I found Jake Romm's article about the subversive nature of Time Magazine's Trump cover particularly insightful. of course, I'm talking about this photo:
Nutshell of his points...
1. That the image is presented in a Kodachrome color palette -not something I would have noticed, btw- causing us to see the photo through whatever notions we have of the 1940's.
2. The pose and its relationship to other artworks depicting monarchs and leaders in seated positions. His analysis of the power between the viewer and the subject of the photo, wherein the leader doesn't rise for the viewer -that the viewer must approach the leader... I also agree that there is a conspiratorial kind of expression generated by the looking-back-at-us body position as opposed to images of other leaders where we see them straight-on.
Romm also talks a bit about the shadow lurking in the background...I don't see any light source on the subject that would've cast that shadow, so adding it was a choice -a statement, if you will.
3. THE CHAIR. Which is one of the main things I noticed about the photo. The back of it looks decayed...then your eyes go around and start noticing other things...like the chips in the paint. And honestly, like the shadow. For me, the decay on the back of the chair is so out of place that it causes me to closely observe the rest of the shot.
Anyhow, worth thinking about. Man, I love photography!