Most of this post will be under the fold. It’s best to be aware that once something is seen, it’s seen. If you don’t want to see naked, don’t look. If you don’t want to see Trump, don’t look. If you don’t want to see Naked Trump, seriously, don’t look. Now that’s out of the way:
According to the Washington Post, anarchist artist collective INDECLINE has placed naked statues of Trump around the country Thursday morning. They were unveiled in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Cleveland and Seattle. INDECLINE posted videos of itself making the statues on YouTube.
“I don’t expect these things to last more than 30 or 45 minutes,” an anonymous spokesman for INDECLINE told the Post. “But I would love to watch some irate 65-year-old Trump supporter try to take thing down with his bare hands.”
There are many more tweeted photos of the ball-less emperor here, and they were discovered in different places. In Westhampton, the statue was destroyed:
Representatives from parks department removed the statue, well, all except for the feet, just after 1 p.m. on Thursday. One bystander quickly grabbed part of the left foot before the parks department representatives could smash the remains.
Patch reached out to the Trump campaign, but had not heard back.
The crowd booed the parks department representatives, and one responded, “Just let me do my job description, guys.”
The parks department appears to have gotten the last laugh on the issue though, as its statement on the issue indicates.
NYC parks department on naked Trump statue: "NYC Parks stands firmly against any unpermitted erection in city parks, no matter how small.”
— Josh Dawsey (@jdawsey1) August 18, 2016
Via The Patch.
The worst part: The face resembles Trump which gives bad vibes resultng from the man’s behaviour. Secondly: The pubes look like semi-dried dirty pasta. The rest: Not much out of the ordinary.
I had thought they’d do a kind of a quiff for the pubes, to match the head. Oh well, I didn’t do them, so I can’t complain. I think they’re pretty funny though.
Because of my mold-making stuff I was talking to an artist who was thinking of doing some guerilla statuary. We figured that epoxy resin around welded rebar was the way to go. That way you could have the actual rebar armature stick a couple feet past the base, hammer-drill into the concrete, and pour the holes full of urethane epoxy and glass fiber before leaving. A few packs of hacksaw blades ziptied around the bottom armature would make for extra fun.
Not that I’m trying to give anyone ideas.
I followed the various links and -- ugh -- the comments about Clinton are pretty disgusting, too.
I actually am not a big fan of this artwork or idea. Going after someone’s appearance is a cheap shot. There are so many more sophisticated caricatures one could do of Trump. Like the Donald, standing on the back of a hispanic-looking dude, his pockets full of money, one hand behind his back fingers crossed, mouth open, eyes bugged out, made so there’s a speaking horn between his mouth and his butt, so you can put your lips to his trousers like a Trump fan and make noises come out the mouth. That kind of thing.
Hmm, a quiff merkin. Making merkins great again.
As art, no problem with the statue, depicts the model (target) well and hints at his character.
Marcus @ 4
Your criticism has validity. However, except for the lack of balls the tortellini pubes and the small penis, the statue is mostly just naturalistic. That’s’s a normal, even banal look for a 69-year old man, not great, I grant you.
Hmmm. I think I hear … off in the distance … somewhere to the south, all the way down to the US, even, I think … I think I hear distant screams, as of someone trumpeting their displeasure.
Should have heeded the warning.
Now if you’ll excuse me…
Looks like they used smooth-on casting resin to do a rotational casting then poured in some foam-it urethane as filler. That’s a great way to make a lightweight inexpensive piece. Darn it, if they were doing a rotational casting they could have thrown a couple dozen used chainsaw blades in there, and some granite gravel. Then more resin, and some hacksaw blades. Then the foam-it mixed with chopped kevlar. Without dramatically increasing the cost or the weight they could have made that thing insanely unpleasant to dismantle. As in: “you throw a tow-chain around it and yank it with your truck and your truck comes off” unpleasant.
The content of this *ahem* political commentary appears to be ‘Donald Trump is ugly and has a tiny penis.’ Disappointing.
Maybe it’s not political commentary.
Maybe it’s just making fun of the rich idiot.
Considering how often he’s attacked other people for their looks, it would seem that the Radioactive Velveeta brought this on himself.
That’s how it works. You trash people for their looks, they take turns getting in digs in return at how you’re not so easy on the eyes, either.
Which is the front? The cheeks on both sides are shrivelled, flat and drooping from a lifetime of sitting with his full weight upon them.
Another snicker at the “Trump Wall”
Yeah, he’s old (check out those blue veins, ugh, old people are disgusting!) and he’s FAT (seriously, fuck fat people, they’re gross), and he has NO BALLS (because without balls a man has no value, right, they’re central to his identity and worth) and a tiny penis (ditto).
