« Blog Notes (Computers and Coming Attractions) | Main | Random Excellence: Jill Krementz »

Friday, 09 December 2016

Comments

FWIW, I'm not buying the devil's horn bit (other cover personalities incl Il Papa hosted them)- the chair... hhmmmm. But there's no doubt what really irks Herr Donald is the frayed upholstery on said chair.

I never even noticed the "horns".

I was too distracted by his bald head shining through the appalling comb-over!

It can all be handled by this:

http://www.ntnews.com.au/technology/this-chrome-browser-extension-turns-everything-donald-trump-into-adorable-kittens/news-story/bd0b3232a3bf8fc177d5474c61fad92b

I guess there'll be a bunch of these analyses, but here's one that I thought was interesting from a photographer and storyteller point of view.

http://forward.com/culture/356537/why-times-trump-cover-is-a-subversive-work-of-political-art/

I note that in Time's cover photo Donald Trump is looking backward.

So, they have the same taste in furniture. And swept-over hair. And a similar expression. Also, a similar bent towards authoritarianism, hyperpatriotism and paranoia. Other than that, it's all different now.


Mike,
I remember commenting here at the beginning of the primary season that Trump would be but a memory after a few primaries. Gone and forgotten. Boy, was I wrong...

No, I don't see any symbolism or any resemblance in the Time covers. Or,perhaps I don't want to see any. Sometimes a cigar is just a smoke.

It's funny what people notice. I thought the controversy was the inconsistent shadow on the background to Trump's left when the light is clearly coming from the left as well.

I genuinely didn't spot the horns until I read your comment (and I think they're a bit forced), and I don't see the comparison with the Hitler image.

I think a portrait is just a portrait; it's a mistake to look for hidden meaning in one, A shot taken five seconds after the one that appeared - of anyone - could look completely different. Possibly does, because who knows how many shots the photographer took? The selection of the image to publish is no longer 'pure' - it now includes not only the photographer's choices (angle, perspective, lighting, etc) but also the picture editor's preferences and quite possibly the subject's manager's as well.

Lots of differences. First of all, Trump isn't wearing a Sam Browne belt.

The comparison would have been more fitting if HRC was the Person of the Year 8-)

Yes, I can see the resemblance between the two.Trump is photographed from behind about 15 degrees off he camera line, looking back and his eyes looking directly at the camera. Hitler is photographed from the front about 30 degrees off the camera line and his eyes are looking 20 degrees away from the camera.

Horns? Show me all the cases of people pictures on the over of time where the M is not directly or nearly directly above the head. No others? Maybe you have a case.

But sure, there is cerebral input into design, but there is also serendipity, things that just work, that come out of the creative unconscious of the well trained and well practiced artist.

I would suggest drawing a parallel between the Hitler cover and the Trump cover is drawing a very long bow.

Cheers, Geoff

What "horns"....what "Hitler"? Nice chair.

I should have also included this link to Mr. Morris' own page. It includes a nice picture by
David Turnley.

Mr. Morris looks two decades younger than he is. Here's wishing him many more years!

https://www.facebook.com/johng.morris.75

http://tinyurl.com/jv68yoe

Adolf also had tiny hands. I hope this is not a premonition...

Symbolism is tricky, especially in a world of bubbles where it's easy to avoid having to prove an opinion is justified or well-founded. The chair could signify decay, or it could signify a hero's battle-worn shield. Even if you opt for decay, is the decay that of the sitter, or of a failed system (soon to be redeemed), or even the confirmative wabi-sabi of old-money power, now invaded by the forces of plain common sense (or barbarism – take your pick).

Whatever else Trump may be, he is a consummate master of his own public image. That he would not have had a veto on the use of this photo is inconceivable. It would be interesting to hear what he (and his team) think the message is.

There have been other such portraits (Goebbels, Krupp, and for a wholly American, non-Nazi example, J.P. Morgan). They tend to get photo history buffs all excited, but I'm not sure they changed much in real life.

I didn't notice the horns until now, but I definitely noticed the baleful look. Oh America, what have you done!

It is important to listen to the poor and dispossessed .... But with Nigel Farage here and Donald Trump over your side of the pond .... Look into whose hands we have delivered them.

The comments to this entry are closed.