First time I have seen that painting in an exhibition in Paris, I didn't know what to think... beside of a lot
of nice paintings I saw that "not normal" one:
Attachment 69596 (do a search of "Magritte" => wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images)
Was the title of the label on the wrong place? NO! The same sentence was written directly on the canvas
and this canvas was on the wright place.
Am I the only guy who is as stupid to not anderstand the hidden sens of this sentence? of this picture?
Yes, because no one seemed to be as questionning as I was.
If it's not a pipe, so what is it? A french horn? A spoon? What else?
Could be ART... because I am in an exhibition. Visual art... and the painter is well known! He is a serious painter!
(I payed an entrance to see his work). And he painted "that". Is he dyslexic?
Is he Joking and playing with us, the viewers? (was some one looking at my trouble with a hidden camera?)
I thought that something was wrong in this exhibition place; Everyone is looking at this masterpiece with expert eyes... but not
me. So, I went away, asking no question to no one, and I still stayed with no answer for years. Frustrated! Realy!
Hope I anderstand it today! The only thing I can guess now (with that pipe in my mind), is that "Art" is a representation of reality,
it is not important if the material is real, if made of stone, wood, plastic, painting or what ever you like.
It is just a representation of the reality, not the reality at all.
So if Art, and specialy visual art, is not the reality... why should watercolour (vs digital painting) be real wc, if the reality of art is not real?
If the depicted subject has no reality... why should I, the viewer, take importance to the fact that the media or the material used to create it, is real or artificial?
The only thing that is important is the message that is carried by the painting.
Think that Magritte had the same discussion in the past then "M. Aster" and "Steve B". All in All, it's an interesting subject.