• @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1
      edit-2
      22 hours ago

      It’s not even the underlighting. Like, his hair looks lopsided, his eyes aren’t symmetrical, the camera is looking down at him…like, this was his official portrait from Term 1:

      https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Donald_Trump_official_portrait.jpg

      That’s far more conventional.

      Looking at a Fox News article comparing the two side-by-side, I guess that the idea with his new portrait is to evoke his mugshot, as it’s posed similarly:

      But whatever the political benefit his campaign perceives it as, the campaign is over. He’s in (well, going to be in) office. Having done that, do you truly want to try to evoke a mugshot as your legacy?

      EDIT: For contrast, here are the portraits of all prior presidents:

      https://www.whitehousehistory.org/galleries/presidential-portraits

      The only other one that’s really as oddball as that is JFK’s, and I’d sure rather have something like JFK’s than Trump’s.

      • Capt. Wolf
        link
        119 hours ago

        I do have to say, we need to go back to painted portraits… They look so much classier and dignified. Fitting for a position of power. Obama’s looks like a cardboard standee. Biden’s is alright until you look at his face too much. Trump’s first looks like he’s posing for employee of the month. His second looks, well yeah, it looks like his just like mugshot. They’re like school yearbook photos…