When U.S. magazine Vanity Fair published photos of President Donald Trump’s closest advisors, shockingly candid and unretouched photos of the Trump administration shook the public. With many taking to social media to dive deeper into the pictures, the gallery caused a nationwide stir around the photographs of Trump’s major advisors. Among these advisors were prominent political figures Vice President J.D. Vance, Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
Alongside an in-depth analysis of the Trump administration by Vanity Fair’s Chris Whipple, titled Trump 2.0 Edition, the collection of photos taken by photographer Christopher Anderson has brought new ideas of the role of art in politics.
This large-scale discussion over the photos stemmed from the rare, intimate style of photography that Anderson executed with close imagery, flash photography, and high-resolution pictures. In fact, the photos almost seem too high-quality, with every pore and hair defined on the subjects’ faces.
In a world of smoothing filters, Photoshop, and Artificial Intelligence, rarely do photographers release un-edited or rough photos. However, Anderson’s pictures were quite the opposite of the smooth, edited photography that is often seen by the public. It is no stretch to say that the collection was unlike almost all photography of politicians, world leaders, or even celebrities. In fact, it was deliberately designed to be extremely realistic.
With cakey makeup, poor angles, extremely close shots, and botched plastic surgery made obvious, the photos were realistic for sure—and unflattering to say the least. Not to mention that the crooked lampshades, random wires, light switches directly next to the subjects, and messy workspaces did little to paint the politicians in a positive light.
Rather than appearing powerful and put-together, the arbitrary placement of distracting items (such as light switches and wires) and zoomed-out pictures made the politicians appear diminutive in stature and powerless. The perfect example of these realistic choices throughout the photos can be seen in the full-body photos of Vance and Leavitt.
In Vance’s picture, he has two light switches positioned directly next to his left shoulder, and is far away from the camera, making him appear short and too small for the space. In terms of Leavitt’s full-length picture, one of the lampshades behind her shoulder is askew, a random pile of wood is next to her on the ground, and the American flag next to her is crumpled.
This is clearly not a beneficial or wanted look for some of the most powerful leaders of the country, yet the style of photography was a very intentional choice by Anderson.
This is not an example of poor photography. This is deliberate. The art of noticing and portraying his subject as it is shown immensely in his photography. According to Anderson, “The job was not to make anyone look good or bad. My mission was to show up and photograph honestly and thoughtfully.”
Anderson’s photos are meant to show Trump’s advisors exactly as they are, without the editing or filters. They are not meant to be a biting commentary on the Trump administration, no matter how unflattering the photos are. Clearly, his photography allows room for the viewer’s interpretation while still powerfully showcasing the reality of American politicians.
So, interpret the photos as you will: either as a realistic portrayal of the people behind the Trump administration or as an unnecessarily unflattering portrayal. Either way, there is no doubt that photography and artistic expression have a necessary place in politics and the capability to make real social change.
