Did Time Magazine Use Photography to Compare Donald Trump to Hitler?

Did Time Magazine Use Photography to Compare Donald Trump to Hitler?

Time recently announced that it had named Donald Trump its Person of the Year. That's unsurprising when you remember that the title goes to the person who "for better or for worse... has done the most to influence the events of the year." However, the cover photo is peculiar in several ways — enough so to raise the question of if it is an intentional reference to one of history's most evil and infamous figures. The Internet seems to be split on if that's the case.

Note: Let me preempt this article by saying I am entirely setting aside my personal political leanings here; what you're about to read is an objective photographic analysis and a stark reminder of the power of photography.

The Donald Trump Cover

Let's start with the 2016 Time Person of the Year Cover, which features Donald Trump. This cover first generated controversy when some asserted that the "M" in "TIME" was deliberately placed to form devil's horns on Trump's head. Time was quick to point out that this was coincidental, particularly given that many past cover shots have resulted in a similar situation, including those for multiple popes, presidents, and celebrities, among others. However, a new theory emerged: Time was deliberately referencing Hitler. Let's first establish a baseline by evaluating the Trump cover and placing it in context with the most recent Person of the Year covers that came before it. 

If you ask me, it's a bizarre portrait on its own. The office of president of the United States is arguably the most powerful position in the world, but to me, this portrait conveys little of that, at least not overtly. First, it's shot from a rather marked distance; Trump himself only occupies about a third of the frame horizontally. For a man whose personality and persona are nearly unavoidable, he rather disappears into the background a bit here almost as if this is a voyeuristic shot, a glance at something that should not be seen. His posture in hunched. His eyes are looking off-axis. The camera is about on level with him, as opposed to giving him the appearance of leering over it. 

And then, there's the lighting. What's the most powerful part of a person? Their face. In it, we can read everything we could ever want to know about them. But half of his face is in shadow, and the other half is somewhat neutral, giving away neither personality nor motive, but suggesting a duality in identity, a light and a dark, a public and a hidden. As Zach Sutton notes in his analysis of the image, there's a shadow in an odd direction behind him. If anything, I would say the peculiar angle of the projected shadow figure is entirely intentional, as if it followed the direction of the key light, it would not appear in the frame. That shadow was placed there; it's arguably referential.

So, if we accept that it doesn't exactly convey power, what is it that this portrait is showing the viewer? The chair is turned away. Incidentally, it reveals the fleur de lis prominently embroidered on the Louis XV chair (if my limited knowledge of French antiques is correct), a rather bizarre choice for an American portrait and perhaps a subtle tip of the hat to a monarch who showed little interest in politics and led France to the doorstep of the French Revolution. It may seem like a stretch, but I ask you to consider the size of the fleur de lis and the rakish angle required to display it. 

And what of Trump himself? If you gave me a photographic Rorschach test of sorts and asked me to free-associate adjectives for a man turned away but leaning toward the camera, hunched over, half-hidden in shadow, I would tell you: scheming, sinister. The turned away body indicates the presence of something in the shadows, of an interruption by the camera, of a certain voyeurism. Perhaps intentionally, that side is so in the shadows that it's almost black. The outward leaning indicates a leering of sorts, a displeasure coupled with a hidden power, as opposed to the overt power of a standing, head-on closeup.

Before we discuss the corresponding Hitler cover, however, let's place Trump's cover in context, as I think its relatively anomalous nature is relevant in discussing the intentions behind it. 

Comparison

If we look at the most recent Person of the Year covers, the difference becomes stark. President Obama's 2012 cover very much mimics the famous portrait of JFK; it's much closer and features him prominently in the frame without additional props. Because of his proximity, there is less of a hidden element, a characteristic further underscored by the fact that his far side is actually lighter. To me, this conveys a man both troubled by circumstances and profoundly deep in thought. The choice of a side profile conveys less of a power dynamic and underscores the uncertainty he faced entering his second term. Personally, I think that regardless of how you read his facial expression, this portrait is singular in identity, and in that sense, it stands distinct from the duality in the Trump portrait, the implication of a hidden side. 

