Note: To protect the privacy of our members, e-mail addresses have been removed from the archived messages. As a result, some links may be broken.
"This is Not a Pipe"
Sun, 6 Jun 1999 10:08:34 +0000
- Next message: Nora Redfern: "painting on glass"
- Previous message: Larry Cox: "art websites"
>Actually is is not silly, but indeed profound. Magritte's simple
>statement is that it is a PAINTING of a pipe, not an actual pipe.
>Images signify ideas and objects, but are not them in reality.
>
>At least this is my understanding.--Marcia
>Does that come as a surprise to you--or did you suspect all along that
>it isn't a real pipe to light and smoke but instead a painting of one?
>Profound? Doubt it. Dumb? Yes.
>
>Best wishes,
>Joseph
Those nervy early Greek philosophers, in their discussions of aesthetics,
kept equating truth and beauty. I think Magritte was onto this. Now, I
could be very wrong here, and all my art history books are at school, but
that smokey painting about the pipe, didn't it have two phrases written on
it, the first being, roughly translated, "This is a pipe." ? Then, below
the pipe image, "This is not a pipe." Somehow this makes a difference to me
in wether the subject is profound or dumb. Maybe it is profound and maybe
it isn't profound. Maybe it is dumb, and maybe it isn't dumb. Usually I
find more truth in novels than in non-fiction. Non-fiction proports to be
truth, but rarely is and fiction doesn't claim it's true, but often is.
Life sure is a paradox. Peggy
- Next message: Nora Redfern: "painting on glass"
- Previous message: Larry Cox: "art websites"