Birdbrains by Thom Bluemel for March 14, 2012

  1. Grog poop
    GROG Premium Member about 12 years ago

    Some people just got no class.

     •  Reply
  2. 062
    DuHhozr  about 12 years ago

    Modern art isn’t all what it’s cracked up to be!

     •  Reply
  3. B3b2b771 4dd5 4067 bfef 5ade241cb8c2
    cdward  about 12 years ago

    It’s by Frank Lloyd Wrong and is called: “Falling Mortars.”

     •  Reply
  4. Missing large
    rmacprivate  about 12 years ago

    that is where I beat my head against the wall in frustration at listening to a guide explaining Modern art.

     •  Reply
  5. Image
    LingeeWhiz  about 12 years ago

    Uhmm…sound the alarms!!

     •  Reply
  6. Little b
    Dani Rice  about 12 years ago

    Modern art is a scam. If you admit you don’t understand it you’re looked down upon as a Philistine. If you claim you do like it, you have just been conned.

     •  Reply
  7. Frog4
    Digital Frog  about 12 years ago

    @Dani – I agree fully – it’s an onging version of the Emperor’s New Clothes.

     •  Reply
  8. Img 0813
    GoodQuestion Premium Member about 12 years ago

    “Hello, Dali”Jest frame it, price it and sell it . . . ☻ML & LL – I see one face in the plaster on top of the wise-crack . . ☺

     •  Reply
  9. Rudy gunmaster
    Zaristerex  about 12 years ago

    Sheesh, with all of the picture frames at this museum, you’d have thought somebody would use one of ’em to cover up this eyesore.

     •  Reply
  10. Turnslower
    Larry Miller Premium Member about 12 years ago

    Face in the (made from the) crack above the bricks.

     •  Reply
  11. Anishnawbe
    Allan CB Premium Member about 12 years ago

    I’m mortarfied by the fact that I see a face in the crack above the bricks. ..Morning Folks!

     •  Reply
  12. Yellow pig small
    bmonk  about 12 years ago

    Only one face in the cracks? I see four, on top, left, and below. And something to the right, but I’m not sure what.

    And is that two eyes on the top of the fellow’s pants?

     •  Reply
  13. Frog4
    Digital Frog  about 12 years ago

    A long time ago, I had a conversation with a friend (who was once a fine arts major). I just found my notes on it and thought I’d pass it on here since a few others seem to concur:

    I’m afraid I am an extreme cynic when it comes to art. I have seen too much ‘art’ especially in my university days, that I find very hard to consider ‘legitimate’, yet was paid big bucks for because some critic decided it was worth it.

    Here are my thoughts on the ‘legitimacy’ of art:

    1. One man’s art is another man’s trash. If you create something, and you or those you care about find it appealing, then to them it is art. Art is a record of beauty, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

    2. Art should be created because you wanted to. If your work is considered art by enough people (see #1) and you can make a living at it, that is wonderful. If enough people like it, you might be able to give up your day job.

    3. If your work is only art to you, don’t expect the world to pick up the tab. Contribute something of value to the world and they will contribute to you. Someone once said that purpose of perfume is let a man know that something of beauty walked by. Art should serve a similar purpose.

    4. More than artists, I question the legitimacy of art critics. Take someone who, as a child, never understood the moral of ‘The Emperor’s new clothes’, add the values of a professional sports agent, a dash of psychobabble, a week of watching PBS and you have an art critic. One of the best natural art critics is a child. They see without the politics, the preconceptions, they have no pretenses. Their emotions are nearer the surface and can easily tell you what they like, what makes them feel good, and what they dislike. (I’m reminded of a commercial where a celebrity is leading some kids through an art gallery and as they look at one of the paintings, a kid speaks up – ‘that looks like spagetti!’ the celebrity then takes a second look at the painting with an expression of realization that the emperor is naked.

    5. And speaking of naked, yes the human body is a beautiful thing, but it can be just as beautiful clothed. Nudity is thrown into movies to get the ratings, in art for some odd reason, it makes it pure? I’m sorry but I don’t think so and I think that some of the ‘masters’ had some lecherous tendencies. I know of talented people who could not go for an art degree because they couldn’t stomach the ‘required’ nude portions of the curriculum. (Interesting enough, one of them did convince her professor to allow her to sketch a roommate in a swimming suit in lieu of that portion of the course.)

    6. If anybody disagrees with the previous items, no problem. This is what art is about to me, and for everybody else, see #1

    And by the way Thom, your work is art to me.

     •  Reply
  14. Img 20230615 200500219 hdr  2
    Saucy1121 Premium Member about 12 years ago

    All those faces really crack me up!

     •  Reply
  15. Grog poop
    GROG Premium Member about 12 years ago

    I don’t think so.

     •  Reply
  16. Frog4
    Digital Frog  about 12 years ago

    @Eldo Disc Golf – See #6

     •  Reply
  17. Frog4
    Digital Frog  about 12 years ago

    @Eldo Disc Golf – I also abide by #6 and concede that my concept of beauty (which does not always equate with pretty by the way) can differ from others.

     •  Reply
  18. Thom caric thumb
    thombluemel Premium Member about 12 years ago

    Digital Frog and Eldo -

    Everybody loves a heated discussion about art. I think the truth is nobody really knows what art is, but all artists know what critics are… wrong, of course. Great discussion.

    In this particular case, you’re BOTH right… so there! The argument is settled.

    Thanks for the nice words, Senior Frog! They are greatly appreciated!!!

    And thank you all for reading and looking at what I try to call my artoons!

    Thom

     •  Reply
Sign in to comment

More From Birdbrains