I want you to start off today by just picturing
a formal portrait of a world leader. Oh, right.
Yeah, you know the drill. It's the dignified
stiff suit. Maybe a flag pin on the lapel. A
very serious, very concerned look. Exactly. The
bookshelf in the background. It is all visual
shorthand for stability and authority. Right.
But today... We're going to strip all of that
away. Yeah. Literally. Because we are talking
about a time when a Canadian artist took that
traditional prime ministerial image and just,
well, she removed the suit. She removed the suit,
the tie, the shirt, all of it. Welcome to today's
deep dive. We're looking at a 2011 oil painting
called Emperor Haute Couture. Created by the
Canadian artist Margaret Sutherland. And the
subject of this painting is the 22nd Prime Minister
of Canada, Stephen Harper. Nude. Very nude. Yeah.
And I want to be clear right up front about our
mission for this deep dive, because it would
be really easy to just giggle at a naked politician
and move on. But this isn't just a political
cartoon in a daily newspaper. We have sources
detailing the incredibly strange, fascinating
journey of this physical object. Because it caused
an absolute national stir. It really did. This
canvas went from a quiet gallery salon to the
center of a human rights tribunal. Which is wild.
And then eventually ended up in the most unlikely
place imaginable for fine art, an online classified
site. Right next to used snow tires. Exactly.
So we're going to look at the intersection of
high art, political satire, public censorship,
and how a controversial painting turns into a
historical artifact. It's a great story. Let's
start with the what. Because if you haven't seen
this painting you might be imagining, I don't
know, a quick little sketch. Right, but Emperor
Haute Couture is a massive, serious piece of
work. It's a large -scale, oil -on -canvas painting.
How big are we talking? It's 91 .44 centimeters
by 152 .4 centimeters. So, roughly 3 by 5 feet.
Yeah, 3 by 5 feet. When you stand in front of
it, it completely imposes itself on the space.
You can't just walk past it and ignore it. And
the actual composition of the painting is very
specific. Sutherland didn't just paint a generic
naked man on a chair. No, she was doing something
much more deliberate. She was actually paying
homage to a very famous piece of art history
Which is Edouard Manet's Olympia. Exactly. From
1863. And for the art history buffs listening,
that is a huge reference. Oh, yeah. Because when
Manet painted Olympia, it was notoriously scandalous.
Not just because the subject was nude, but because
of how she looked at the viewer. She was a courtesan.
Right. And she was staring directly out of the
canvas. Confrontational. She wasn't demure or
submissive. She was completely in control of
the gaze. And what Sutherland did here is so
clever. because she flips that entire gender
dynamic upside down. She does. Instead of a woman
on display for the male gaze, she takes the most
powerful man in the country, Stephen Harper,
and puts him in that exact reclining pose. It
completely subverts the traditional power dynamic
of a political portrait. You have the head of
government in this incredibly vulnerable, exposed
position, but he still has this sort of imperial,
confident air about him. Which brings us to the
title. Emperor Haute Couture. Yes. That is a
direct line straight to Hans Christian Andersen,
isn't it? It is. The Emperor's New Clothes, the
classic fairy tale about vanity, and a whole
court of people who absolutely refuse to speak
the truth to the person in power. Because they're
terrified of looking stupid. Exactly. And Sutherland
was very open about this. In her interviews,
she confirmed the title was a deliberate nod
to that story. She was imparting a specific political
critique. Right. It suggests a level of self
-deception within that specific government. But
there's another detail in the painting that really
grounds it in the politics of 2011. You mean
the figure in the background? Yes. Because in
Manet's original Olympia, there's a black servant
bringing the courtesan a bouquet of flowers.
Right. But in Sutherland's painting, Emperor
Haute Couture, there is a woman standing in the
background wearing a purple business suit. And
that woman represents Bev Oda. She was a former
minister in the Harper government. And according
to Sutherland, this wasn't just a general critique
of vanity. She specifically painted this to highlight
the lack of female cabinet ministers in the Harper
government at the time. It's a very sharp, specific
commentary. The figure of Oda in the background
really forces you to ask who is serving whom
and who gets to hold the actual power. So it's
this fascinating blend. classical art composition,
high -level technical skill, and extremely contemporary
political satire. And then she submits it to
an art show. As you do. As you do. She enters
it into the Kingston Arts Council's annual juried
salon. And it gets selected. Ah. Which makes
sense. It's a compelling piece. But the venue
for this salon is where the trouble really starts.
