Now I know it may appear as if I Got a Crush on Obama* at the moment and do apologise if y’all are a little tired of his face here (although undoubtably attractive 
). But in the spirit of scrutinising for the fun of it bear with me. If you enjoy analysing as much as I do ~ join in! It was this photograph by Doug Mills on the cover of yesterday’s New York Times that I found particularly striking.
Let’s have a look shall we:
I have trawled the net far and wide but disappointingly have been unable to find a better quality pic then the small one below. Simply because it was only captured within a slideshow on the homepage and not on the actual story and even with the kind assistance of enlarged printscreens sent to me via Macs it was to no avail in the improvement stakes. I’m not too happy about this since the blurriness adds to the ambiguity and subtracts or at least alters the meaning we could otherwise glean. However it’s still captivated me enough to want to continue so let us begin anyhow. If anyone manages to find a better version do let me know! In the meantime this small baby will have to do.
This historic moment in time although just a frame of a second has been strategically arranged for us. What is it we can understand that we are intended to and what are other subtle or not so subtle messages can we pick up after observing a bit? We have George & Laura Bush on the left. The Obama’s on the right. Newspapers generally like to place the given or what is known on the left; trusted if you will and what’s novel is introduced on the right. The women are placed in the centre; creating a softer illusion versus the hard outlines of the suits of their men in power placed to the outer edge. By having the women in the focus of the picture it shifts the attention away from the obvious comparisons between the two men in which the awkward Transition is occuring.
Now for some decoding through colour, clothing & size. Laura is understated in dull brown, shorter by half a head & cosied up against her husband she takes comfort from his presence. Michelle on the other hand stands strong in fierce and vivid red. Her choice in colour and the shapely form of her dress detonates sex appeal and leaves no-one questioning her confidence or independance. She appears taller and in this moment is more upright then Obama; he leans into her ~ she is his rock. The men are dressed similarly in the loyal colour of blue, almost identical in fact. I assume this was co-ordinated on purpose so as one did not seem more or less authorative then the other.
I just love this picture there is so much to absorb. For my favourite part scroll up to view the space between Michelle and Obama. Perfectly riveting. Rather then being a space which creates a sense of distance it is curved and S-shaped in movement sparking mystery and symbolising change & freshness to come. Their arms are crossed symetrically supporting each other’s backs making a perfect X that attachs their bodies together. Mr & Mrs Bush joined together in solid stability look stale and stiff next to the moving brightness of the new kids on the block. Anyone else spot anything fascinating?
This transition of 1980 is being compared in significance to the current one in terms of the Economic situation for one. Yet at first glance there is nothing nearly so contrasting to be drawn from this pic. Or is there? Once again the women are in the middle (and rather similar looking) and the men identically dressed (the stripes on their ties even go in the same direction!) are on the outside. Without the left or right placement it is obvious from the radiance shown in their faces that the older couple on the right are the new tenants of the White House. Again the First Lady on her way out is dressed in brown (perhaps it’s a requisite when Transition day rolls around?) And Reagan’s wife is dressed in a light uniform tan with her fur adding an air of importance. Funnily the hair partings are a key difference! The Carters on the left have their hair parted in a combover to our left and their right and the Reagan’s are groomed in the opposite direction! Other then this Reagan has a handkerchief poking out of his pocket which draws the eye to him. Can anyone else shed further light?
Hope you enjoyed that as much as I did!
Love to hear your thoughts and any extra analysis…
A picture really does tell a thousand words!
*Would highly recommend clicking that link and watching the video. Hilarious as always but interesting to watch now in retrospective of the events that have passed. I wonder how much credit Obama girl is taking for the outcome?!!
15 Comments
November 12, 2008 at 9:43 am
That was a really interesting read – just like literary analysis but visual instead!
November 12, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Very interesting. I wonder how many meetings it took to arrange it all! Styling politicians must be a nightmare.
November 12, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Great analyse indeed! I am myself a person who loves analysing (my former profession before I became a painter. was a mathematician…) so I really enjoyed reading your text. And very well written.
