Photographer discusses reaction to Vanity Fair portraits of Trump staffers Susie Wiles, JD Vance and Karoline Leavitt
Shane O’Neill
on tuesday Vanity Fair published a two-part story by Chris Whipple about the inner circle of President Donald Trump’s staff, which included unusually candid conversations with Chief of Staff Susie Wiles. Also included were remarkably unpolished portraits of Wiles, J.D. Vance, Marco Rubio, and Karoline Leavitt; all of these were photographed by Christopher Anderson.
Whipple’s story broke out on social media and in Washington, where Wiles’ allies rushed to his defense. Anderson’s portraits, especially his extreme close-ups that showed his subjects’ faces in minute topographical detail, caused a stir among people on both sides of the political divide in America.
We caught up with Anderson by phone at the airport in Paris, as she was about to board a flight to Munich for another shoot, and asked her about online reactions to her latest photos and the process behind them.
This interview has been condensed and edited for length and clarity.
I want to talk to you about the portraits you make. Vanity Fair. As I assume you’ve heard, they’ve created some buzz on social media. Can you tell me how you came to think of these?
I thought about this many years ago. I wrote a book on American politics Stubby (2014), where I did all the close-ups. This was my attempt to get around the stage-managed image of politics and cut through the image the PR team wanted to present and arrive at something more revealing about the theater of politics. It’s something I’ve been doing for a long time. I’ve done this not just to Republicans, but to every segment of the political spectrum. This is part of the way I look at portraiture in many ways: close, intimate, revealing.
What kind of topic do you prepare for this? It’s obvious your portfolio is available online, but do they know they’re signing up for the extreme close-up?
Frankly, not every photo I took was a close-up, and not all the photos I took at the White House were a close-up. When I do a portrait session, I do a little bit of everything: I change cameras, I change lenses. At one point, I was so close to Susie Wiles that she said in a very serious voice, “You’re too close,” so I backed away a little. When I do this, I get physically closer to them. I actually photographed Trump at the beginning of his first presidency. And this was her cover New York Times Magazine. It’s also a very close portrait of him.
The images are truly remarkable. What is your answer to those who say these images are unfair? Karoline Leavitt’s lips and lips attracted a lot of attention [what appear to be] injection sites.
I didn’t put the injection sites on him. People seem shocked to see that I don’t use Photoshop to retouch blemishes and injection marks. I find it shocking that anyone would expect me to retouch these things.
Especially in this context Vanity FairBut it stands out where the prevailing aesthetic is creamy and dreamy.
Vanity Fair Isn’t it a magazine that has its feet in two worlds? One is the world of journalism, the other is the celebrity entertainment machine. Obviously there are portraits of celebrities on the cover. Vanity Fair They’re not actually about journalism in the way you and I think of journalism. But there’s also the other side Vanity FairThis is real journalism. A journalist asked me, “Why didn’t I retouch the flaws?” I’m surprised he even felt the need to ask the question. Because if I did it would be a lie. I would be hiding the reality of what I saw there.
But it’s an interesting situation when that’s what you expect to see. Some people read this as an attack or slight.
If presenting what I see unfiltered is an attack, then what would you say if I chose to edit it, hide things about it, and make them look better than they do? Also, I repeat: This has been a fixture of my work for many years. I photographed all political lines this way. In my book you’ll find photos of Barack Obama, Michelle Obama – beloved figures on the left – taken in the same manner. The truth is: I was initially skeptical about this mission. Now I make my living as a famous photographer and I didn’t think I could break into this business [political] context, famous photographer doing my thing. And I’m convinced that’s not the case. My job is to go in, draw on my experience as a journalist, and photograph what I see. I’m not on a mission to make someone look good or bad. Whether anyone believes me or not, that’s not my goal. I want to make an image that faithfully portrays what I witnessed as I encountered the subject.
Did they come camera ready or was there a hair and makeup team?
Many came camera-ready or with their own hair and makeup team. Karoline Leavitt had her own personal caregiver there.
So now that the photos have been released, we don’t know if Leavitt still has that sitter today.
So what can I say? This is the makeup she wears, these are the injections she gives herself. What would you like me to say if they appear in a photo? I don’t know if it says anything about the world we live in, the age of Photoshop, the age of AI filters on Instagram, but the fact that the internet is going crazy because they see real photos and not retouched ones does say something to me.
I thought it was interesting that Leavitt’s defense of Susie Wiles was, “Everything was taken out of context.” Extreme close-up divorces also face context. What is your answer to this?
Doesn’t not seeing the beige wall behind them take them out of context? I am not sure. Everything in the frame is what I choose to keep in the frame. For me, I try to eliminate some information in close-ups so other information can be read more easily.
Were there any moments you missed? Did anything happen on the cutting room floor?
I don’t think there is anything I missed that I wish I had bought. I’ll tell you a little anecdote: Perhaps the person who was most worried about the portrait session was Stephen Miller. “Should I laugh or not?” he asked. and I said, “How would you like to be portrayed?” I said. We agreed that we would do a little of both. Then, when we were done, he came over to shake my hand and say goodbye. And he said to me, “You know, there’s a lot of power in the discretion you use to be kind to people.” I looked at him and said, “You know too.”
Washington Post
Make the most of your health, relationships, fitness and nutrition Live Well newsletter. Get it in your inbox every Monday.