Making fun of the rich idiot is cool. Why bring politics into it?
Right wing artist creates naked statues of Hillary Clinton with a vein popping their heads in 5, 4, 3…
Pun intended?
#11
I guess you won’t mind then when the Trumpets reply with the equivalent Hillary mockery, probably featuring some really wrinkly and shrivelled tits, varicose riddled thighs and hey maybe sand in her vagina. “Fun” stuff!
But if they have previously objected to said trashing on the grounds that appearence is not a valid target for criticism and that words / deeds should be the target of criticism, then they render themselves hypocritical when they resort to the same.
#14
Damn, ninja’d my #16. I hit post instead of preview when I finished writing it =\
Trump’s whole life has been based on a “look at the [emperor’s] new clothes” and during his whole election ‘campaign’, if you’re paying attention, the only thing he has actually said is “I’m not politically correct” and “I’m politically incorrect”. He has spent all this time wielding that one thing in the dangerous inflammation and normalisation of terrifying racism. He continues to pound on about this, making sure everyone knows he’s the only one with the balls to “say it like it is”. I think the flash art is fine, and if Ms. Clinton was doing this horrible kind of shit, taking this country to the brink of racist insanity, I’d be fine if the same was done about her. She isn’t the one playing emperor’s new clothes, and shouting “I have yuuuuge balls of political incorrectness!”
Holms @ #16:
Oh ffs, do you live with your head in the sand? They do that sort of thing now. That happens to all women who end up in the sights of whiny male privilege.
If you go this far with your thinking, go a little further. Hillary might comment in private about this particular work, but she’s not stupid enough to comment on it in public, or to deride Trump based on looks. Now, imagine flash art was done of Hillary, then imagine Trump’s reaction and commentary. Much like Milo whatshisface, Trump would inflame those already inclined to such nastiness, and increase it tenfold. Probably make a remark about how smart he is for having a much younger trophy wife, stupid Bill, eh?
People are much more upset about this, than they are about things like this, which is what Trump has wrought. People are more upset about this than they are about this, ffs. And as I wrote there:
And if you think all those angry, toxic people were upset about having a Black president, how do you think they will feel about a woman?
You really think all these assholes need a naked statue of Hillary to get their hate on? Please.
As political commentary it works for me. Yes, at a very superficial level it is simply mockery of an over-the-hill white male body. Essentially: Ha-ha you are old and unattractive. As such it is childish and simply a distraction from real issues.
There is another level. Trump doesn’t run as a man with a plan, method, or set of solutions for our problems. Trump presents himself as the embodiment of the solution. He is selling Trump and it is Trump who will, by force of will and personality, make things right.
Compare this to Clinton. She doesn’t present herself as inordinately special. She presents herself as little more than a caring and competent person with experience and a set of well thought through plans. Her solution is not in her magical properties as a human being but within fairly complete set of policy position papers and proposed solutions written out in detail and available to all who care to look.
Clinton has a plan and the skills and determination to make it work. Trump is the plan and his claims about what he will do: the wall, deportation, tax cuts, scare our allies and enemies, generally make us “great” are all just placeholders and vague indicators of what his intentions are when the inner sanctum of power is exposed to the magical presence of The Donald. For Trump there is no method or mechanism, it is all about presentation and presence.
In that context it is entirely allowable and cogent to point out that the emperor has no clothes. To point out that Trump is all presentation and presence. That he has no plan, no understanding, that underneath it all he is simply a huckster, a bully, and a grifter telling tales of how great things will be if only we will put him in charge.
Of course I’m aware of that, and I oppose it. You do too, right? On the grounds that it is an attack on the body of a person rather than their arguments / policies / etc., pretty much the definition of an ad hominem argument and obnoxious into the bargain. So, why join in? Your argument is simply that the people that started the body shaming shit justify its use on them.
Rephrased, people that use [unscrupulous tactic] are valid targets of [unscrupulous tactic] by people that don’t normally do so. Except by that logic, those scrupulous people that decided to use [unscrupulous tactic] are now doing the same thing that Team Obnoxious did in the first place, and are thus valid targets of [unscrupulous tactic].
And yes I understand that this is heavily gendered, and that this sort of thing is done on a smaller scale to men than to women, but ‘we do it less than them’ does not make it reasonable to do it. Indulging in (or defending) the behaviour that you oppose is simply the definition of hypocrisy, it only increases the obnoxious behavior, and the conversation is no longer ‘your behavior is bad’ but rather ‘our behaviour isn’t bad’ -- a tactical shift away from the actual reasoning behind opposing the behaviour in the first place.
I just want to revisit this for the off chance that you might read it: I did not realise it at the time, but a day or two later, I realise this was a bit more adversarial than it should have been, I don’t mean to butt heads.