Image 01 Image 03

Newest Political Art Entry: Naked Donald Trump

Newest Political Art Entry: Naked Donald Trump

A 5-statue study of progressive hypocrisy.

A few weeks ago, my colleague Mary reported that an Australian artist removed his mural of Hillary Clinton after a local council vote.

His first rendition put her in a very revealing swimsuit; the second featured a burqa after the council first told him to paint over it.

In the US, an “anonymous art collective” has focused its questionable creative efforts on Donald Trump.

It’s Donald Trump like he’s never been seen before.

Life-size naked statues of the Republican presidential nominee greeted passers-by in New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle and Cleveland on Thursday. They are the brainchild of an activist collective called INDECLINE, which has spoken out against Trump before.

In a statement, the collective said the hope is that Trump “is never installed in the most powerful political and military position in the world.”

The NBC report above is indicative of the coverage that the latest political art drama has received: Snark-filled and ridiculing.

It is fascinating to contrast the difference in reporting by the American press, in terms of the coverage between the Trump statue and the Clinton mural. Here is the example of the serious, somber description of the mural by the Washington Times for reference.

A mural depicting Hillary Clinton in a revealing stars-and-stripes swimsuit has caused a commotion in the Australia suburb of Footscray near Melbourne.

The mural is the work of a street artist known as Lushsux and was painted on the outside of a local business with the permission of its owner. Local officials are finding it objectionable, however, and have asked law enforcement to intervene.

“We believe it is offensive because of the depiction of a near-naked woman, not on the basis of disrespect to Hillary Clinton, in accordance with the Graffiti Prevention Act 2007,” Stephen Wall, the chief executive of the Maribyrnong Council, told Fairfax Media on Friday.

This is far different from the irreverent analysis of the Trump statue, to be sure. As an added bonus, here is how our government officials have handled the situation.

For those of you interested in art: The materials of construction were $6000 in total and the artist (Joshua Monroe) donated his time. I would love to know who funded INDECLINE’s commission for this 5-statue extravaganza.

The Hill’s analysis corresponds to my own:

..Picture, if you will, a naked statue representation of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, erected (erm…) by cover of night in Times Square and on the boardwalks of Los Angeles, the sculptor’s artistic license given free reign. Imagine the sagging breasts, the flabby tum tum, the far-less-than-pert buttocks, and for the coup de grace, creative depictions of the male genitalia. Would the sculptor go very short, or very long?

It is impossible to quantify the rage that our media would unleash on the nation and heap upon sexist and racist, so-called artists. See, there is at this point, no irony in, no shame from, and no end to, the parade of contradictions that mainstream media will foist on its viewers and readers.

When it comes to Trump, the same rules simply do not apply. He cannot speak for himself; the media will speak for him. He cannot be entitled to dignity; the media will strip it from him however they can…

In contrast to American coverage, the U.K. Guardian noted that the “ageist and body-shaming” Trump statue falls short as art and satire.

…Speaking of anatomy – mercifully, in a general sense this time – there’s an argument to be made that, for Trump, given his own lack of boundaries, none should apply. But No Balls crosses, perhaps unintentionally, into territory that serves to undermine whatever message it may mean to carry.

The piece, with its slumpy, distended belly, withered buttocks and sagging pectorals, crosses callously into generalized ageism and body-shaming; unlike the attempted caricaturization of Trump’s particular bits, this is no joke, but rather an expression of unmitigated contempt, and whatever else it does, it dissolves satirical intent in an instant.

Some Americans also noted the hypocrisy.

If progressives didn’t have double standards, they would have none at all. The same can be said of most of our press.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Oh crap Leslie,
It doesn’t take a genius to foresee what route this discussion is likely to go from certain quarters.

One of Alinsky’s rules:

“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

    Valerie in reply to TX-rifraph. | August 20, 2016 at 2:35 pm

    Unless the targets remain calm and unimpressed.

    This is what passes for humor among college students who think they are sophisticated. It is why the term “sophomoric” was coined.

Always focused on the issues that really matter, like, for example, the size of a candidate’s penis.

    Wasn’t it Trump who stood on the podium during the debates and told us about the size of his member? Sure, he was using metaphors, but it was pretty clear what he was talking about. He assured us there was “no problem” if I remember correctly.

      tom swift in reply to Paul. | August 20, 2016 at 1:10 pm

      As I recall, it was Little Marco who started that silliness. But I’m not sufficiently motivated to look it up.

      Valerie in reply to Paul. | August 20, 2016 at 2:37 pm

      No cite to original language, it didn’t happen.

