I've been very interested in the debate about the Donald Trump statues. Some find them offensive as fat-shaming, transphobic, or simply in bad taste. Others find them hilariously apt. I collected these 2-D caricatures from history because I wanted to pin down what it is about the DT statues that causes such a strong reaction, as opposed to other unflattering caricatures of him that are all over the media. Is it because it's a 3D statue, lifesize and lifelike, therefore commanding our attention in a way print does not? Is it because there are five of them? Is it because he's naked and his genitalia have also been caricatured? Certainly one could argue that some of these cartoons are in bad taste, exaggerating physical characteristics (Bush and Obama's ears; turning the jowly king of France into a fat piece of fruit; the obese, bug-eyed King Edward), but are we as offended by these? And does our feeling of being offended lessen when the subject is evil, such as Hermann Goering? (Also, does the fact that the Goering collages are considered masterpieces of Dadaist art change our feelings about the images?) Many of the cartoons of Trump portray him as overweight, distorted, and grotesque; the watercolor naked portrait of him that circulated on the internet did not elicit such a strong negative response in anti-Trump folks. (It did, however, result in the artist being punched in the face by a Trump supporter.) I'm not trying to criticize anyone - I'm just really curious at how and why we respond to this kind of political commentary in the ways we do.
"Trial of Napoleon Bonaparte," George Cruikshank 1813
"King Louis Phillipe," Charles Philipon 1831
"Kaiser Wilhelm I of Prussia" 1871
"Napoleon III and Kaiser Wilhelm I," 1871
"King Edward VII of Great Britain," 1905
"Hermann Goering," Hannah Hoch 1930s
"Herman Goering," John Heartfield 1933
"Shah of Iran," Wiaz 1977
"Ronald Reagan," Paul Conrad 1987
"George W. Bush and Jacques Chirac," 2000s
"Dick Cheney," 2006
"Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama" 1913
