Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: COVER OF TIME Magazine's "Person of the Year" vs. Original Photograph. Note the Glaring Difference? [View all]bettyellen
(47,209 posts)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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
79 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
COVER OF TIME Magazine's "Person of the Year" vs. Original Photograph. Note the Glaring Difference? [View all]
kpete
Dec 2011
OP
They also darkened the eyes and the area around the eyes to make her look different
LiberalEsto
Dec 2011
#1
They darkened all the shadows and folds, like under her chin area where the bandana is...
snooper2
Dec 2011
#65
By using only one person and changing that person from American to Muslim (illustion) they are
peacetalksforall
Dec 2011
#20
No. They changed her outfit -hiding her exposed skin, darkened her coloring, made her look angrier
bettyellen
Dec 2011
#66
to be honest, I noticed they covered up her skin and felt it was for just that reason
bettyellen
Dec 2011
#57
they kept the beanie, but covered up her skin. and made her darker and angrier looking
bettyellen
Dec 2011
#61
I'm afraid I don't see what you're talking about in reference to her brow.
cherokeeprogressive
Dec 2011
#67
you don't see- the angle and length of the brows are more extreme. which gives a more sinister look
bettyellen
Dec 2011
#71
I agree on all counts and I would wager that for every person reading the article, a hundred or
Uncle Joe
Dec 2011
#73
and editors are very aware of this, yep. and most of us here wouldn't be swayed but conservative
bettyellen
Dec 2011
#77
Trying to keep OWS out of it and really making the person more "Terrorist-like". Thank you for
Justice wanted
Dec 2011
#4
yes in very small letters where as the picture of the girl the drawing came from had 99% on her
Justice wanted
Dec 2011
#25
I agree it's scarier than the original and all highlighted on a blood red background.
Uncle Joe
Dec 2011
#32
no, it's graphic art done to spec. the editors would decide if the 99% remains
bettyellen
Dec 2011
#58
In publishing the artists do not ever get the last say. Not my fault if you assumed otherwise
bettyellen
Dec 2011
#60
Fer chrissakes, it's TIME! May as well criticize Juggs for showing naked breasts.
saras
Dec 2011
#12
Kick for the exposure of photographic manipulation by a major news corporation &R (nt)
T S Justly
Dec 2011
#31
No, he doesn't. You don't remember the redo of his famous Obama HOPE poster?
SidDithers
Dec 2011
#39
No, Time Magazine hates the OWS movement, Shepard Fairey was just hired by them to do the cover.
Uncle Joe
Dec 2011
#35
I'm not disputing that, it's not a question of the artist's support, it's a question of
Uncle Joe
Dec 2011
#47
What I take away from this post is someone's angry because they don't think OWS big enough "props".
cherokeeprogressive
Dec 2011
#54
Nice drawing. Very appropriate. Could be American, Greek, Spanish, Egyptian, Tunisian, Libyan, etc.
Prometheus Bound
Dec 2011
#72
Not to mention the exposed skin around the neck as was observed upthread. n/t
Uncle Joe
Dec 2011
#75