Not quite CIDU as to overall idea, but invites explications or disputations of how each one works or doesn’t, or how some other plausible candidates could have come out.
I’d like to have seen a perfectly rendered x-mas tree with “Duchamp” written under it.
I’d have preferred a more lily-like Monet and a deep sunflower-yellow Van Gogh.
I love the O’Keefe. It’s just…er…dripping with sensuality.
I love the O’Keefe. It’s just…er…dripping with sensuality.
@Chak, I’m glad he didn’t venture to do a Judy Chicago :-) .
I felt the Monet might have been fine if he hadn’t used black lines.
As for Dali, I found tall extended naked women but couldn’t find anything like the little black-line things in any of Dali’s works.
I didn’t understand the Van Gogh at first because (Ha!) I had suddenly forgotten that I was looking at Christmas trees (and had to go back and look at the title.)
Considering Pollock’s work was non-figurative, his inclusion in the comic doesn’t quite work for me.
Who was Giacometti?
Alberto Giacometti, sculpted tall thin bumpy stylized human figures.
I saw the 2017 film about Giacometti, called Final Portrait and starring Geoffrey Rush, Arnie Hammer and Clémence Poésy, directed by Stanley Tucci. As you can see from the trailer, apparently his studio was rather a grey mess. Half the movie seems to be in black and white and then you realise in fact it isn’t.
The “Pollock” looks more like Picassos’s “Don QUixote”.
The Giacometti reminds me of a wooden version of the Festivus pole. Lightweight, very strong, no tinsel (too distracting).
We now have 32 examples of little trees, and yet the most famous creator of “happy little trees” is not among them. He didn’t make it into the two collections of “artistic fish“, either.
Comics I Don't Understand 
The trees are okay, but I liked his fish better.
I’d like to have seen a perfectly rendered x-mas tree with “Duchamp” written under it.
I’d have preferred a more lily-like Monet and a deep sunflower-yellow Van Gogh.
I love the O’Keefe. It’s just…er…dripping with sensuality.
I love the O’Keefe. It’s just…er…dripping with sensuality.
@Chak, I’m glad he didn’t venture to do a Judy Chicago :-) .
I felt the Monet might have been fine if he hadn’t used black lines.
As for Dali, I found tall extended naked women but couldn’t find anything like the little black-line things in any of Dali’s works.
I didn’t understand the Van Gogh at first because (Ha!) I had suddenly forgotten that I was looking at Christmas trees (and had to go back and look at the title.)
Considering Pollock’s work was non-figurative, his inclusion in the comic doesn’t quite work for me.
Who was Giacometti?
Alberto Giacometti, sculpted tall thin bumpy stylized human figures.
I saw the 2017 film about Giacometti, called Final Portrait and starring Geoffrey Rush, Arnie Hammer and Clémence Poésy, directed by Stanley Tucci. As you can see from the trailer, apparently his studio was rather a grey mess. Half the movie seems to be in black and white and then you realise in fact it isn’t.
The “Pollock” looks more like Picassos’s “Don QUixote”.
The Giacometti reminds me of a wooden version of the Festivus pole. Lightweight, very strong, no tinsel (too distracting).
Here is a Part 2 for the Art Christmas Tree.
@narmitaj – a lighter take on art appreciation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVvZTHCDm-s
Part 2 just appeared on GoComics, and I rushed over here to post a comment. Oh, somebody beat me to it!
BTW I think part 2 is better than part 1, overall.
I didn’t know who Carr was.
Info and example works at:
https://www.wikiart.org/en/emily-carr
An example that shows a tree:
We now have 32 examples of little trees, and yet the most famous creator of “happy little trees” is not among them. He didn’t make it into the two collections of “artistic fish“, either.