> Not on the same magnitude of cost but each time there's a new president, portraits in military installations and government offices are updated.
Chain-of-command portraits serve a practical, if minor, function; yes, more of them change when a chief executive changes than anyone else, but they also change when a batallion commander or civilian agency director changes, for the same reason as for a chief executive.
Heraldry of the monarch also serve a function, I suppose, but it is less like a chain of command photograph and more like the US national coat of arms (or the Great Seal, which has the former on the obverse); neither of which has changed substantially (there have been some rendering tweaks) since adopted by the Congress under the Articles of Confederation in 1782.
> Chain-of-command portraits serve a practical, if minor, function
And that function is that (for example) on a big Navy ship with thousands of sailors, the "lower ranks" might never have laid eyes on the commanding officer ("CO") or executive officer ("XO") but need to recognize him/her if s/he shows up unannounced and alone in a workspace — following the old nuclear-Navy rule that "you get what you INspect, not what you EXpect."
Chain-of-command portraits serve a practical, if minor, function; yes, more of them change when a chief executive changes than anyone else, but they also change when a batallion commander or civilian agency director changes, for the same reason as for a chief executive.
Heraldry of the monarch also serve a function, I suppose, but it is less like a chain of command photograph and more like the US national coat of arms (or the Great Seal, which has the former on the obverse); neither of which has changed substantially (there have been some rendering tweaks) since adopted by the Congress under the Articles of Confederation in 1782.