Annie Leibovitz is known for her edgy celebrity portraits which don't always flatter their subjects. She certainly didn't flatter Bush, as you can see here.
But the Leibovitz photo of the Obama family is a boring photo which could have been taken by a Sears portrait studio. (Dont believe me? There's a smiling black family on the Sears website similarly posed.)
Wow, here are 30 seconds of high proledom - a "Dove / WalMart" commercial featuring one middle-class-looking woman after another awkwardly singing about her physical flaws to the melody of "Turkey in the Straw"...!
Marketing probably thought that this bit of synchronized prolesong was not degrading but uplifting. (And, in fact, the commenters love it.)
WalMart definitely knows how to seduce the senses of the mil/Jesuswives.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FowHP01j-Oo
Posted by: ATC | October 23, 2009 at 03:33 PM
I agree. A boring photo. I can't believe this was taken by a famous a widely acclaimed photographer.
Posted by: Muff | October 23, 2009 at 04:42 PM
Just another lib in the tank.
Do you think that the propagandists who wrote for Pravda back in the day believed in their cause like these libs believe in Obama?
Posted by: The Engineer | October 23, 2009 at 05:18 PM
Bush, Cheney... What kind of dumbass Republicans would sit tor a Leibovitz demonization. I mean photoshot.
Posted by: rob | October 23, 2009 at 09:54 PM
You can definitely see the Caucasian ancestry in Malia even though it's just one-quarter.
Peter
Posted by: ironrailsironweights.wordpress.com | October 23, 2009 at 10:01 PM
Did Annie Leibovitz come up because of a Google autocomplete suggestion after typing "Annie Le"? Anything to say about Annie Lennox?
Posted by: autocomplete | October 23, 2009 at 10:45 PM
Why not bash preachy goofball liberal Annie Leonard and her "Story of Stuff"?
Posted by: autocomplete | October 23, 2009 at 10:53 PM
OT.
Hey, Siggy, being a lawyer would you care to weigh in on the Pelosi/Constitution question?
Ed Morrissey's take:
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/23/pelosi-constitutionality-of-individual-mandates-not-serious-question/
Dissenting Justice's take:
http://dissentingjustice.blogspot.com/2009/10/pelosi-is-right-question-regarding.html
Posted by: tommy | October 23, 2009 at 10:56 PM
Wow. You nailed it again. I could even go into details:
- the photographs of Bush, Cheney are taken with a wide lens from closed distance. This makes their facial features look bigger. Certain features never stop growing (like the nose), so this would make Bush and Cheney look older and less attractive.
- the Bush and Cheney pictures are very static. This is accomplished by having the eyes on the same level. This makes for a bad pictures.
- for Bush and Cheney, the face takes all the space in the photo, and focus is put on asymmetrical eyes and ears, and on big wrinkles. The asymmetry can be achieved by taking lots of pictures and selecting the one which has the biggest such difference.
- light seems to be very frontal. You can see the light set-up reflected in Bush's eyes. You can look at his cheeks, and see the difference in light strength in the set-up. It's a 2-1 light set-up that tends to widen the face. (It may even be more even that 2-1, which basically should never be used) This combined with the picture taken from closed distance with a wide lens makes the facial features even bigger. This is also a portrait with the lack of a hair or back light.
- for the Obama photo, you can see that the faces of Obama and Michelle are placed at 1/3 on each axis, a classical placement. (the eyes goes there automatically usually) The placement is textbook, if you want people to focus on Obama (or Michelle).
- Obama's eyes are not parallel, and it gives the picture a little dynamism. It looks like he's moving the family while Michelle stands still. It gives Obama some dynamism over Michelle. It makes him the leader. (I don't like his shoulders tho; those shoulders make him beta)
- light set-up is obviously more dynamic than Bush's. It seems to be a 3-1.
- the subjects are places in an environment that denotes class. (notice the shades of color, paintings on the wall, carpets, furniture, vase, etc)
- Obama is smiling, looks happy (as opposed to Bush)
- the children are hugging Obama and Michelle: denotes closeness.
At the end of the day, both photos are boring, but Bush's photo looks like a criminal's photo while Obama's looks like an upper middle class guy with family values (although that shirt is very middle class). Very bias indeed.
Posted by: tc | October 23, 2009 at 11:43 PM
Anyone consider that the difference here is that this a family photo with small children? Conspiracies aside, just saying.
Posted by: My name is Bob | October 25, 2009 at 03:23 AM