In the grand scheme of people you would want to see naked, politicians almost always rank near the bottom of the list. This phenomenon has already been observed in cases like Anthony Weiner's, and need not be rehearsed with visual examples.
However, what happens when depictions of a naked politician aren't just drunken texts? What happens when they're supposed to stand as legitimate pieces of art? Ask Canada, where a painting of conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper wearing nothing but a smile has become an object of controversy.
The Canadian Press reports:
Emperor Haute Couture, which Harper did not pose for, is by Kingston artist Margaret Sutherland.
It shows Stephen Harper reclining on a chaise longue wearing nothing but a subtle smile.[...]
Sutherland says the painting was motivated by her frustrations with the government and is meant to show that people need to look at issues for themselves without always believing the party line.
With all due respect to Ms. Sutherland, her message might have gotten a bit lost due to the shock value.
ABC News has also done a report on the painting, which can be viewed below. Children are advised to steer clear:
Ineffective piece of art? Definitely. But in the words of South Park, "what do you expect? They're Canadian."