OP, so your post is not removed, please reply to this comment with your best guess of what this meme means! Everyone else, this is PETER explains the joke. Have fun and reply as your favorite fictional character for top level responses!
The more you look the more you see little details that make the whole thing look shabby and pathetic. The seam in the baseboard by Vance's feet. The person on their phone unintentionally photo bombing from the next room.
Edit: To everyone asking, I don't super remember the parent comment and I'm not sure why it was removed. I think it said the light switches are something a magazine photographer would normally have avoided or edited out, and suggested the photographer was trying to make the subjects look bad as an act of political resistance. I was broadly agreeing with their point and expanding on it.
It’s mean to say, but she looks an easy decade or more older than her biological age. Hell, I’m almost 10 years older than her and I don’t look so haggard . I don’t look amazing, but I routinely get told I look 5-8 years younger than I am. Somehow she seems to be experiencing the opposite effect.
For connoisseurs of bad movies, dutch angles were also (in)famously overused in Battlefield: Earth, a very low quality sci fi movie based on a novel by L. Ron Hubbard and featuring some surprising star power in terms of actors who all subscribed to Scientology.
Wikipedia says that if it’s because of Germany it’s due to it being a popular angle in silent era German filmmaking. It isn’t because of Hitler’s speeches.
I went to school for photography and these pictures are reminding me of my education (decades ago) because it’s like the photographer had a checklist of all the things you “don’t” do. I love patriots like this. These will be on history books.
Right?! I guarantee the photographer was hyper aware of everything. I didn’t formally go to school for it and I’m always aware of this stuff, even in Zoom calls. Sometimes it is a real curse when watching movies/tv and I really understand the plight of my graphic designer friends.
Vance is mid-buttoning his jacket. Between that, the blank wall, the way it’s framed to make him look small - it’s all very un-presidential. Very purposefully saying “you’re not worth the effort”
Could be mid-repair, could be less visible to the naked eye under more natural lighting, could have been damaged by moving another piece of furniture that hasn't been fixed yet. Maybe all three
Now that you mention it, I scrolled backup and omg. Those are terrible. I played around with some editing features that are built into my phone from photos I took on vacation and the results impressed me greatly...this...the phots above...are absolutely cringe worthy. I loved the last one, just the bottom right of the painting, the outlet at the bottom of the wall with cords sticking out...its hilarious how awful these photos are! Thanks for the comment, I enjoyed looking at each photo thoughtfully.
Edit: A lot of you guys are caught up on the term awful. I dont understand why. When politicians have their photos taken there is an expected level of professionalism. These don't have that lmao so yes...they're awful...awfully delightful to me.
They're not flattering, but they are a long way from awful. Art isn't about being aesthetically pleasing, it's about expressing something, and these photos are a good reminder that photography is art.
This quote from an interview of the photographer is priceless. Here he’s talking about the conversation he had with Stephen Miller after taking his photos.
“Miller said ‘You know, you have a lot of power in the discretion you use to be kind to people.' And I looked at him and I said, 'You know, you do, too.’”
It’s not like Miller is going to reverse immigration policy if people take more flattering photos of him. Miller is dangling to opportunity of more access, for the photographer’s personal gain, not anything that would help anyone else.
He's not suggesting a quid pro quo. Miller is saying "you have discretion to boost my image in these photos," and the photographer said, "yeah, and you have discretion in not being a pos."
Photographers are generally kind to their subjects. They're going to use flattering lighting and angles, choose the pictures where your eyes are open, make favorable edits like brightening the eyes, softening wrinkles, whitening the teeth, etc. People pay professional photographers not just to take good photos (good meaning well exposed and composed), but also flattering photos.
So Stephen Miller was acknowledging that the photographer has a lot of power, because the final picture (in portraiture) is often detached from reality because of all the decisions made.
The photographer is responding that Miller also has this power by virtue of his political position. Stephen Miller is an incredibly hateful human. Basically any Trump policy that targets immigrants comes from that guy.
Stephen Miller has likely determined that a photographer can use many standard tricks to make a subject look good, if the photographer chooses to be kind.
The photographer correctly replies that Miller's position in the current administration allows him great latitude to be kind on a national level, but we all know that he chooses not to be kind.
I don’t think that was intentional. The US just doesn’t as a whole do parade marching practice as a meaningless show piece like third world dictator run countries do.
