COVER OF TIME Magazine's "Person of the Year" vs. Original Photograph. Note the Glaring Difference?

[kpete]

The image on TIME's cover – in which the 99% is unmistakably absent – is based on a photo of Sarah Mason, a 25-year-old Occupy L.A. activist (and art gallery worker) who was photographed by LA Weekly's Ted Soqui as she stood in a line, arms linked, during a November 17 protest at Bank of America Plaza.

The original image, with a vinegar-soaked 99% bandana masking Mason's face, her eyes focused and determined as she protests corporate greed, has unmistakable intensity and meaning. However, on TIME's cover, she is reduced to a generic, hybrid graphic that fails to invoke passions precisely because it lacks the specificity of place, the specificity of time, the specificity of motivation, of a cause.

In short, it lacks the 99 percent.

the rest:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/18/1046730/-Cover-for-TIME-Magazines-Person-of-the-Year-vs-Original-Photograph-Note-the-Glaring-Difference?via=siderec

[LiberalEsto]

1. They also darkened the eyes and the area around the eyes to make her look different

perhaps Middle Eastern?

[SidDithers]

18. Who is "They"?...nt

Sid

[Zoeisright]

24. The editors at Time.

[snooper2]

65. They darkened all the shadows and folds, like under her chin area where the bandana is...

not everything is a "conspiracy" FYI

[ThomWV]

2. We are lied to every day in every possible way. Our impressions are shaped

and at all times our activities are monitored.

[Octafish]

62. Well stated.

MOCKINGBIRD continues unabated.

[MineralMan]

3. If you look at the cover, you'll note that they're talking about

all protesters, starting with the Arab Spring protesters. So, they photoshopped the image to remove specifics from it. They also posterized the image, which altered the colors and dramatized the photo.

They weren't just focusing on the OWS protests, but presenting an image of protesters everywhere.

I don't think they were trying to minimize anything. Instead, they were broadening an image of a specific protester in a specific place to include all protests, worldwide. I don't see anything nefarious here.

[Amaril]

5. My thoughts exactly

The image represents "The Protestor" -- a figure that is devoid of race, national origin and even gender. It is meant to represent all who have the courage to stand up for what they believe in.

I think Time's choice to erase the 99% was a good one. OWS is avitally important movement, but there are multiple movements in multiple countries around the world that are just as important and deserve equal recognition.

[GeorgeGist]

6. Of course you wouldn't.

BTW It's called plagiarization

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

16. Some would call it art

[MineralMan]

19. I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

Can you clarify?

[hootinholler]

48. Depends on if you own rights to the photo

BTW, I think the word is plagiarism

[CrispyQ]

10. I love the cover. I think it's beautiful.

Last edited Mon Dec 19, 2011, 03:06 PM - Edit history (1)

I love the street scenes depicted in the red background. I love the anonymous feel of the protestor. Male? Female? Nationality? It signifies a global movement to me - which is what's needed.

on edit: I love the words:

From the Arab Spring to Athens
From Occupy Wall Street to Moscow

[treestar]

11. The internationalized the image

That's what I thought - seeing only the cover at first, it seemed to focus on the Arab protests - which did have the effect of bringing down a government in Egypt, so that protestor deserves the focus.

[peacetalksforall]

20. By using only one person and changing that person from American to Muslim (illustion) they are

perpetuating right wing discomfort for left wing protesters.

They could have done something that protesters could be proud of.

It is not a genuine act. It disgusted me when I found out.

Time could have used 99 small photos on the cover from all the places where there are protests which
could have also been art photography layout.

My low opinion of them plunged.

[MineralMan]

21. I didn't see the image as representing a Muslim

at all. In fact, I don't see any particular religious or racial characteristics in it. I'm not sure where you're finding them.

[peacetalksforall]

63. They took a photo of an American girl and made her look Arabic,

terrorist, non-terrorist, or representative of a Muslim girl who is required to wear face and hair covering.

Time is part of The New World Order group. They are part of the corporate media facilitators of the New World Order. They are not about honoring protesters, imo..

The photo shop artist said that he wanted a propaganda look.

They couldn't be plain American for an American magazine. They couldn't be straight. The couldn't just show the girl as is because they would have to pay her, name/provide cover credit to her? I am very negative about the role they play today.

My disrespect is for the magazine and all that it has come to stand for in spreading the corporate military complex culture. I have nothing against Muslims, Arabs, Persians, Turks, Malaysian, Moroccan or any other kind of Muslim people.

Why not try to get into the spread of choice when someone protests a magazine and a shill photo artist who sought a propaganda look?

The photo shop artist could split his income from Time with the American girl and some Muslim Tunisian, Egyptian, Syrian, Yemen, Libyan, Bahreini girl to appease the duplicity an misrepresentation of both. Or Time could do it.

