore, the pattern appears more wild and aggressive. Perception rules, even if this means that the military functionality is reduced in favour for an allegedly more modern (read: fashionable) design. The heart of any camouflage is fooling an observer – and sometimes, this is being extended to those developing and wearing disruptive pattern material. Camouflage is always ambivalent, with its roles ranging from a desired cloak of invisibility to an indicator of power and prowess. In any case, war constantly changes and adapts itself to new realities. The need for camouflage will remain, be it a disrupted pattern uniform for the military, or civilian clothes for insurgents in Iraq or terrorists in Paris.

Jo Roettger, from the series Landscape & Memory.

Germany, Bavaria, soldiers of the Mountain

Infantry Battalion 232, snipers in camouflage.

© Jo Roettger 2010 www.joroettger.com

For his series “Landscape & Memory” Jo Roettger

accompanied German mountain troops to their

training grounds and their ISAF mission in

Afghanistan. The snipers in their ghillie suits

seem to be a crossing between man and tree, but

this specific camouflage helps them to blend into

natural environments.

Martin Bayer, Lee Yongbaek’s Angel Soldier.

© Martin Bayer 2011 www.wartist.org

A perfect camouflage for a very specific situation:

An “angel soldier” is posing in front of Lee

Yongbaek’s works he had made for the Korean

pavilion of the Venice Biennale 2011, named The

Love is Gone but the Scar will Heal.