If you don't think the US military does parade marching as training for war, and takes it very seriously, well, son, I'm not going to be able to convince you here
Bootcamp/basic, yes. The rest of your time in the military, which may be 94% of your contract, no. And I would consider parade march a training for military discipline, precision, and recall, rather than warfighting.
Agreed. The only time I can remember actually forming up and marching after basic was some leadership course I had to take, and we only spent two afternoons out of the whole six weeks on it.
That, and Change of Command ceremonies. But that's just one big wheel around and a look to the right and back around and done (after standing there for another hour or three of course).
What? No one does parades after boot camp. What active duty unit is wasting its time with parades? I haven't seen anyone march in formation in over a decade, let alone do a full parade.
I think that's a bit harsh lol. Of course somebody not connected to the military won't think that they practice those sorts of parades, cause we don't flaunt them on television like those third world countries do.
What the fuck are you talking about? We had a Temu Dictator Parade this last 4th of July. Our military was run out there like we were some tin pot third world country showing off our toys. Fucking shameful.
Also, I never marched in formation after A School.
No one in the US military does “parade marching as training for war.” Yeah they learn to march in boot camp but that’s basically it. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
It was definitely intentional. The military doesn’t do parades like North Korea or something, but they do them on certain occasions for ceremonial purposes. I have a buddy who used to be in the Air Force who told me that a drill sergeant would yell themselves into a heart attack if they saw that performance on base.
I suspect that the brass really, really didn’t want to ever have to do it again and they communicated that they didn’t need any spit and polish down the ranks. Hopefully it was successful.
I thought this was the case, but then I spoke to two friends I have who were former US military. One was an E7, one was a former General, so a fairly broad perspective.
The US military doesn't go in for anywhere as much Potemkin training as you see in Russia, North Korea, or China. You wouldn't expect them to be as exactly in sync as in parades in those nations. However, they still do parade drills and they still can pull off a hell of a lot better than they did there. Four men walking abreast would be able to march in sync.
Those guys were either pulled from active duty or reserve with absolutely no preparation and practise, or they were told to take it easy on the whole parade aspect. My enlisted mate reckons the former, my officer mate reckons the latter but is open to both.
In either case, it was a studied insult by the high brass. Hegseths former rank as a Major is not viewed with respect - Majors are considered a transitional rank, you sit there for a year or two before the competent ones get promoted, Hegseth was not promoted. Trump himself does not have the attributes that serious men consider deserving of respect.
I was living in DC at the time and got stuck in traffic from the rehearsal for trump's parade. Maybe it was less humid that day or something but they were in perfect line, great timing, and altogether looked professional and well practiced just a day or two before the parade. Then on the day itself... Well I assume you've all seen that. I don't think it was an intentional decision from each individual soldier in the parade, and maybe it was just incompetence and not sabotage, but someone definitely majorly fucked something up for it to be as bad as it was.
I don’t think it was a “fuck up”, they knew exactly what they were doing.
Air Force here, and that marching was pure garbage. And I think it was garbage for a garbage administration forcing a programmed march that no one wanted.
I see it less as rebellion and “not going to do my job” and more so “I’m not going to edit out the shabby, dreary, disheveled, disorganized, shit show that this administration is and I’m going to purposefully illustrate that with carefully chosen imperfections and breaking certain rules that would make the subjects look better because that’s not what I’m here to do”, which in essence is doing the job to the highest level possible.
Yes, it's not "not doing my job," it's actually "doing my job extremely well." These are all highly deliberate and meaningful composition choices. It's art, after all. The artist has conveyed exactly what he set out to capture - an interesting contrast between the photographer's "deliberate sloppiness" precision and the "failed precision" sloppiness of the subjects.
Exactly, only a skilled and experienced photographer could showcase them in such a stark, almost naked way. There's no polish, no sense of decorum, dignity or integrity, any of the things you notice when you see pics of Obama, Kennedy, etc.
The guy said himself that he didn’t see this as some glossy celebrity glamor shoot, but as a serious portrayal of serious politicians in serious political spaces. The fact that they can’t comport themselves is what’s being portrayed because of course that’s what would be captured by a camera with those people in that place
Really with this photographer it’s not sabotaging because this is their style and what they are known for. They take photos they show the wrinkles and the more bland everyday vs trying to make them look perfect.
So this means the Trump team knew who the photographer was before any of this and approved. So if there is sabotage it’s on the person who gave the ok for the photographer to be there
My thought was they took these photos very intentionally to show how 'down to earth' and 'for the people' they are that they dont need 'professional liberal photographers' because only the 'woke left mob' are artists. Maga really is that stupid and petty, but i might be reaching.
