FoxTrot by Bill Amend for June 12, 2011

Make it fully functional!

like the $400,000 the Canadian government paid for a work of “art” that was essential a stripe down the middle of a canvas. i prefer pictures.

If it’s all about the money, then why did Rothko return all the money he got for his Four Seasons commission? It was a good bit of money.

You don’t have to look too hard to find serious people making serious art that is not representational. You don’t have to like all of it, but I would guess you’d find some that you did like.

To this day nobody had explained to me how art is defined. I could throw a bucket of paint on a white wall and with the right words convince people it’s art.

Wow, a life size Star Destroyer would be so epic! Now he’s got me excited…

That’s nice Jason. Now put it in the trash while I serve dinner.

Today’s strip is a work of art. Refreshingly positive, it’s one of the few times the Foxtrot parental units gives the kids some sincere praise for non-bratty behavior.

What part of “artsy-fartsy” doesn’t she understand? Have you ever heard of ‘over-analyzing’?

…. another brick in the strip …..

Art is simply creative expression, and has no inherent monetary value. That dollar value is defined as what someone will pay for the art. The true value of art is in the perception of the observer, so what may be worthless to you may be invaluable to me.

And yet some artwork becomes both famous AND valuable after the artist is dead. Also, Andy better stop Jason before he tries to build that Death Star.

I think this quote from the Stuckists does a good job explaining the average person’s confusion and annoyance with the post-modern art scene today: "Stuckists claim that conceptual art is justified by the work of Marcel Duchamp, but that Duchamp’s work is ‘anti-art by intent and effect’. The Stuckists feel that “Duchamp’s work was a protest against the stale, unthinking artistic establishment of his day”, while ‘the great (but wholly unintentional) irony of postmodernism is that it is a direct equivalent of the conformist, unoriginal establishment that Duchamp attacked in the first place’."

Back about 10 years ago, when my kids were still into Legos, Legos used to have a contest for the most innovative, original item made strictly out of Legos. Some of those designs were amazing. The contest was only open to children.

There can be such a thing as “found” or “accidental” art. Many years B.D.P. (Before Digital Photography), I was using a Polaroid Camera with SX-70 film (look it up, you whippersnappers!), and one photo jammed up in the mechanism as it was being ejected. I crumpled it up and was going to throw it out, but I then remembered the film’s unique properties (see http://tinyurl.com/3njohcs and http://tinyurl.com/qsgkqs). I kept it and let it develop, and it turned out to be a quite interesting piece of accidental abstract art. Eventually, I had a 12″×12″ enlargement made and framed it, and it has graced the walls of my living places for 25 years.

Great strip. One small problem, though: The Legos would have to be staggered to all snap together. There’s nothing holding the columns to each other. ;-)

If any private person wants to pay a million dollars for a painting WITH THEIR OWN MONEY, I have no problem with that. What I detest is governments spending TAXPAYERS’ MONEY on worthless garbage, like the “Voice of Fire” yyyguy referred to. And it was literally a red stripe painted down the middle of a white canvas with a paint roller — something 99% of the population over 5 could reproduce exactly. Which by definition means it is NOT ART!!! And was an obscene waste of taxpayers’ money.

????.what did she said? its a buch of words

The biggest Lego set I had was the pirate ship Black Seas Barracuda; almost 900 pieces.

Cartoon physics: Anything is possible, even the impossible.

lame

all in all it’s just another brick in the wall

awsome Jason….. don’t let paige see it.

Unless the artist wants to make money, anything can be art. If the person who made it calls it art, then it’s art! I always find modern art cooler than boring portraits and statues, but that’s just my opinion.

If the person who created it calls it art, then it’s art. Like Packrat said, the $ value is defined by how much someone will pay for it. Some people will find most modern art lazy and stupid, while others, like me, will find most classical art boring and unoriginal. We all have different tastes, and there’s nothing wrong with that.

that’s gonna be one biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig star destroyer

“Now how do I make lego bombs and rockets?”-Jason

make it able to fly and invite me along

(please)

If only Jason had finished that Star Destroyer…

How’d he create the knobs?

Ooh! Its, IDEA time! =D

That’s not Brick #1. That would be a 2×3 brick. puts nerd glasses on

If that’s the first on then Jason could literally walk around inside the finished project.

omg that would be awsome

also, the classic piece is 4×2