Oh, absolutely. Because the venue was the Kingston
-Torontenac Public Library. Right. And displaying
a three by five foot painting of a nude prime
minister in a public library that is poking the
bear. It is a massive provocation because a library
is a multi -use public space. You've got kids,
families, seniors. It is not a secluded adults
only fine art gallery. And that public nature
is exactly what sparked the legal controversy.
Enter Curtis Stewart. Yes, Curtis Stewart. And
what's interesting is he wasn't even from Kingston.
He was from St. Albert, Alberta. But he became
aware of the painting, likely through the news
coverage. And he took immense offense to it.
He didn't just write a grumpy letter to the editor
either. No, he escalated it to the highest possible
level for this kind of thing. He lodged a formal
human rights complaint against the library. With
the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. Exactly. Which,
when I was reading the sources, just blew my
mind. Because usually you think of human rights
tribunals dealing with severe discrimination,
housing, employment, access to basic services.
Right. How does someone argue that looking at
a painting... infringes on their human rights.
His argument was essentially that the library,
by choosing to display what he called risk art,
was infringing on his rights. He felt it created
an inappropriate or hostile environment in a
public service building. He tried to frame the
sheer act of encountering challenging art as
a rights violation. Exactly. It wasn't just,
I don't like this picture. It was a legal dispute
over what is deemed appropriate for the public
eye and whether a public institution has the
right to display it. And if he had won that case,
I mean, the precedent that would have set for
public art in Canada is terrifying. It would
have been incredibly chilling. Any controversial
book, any provocative image could theoretically
be challenged as a human rights violation just
for being in a library. But it wasn't a quick
dismissal, right? This dragged on. It took seven
months. Seven months of legal limbo. Seven months
where the library had to rigorously defend its
right to host a juried art salon. But ultimately,
the tribunal dismissed the complaint. They found
that displaying the painting did not infringe
on Stewart's human rights. Which is a huge victory
for freedom of expression. It is. But honestly,
for the artist Margaret Sutherland. This whole
ordeal was basically the greatest marketing campaign
money couldn't buy. Oh, it's the ultimate stray
sand effect. Right. By trying to ban the painting,
Stewart guaranteed that every major news outlet
in Canada ran a story about the Harper nude.
It went from being a local art piece in Kingston
to a national talking point. Everyone had an
opinion on it. And that level of infamy changes
the physical object. It's no longer just oil
on canvas. It has an aura now. It has a reputation.
So after the salon closes. What happens to it?
It goes up for sale. Yes. In June 2012, it sold
through a traditional, respectable route. The
Edward Day Gallery in Toronto. Right. It sold
to a buyer named Daniel Potvin for $5 ,000. Which
seems quite reasonable for a large, famous original
piece. Definitely. But Potvin doesn't hold on
to it forever. And this brings us to my absolute
favorite part of the story. The Kijiji twist.
It is so good. So, fast forward to the fall of
2015. Stephen Harper's time as prime minister
is winding down. The political landscape is shifting.
And Danielle Potvin needs some extra money for
home renovations. Such a beautifully mundane
reason to sell a national scandal. Right. She's
not trying to curate a museum collection. She
just needs to fix up her house. Yeah. But she
doesn't go back to a high -end gallery in Toronto.
She doesn't call Sotheby's. She lists it on Kijiji.
Kijiji. And for anyone listening outside of Canada,
Kijiji is basically the standard online classified
site. It's where you go to buy... A used lawnmower
or like a gently used futon. It is the least
pretentious marketplace on the internet. And
she lists Emperor Haute Couture for $8 ,800?
But she was very strategic about it. She didn't
just post it in one local area. She listed it
across major Canadian cities. Oh, she blanketed
the country. Chicoutimi, Quebec, Montreal, Ottawa,
Toronto, Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver. She knew
exactly what she had. She knew the controversy
was baked into the value. And it worked. Because
it didn't just sit there. A journalist named
Janet G. Pruden wrote an article for the Edmonton
Journal in November 2015. Highlighting the fact
that this infamous nude portrait was just sitting
there on Kijiji. And that media coverage sets
off an actual bidding war. People suddenly realized
they could own this piece of Canadian political
history. So who ends up winning? Who buys the
Gijiji Harper? The winner was a Vancouver -based
technology entrepreneur named Frederick Garamani.