As someone who worked in the publication business for years it’s more than just the photographer. This would have to clear the photographer, graphic designer, editor, production director and possibly publisher if not more people. Which makes this all the more glorious 😎
Sort of. These photographs are intended to make the subject small, ugly, disgusting, contemptible, and sub human. He is telling you that you should neither fear nor respect these hobgoblins.
This is a choice. And it is a deliberate one. And that choice is to tell the audience that these people are wretched.
The undesirable elements in these photos also shows something they would never want you to think about them, "touchable" not approachable or relatable. Touchable implies a mundane fact of life, approachable or relatable implies charm. You can touch the black mold patch on the wall next to the light switches but you can approach and relate to the guy who is telling you its probably not a good idea. These photos look like they were taken to show mild property damage and some very lame ghosts were "caught" on film
Was writing this while daughter was starting to wake just getting a thought out.
In Wiles I see fear, definitely, and also obstinance. She looks like a person that believes in heaven and hell and is afraid, because her number's going to get called sooner rather than later. And she knows deep down she has done so much evil in her life, but she's dug in so hard for so long that she feels she's in too deep to turn it around. So she doubles down, holds her chin up, and acts indignant. I think it's as much an act for her own self as it is for the audience.
I feel like "subhuman" might be a bit of a reach, but all the rest of your adjectives are stellar.
The background choices highlight the way that this building we kind of fetishize is no more than an office building currently occupied by shitty, craven, deplorable hobgoblins. It's exactly as banal and unpleasant as your office, or maybe worse. These people suck but they don't occupy an untouchable Mt Olympus.
Alternatively you could argue their presence is implied to render an otherwise hallowed place plebian and tacky.
It's more like they took photos that are intentionally unprofessional and unpolished looking. Doesn't make the subject look anything other than those things.
These photographs are intended to make the subject small, ugly, disgusting, contemptible, and sub human. He is telling you that you should neither fear nor respect these hobgoblins.
they are made to make the subject feel small and disgusting sub humans because... they are near outlets and switches?????????? They don't look imposing but it's such an insane reach to say the rest of what you did.
regardless of who these people are it's genuinely crazy that you said that.
I'm about 100% sure if this photo was done but swapped for generally well liked by reddit politicians you would have comments about how it's great and really grounds these people and makes them feel human and just like one of us.
Don't know what this is about,
But it reminds me of the people that try and track Putins movements by examining the tiny details in his press release footage,
He has about 4 offices in different locations, all built EXACTLY the same, but there are small details like light switches that are not quite perfect.
Well, that's not a fair comparison, some of those guys can tell what the subject ate the week before by examining the refraction of the sky in an aglet that is only half visible at the corner of the picture.
Intelligence agencies, journalists, political opponents, youtubers with relatable contents, think tanks, random people with special interests, conspiracy theorists, anti-conspiracy theorists. The list is definitely longer.
And there's absolutely no way that appearance is intentionally manipulated right? An ex KGB agent and director of the agency that replaced it couldn't be that cunning.
I thought the same thing. Wouldn't it be brilliant if that piece of wall trim was magnetic and they slid it up and down depending on where they wanted people to think Putin was?
In most professional photography for Richard important people the photographer will purposely keep people away from anything that could betray height or weight, because those could suspense disbelief
Fuck I’m finding a way to add this into atleast three conversations today. I work retail and it’s the holidays.. lots of Richard Importants out and about.
But what I’m not getting is Skoog saying the original tweeter is “so close to getting it” as if this is a selfawarewolves moment… what is Meg Brock not getting? She seems to be saying what everyone here is saying?
Former print media GD here. I can 100% confirm in the early 2000s these small details were painted out. Now its easier thwn ever. They never did, sort of implying the unprofessionalism and unfinished look is intentional and that the subjects of photography are unworthy.
I read the light switch and outlets as symbolism, these people turned off the light.
Edit: if you also look closely at the pictures, they are actually great, but the lighting is gloomy and stale, they are very intentional.
The shadows are casting in a way so you notice the light isn't quite right for a portrait, they look very much like they are taken at a wake or something.
They are doing the opposite of bringing out their best.
