So, recently, as every headline on the Internet read for roughly the time span of one hour, a man has erect nude statues of Donald Trump across America in an exhibitionist piece titled “The Emperor Has No Balls.” Apparently, Banksy was on vacation because this piece is credited to one “Ginger.”

It’s put a lot into question for me, personally. First of all, is the sole purpose of the statue to mock Trump’s body? As Amber Tamblin has pointed out, the concept has been done before and better. She cited a painting by Ilma Gore, but one could also refer to Kanye West’s infamous “Famous” music video, depicting a nude Trump in bed with other celebrities, such as Bill Cosby and Taylor Swift. Point in case, originality clearly wasn’t a priority with this one. The difference here is that the focus is not on any context, but rather that Donald Trump is naked, and his body isn’t in the best shape. Of all the things to criticize the presidential candidate for, couldn’t “Ginger” find something a little more scathing than the girth of his stomach, or the (presumed) lack thereof between his legs? Is “Ginger’s” intention to mock Donald Trump at all? Or is Trump merely an avatar for anyone of that body type? One can easily assume that the target is Trump himself, but the satire is so lazy, so sloppily constructed that it may as well apply to anyone.

Charlie Chaplin The Great Emperor Speech

Furthermore, a lot of effort has gone behind the statues and their unveiling. Regardless of their message, there is talent on display...just charged in the wrong direction. Think about it, this is somebody’s big statement. They’ve been building towards this for weeks, months, maybe even. And what’s it for? “No balls.” That’s their Charlie Chaplin speech at the end of The Great Dictator. That’s their “Darling Nikki” performance. Really, “Ginger?” You couldn’t come up with anything better? This is how you choose to present yourself? If you must make a statement so generic, so safe, it is you lacking in the testicular department. It astounds me in its unoriginality. It’s almost an ironic piece of post-modern art on how low satire has fallen.

It isn’t a complete waste, though, because it’s challenged my own views of what qualifies as satire today. We went from “A Modest Proposal” to The Hunger Games. From “Rape of the Lock” to Lizzy the Lezzie. Was Wallace right (in quoting Kierkegaard? I forget.) to say that “Irony is the song of a bird that has come to love its cage?” Do we value the construction of commentary today or hold satire to as high of a standard as should be expected from it? When people praise the message of Mad Max: Fury Road, is it because it sheds light on an unforeseen angle of the subject matter? Or is it because it’s in an action movie where lots of cars blow up? Is it because it affirms a pre-existing paradigm? Is Meghan Trainor really the best we can do, America? What does the word satire mean today? Is it any medium with a message? Is Lana del Rey really satire? Or is it just shallow aesthetic appropriation? Did The Lego Movie tell us anything that we didn't already know? Does “Thrift Shop” by Macklemore count as social commentary? And if so, should we also accept Robin Thicke’s “Blurred Lines?” (It’s hysterical how both those references already feel dated.) Are satirists afraid to make a statement that isn’t already the popular opinion? And if so, do we need satire today? People (at least in my social network) love to spout memes like “hail satan” and macros about the effects of injecting pots, but what viewpoint are those jokes mocking? Does anybody today still feel that way? Where’s the edge? Where’s the bold statements, the messages that make you reconsider your own perspective on issues? As Biggy Smalls once said, “Things Done Changed.”