so… it’s clearly a fake Rothko because Rothko to abstract squares with fuzzy borders. And cowboys, who live away from urban trappings, make for unusual art experts.
Okay… why does the first link work but the second link done the exact same way never work?
Exactly. That’s why Ken is so angry. He tells his dog to fetch a Rothko and the dumb mutt comes back with a Mondrian.
And it’s nice that the human is the one who barks something!
It’s funny that these two comics Bill has put up as “wow, I don’t get this guy at all,” both make me think “hey, I want to check out this Glen Baxter guy now.” Neither were literally LOL’s, but I found them both pretty enjoyable.
(IIRC, this blog is also responsible for me adding Retail comics to my daily list.)
I get the feeling absurdist humor just doesn’t line up with Bill’s. I found both of the Baxter’s he’s posted and the one woozy had here in the comments amusing.
I prefer the Mondrian ‘-) Either ’cause I’m Dutch, or ’cause I’m an art history major, or ’cause I am OCD and prefer the straight clean lines.
As for the original CIDU, I think the (extra) funny bit is that the art critics spotted the bogus Rothko only “almost” immediately. So it took them a few moments, despite it looking wildly unlike what anyone who has ever heard of Rothko thinks one of his paintings would look like.
There’s also the fact that the critics are cowboys. (Looks like Baxter really likes cowboys and modern art…)
It appears the cartoonist likes the phrase “almost immediately”.
For me, Baxter is frustrating. At first, the schtick of absurd or surreal doings in an old-fashioned illustrative style is pretty funny. Then you begin to hunger for something like an actual gag. The master discontented because his dog didn’t differentiate between painters is funny. The boy scout is funnier, thanks to “almost immediately”. The cowboy critics is just Baxter as usual — cowboys doing something uncowboylike with no idea or point beyond that. He also likes British-looking schoolboys and schoolgirls doing something eccentric, or bland young men in what look like scenes from an incoherent dime novel.
Classic New Yorker style. I get it, it just ain’t that funny, more of a “huh. OK”
The most valuable thing about this comic for me is that woozy proved @3 that it is possible to post two images in a single comment.
My dad used to have a lot of “modern” artists as accounting clients. He was also an attorney and the attorney in the next office (he shared space – and a receptionist and the new fangled Xerox machine with those on the same floor) was an attorney for a number of artists (including Roy Lichtenstein) and the lawyers would refer clients who were looking for an accountant to dad (but RL was not referred to him) so he had a lot of clients who were artists.
Occasionally one would pay him in art. (Don’t get excited none of the ones who did so became famous). So my mom still has a large painting on her dining room wall (only wall it would fit on) called “Full house”. There are lines and there are large squiggly shapes. Only think we can figure is that there are 3 black squiggly shapes and in another spot on the canvas were two more in white, so maybe it is a poker hand.
Comics I Don't Understand 
.
And
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS5kSvcKs2PGI66tomI5IsGICw_4GxZYE7xDcxVgb3Gouj-2MBR
so… it’s clearly a fake Rothko because Rothko to abstract squares with fuzzy borders. And cowboys, who live away from urban trappings, make for unusual art experts.
Okay… why does the first link work but the second link done the exact same way never work?
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS5kSvcKs2PGI66tomI5IsGICw_4GxZYE7xDcxVgb3Gouj-2MBR
Oops…. wrong link
Can I still do two?
Looks more like a Mondrian to me . . .
“Looks more like a Mondrian to me . . .”
Exactly. That’s why Ken is so angry. He tells his dog to fetch a Rothko and the dumb mutt comes back with a Mondrian.
And it’s nice that the human is the one who barks something!
It’s funny that these two comics Bill has put up as “wow, I don’t get this guy at all,” both make me think “hey, I want to check out this Glen Baxter guy now.” Neither were literally LOL’s, but I found them both pretty enjoyable.
(IIRC, this blog is also responsible for me adding Retail comics to my daily list.)
I get the feeling absurdist humor just doesn’t line up with Bill’s. I found both of the Baxter’s he’s posted and the one woozy had here in the comments amusing.
I prefer the Mondrian ‘-) Either ’cause I’m Dutch, or ’cause I’m an art history major, or ’cause I am OCD and prefer the straight clean lines.
As for the original CIDU, I think the (extra) funny bit is that the art critics spotted the bogus Rothko only “almost” immediately. So it took them a few moments, despite it looking wildly unlike what anyone who has ever heard of Rothko thinks one of his paintings would look like.
There’s also the fact that the critics are cowboys. (Looks like Baxter really likes cowboys and modern art…)
It appears the cartoonist likes the phrase “almost immediately”.
Any mention of art criticism reminds me of this:
https://abstrusegoose.com/273
Or, more immediate but without the hovertext:
For me, Baxter is frustrating. At first, the schtick of absurd or surreal doings in an old-fashioned illustrative style is pretty funny. Then you begin to hunger for something like an actual gag. The master discontented because his dog didn’t differentiate between painters is funny. The boy scout is funnier, thanks to “almost immediately”. The cowboy critics is just Baxter as usual — cowboys doing something uncowboylike with no idea or point beyond that. He also likes British-looking schoolboys and schoolgirls doing something eccentric, or bland young men in what look like scenes from an incoherent dime novel.
Classic New Yorker style. I get it, it just ain’t that funny, more of a “huh. OK”
The most valuable thing about this comic for me is that woozy proved @3 that it is possible to post two images in a single comment.
My dad used to have a lot of “modern” artists as accounting clients. He was also an attorney and the attorney in the next office (he shared space – and a receptionist and the new fangled Xerox machine with those on the same floor) was an attorney for a number of artists (including Roy Lichtenstein) and the lawyers would refer clients who were looking for an accountant to dad (but RL was not referred to him) so he had a lot of clients who were artists.
Occasionally one would pay him in art. (Don’t get excited none of the ones who did so became famous). So my mom still has a large painting on her dining room wall (only wall it would fit on) called “Full house”. There are lines and there are large squiggly shapes. Only think we can figure is that there are 3 black squiggly shapes and in another spot on the canvas were two more in white, so maybe it is a poker hand.