“MAKE AMERICA HUNG AGAIN”
Los Angeles-based artist Illma Gore is facing a lawsuit threat over her infamous painting of “Republican” presidential frontrunner Donald Trump.
Gore’s painting – entitled “Make America Great Again” – depicts the 69-year-old billionaire in the nude. With a small penis.
Here’s the censored version …
(Click to enlarge)
(Pic: Illma Gore)
And for those of you dying to see the “not-so-full-Monty,” the uncensored version can be viewed HERE (<- NSFW).
The 23-year-old artist says her painting was created “to evoke a reaction from its audience, good or bad, about the significance we place on our physical selves.”
“One should not feel emasculated by their penis size or vagina, as it does not define who you are,” she said. “Your genitals do not define your gender, your power, or your status. Simply put, you can be a massive prick, despite what is in your pants.”
Yeah … either that or Gore really, really wanted to make people think Trump has a small penis.
Anyway, Gore’s artwork was unable to be shown in the United States because of security concerns (Trump’s supporters don’t care for it that much, apparently). She’s also allegedly received death threats over the painting – as well as threats of legal action in the event she tries to sell it.
Her response?
“I told them that if they didn’t stop, I’d draw it even smaller,” she told Art Wire.
Gore is currently in Great Britain – where the Maddox Gallery in London is managing the controversial work (now valued at roughly $1 million).
“The reaction, especially in the UK, has been incredibly supportive,” she told The (U.K.) Guardian. “Everywhere apart from America has been great. Who knew it would be such a big deal? I think an artist’s job is to take the times we’re living in and then set the scene. It is a representation of where we are.”
Of course she’s still under threat of a lawsuit – an anonymous one – in the event she makes a profit off of her work.
Ridiculous …
This website has defended Trump from many of his critics – recognizing their pronouncements to be the dying gasps of a desperate establishment. We’ve also been supportive of his populist uprising within the “Republican” party – going so far as to endorse his candidacy in the run-up to the 2016 “First in the South” presidential primary (which he won convincingly).
But we’re with Gore on this one …
Not only does she have every right to paint whomever she pleases (however she pleases), but she should have the right to make a living based on her ability to do so. These efforts to censor her – and deprive her of what the market will bear for her work – strike us as being unnecessarily restrictive of Gore’s liberty and economic opportunity.
They also beg the question … why has her painting elicited such an angry response from “The Donald” and his supporters?
Wouldn’t the smarter play have been to laugh the whole thing off?