      Paul in reply to Paul. | August 20, 2016 at 3:26 pm

      Doesn’t matter if Little Marco started it, Trump allowed himself to be dragged into it. Very sad, very sad.

        murkyv in reply to Paul. | August 20, 2016 at 7:10 pm

        He made one short comment about it at the debates, got a roaring laugh from the audience, showed how juvenile Little Marco was and ended it all right there.

        Valerie in reply to Paul. | August 20, 2016 at 7:16 pm

        Good. You finally posted the link. It shows Trump handling a rude remark very well, with good humor, and without descending into foul language.

        Too many of the Democrats depend upon people being unable to reference the actual video for their criticism to work.

Well, I would suggest turnabout is fair play…but ‘Naked Hillary Clinton’?

There’s not enough eye bleach in the world to handle that!

Subotai Bahadur | August 20, 2016 at 8:29 am

Granting the need for eye bleach, but the only possible response is widely distributed nude and accurate depictions of Hillary, with the rumored colostomy bag, with a walker; supported either by her medic [also nude] who has been spotted carrying the Diazepam pen to control her seizures and/or her VP candidate in a similar depiction. Title it “Kaine and Unable”.

The Left will only discover the societal benefits of civility, only when they themselves fear incivility.

I await the #NeverTrumpers’ defense of the Left.

    tom swift in reply to Subotai Bahadur. | August 20, 2016 at 1:14 pm

    There are other possible responses, the most promising perhaps being the mature one; ignore it. Children do silly things, and not all those things merit adult attention.

    Although a chance to use “Kaine and Unable” is pretty tempting.

Not a mention on the news I watch. A bit of discretion? At least it wasn’t articulated.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | August 20, 2016 at 10:03 am

Trump should turn it around on them. Say something like, “It is so great to live in a country where citizens are free to ridicule the politically powerful. Hillary wants to restrict and regulate political speech by overturning Citizens United. That’s wrong. BTW, I wish my hair looked that good”.

Second, I’d say the outrage ought to be directed at NYC Parks employee, Sam Biederman. He is paid by taxpayers to act on behalf of ALL the people. Not to show favoritism.

Yet while acting in his capacity as a government employee, he showed favoritism by mocking one of the candidates. He ought to be publicly reprimanded so other government employees know they can’t be using their taxpayer funded position and resources to appear to favor one party or candidate over another. No matter how cute and clever he thinks his double entendre is, he can’t be putting his thumb on the scale appearing to favor one candidate/party over the other while he’s on the taxpayer’s dime. Of course, he can do whatever he wants when he is not at work.

As far as political art goes, this one is still my favorite…. it’s art but it’s also oh-so-functional:

I’ve got several brainwashed proggies in my family and I gave one of these as a Christmas gift a few years ago, it was a hoot.

    4fun in reply to Paul. | August 20, 2016 at 7:41 pm

    There are rolls of toilet paper that would compliment that decor. My aunt got a couple for me one Christmas.

casualobserver | August 20, 2016 at 11:07 am

It’s so hard to teach your kids to “grow up” and behave more responsibly when we live in a culture that idolizes callow and infantile behavior. And if the message or target is right, it can even be almost unintelligible (e.g. some modern music).

The dumbing down continues.

Weird and depraved favors its antithesis. Advantage Trump.

theyellowbear | August 20, 2016 at 1:19 pm

I wonder… Why hasn’t anyone done the same with a naked statute of Hillary?

Oh… I just thought about that one. Forgive me. Eewwwwwww!

    Valerie in reply to theyellowbear. | August 20, 2016 at 2:55 pm

    Do you want the real answer? It is because Donald Trump discourages incivility on the part of his supporters. This is in steep contrast to all of the Democrats.

    The Democratic Party and its media arm approve and support this kind of behavior against their opponents, just as they approve of violence against their opponents.

    Indeed the encouragement of violence against Trump supporters, followed by efforts to blame Trump for the violence, is an actual strategy of the DNC, according to Wikileaks.

    PowerPoint playbook on the messaging — slide number 6 — with the messaging theme number 1: Violence.

    Meanwhile, The Donald has been persistently discouraging of violent and uncivil behavior. Further, his language, despite all the media reports, is gentler and more civil than that of many prominent Democrats.

    Here is one of the speeches where he was accused of “promoting violence.”

    Full Speech: Donald Trump Holds Rally in San Diego, CA (5-27-16)
    About 10, and then about 19 minutes in

    By the time he made this speech, hecklers and the way he handled them had become well known to the audience: He just made them part of the rally, demonstrating a calm competence in handling incivility.

INDECLINE I hope you get what you truly deserve for this nasty excuse for art?

