nice find! I have read a book on this kind of stencil art, very interesting. I love political messages in photography.

props from germany. not a very spectacular photography but the content impresses me much. i more and more enjoy visiting your blog. my favourite -> January 17th.

The graffiti is in the style of a guy who goes by the name of Banksy http://www.banksy.co.uk/ This is similar to a piece of graffiti in Brick Lane http://www.artofthestate.co.uk/Graffiti/graffiti_stencil_bush_saddam.htm

"the interpretation of a visual image requires an understanding of context and purpose"

Does it? Off the top of my head I would say we can interpret visual images irregardless of any understanding of the purpose behind it. Any "text" stands separated from the "authors" purpose in the end and is open to anyone's interpretation. What the author might have purposed is in many ways irrelevant. But it's been a few years since I kicked around in uni studying semiotics, so my thoughts are no doubt rusty and ill-informed.

It seems to me though that context is easy to come by in this case though (political activisim in light of the ongoing Iraqi conflict), and purpose might just be to show a dissenting attitude to the mainstream, in order to arouse some deeper thought on the issue from the observer. I have to say it's quite easy for me to agree with the sentiment - 2 sick bastards indeed. For completely different reasons of course, and I can certainly see that many would think it grossly unfair to lump Bush woth Sadaam. But either way, it's a great bit of political stenciling. I love the implication that they are lovers. :)

As a photo, it's also a great image, despite the lack of any great effort or creativity on your part Dave. But neither is that needed. You captured a great image - photography is also about capturing isn't it, in essence more so than creating.

I like the stencil pictures. I took a sanp of one on a wall in chinatown in a related style. It was about someone sentenced to death. I then had a terrible fear that it may have been highlighting the cause of some "undesirable". I thought that there may be similar stencils in Cambodia and Thailand of Gary Glitter images with statements such as "Gary's only crime is against music - let him live".

Great stencil. Never saw It before. Great picture... As ever.

"Any "text" stands separated from the "authors" purpose in the end and is open to anyone's interpretation."

Yes, but the frameworks we employ to decode images and their meaning are not arbitrary, and not entirely subjective; i.e. they're grounded in shared assumptions and discourses upon which we draw.

Actually, this image (and the subsequent comments) have made me realise that I'm actually quite illiterate with respect to public art. Until I looked into it, I hadn't realised that this was Bush and Sadaam, and I had assumed that the text referenced the image. As it turns out, 2sickbastards are a company who produce t-shirts, and this 'strap line' is associated with a number of images, not just this one.

You have a wonderful collection of signage and urban artwork - this is just one more to add to that.

As for the t-shirt company - that dooes clear things up a little, but certainly a strange name for any company.

Is the white "X" a feeble. half-hearted attempt to disagree with the image, or a half-hearted display of contempt for Bush in particular?

This is without a doubt, one of your simpler photos and one that have a more direct message to the viewer. I know you just capture what you saw, but the political message that's present in this image is very intriguing and makes me think. Thank you for sharing this.

I don't believe there's a single image I've ever seen which I can read, or even feel, regardless of its context.

Until I looked into it, I hadn't realised that this was Bush and Sadaam, and I had assumed that the text referenced the image.

I'm quite surprised that it's the company tag. It references the image so perfectly :) LOL I don't think any of their other t-shirts fit with the tag (maybe the company was formed by two twisted individuals and they are talking about themselves? :) Maybe the Saddam / Bush t-shirt was their first product and that's where they got the tag?)

Anyway, it's always a good image if it creates discourse around it.

"Any "text" stands separated from the "authors" purpose in the end and is open to anyone's interpretation." this is a statement that cannot be make without thinking it through. What an author writes is time subjective. An author's intent should have a shelf life in my opinion, if someone writes on the Iraq war, you should not interpret it any other way. The time for personal interpretation must come later, when the intent of the first message is no longer relevant. WIthout this you get many interpretations on one subject, when, should the creator's writings not be the ultimate authority on a subject?

nice kiss ;D

Nice photo. It reminds me of this pic I took:
http://art.subnixus.com/index.php?showimage=15

Yup...another Banksy image there.... Nice one.

wow - nice find.. but wherz this pianted this way? - am sure its a country where america has limited regulations rather none..

"Any "text" stands separated from the "authors" purpose in the end and is open to anyone's interpretation." this is a statement that cannot be make without thinking it through. What an author writes is time subjective. An author's intent should have a shelf life in my opinion, if someone writes on the Iraq war, you should not interpret it any other way. The time for personal interpretation must come later, when the intent of the first message is no longer relevant. WIthout this you get many interpretations on one subject, when, should the creator's writings not be the ultimate authority on a subject?

What makes you think I haven't thought it through?

My comments refer not to time or intent, but rather that any "text" is consumed by itself. The author is not there beside it to explain his/her intent. An author can attempt to be cleart and precise with his meaning, but how people perceive the text is completely out of the author's hands.

It's an intellectual debate, and I'm no intellectual so I won't put myself out too far, but it's a very interesting debate.