The 2013 portrait of Pope Francis is perhaps the most easily read. It's inviting and accessible, unencumbered by an overly engineered pose, which contributes to its ability to portray a man seen as "the people's pope." Though a very technically apt digital painting, it intentionally reads less as a manufactured product of the studio and more as a frozen moment in time, a man of service in his element. I personally think his slight lean and the choice to crop out half his left hand are strokes of artistic and editing genius, respectively. They contribute to the "found" nature of the portrait. 

The 2014 Person(s) of the Year were those fighting Ebola. Their portraits are somewhere between those of President Obama and Pope Francis — posed, but found — the "Humans of New York" modus operandi, if you will. They show a range of sternness coupled with compassion, each shot at approximately chest level, highlighting the power of the individual against a deadly epidemic. Even without the Ebola label attached to them, they have the air of serious environmental portraits — less inviting than the pope, but unquestionably honest in representation.

The 2015 portrait of Angela Merkel returns to the subtle but singular nature of the Obama portrait. It prominently features the Chancellor in the frame, her straight-on posing underscoring the power inherent in being "chancellor of the free world," but her off-camera gaze softening said power and lending it a less individualistic feel; contrast it with the 2007 portrait of Putin starting directly at the viewer.

Note that Time characterized Merkel as someone "standing firm against tyranny... [with] steadfast moral leadership" and Putin as having "performed an extraordinary feat of leadership in imposing stability on a nation that has rarely known it," but "at significant cost to the principles and ideas that free nations prize." Putin's portrait exudes absolute power of the individual; Merkel's exudes a distillation of power of the people. Returning to the Trump comparison, however, again note that despite the differences between the Merkel and Putin portraits, both have a singular and readily apparent identity; there is no implication of duality in them. Even the text that accompanies the three portraits underscores this idea. Merkel is "Chancellor of the free world" — singular. Putin is "Tsar of the new Russia" — singular. Trump is "president of the Divided States of America" — duality.

Hitler

One thing to note: this is not Hitler's 1938 Person of the Year cover, but rather a 1941 cover. His 1938 cover showed him playing an organ with bodies hanging above with the cover line "from the unholy organist, a hymn of hate." If we accept that Time is in fact referencing Hitler with this year's cover, the more abstracted symbolism of the 1938 cover might not translate in today's environment of consumption as well. Furthermore, I can't imagine that a direct reference to that cover would ever be allowed by Trump's PR team; so rather, if we think political strategy for a moment, referencing a more obscure (relatively speaking) and less abstracted cover avoids both of the aforementioned issues. 

Now, look at the photographic properties of the portraits: their posing, their aesthetics, their symbolism. Like the Trump portrait, Hitler has receded into the frame. This lends it the same slightly voyeuristic look — less a pose than a secret look. That identity is underscored again by the sideways glance off camera — the thoughts and scheming that the camera was not privy to before this moment. The chair is a similar style. There's the same diffuse, sinister shadow on the wall (and if indeed Time was replicating this shot, it explains why they went to the lengths they did to place a shadow in a position that didn't really match the lighting of the shot). The same idea of duality is here as well, not so much in the face as in the sudden interruption of an otherwise continuous background (on the right) by a distinct blackness along with the shadow cast by Hitler himself. 

Of course, the key difference here is that Hitler is facing forward and Trump backward. This can be read several ways. Time is an American magazine; thus, a portrait of a German leader would show him facing outward with his atrocities behind him (duality) in his homeland, whereas Trump is an American leader, thereby leading the country into whatever abyss awaits it from the driver's seat. It could be read that we do not yet know the full extent of the consequences of a Trump presidency. It could be read that a deception has taken place, that the face presented to the American masses is not that that will hold the office. Returning to the fleur de lis, it's worth noting that Hitler conquered France in 1940, a year before this cover appeared. Read from that what you will. 

The Internet is very split over whether this is the case or not. I spoke to several industry associates, and surprisingly, no one was lukewarm; they either saw the resemblance in the extreme or saw nothing at all. Whether it is there or not, it's a startling reminder that photography can hold incredible expressive power and can provide commentary in a succinct and tangible way when words have long since become dulled by overusage. 