I'll remember the photo shop artist named Farley and avoid him.

[MineralMan]

64. No. They posterized a photo of a woman.

But, you're welcome to believe whatever you're able to believe.

[bettyellen]

66. No. They changed her outfit -hiding her exposed skin, darkened her coloring, made her look angrier

by increasing the furrow in her brow. Posterization has nothing to do with any of that.
Those were editorial choices, and no accident.

[aquart]

37. "From American to Muslim"?

Are you fucking kidding me with that disgusting piece of bigotry?

[bettyellen]

57. to be honest, I noticed they covered up her skin and felt it was for just that reason

that they'd like her to look like she could just as easily be in Eqypt as she could in NYC. I don't think there's anything racist about picking up the subtle differences that skew the image to be more international, more angry (the increase in brow furrow) and therefore less "friendly" to main stream america.

[hootinholler]

49. The original mask looks like muslin to me

Maybe they turned it into a poly blend?

[pinboy3niner]

51. :)

Once they start doing that it's curtains, fer sure!1!!

[hootinholler]

55. Label me a purist

Those blends are just too hot in the summer and get them wet in the winter they won't keep you warm.

[cherokeeprogressive]

50. So wearing a beanie makes me a Muslim?

[bettyellen]

61. they kept the beanie, but covered up her skin. and made her darker and angrier looking

by extending and highlighting the furrowed brow. those were all concious choices that skewed the image so it could be anywhere.
the first image, even without the 99%, you would guess the USA or Europe, and would never place her in Eqypt.
I don't think there's anything wrong with pointing that out.

[cherokeeprogressive]

67. I'm afraid I don't see what you're talking about in reference to her brow.

As the poster said upthread, the biggest change is the covering of the skin on the shoulder on one side and covering her chest on the other.

I honestly see nothing more than a photograph, stylized, posterized, and made a little more generic for display on a magazine cover.

[bettyellen]

71. you don't see- the angle and length of the brows are more extreme. which gives a more sinister look

I think it's funny that few noticed her skin was gone, because more than anything, that transforms the image from a california co ed to someone who could be an Eqyptian, or a terrorist or even a ninja. I certainly do think it's subtle, but that they decided to push it to be a more severe, and away from what many americans can relate to. I can't say I'm surprised at Time though.

[Uncle Joe]

73. I agree on all counts and I would wager that for every person reading the article, a hundred or

more will only see the cover on the newstand, just more subliminal manipulation from the corporate media.

[bettyellen]

77. and editors are very aware of this, yep. and most of us here wouldn't be swayed but conservative

people, would have their predjudices confirmed. the protester is "other" than the average american girl she appeared to be in the original photo.
it would be much more honest to use the original in an american magazine, which should be examining why the protest movement has finallly hit home in a huge way.

[Justice wanted]

4. Trying to keep OWS out of it and really making the person more "Terrorist-like". Thank you for

showing me this picture.


I have to wonder what the article inside the magazine says and how they paint Time's person of the year. I should have known they would somehow SCREW the average jane/joe with this honor.

[LibDemAlways]

8. Whatever the intention was, the result is as you stated - to make the

protestor look like a terrorist - menacing eyes behind a hidden face - the kind of person looking to create havoc - hardly the "person next door" the artist says he was trying to represent.

[Adsos Letter]

28. +1

[spanone]

9. it mentions OWS right on the cover....

[Justice wanted]

25. yes in very small letters where as the picture of the girl the drawing came from had 99% on her

scarf. You immedately understood what the picture was. HOWEVER look at the Time drawing. It just makes this person look dangerous and scary. To me looking at the time picture it just looks bad. Sorry.

[Adsos Letter]

29. +1

[Major Hogwash]

45. I agree.

And considering that Time magazine leans politically way to the right, I think they did it intentionally.
To scare the rightwingnuts into being afraid of the OWS protestors.

[SidDithers]

7. Why don't you ask Shepard Fairey about the cover?...

He created the artwork after picking that picture out of a group of 25 photos.

He removed the 99% because, obviously, Shepard Fairey is a tool of the corporate elite, who hates OWS and the 99%.

ETA: Here's an interview with Fairey about his cover. Pardon the HuffPo link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/14/shepard-fairey-designs-ti_n_1149680.html

"Time provided me with reference images to sift through and I illustrated from a photograph that I thought would be a good reference for an iconic and compelling protester who would come across as serious, but not scary. Most of the protesters are normal, idealistic, young adults, so I thought the "person next door" feel was important. I'm influenced by propaganda poster art and I try to emphasize the most powerful essence of an image and eliminate anything superfluous. My color palette has a propaganda influence as well. I like Warhol as well."

