After posting the painting Blue Dog, I got a call from my brother Bob who found the painting hilarious. He pointed out that the dogs face looked like a certain piece of the male anatomy. After looking at the painting I have to agree that it does in fact resemble an appendage that doesn’t belong on a kid’s bank.
I wonder if the toy’s original designer had it in mind to give the dog a phallus face? After all, from the look of the toy it was made in the free love 70’s. I don’t think I particularly exaggerated the effect although the lighting may make it worse.
I think its funny now but I feel this is a full disclosure situation if I plan on selling the painting at some time. This poses a question, do I need to fix the painting to minimize the schlong-y quality? Or does it make it a better painting and do I hope someone might come along that finds it funny? The whole thing makes me wonder, I had someone that wanted to buy the painting a little while back, and then they disappeared and couldn’t be reached. I have a sneaky suspicion that they might have been scared off by the wiener dog.
On the Easel 
It’s the turgid forehead that makes it so prominent. The whisker part is sort of common to bunnies, cats and dogs. But I see your point about its possible value for have a secondary meaning to some… A kids bank and a phallus…Will be curious to see if in a gallery show if there is a lot of chatter about it.
Thats hilarious, not enough people talk about painting in terms of turgidity.