Would that not be exactly why it's poorly done? The photos seem intended to emphasize the people, therefore, having more to see would be a net negative
Edit: I understand now. I was reading from wrong perspective. Thought they meant masterclass (actually flattering) rather than masterclass (well-crafted insult)
You can see the lip filler injection marks. The lighting, the framing, the composition’s focus on the grotesque— these are all intentional choices. Contrast with the full-body shots from the shoot. Stephen Miller’s gut spills over his pants belt. Every wedding photographer in history has had to tactfully advise their subjects to button a jacket or straighten their shoulders. The goal is to help the subject look good. Seeing Miller’s gut spillage, or Rubio’s little lost boy posture, and leave it in the shot… that’sa choice, too, and the collection of choices lets us see the photographer’s intent.
The photographer has complete control of the story he’s telling. It’s a story about monsters in power.
See, I thought they were saying they're a masterclass ("They actually work very well as a portrait. The subject should be happy and the comments are being ridiculous") rather than they're a masterclass ("They are a cleverly subtle insult to the subject")
It’s well executed. If a person who has no idea what the are doing in photography or an amateur took these they would be poorly done.
Bc this guy knows what he’s doing and purposefully placed and angled and deliberately frames these as such they were WELL done.
It’s a difference of if you know what you are doing. He didn’t mistakenly take these and place them where he did. Knowing how to use skills and the room. Art and photography is storytelling. It’s to provoke emotion.
But they are NOT poorly done. The lighting and composition are all chosen very intentionally, and he absolutely nailed the focus and exposure on these photos (which were shot on film). From a technical standpoint, they are about as good as it gets.
And what i really love about these photos is that there is a certain restraint in the way they were shot. At first glance, you don't really see all of the little details he left in there on purpose - the light switches, the lip fillers. But then when you look more carefully, you start to notice all of those imperfections.
To me it communicates that as much as this administration is trying to look strong and competent and moral, they are none of those things.
its the photographer being a passive aggressive cunt. showing off those details like light switches and sockets is their way of sticking it to the man, subtle sabotage of the work, their protest.
Yeah, while I thought the closeups they posted were bad, looking at the full body shots was a huge tell that the photographer was not a fan.
Vanity isn't against having props in the photo, they're not "blank wall" photographers, but light switches? Door frames with other people in the background? Basic things to avoid. It's honestly pretty cool.
The jd vance one makes me laugh every time because something about the skirting boards and position of the light switch makes him look toddler size, or like he's a doll in a doll house from another brand. It's hilarious to me and I hope part of the deliberate choices. He looks small.
It's purposely an unfiltered look at people who live in a bubble of social media spin. I have lived everything about the photos. In an era when we are deluded with images, they have shown the power of an unedited, unfiltered but well composed image.
Yeah, at first I thought we were learning that JD Vance was shorter than he claimed, but apparently he really is at least 6 feet so that switch is at like 5 feet.
It could be a multitude of things. I believe that in addition to making the photos look unflattering and unfiltered, there’s something to be said for the fact that in several photos people are posed between light switches and thermostats almost as if to say that these individuals are just utilities themselves.
I found the original post and figured it out. Meg Brock is a right winger that works at The Daily Caller. She thinks that they are bad, careless photographs. She has a response where she says "It’s embarrassing for the photographer and VF that these images saw the light of day."
So, while it appears from the snippet that she understands how purposeful the setting of the photoshoot was, other comments reveal that no, actually, she just thinks those stupid liberals don't know how to take pictures.
I'm a photographer and everything about these photos is deliberately chosen to make the subjects look small, powerless and unprofessional. It literally takes 2s in modern editing tools to remove a light switch, straighten a photo or fix a seam on a wall.
Watch the Death of Stalin, that's how you treat villains from history. This was deliberate and great. The photographer was following malicious compliance and created pictures that would not age well in any historical fashion and likely could never be manipulated for improvement. These people won't receive dignified retellings in the future and they don't deserve it, not every historical figure should receive a grandiose story.
The critic thinks a "good" photograph of a government official should have the monarchical pomp and circumstance of a Baroque painting. They think the photographer should make these people look important, larger than life, like demi-gods at the bleeding edge of history.
The photographer intentionally chose to frame them as they are. Unremarkable people working in a cluttered office being consumed by the weight of their surroundings. He let them choose where to stand, and how to pose. These are the subject's own best attempts at emulating the portraits of the heroes in our national myths that they see everyday hung on the walls of this very workplace. If they don't look like they belong hung on the wall that was the point.
•
u/AutoModerator 3d ago
OP, so your post is not removed, please reply to this comment with your best guess of what this meme means! Everyone else, this is PETER explains the joke. Have fun and reply as your favorite fictional character for top level responses!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.