A tech CEO in Vancouver. Yeah. Now, you might
think a tech entrepreneur buying a controversial
nude painting. He's just doing it for a laugh,
like a weird trophy for the office. But his motivation
was actually entirely different. He didn't buy
it to hide it away or just to mock the former
prime minister. He bought it with a specific
mission. He wanted to share it. Yes. He stated
he intended to share the painting with Canadian
high schools and universities completely free
of charge. He wanted it to be an educational
tool. Exactly. He referred to Sutherland's work
as a Canadian artifact. See, that's a really
powerful word, artifact. It moves the painting
out of the realm of is this good or bad art and
into this is a historical document. Right. And
his reasoning for why it's a historical document
is fascinating. He felt the painting did a brilliant
job capturing a very specific national mood.
What did he say? He said it captured the mood
of over 60 percent of Canadians who felt that
the prime minister didn't want to listen to his
own experts. Wow. So he is connecting the metaphor.
of the painting The Emperor's New Clothes, the
isolation, the vanity, directly to the political
frustrations of that era. He's saying that this
painting, despite being satirical and absurd,
was actually a more accurate reflection of how
the electorate felt than any official dignified
photograph ever could be. That is such a profound
way to look at it. To Margaret Sutherland, the
artist, it was a critique. of gender representation
in the cabinet. Right. But Curtis Stewart, the
guy who filed the complaint, it was a scandalous,
inappropriate image that threatened public spaces.
And to Frederick Garamani, it's a historical
artifact symbolizing a government ignoring expert
advice. The painting just absorbs whatever the
viewer brings to it. Which is the hallmark of
truly effective art. It evolves. It really does.
And I mean, just think about the sheer physical
journey of this canvas. It starts in a studio.
It hangs in a public library in Kingston. It
gets dragged into a human rights tribunal. It
gets sold at a fine art gallery. Then it probably
hangs in a living room for a few years. Right.
Then it gets listed online next to used snowboards
on Kijiji. And finally, it gets shipped across
the country to Vancouver to be an educational
artifact. It's the ultimate modern Canadian story.
It touches on high art, the legal limits of free
speech, the internet marketplace, and political
legacy. And the legal aspect really shouldn't
be understated. No, not at all. That human rights
tribunal decision is a serious footnote. Because
if it had gone the other way, our public spaces
would be so much more restricted. Libraries would
have to second guess every single exhibition,
terrified of offending one person. The painting
actually helped solidify the protection of challenging
discourse in public spaces. So a nude painting
on a chaise lounge basically did heavy lifting
for Canadian free expression. It really did.
So as we wrap up this deep dive, I want to leave
you with a thought to mull over. OK. We've spent
this whole time talking about a physical object,
a big, heavy three by five oil painting that
you have to physically move from a gallery to
a living room to a tech office. And it gained
its value and its status as an artifact precisely
because it existed in the physical world. It
caused a stir in a real brick and mortar library.
It confronted people in physical space. Exactly.
But think about how political satire works. today.
It's barely been over a decade, but the landscape
has completely shifted. Oh, it's entirely digital
now. Right. We don't really have oil paintings
causing national scandals anymore. We have memes.
Yeah. We have viral TikToks. We have AI generated
images that flood our feeds for 24 hours and
then just vanish. The cycle is infinitely faster
and there's no physical canvas to buy on Kijiji.
So here's the question. If a nude porn bit from
2011 can evolve into a historical artifact worthy
of being studied in universities, what happens
to the digital satire of today? That is a fascinating
point. Which internet meme or controversial Photoshop
from right now is going to be viewed as the Emperor
Who couture of the 2050s? Will future historians
be analyzing a viral tweet with the same gravity
that we analyze Margaret Sutherland's brushstrokes?
Or does it all just disappear because it wasn't
painted on canvas? Will we have virtual museums
for controversial memes? Or is this era of satire
just too ephemeral to survive? It really makes
you rethink what constitutes a permanent historical
document in the digital age. It definitely does.
It's something to think about the next time you
scroll past a political meme. Thank you so much
for taking this deep dive with us today. It was
a pleasure. We'll see you next time.