Edit 2: Fairey's interview with Time http://timemagazine.tumblr.com/post/14214199000/shepard-fairey-talks-about-creating-times-person-of

Sid

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

17. Warhol is exactly who I thought of

When I saw the photo.

[LiberalEsto]

26. I wonder if Fairey really meant

the terrorist next door?

[Adsos Letter]

30. "...who would come across as serious, but not scary."

It's scarier than the original.

The subtle shading around the eyes and eyebrows changes the subjects demeanor considerably.

[Uncle Joe]

32. I agree it's scarier than the original and all highlighted on a blood red background.

[SidDithers]

40. It's art...

Do you really think Shepard Fairey intends to make protesters look bad with this piece?

You guys are reading far, far too much into this cover.

Sid

[Adsos Letter]

42. The demeanor comes across as more sinister and threatening.

Whether he intended it or not, the result is the same.

[bettyellen]

58. no, it's graphic art done to spec. the editors would decide if the 99% remains

in the pic or not. They give a lot of input, and if the artist doesn't go along, they find another one who will.

[SidDithers]

59. Prove it...

I bet you're wrong. I think that if you want Shepard Fairey to do your cover art, you don't make demands on what you want from him.

So, prove it.

Sid

[bettyellen]

60. In publishing the artists do not ever get the last say. Not my fault if you assumed otherwise

It's how publishing works. Aritsts provide roughs, get feedback from the editor hiring who knows exactly what is acceptable to the top brass. What design "elements" are included or excluded are specifically called out before the artwork is produced. Editors have specific ideas of what is okay to convey, and what is not- they make sure the artist follows through. Most times they provide a few test images and editors edit them. Every magazine out there works that way. If they choose a ready made image (not the case here, but I'll play- because it can happen) it is because the image already does completely convey the publicications intent. The artist themselves is never ever allowed to make that call, that is the editors job- to edit content.
You thought they'd let old Shep do whatever he want? Bless your heart, I guess you don't know anyone who have worked for magazines. Sorry, I have been around this stuff my whole life, I thought everyone knew how it works.

[saras]

12. Fer chrissakes, it's TIME! May as well criticize Juggs for showing naked breasts.

[DeSwiss]

13. ....

[NuttyFluffers]

56. Seriously. Not a good mag by a moonshot.

and too damn glossy for toilet paper, as well.

[Schema Thing]

14. Seriously? This is bullshit criticism.

Dumb criticism to gin up dumb people.

This is the sort of criticism I hate seeing from the right.


It's even more loathsome from the left.


Go away.

[Lint Head]

15. They are playing on the fear of terrorism. Corporate media, especially

the ones that receive advertising from the likes of BP and Halliburton, need to perpetuate the 'terrorist around every corner' myth.
It makes money for them while keeping the pablum flowing to the people.

[Zorra]

22. Kind of takes most of the meat out of the stew.

Would have been more powerful if they had used the original photo for the US edition, instead of making it look sort of like it happened "over there, and not here".

[kestrel91316]

23. They darkened her eyes to make her look like one of them

Middle Eastern terraists. And of course removed the critical "99%".

[Carolina]

27. Yet another reason I

dropped my subscription to TIME years ago.

You say: "... on TIME's cover, she is reduced to a generic, hybrid graphic that fails to invoke passions precisely because it lacks the specificity of place, the specificity of time, the specificity of motivation, of a cause."

Even worse, and likely intended, the cover graphic also makes the protestor appear sinister, potentially fueling more antipathy by SHEEPLE toward protest in general.

[T S Justly]

31. Kick for the exposure of photographic manipulation by a major news corporation &R (nt)

[SidDithers]

33. Shepard Fairey hates OWS!!!...

Misdirected outrage is the best kind.

Sid

[T S Justly]

34. Oh ...

Okay. Perhaps, he does. Had'nt thought about Fairey's role in this hit job. Good catch!

[SidDithers]

39. No, he doesn't. You don't remember the redo of his famous Obama HOPE poster?

http://obeygiant.com/headlines/occupy-hope




So Shepard Fairey took a picture of an OWS protestor, and generalized it. Big fucking deal.

Sid

[Uncle Joe]

35. No, Time Magazine hates the OWS movement, Shepard Fairey was just hired by them to do the cover.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepard_Fairey

"Fairey was questioned about criticism surrounding his use of images from social movements, specifically images created by artists of color, in an interview with Liam O'Donoghue for Mother Jones. O'Donoghue later posted an article, titled "Shepard Fairey’s Image Problem", on several independent media sites.[55] The article explored Fairey's use of copyright protected images while at the same time defending his copyright protected works from being used by other artists and corporations. Fairey cited his collaboration with Public Enemy, his funding of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation, and his six-figure charitable contributions for Darfur assistance as counterpoints to the charges of exploitation. "I challenge anybody to fuck with that, know what I mean," Fairey stated. "It's not like I'm just jumping on some cool rebel cause for the sake of exploiting it for profit. People like to talk shit, but it's usually to justify their own apathy. I don't want to demean anyone's struggles through casual appropriation of something powerful; that's not my intention."[56]

That may not be his "intention" but Time paid him for his work and I believe contrary to his objection, that was the result at least on this cover.

