Well?
For the same reason a velvet Elvis is.
The famous dogs were never in the running as “Fine Art.”
I doubt the paintings were ever submitted to the various academies that defined what was “good” back in the day. Mostly, the prints we sold to barrooms & poolhalls. However, no maverick artists, fighting for The Shock of The New, were ever oppressed by dog painters. Hey, there were several artistes of that genre! I had no idea…
Probably there are dog-art lovers among the advocates of Lowbrow Art. Influenced by Custom Car Art, these weirdos have seen a renaissance in Art on Velvet & the Return of the Tiki. (Of course, all true art fans know of Leeteg of Tahiti!) (NSFW picture at the bottom of that site.)
Lots of this is ironic, but in a good-humored joking way. If you have ever smiled at a dog playing poker, you could be a Hipster…
They’re well-executed, but lacking in depth. Once you laugh at the joke, there’s not a lot more to them.
That said, I’ve always been particularly fond of the paw-passed-ace in “A Friend in Need”.
I have a soul-changing experience…staring at “His Station and Four Aces”.
It’s hard to explain…something visceral, inside me!
Coolidge is the greatest artist who ever lived!
Screw Rothko, or Mondrain-the “dogs playing poker” rock!
The question should be, “What makes it good art?”
Dogs == Awesome
Poker == Awesome
Therefore, Dogs playing Poker == Awesome ^2
Something likethis, I imagine?
That made me jump. 
This reminds me of a customer I used to have when I was a receptionist at an RV Dealer. This lady would sit if front of me in her wheelchair, demanding to see the owner. I don’t care how many times I told her that he wasn’t in, she would sit there and argue with me, telling me that she could smell him.
I can smell him. I can smell him.
She would repeat this over and over. Anyway, why this reminds me of her is the whole reason she wanted the owner was to convince him that her velvet Elvis would make a fair trade for one of our Motorhomes.
Poor old thing was quite off her rocker. :0)
Ah, but you cannot truly judge until you’ve seen the originals. Two of them went for $590,400 back in 2005.
Quite a bargain, compared to a Rothko!
I prefer the everyman’s-despair poignancy of “Pinched With Four Aces.” Ha! Who is this Edvard Munch?!
Wow.
I’ve learned more about these paintings today than I’ve ever really had a desire to know.
Wait…what? HERETIC!
I saw this version in a gallery window in D.C. a few weeks ago. (There’s a version with Democratic Presidents as well, but I find this funnier.) I wish I was wealthy and had someone I could give this to.
Just because something is not good doesn’t mean it necessarily has to be bad. There’s a large continuum: mediocre, okay, passable, etc.
The default assumption is that a piece of art is neither bad nor good, just like anything else.
I was just being a smart-ass… You took my reply way too seriously.
It’s not bad art. Just low brow art. Punk rock art.
Ya know, dogs can’t keep a poker face. There will always be a tell about whether they have a good hand or not. Their ears perk up, their tails wag… they’re hopeless. Hence, it is not great art.
Cats Playing Poker is the true masterpiece. Note the contents of the pot!
Not a fan of the impressionistic approach. Give me a more realistic Cats Playing Poker and I’ll trade the Mona Lisa for that any day.
Great art makes you ask questions. Bad art spoon-feeds you answers. Disposable art has a punchline. Now I respect a lot of bad and trashy art, but I never confuse it with the good stuff.