Progressive hypocrisy in full display!

    Ragspierre in reply to Common Sense. | August 20, 2016 at 7:06 pm

    I doubt that Collectivists are really capable of hypocrisy, which you and most people don’t even understand as a concept.

    Real hypocrisy is not found in two different standards, oceans apart, as Leslie foolishly attempts to connect here. Australia is not the U.S., and vise versa.

    Nor is hypocrisy failing to conform to a belief system you actually hold. That is called “being human”.

    Hypocrisy is PRETENDING to hold a standard that you know you don’t. A good example is Bill Clinton and Christianity. Or Der Donald saying he’s a “constitutional conservative”.

    THAT is hypocrisy.

      Leslie used the word hypocrisy one time in a somewhat nebulous manner in this thread. You consistently accuse others of creating straw men in their presentation. In my opinion you yourself do that in your rather tortuous attempt to create a point that really isn’t there.

      I ask you, you attempt to pick fights with Leslie ever since she accepted Trump as the legitimate republican nominee chosen by republican voters. You claim you respect women. Leslie for the most part won’t play your games. Yet you continue to try to discredit her.
      Why are you continuing to try to pick a fight with her she clearly doesn’t want?

      Then there’s the whole issue of how you manipulated & gamed the system to take out Voting Female I won’t even get into.

        Leslie is a good person who would never use to score points or otherwise hide behind her gender. I can’t imagine what makes you think this a good mode of attack unless you think Leslie such a small person she’d welcome this leftist-style veil of victimhood.

        As to VF, apparently you missed her paranoid delusions, unhinged profanity-laced rant, and personal insults directed at the prof. She worked very hard to get herself banned. Find another martyr for your silly and untrue campaign against this site owner and his integrity.

          Fuzzy ;
          You misinterpret the point I was making re. Leslie. As I’ve been down this road with you before I realize the futility in attempting to get you to see where I’m going. That’s not meant as an insult, it’s just the way it is. I still hold the door open for ladies. I was raised that way. Is that offensive & wrong in your world? The ladies I hold the door for invariably thank me. As I’ve gotten older women now hold the door for me.

          Re Voting Female. You’ve not been on the receiving end of a serious Ragspierre manipulation utilizing his seeming invulnerability that gets others banned. I accuse the professor of nothing, he’s been fair with me. I only make an observation that others have also made.

          Voting female is no longer here to defend herself. Yet just the other day she was referred to as the “crazy lady” who got banned. And that’s not the first time. That’s offensive.
          I’m done with this. I’ve made my point.

          Ragspierre in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | August 21, 2016 at 8:58 am

          Note how this weasel operates…it is a lot like his man-crush…

          “Why, I’M not accusing the Prof…I’m just saying that others are.”

          But he DID outright accuse somebody here of claiming a special relationship with our host, and when called on THAT lie, failed to provide support for it. Demonstrated liar, again.

          All my critiques…and they go back a year or two…of Leslie have been rational, and long pre-dated her T-rump fan-gurl phase. I’ve butted heads with Fuzzy and others here, even the Prof.

          One of the things that got Gary (the liar) Britt booted was calling Fuzzy a “whore” in one of his posts, I would imagine. Another was his being a generally execrable human being, a lot like this puke.

          As I recall Gary Britt did not call Fuzzy a literal whore as you repeat so often. He said Fuzzy was a “whore for cruz”. One could say the same thing about you and your whoring for cruz.

          Now that Cruz is out it could be said you and Fuzzy are whores for #NeverTrump or one could reference quotes from conservatives like Bill Bennett and Jackie Mason.

          Bennett: #NeverTrump-ers put vanity above country; ‘Terrible case of moral superiority’
          posted at 12:01 pm on August 19, 2016 by Larry O’Connor

          EXCLUSIVE – Jackie Mason Slams #NeverTrump Movement: ‘Disgusting Pigs and Low Lifes’

          You and Fuzzy offer nothing original. You just spout the same old crazy Charlie Sykes talking points.

          It seemed to me that Gary Britt was banned because the Professor threw a temper tantrum on the day Cruz dropped out of primaries after getting stomped by Trump in Indiana. But that is just my opinion of course. Only the Professor knows what he was thinking at the time, and he hasn’t said.

Is it true that one of these fine figures has ended up in Gary “Fifty Shades Of” Britt’s bedroom as the basis for a shrine? Enquiring minds want to know.

Paul In Sweden | August 21, 2016 at 9:36 am

This sophomoric naked Trump non-spectacular is just about on par with Whoopi grabbing her crotch. Some solace is found knowing ineffectual bundles of Leftist cash is being burned daily by activists.