Log in or register to post comments

59 Comments

Anonymous's picture

You went into a lot more detail than I would have ever done (you're an excellent analyst), but I think you're right. I can't believe a magazine which paid so much attention to such subtle details would do anything coincidentally. I do however agree, regardless anyone's political opinions, about their reference to the "divided states." It's really sad that we can't seem to come together after elections are over. The "right" never gave Obama any rest and I don't see any unity in Trump's future either.

Alex Cooke's picture

Thanks, Patrick! I truly appreciate the kind words. That's kind of my take too; it just seems like too many coincidences at a very high level of craftsmanship where most (if not all) decisions are intentional.

Anonymous's picture

As you know, I call 'em like I see 'em. :-)

Spy Black's picture

I must say I'm at a complete loss as to why they didn't use the alt shot from that photo session. Seems so much more appropriate to me...

Jim Wilson's picture

Well that is the kind of tasteless garbage I'd expect from someone on the left! The irony of what can be said and posted from a political perspective that is supposed to be the poster child of tolerance is truly amazing. I doubt that any post like this with Mrs. Clinton's likeness would have ever seen the light of day.

The analysis of the portrait, while under the auspices of a politically neutral perspective unfolds as anything but. No I don't think it's a particularly good portrait, or portrayal, but the depth of this analysis and it's direction, is anything but non-partisan.

I have been commissioned to capture President's and Supreme Court Justices over the years, so I know the drill and the thought that goes into such a sitting. The brooding, dark feel of the entire composition is exactly what the photographer and Time wanted to portray, to President Elect Trump's detriment. Had the motivating factors not been what they obviously were, a composition of hopefulness portraying the "Make America Great!" theme might have presented a very different feel, but that wasn't the agenda was it?

Alex Cooke's picture

Jim, I would be very curious to see some of your portraits of presidents and hear your take on the process and what you were trying to convey.

Spy Black's picture

Well, well, well, upset are we now, Mr Wilson? Hmmmm...

I would like to now divert your attention to the collage of posters I have grouped together at the bottom of this reply to you sir. These are but the TINIEST of samplings of posters created by the right, or, as they fancy calling themselves these days, the Alt-Right, of President Obama that have been created over the last 8 years. Kindly take take a moment to study these images in-depth.

Now, what was it that you were saying?...

jean pierre (pete) guaron's picture

Well that's exactly the kind of tasteless garbage I'd expect from someone from the AltRight.

There - now you've both had a mud pie in the face.

Perhaps in future we can try having discussions, instead of seeking to be so abusive to one another? And assuming motives that you want to believe lay behind that photo, without any evidence at all, other than your political views.

The Pope appears to have "horns" as does Putin. In a Petapixel article of the same topic, Hillary was featured twice on the cover with "horns".

Alex Cooke's picture

Correct. Time addressed this, as I mentioned above.

I think you put more thought into this analysis than the Times itself. What would be the reason for this in first place? If they referred to famous portrait, it would make more sense, but who remembers Times cover from 1941?

Anonymous's picture

Controversial messages are more effective if done subtly. If your audience detects your message it may not be well received. Far better to lead them to your goal and let them "discover" it. I dunno...it worked for Socrates. :-)

Lee Morris's picture

It's important to remember that "Time" doesn't do anything. They hired Nadav Kander to photograph this image and I assume that he had total control. So if there is any foul play here, it's all on him and not Time. But to me, the only similarity is that they are both sitting in a chair, nothing more. And I actually really like the image. I think it's the best image of Trump I've ever seen.

Alex Cooke's picture

I'd be very curious to hear from Kander about this.

I think the idea of the photographer on this level having "total control" isn't how it works - it's a collaboration, not "Hey make it look cool." There might be an opportunity after he has "their" shot to try something experimental, but these things are pretty well concepted beforehand between the photographer and magazine creative team.

Lee Morris's picture

Perhaps you're right but I've heard Greg Heisler speak about shooting Time covers and he has never acted like Time ever told him what to do. The "two face" shot below is a good example of that.

