Belgian painter, René Magritte, is credited with being one of the most acclaimed surrealist painters in the world. His works consisted of many witty and thought-provoking images; which continue to force viewers to adjust their perspectives in life. One of his most famous works, The Treachery of Images (This is Not a Pipe) [1929, Oil, Los Angeles County Museum of Art], exemplifies the idea of art as a means to convey philosophical ideas. Magritte was not the first artist, and most definitely not the last, to include underlying philosophical themes in his paintings. This is not always done intentionally, and viewers may read into works too much in order to find a meaning where there is none. However, Magritte consciously created philosophical implications in his art. He actively read and studied philosophy, particularly in the school of philosophy known as metaphysics. The study of metaphysics is concerned with the nature of existence, being, and the world; arguably it is the foundation of philosophy as a whole. Therefore, it is the school of philosophy which addresses questions on whether or not a representation of a thing is equal to a thing itself. Magritte utilizes his artwork to display philosophical theories of representation as shown in his painting, The Treachery of Images (This is Not a Pipe).
The Treachery of Images (fig.1), at first glance, seems to be a very simplistic work, however, through its analysis delicate complexities may be recognized. Elements of art, or the visual components of art consisting of shape, space, color, line, texture, and value, are utilized to increase the visual impact of the work. Magritte has logically oriented horizontally the piece as the pipe’s length is greater than its height. A pipe is also used in this position, and this allows for the viewer to quickly recognize the subject matter based on its shape alone. Shape as an element of art and design refers to any two dimensional, flat, element existing only of height and width. The pipe is centered within the composition of the work, and fills the majority of the canvas, referencing its importance within the painting. There is considerable space in the background of the work as well, remaining true to Magritte’s minimal surrealist style. The background consists of a single light tan color, mirroring the tonality of the pipe. Looking at the pipe, the shading is very simplistic and is reminiscent of an illustration more than of a painting. Sharp lines are created by the convergence of contrasting colors and are clearly defined in the script work found at the bottom of the painting.
Based off of this formal analysis of the work, it is evident that there are no messages or symbolism hidden within the style of the painting. Therefore, the philosophy behind this painting resides purely in the image itself. A viewer may think to himself that it is a pipe that they are looking at, but Magritte clearly states that it is not. The viewer is left to question what they are then looking at, and why it is not a pipe. This questioning is what some may argue is the purpose of art in general. His manipulation of contiguity, “reinforces the theme that the image (or the word) is not the thing itself; in structural terms, the signifier and signified are not identical, and the sign is not equivalent to the referent (Dubnick 419).” Magritte sought to showcase the fact that the representation of an object is not necessarily an equivalent to the object in reality. In order to fully grasp the depth of this message, what exactly representation negates must be further explored.
The Treachery of Images is an example of artistic representation. A work of art focuses on a subject and captures an experience yet, remains separate from the individual and the occurrence themselves. Therefore, artistic representation is a representation of action rather than simply a representation of a physical, concrete substance. In order to fulfill its claim as a work of art, the sense of experience that the work creates within a viewer should, for the majority, be in a sense, indescribable. In other words, the idea of the work or the message it seeks to convey must be more powerful and overwhelming to the viewer than the physical content of the image. This is a key piece of the philosophical message Magritte sought to convey: that every experience, regardless of its subject or lack thereof, has a non-conceptualizable component (Von Morstein 1). Within the sphere of artistic representation exists two other forms of representation: referential and conceptual. For something to be a work of art, referential representation is unnecessary. Looking at The Treachery of Images, it is a representation of a pipe, thus representing all pipes as a whole, not one in particular. Conceptual representation is exactly that; a representation of a concept. It is a portrayal of an idea that becomes unique to the observer. The mind views an image or object and through the conceptual schema that each individual has developed through decision making, empirical analysis, etc., creates various connections. In looking at the pipe in the work the mind makes the connection to a pipe as a general object, specific pipes, and memories involving pipes, etc. In the simplest of terms, Magritte’s works do not only focus on representation itself but the interaction of artistic representation in relation to conceptual representation.
If the artistic representation were a match; conceptual representation would be the fire it creates. The moment of ignition, or rather in this sense, the convergence of artistic and conceptual representation, would be conceptual art. Conceptual art seeks to instigate thought about conceptual art itself, and poses philosophical problems from a wider frame. It rejects the traditional definition of artistic media as it views artwork at the level of ideas versus at the level of objects. Magritte himself stated: “The images I paint, show nothing except what I have thought (Guerlac 39).” Therefore, it can be considered an art of the mind rather than that of the senses (Schellekens 1). The Treachery of Images directs the viewer to focus on the idea of the work rather than the subject matter by Magritte’s smooth application of paint and the use of muted tones. This rather bland composition allows one to contemplate the relationship between the sentence and the pipe/language and reality. The metaphysical connection between words and things is broken with Magritte’s inclusion of the word ‘not.’ Had ‘not’ been excluded from the work, it mimics an illustration from a schoolbook with the image being labeled underneath. Continuing to focus on the sentence, the ambiguity of ‘This’ adds another element to the philosophical question of representation. It is unclear exactly what it is in reference to, as it may refer to the pipe, the canvas, or even the sentence itself.
Focusing back on the work itself, Magritte further explores the idea of the relationship between artistic and conceptual representation. He does so by means of a calligram. A calligram is a text that is laid out or designed to create a visual image related to the meaning of words themselves. French philosopher and friend of Magritte’s, Michel Foucault was fascinated with the surrealist movement and exploring the representational systems behind artists’ works. He ultimately wrote a short book regarding his contemplation and interpretation of Magritte’s The Treachery of Images (This is not a Pipe), where he addresses Magritte’s use of a calligram.
He uses the following visual to illustrate his analysis:
This is a
i p
s i peThis is a pipeThis is a pipeThis is
a pipeThis is a pipeThis is a pipeThis is a pipe
One can either choose to see a pipe or read the letters and understand that it signifies what is known as a pipe. However, it cannot be seen as a pipe and read at the same time. Foucault makes the claim that while the idea of a calligram is evident, Magritte has managed to construct then carefully “unravel” said calligram leaving only the philosophy of it behind.
From calligraphic doubling [in the previous illustration], Magritte seemingly returns to the simple correspondence of the image with its legend. Without saying anything, a mute and adequately recognizable figure displays the object in its essence; from the image, a name written below receives its 'meaning' or rule for usage. Now, compared to the traditional function of the legend, Magritte's text is doubly paradoxical. It sets out to name something that evidently does not need to be named (the form is too well familiar). And at the moment when he should reveal the name, Magritte does so by denying that the object is what it is. Whence comes this strange game, if not from the calligram? From the calligram that says things twice (when once would doubtless do); from the calligram that shuffles what it says over what it shows to hide them from each other. (Foucault 23-24)
Thus while the inherent quality of a calligram is evident, Magritte decided to deny what the object is through the text; ultimately creating a paradox. This goes to show that language cannot equate painting, just as sight does not equate to thought.
Through a formal artistic and philosophical analysis of René Magritte’s The Treachery of Images (This is Not a Pipe), the exploration of representation in imagery cannot be denied. He interweaves artistic representation with conceptual representation in regards to a singular object, all in a seemingly simplistic and innocent manner. "Magritte names his paintings in order to focus attention upon the very act of naming," a very true statement as the treachery of The Treachery of Images, lies within defining the image itself (Foucault 36). The paradoxical nature of the work incites curiosity into viewers minds as they question what it is, in fact, they are viewing. He is, therefore, successful in conveying philosophy through the imagery as he intended.