[spanone]

36. it mentions OWS right on the cover of the mag.

[Uncle Joe]

38. On a scarier depiction than the original pic as Adsos Letter observed

on post #30 and I concurred with on post#32.

[SidDithers]

41. Shepard Fairey, the artist, is a huge supporter of OWS...

http://obeygiant.com/headlines/occupy-hope

Sid

[Uncle Joe]

47. I'm not disputing that, it's not a question of the artist's support, it's a question of

marketing and psychology.

Time Magazine is a loyal member of the corporate media, they didn't a choose to do a "Norman Rockwell" type depiction of the OWS movement for a powerful reason, they don't want the American People to associate the OWS movement as mom, apple pie and baseball, even though democracy and the First Amendment are every bit composed of that essence.

Time preferred a darker and visually more sinister image, and they got it.

[AtomicKitten]

44. Probably because they want to signify global protesters

and the "99%" is connected with OWS specifically.

[progressoid]

46. Good god. Much ado about nothing.

The Person of the year is the protester. All of them. That's why it is a "a generic, hybrid graphic".

Jeez.

[slay]

52. Time = We alter the news to fit our narrative

[midnight]

53. Yes I do.... I prefer the original to the modified striped away 99%...

[cherokeeprogressive]

54. What I take away from this post is someone's angry because they don't think OWS big enough "props".

I think this is evidenced by the argument "it lacks the specificity of place, the specificity of time, the specificity of motivation, of a cause."

[fascisthunter]

69. um no... it was deliberately left out not to give the attention to OWS

In the design field we know what we are doing and that edit was on purpose...

[Rex]

76. Of course it was left out. Time and Newsweek

are puppets of the US plutarchy.

[fascisthunter]

68. That was No Accident

[blaze]

70. I posterized a pic of my (86yo) Mom.

She looks sinister in the posterized version.

meh

much ado about nuttin'

[Prometheus Bound]

72. Nice drawing. Very appropriate. Could be American, Greek, Spanish, Egyptian, Tunisian, Libyan, etc.

Leaving the 99% on would focus too much on the US movement.

[Rex]

74. Well OF COURSE they had to take the 99% off!

They love and worship the U.S. plutocracy! Time is nothing more than another POS propaganda rag that works for the PTB and would watch us all die if their paymastes ordered it! They would put away their cameras and mics and say, "YES MASTER, WHATEVER THE CORPORATION WANTS!"

Fucking sick, but expected by American corporations playing CYA for their fellow corporations. I hope they keep it up! It is backfiring everytime a corporate robot tries to hide the problems with this country.

[Uncle Joe]

75. Not to mention the exposed skin around the neck as was observed upthread. n/t

[Spike89]

78. It is not about OWS specifically and there is anger

This is an absurd thing for us to get worked up about. This is supposed to represent the protesters and yes, revolutionaries all over the globe who made protesting the story of the year. Time is supposed to be at least nominally an International news source and I'm glad they choose to recognize that the entire friggen world seems fed up with the staus quo rather than putting Bieber or some other pop star on the cover.
Seriously, what are people complaining about? OWS is a big deal, but so was the toppling of governments in the middle east where real people were killed in their protests.
Oh, and as someone with more than a couple decades in magazine publishing as an editor, the cover is pure editorial. This cover does seem to match and illustrate the point of the feature--the big news of last year were uprisings and protesters all over the world.

[Uncle Joe]

79. They took an image specifically from OWS and manipulated it with an obvious sinister bent from the

original pic.

I would venture to say the vast majority of protesters worldwide don't even wear masks, no doubt many of them do whether it be for nefarious reasons or just to protect themselves against poltical and or economic reprisals for expressing their freedom of speech power.

I have no problem with generic "protesters" being the "Person of the Year" but at the very least if Time can't find it in themselves to project the protesters' image in a positive light, it could've done so in a neutral one.

I agree with you as for the cover being an editorial and so is this thread in response, if you read the entire thread, it's pretty self-explanatory as to why some people are worked up.

To may way of thinking if more people had been worked up or become aware of corporate media propaganda, whether blatant or subliminal, we as a nation would be much better off than we are today.

P.S. As for Time being International, it would be nice if they were consistent to that claim.