I don't think most museums should give themselves over to this type of thing. Art has been trivialized enough in our time...I'd hate to add to that. But a museum that shows nothing else but that, well...that's different. Funny art belongs in a funny place.
What would hang in such a museum? That's a tough one. Everybody has their own idea of what's funny and what's art.
I think this drawing (above) by John K is hilarious and extremely skilled, and certainly deserves to be in a museum of funny. Some would argue however, that it belongs in a museum of comics/animation-type art.
Is that what the future holds for museums? Is contemporary funny art destined to be parceled piecemeal to various niche collections?
Lots of people can't imagine contemporary funny artists sharing a wall with funny artists of the Eighteenth Century like Gillray (above).
Once you've seen Gillray you can't think of the 18th Century the same way again. Here (above) he parodies the women who wore thin dresses and insufficient petticoats in his time. Now I understand why hoopskirts became popular.
I don't doubt that Gillray would be delighted to know his work shared a wall with our own Basil Wolverton (above).
I think this large painting of Marylin is funny but I have friends who might disagree.
Animation could provide lots of skilled funny material, but much of it would have to be derived from frame grabs. The original cels and backgrounds might not exist. Is it proper to hang frame grabs on a museum wall? I don't know.