November 12, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Whiffledust – you can make up anything about this photo but will never know if you were correct, and in fact would most likely be wrong given the nearly infinite possiblities.
Maybe Laura wanted to wear red but spilled coffee on it. Maybe she leaned into her husband because she was feeling dizzy. Perhaps Michelle stands apart with a tilt because she is pissed at her husband, or her back is hurting, or at the spit second the photo was shot, her heel broke.
November 12, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Vixel ~ Glad u liked it
Joanne ~ Hmmm… I wonder how much control they have over their own wardrobe… if any!
Miki ~ Thank You! Yes I love to “read” into everything likewise…
Wrjones ~ Thanks for stopping by my blog! Certainly there are infinite meanings we could draw from this picture whether they were intended or not. In the moment that photograph was created it captured time within it’s frame. We can’t see the media and general chaos outside the picture… that moment was a fleeting second gone. A lie if you will (like ur hidden bag of Tootsie rolls). As an artist you would understand the difference a certain colour can convey; and politicians are known to dress accordingly. As well as space ~ if you painted a picture the space is just as important as what is filled in… A photograph is the same. The more time passes the more meanings change and we can see through all kinds of contexts – not only colour, fashion, composition but historically too. I still stand by my original analysis.
November 12, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Wow, such an in-depth analysis! I actually would have never thought that much about it if I hadn’t read this post. I think this shows how great photography and other artwork is. I am a photographer, and I looked at this and just saw a photo of our current president and our future president with their wives. You saw so much more. It’s anyone’s guess whether you are right about the meanings behind the dress colors, standing positions, etc… but anyone is free to have their own interpretations about those. The point is, that we can have different views of the same photo and both be correct. Our backgrounds, upbringings, and environments shape how we see things. Those different interpretations can actually be as important as the image itself. I know there are some of my images that I absolutely love for their meanings, but others may see something very different in them and hate them for the meanings. Others, I may just think are okay, but someone sees some meaning in it which is striking to them, and that makes them fall in love with it. I think that is so interesting, and something that adds value to any piece of art or photography…
November 12, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Oh my, I really like a loquacious woman. That would be u.
I may drop by in the future and actually think before I speak (well, that part is not likely).
November 12, 2008 at 6:41 pm
I would say that picture is worth at least a million words. Possibly more.
November 12, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Oh Bill, it might even be worse if you start thinking!
But yes, drop by in the future, we might assist then to a wonderful ping pong game. And you won’t have an easy game with Carmen, I reckon…
I love it!
November 12, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Aaron ~ Beautifully said. What’s important are the varying meanings we glean as individuals. Thanks for sharing Mr Photographer!
Immigration Attorney ~ Thanks for your comment! U could be right..
Bill & Miki ~ I look forward to having you 2 drop around in future…
November 13, 2008 at 10:09 am
I have to say that all this “body-language” business smacks of the back pages of those tat celebrity magazines where “gossip -hungry airheads” comment on a picture of , say, the phenomenon that is “Brangelina” and try to deduce from either her pout or his smirk that they’ve had a row in bed that morning. My view is, travelling down that road has led to shows like Big Brother! Here’s a Kev analysis. W and his missus – grey and old and out of date, the missus looks like she’s been dressed in some second-hand hessian. The Obamas, in comparison, will obviously look sleek and new, though the evening gown in the day was probably a mistake. Can we glean from the colour of it that Michelle is a communist?
November 13, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Kevmoore ~ Michelle a communist? Now that’s a thought!
November 13, 2008 at 3:53 pm
btw – I’ve said elsewhere, but not here – I’m over the moon Obama got the gig – perhaps things are taking a turn for the better.
November 14, 2008 at 8:43 am
[...] * Carmen’s fascinating photographic analysis really interested me, and reminded me of the literary analysis I did during my degree, but visual instead. See “How Many Words Can We Draw From This Picture“. [...]
November 14, 2008 at 11:44 pm
How interesting, that bit about left to right in newspaper photos!
The Bushes really do look deadly boring in that picture.