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.