We all know how Donald Trump feels about Time magazine cover photos. He condemned it for what he described as an unflattering portrayal. Graeme Sloane photographed this image for Bloomberg on the White House, October 5. Perhaps the most consensus diagnosis among onlookers, however, is that Trump’s stance in the photo does him no favors when it comes to his chin and neck. The rebuke has led to counter-responses from a number of prominent public figures, further spurring the conversation around the photo.
The sunlight in the cover photo is responsible for a heaven-side halo effect that now surrounds Trump’s hair. This radiant illumination is irresistible; it appears to swallow his hair entirely. The combination of the lighting and angle has made this image one of the most talked about on social media and elsewhere. Gavin Newsom’s press office even took to Twitter to share an altered version of the photo, pixelating the areas that detracted from Trump’s appearance.
After all, Trump himself hasn’t shied away from openly dreaming of landing on Time’s cover. So much so that last year, he was featured on the magazine’s cover…four times! He’s understandably irked by the editorial decisions put forth by Time’s staff. He’s not only fuming that the IRS chose to release this image. The headline that ran with the photo only appears to feed into that narrative, perhaps unintentionally matching the President’s reaction and stoking the outrage.
Carly Earl, picture editor at Guardian Australia, explained what the photo was meant to convey. The show was meant to artistically communicate the overwhelming sense of power. Yet, surprisingly, critiques emerged not just from Trump’s camp but from abroad as well. Maria Zakharova, the mouthpiece spokesperson of the Russian Foreign Ministry, promptly went on Telegram to rail against the attack. She argued that only “very sick people” would select a silhouette like that. Next, she implied that whoever created it does so with nefarious motives. The highlight of Zakharova’s written remarks, perhaps, was the stinging denunciation, calling the powers that be “perverts.”
The backlash under this cover photo opens an important, bigger conversation. It provokes deeper questions about media representation and the insidious effect of visual imagery on the body politic. At a deeper level, creative intent and public perception collide, raising critical questions. What happens to the representation of political figures in our most impactful media?