This is the Cat's Pajamas! A critique of Danielle's work by Blake

There are no cats in America, and they most certainly do not dance, but they do apparently swim. Danielle's swimming cat, or fishcat, is swimming for his life with eyes wide with panic. This print is absurd! Ludicrous! Cat's don't swim, it's preposterous! Absurdity and humor are key to the context and functionality of this work.
Humor is rapidly becoming more and more acceptable as a legitimate form of artistic expression. Humor is admittedly dicey in the art world. Humorous work has often been thought of as lower work, or as some people would put it, art with a lower case a. It is only with the rise of postmodernism that humor has become not only accepted, but embraced as serious expression.
Contemporary artists like William Wegman and Walton Ford both use not only humor, but also animals in their work. There is something we find extremely funny about putting animals in human situations. Perhaps by seeing animals replicating singularly human activities, we can come to realize just how absurd the human being really is.
So what is this work trying to say to us? There are several directions I could take this. Maybe deep down this work is about the futility of life, we like cats swim against the tide almost drowning. Perhaps it is a comment on the things humans force animals to do, assuming because we enjoy them that they must too. Perhaps it is about the dark underbelly of society, that on the surface we see a cat swimming, but really it is drowning and in distress while its owner does nothing.
Honestly though, I think it is more accurate to look at this piece as a funny print. Sometimes, it's ok to just laugh at something; a piece of art that is funny and makes you laugh is just as functional as one that makes you think about your place in the world. Art making in contemporary society operates within the realm of ideas. Much of the art being made today is experiential, and laughter and fun are experiential things. It is ok to make art that makes people happy just as much as art that makes people think. Both forms of art making are valid, and Danielle's work exists to make people laugh. There is a place for humor in expression, and in American artistic culture. Sure, this work isn't attempting to plumb the depths of the human psyche, but happiness is very much a part of the human experience. Art replicates life, and happy moments are a part of every human being's life.
As far as critiquing Danielle's work, it is a successful work. The cat is scared, the cat is panicked, the viewer is chuckling. There is also an element of subtlety to the humor in Danielle's work. It is sight humor yes, but most definitely has an element of nuance. Something to consider in the future is perhaps overplaying and caricaturizing even further certain elements in the work. Another angle possible for future works would be to further enhance the subtle elements of humor. She may want to interlace small funny elements into otherwise normal scenarios. They act as Easter eggs, forcing the audience to look closer at something they first believed to be a pedestrian image.
As I said before, she may want to look at the works of William Wegman or Walton Ford. If she wants to take this "cute" imagery and turn it to subversion, she may be interested in Chiho Aoshima or Takashi Murakami. In the future she may also want to consider turning her art making toward participatory actions. When you are making art that is there for the enjoyment of others, involving them in the process can enhance the emotions you are trying to evoke.