Back to B.C. by Johnny Hart for February 07, 2021

I assume he was supposed to be painting the word woman as the painting title, & what made her mad, but it doesn’t show in the next to last panel. The last panel does say man on him however.

She thinks it’s her portrait?

That is one mean fat Broad. Said respectably of course.

An art critic.

Whatever he painted underneath it is gone. Maybe it was her name (or other designation)?

Can anyone see my comment or have I been banned & don’t know it?

Blasted modern art….. Oh, wait!

He painted her two faces, but missed something.

I don’t know much about art, but I think that’s actually quite a good work of Cubism!

This is clearly meant to represent (Painter and Model, by Pablo Picasso.) She clearly views that her grace and poise were not well represented and took offense. She then placed the painter in what she sees as his proper pose. Women everywhere believe she has created a great work of art.

Her art seems so real….

Everyone is a critic, eh, FB?

Was something censored that we’re not seeing? He started painting something, then nothing was there…

Before reading the comments, I thought he was going to paint an arrow pointing to her, but I couldn’t figure out why it wasn’t there when she exploded.

I must be a Philistine. I don’t see cubism or abstract “art” as art. To me it looks like someone slipped the art critics $50 each to proclaim the work to be art when it really is nothing at all. I like art work that actually resembles something from the real world. Much modern art looks like a waste of creative materials to me.

Picasso often had the same problem…

I have a cousin who told us in high school that “woman” is short for “woe to man”.

Perhaps whatever was added under the painting was in color…and since this is in black and white, it ain’t there for us.

Art critics!