Take a read of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorial_intentionality

I did not mean to say that you hadn't thought it through, simply that one has to, sorry for any offense. I agree, this is not the place for an argument like this, so I'll stop as well.

I haven't chimed in for awhile, but this image is interesting, not as a photo, but as a sign of these times. I'm surprised the artist didn't have Bush smooching Blair. Bush's daddy, Bush #1 was in power from 1980-1992 (Reagan was just an actor) and while Saddam was gassing the Kurds, not a peep from the white house. When Bush #2's premise for war (the WMDs) had evaporated, then all of a sudden Saddam became the reason. "He's a very bad man" Bush owes Saddam a lot more than a kiss for the PR help Saddam has given him...

And by the way, Bush doesn't care about the oil,
he's just a wonderful and caring humanitarian...

My first thought was that it was either homophobic, or a plug for some "underground" band (and still homophobic). Only after reading some of the comments did I recognize George Bush and Saddam Hussain. So much for the artist. Now I think the comparison does an injustice to gay men and those born out of wedlock around the world. But I do not think they are of the same category. Both are simple-minded fools, both are repugnant nationalists, but for his ruthless brutality Saddam really belongs in a class shared by very few others. This is not to approve of Bush, only to observe that we still could have done worse.

My initial reaction was that it must be a reference to Dmitri Vrubel's Berlin Wall fresco of Brezhnev and Honecker kissing. You can see a picture of it here: http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1573260,00.html (you have to scroll down). If it is such a reference, it makes it a bit more fun: cold war, communism, totalitarianism... what is the artist trying to imply? Ironic that the implications might be made by someone trying to sell t-shirts.

I was walking down the comments section and I have to say I'm dissapointed. We were doing good until I got to the section written by Matt. It was at that point I discovered I was knee deep in bullshit and it ruined my night. Now I have to spend an hour or so in the shower getting all this crap off my boots.

If you'd have deleted this I would never have laughed at it
So I thank you

To me that is enough to justify uploading this picture

Thanks again

"I agree, this is not the place for an argument like this, so I'll stop as well."

I think it's perfectly reasonable that we discuss authorial intentionality, but it's probably not such a good idea to venture into a political debate about Bush. My reason for posting this image was because, as like John, my initial thought regarding this image was that it was homophobic. And that surprised me, because grafitti artists, at least of this genre, tend to be anti-establishment and as such my initial interpretation ran counter to my expectations. As it happens, it has very little, if anything, to do with homophobia, much more to do with politics and a t-shirt company. And as we all know, politics is not something we're ever likely to agree about, so it's probably a topic to steer clear of in this forum.

I don't see any context for this image at all. A person could do a lot of things with images of Bush and Hussein, but I think that having the two of them in a homosexual lip-lock is about as far from the mark as a person can get. A talented graffiti artist without an iota of wit.

The stencil is nasty, but I like the idea of saying that both Bush and Saddam are/were wrong. When debating about the war, people tend to stress the bad deeds of one of them in order to defend their position instead of facing facts realistically. This is what the stencil tells me without me knowing more details about the context.

Hey Dave, My apologies for my diatribe against bush. I didn't think there was anyone left who supported him (east of Ohio) You're an artist and artists tend to be liberal, but not necessarily their fans. I had forgotten how conservative some of your visitors are, since a few had become very upset over an image which you had posted which contained some vaguely profane language...

Sorry

same shit! i hate them! i'm iranian and saddam killed many many of my people! but thay are same! NO WAR

I've logged on tonight and happened to read just one comment, that being your own Dave. I was surprised that you'd failed to notice the characters of the piece to be honest, although even though I immediately identified them I must admit it still lft me pretty non-plussed at the original artwork. I'm certainly not going to engage myself in the politics of this though, but I would say one thing...I think the artist is stretching it somewhat.

You know the best bit of it? The white cross that someone else has come along and 'added' to it later.

I'm east of Ohio and I support Bush over any Democrat/Left-Winger to come (especially Hillary).

Thanks everyone but I'm closing the comments on this entry, at least for the time being. I guess it's my own fault, but I did intend that this entry should be a discussion concerning the meaning of images rather than a platform for political bickering.

Ok, comments are open again, but please note that I will delete any comments that I think are innapropriate. This will include i) any attacks on the implicit or explicit political opinions already expressed, and ii) comments that are simply political invective rather than anything to do with the nature of this image.

There's a whole mess of possible interpretations here, from homophobia to the overtly political. Since it's so hard to glean any coherent message, would it be fair to assume that the artist's sole intent was to produce an eye-catching and controversial image for the purpose of promoting t-shirts? If he/she had a point to make they would surely have avoided such ambiguity, unless ambiguity was the point.

Yep, Alistair is right. If not by Banksy, it's sure inspired by him. .....(a friend in Bristol has some of Banksy's artwork at the end of his street....lucky sod. My street looks like Stepford)

It reminds me of the "Lip Lock Berlin Wall" images. Look them up youll see what i mean.