I don't know why I like the last panel.
Think, think, think.

Because of the sarcasm.

Don't know if I totally agree with the sentiment here, having visited some of the "art" galleries in New York City, and living close to the Columbus College of Art and Design.

The common phrase used is "Art is." Which simply says it exist, but says nothing about it. That, I think, is the cheater's way out, since it allows ANYTHING to be called art without explanation.

Two examples of things called art which, in my opinion, are not:

In New York City, in an art gallery window, was a giant sneaker, made of rubber and canvas. I saw that, and thought, "How is this considered art? It's a giant sneaker. You would not normally consider an ordinary sneaker to be art. Why is a giant one considered so?" I was told that you had to understand the artist. Um...no I don't. The artist is supposed to communicate himself to me through his art. I'm not supposed to learn his whole history to understand this one particular piece. An author does not sell his works a sentence at a time. I don't have to learn all of his other writings in order to understand this one sentence, which is sold separately, because it isn't sold separately.

At an art exhibit at CCAD, an artist was with his work. One canvas basically looked like he had thrown paint through a fan onto the canvas. It was called, "Untitled". I asked the artist what it meant. He answered, "What do YOU think it means?" Um....no. You're the artist, you created this. If you had nothing in mind when you did, this is no more art than if I picked up a piece of cardboard from the street that had been run over by traffic.

To me, artwork is supposed to communicate something, usually non-verbally. It could simply be an emotion, or a statement of truth, or simply a matter of beauty. What, exactly, was the "artist" communicating with a giant sneaker? And the one from the CCAD admitted that he wasn't trying to communicate anything at all.

That isn't art in my book.

This is why I used Pollock and Picasso as examples, as opposed to, say, Andy Warhol or Duchamp. :)

LOL!!!!

Touche!!!

Picasso was actually a classically trained artist who could very well draw a realistic figure. one must learn the rules before one may break them.

Yes - exactly my point!

Hmm... Which is it? A jump to the left, or a step to the ri-i-i-ght?"

Definitely the pelvic thrust.

It drives you insane.

Jump to the left, step to the right and shake it all about , you do the hokie pokie and you show yourself around. that's what it's all about.....(i really like your characters)