But maybe he did run it by Time In advance and he left that out of the story.

Clearly it depends on the publication, editor and photographer - I definitely have a couple of clients who say, "Make it look cool" - but not for covers, and at this level, I think it's a team effort.

Seth Lowe's picture

I think its a good bit of both - PE's usually have a pretty solid idea of the direction they want to go, but photographers are usually given some freedom to interoperate that, or shoot their idea alongside the magazines direction.

Dylan Patrick's picture

Yeah I should also mention I really like the image from a lot of standpoints...I don't think Kander had total control of a shoot like this, I'm sure Time's creative director or whatever was looking at all options for the final pick, and these guys don't just grab a good one they are looking at various expressions and poses from all images taken. I doubt Time was totally hands off with this.

Dylan Patrick's picture

you don't see ANY similarities aside from the chair Lee?

Nathan Mollison's picture

This thought reminds me of this portrait of George H W Bush done by Gregory Heisler. Without cracking open the 50 Portraits book, I recall Greg's intentions with this image were positive, but it got construed as him going for a 'two-faced' kind of angle and resulted in him being banned from the White House for the remainder of the term.
Perhaps Kander will speak on this in due course (i.e. 20 years from now!).

Matthew Odom's picture

I'm definitely not the biggest Trump fan but I really like the photo, texture, lighting, and composition. It's definitely a great portrait.

Dylan Patrick's picture

Really outstanding analysis. I also agree I don't think the horns were placed intentionally, but I do think they were at the very least inspired by the Hitler cover. The body angle and composition chosen conveys the voyeur feel for sure, for me the body language also conveys a sense of being reprimanded by him almost, like if I was his aide and spoke against him in a meeting and he turned and looked and glared at me for it. For me the expression itself reads like "don't question me" this isn't a "presidential" shot at all. The chair also feels like a wall to me too, like "I'm here you are there" sort of thing.

Obviously like any art I think the idea for this was to let us formulate these thoughts and opinions and take from it what we want, it's hard to know that the photographer and creative director had all these nuances in mind, but I love that we are all dissecting it, and discussing it that is a good thing. I think those of us who shoot portraits everyday are (or at least should) be a good study of people. For me personally, when I watch Trump speak or whatever I don't get the sense of honesty, that I do from Obama (even personal beliefs aside). That's based off reading expression and body language, which is something I tend to judge people on more than their words.

Bottom line the "mood" of this image is intentionally dark, and that says a lot right there. This wouldn't make you want to work with this person. Also if you take the coloring, is very cold, even the subtle blue fill from the right lighting his hands; feels cold, the light on him is pale, and desolate, just the color contrast in the lighting is divided. The harsh lighting as well, no soft shadows which I also noticed towards the last few months of campaigning it seemed like every press conference or room Trump was in was heavily down lit, and in general kind of dark, it was weird. It is a very interesting cover choice for sure, again really nicely analyzed

Anonymous's picture

I'd like to watch you and Alex discuss other photos...but not mine! ;-)

Dylan Patrick's picture

hahahahaha come on! it'll be fun you can do any of mine!

Anonymous's picture

I did several of yours while watching the Cinematic Headshot videos. They were all great! :-)

Alex Cooke's picture

We'll all three do it!

Alex Cooke's picture

Thanks so much, Dylan! I really appreciate your kind words. I just don't see the horns being intentional either; it's happened too much in the past, and they've been located in a place that naturally predisposes that to happening for a while now.

Your analysis is really great; you highlighted some nuances and their impact that really enlightened my take on this. And you're right, I don't know that the photographer and creative director had these things in mind when creating the shot, but my mathematical side always asks "how many coincidences are just coincidences?"

But even so, I think we can all agree that the mood of the image is indeed dark and intentionally so. Even if that's all it amounts to — a dark cover — it indeed says quite a lot.

Is this one of those 'fake' news stories I've been hearing about? Trump and Hitler sitting in a chair.Yup, you cracked Time Magazine's 'code'.

Joseph Drago's picture

...

Pages