The Treachery of Images:
Postmodernism and Simulacra
Postmodernism and Simulacra
Above is a painting, entitled "La trahison des images", or, the treachery of images. It was painted by Belgian artist Rene Magritte(the same one who was discussed in the reading in Beginning Theory), and as you can see clearly above, it contains what one would assume is a pipe. However, the writing below reads, in French, "this is not a pipe." What Magritte is trying to convey is that the pipe in her painting is not actually a physical object, but rather a representation of a pipe. The "pipe" itself has no tangible form; it can neither be held nor smoked from. Instead, Magritte's pipe is a simulation of a pipe. This concept relates quite directly to the idea of simulacra. If you examine the "pipe" and how it is painted, it does not, in fact, look like a copy of any real pipe, its edges are too smooth, its exterior too polished and shiny. No, Magritte's pipe seems as though it is a depiction of the "form" of a pipe, an abstract, metaphysical pipe that exists only in thought, and is made up of our own conceptions of what qualities a pipe has. This form is then used to identify objects as either being or not being pipes(an odd and awkward explanation of forms, I know, but trust me, it makes more sense as a concept when you consider it more broadly). This form of a pipe is built up of the qualities of not only real pipes, but also the representations one sees of pipes, because representations of an object can alter your conception of its qualities. For instance, I would bet that you have never seen Abraham Lincoln in person, and yet you have a conception of what he looks like based entirely on representations of him. But back to the point at hand, Magritte's painting is in some part just the synthesis of various representations of a pipe(a copy of copies), as her's is the painting of a form of a pipe, and the "form" of a pipe is made up at least in part, if not mostly, of representations of pipes. So when Magritte proclaimed "this is not a pipe", it appears he was right, perhaps in more ways than he knew.
I remember the first time I saw this painting. I had never heard of postmodernism, so, when I saw the painting of a pipe and saw the words "this is not a pipe" written underneath I was utterly confused. I looked at the painting trying to pull out some symbol or code, a little detail in the corner that could unravel this mysterious phrase. Ironically, the answer was the most obvious aspect of the painting: the pipe was a painting, not a pipe.
ReplyDeleteYou have pointed out that the pipe is obviously not tangible. I think a five year old could understand that this is a painting. However, I also think that that same five year old would be dumbfounded by the idea that the pipe is not a pipe. This is because as you have pointed out, our perception of this pipe is based on a collective experience and understanding of pipes; to challenge our belief in the realness of this pipe is to challenge our entire collective knowledge, the core of our conscience.
This painting captures the idea of post modernism perfectly. Our quest for the meaning behind the painting is what makes it post modernism. Clearly we can distinguish that the image is a pipe, but the words that state "this is not a pipe" makes it all the more interesting. We are capable of recognizing that what we see is a pipe for sure, but now with the concept of post modernism, I come to realize that it is nothing more than the average representation of the pipe. The analogy with Lincoln is perfect in the way it describes how we manage to deduce all this information on him and form our personal points of view, all without ever meeting him.
ReplyDeleteLike Andrew, I also remember seeing this image for the first time in art class and being similarily perplexed at the fact that the pipe was actually not a pipe. Rene Magritte was able to capture the entire movement of post modernism in this one painting. It really connects to our discussions in class on how a certain image can mean one thing to one person and different for another. It also reminds me of a passage in White Noise, in which Jack and Heinrick are in the car together when Jack asks his son whether or not it was raining. Heinrich had a point there was no way to determine whether or not it was really raining because what is really rain. Post Modernism in itself causes you to question all the things that surround you.
ReplyDeleteSeeing this image for the first time, the first thing that ran through my head was: 'isn't the media using this idea to its advantage?' The more I think about that question that popped into my head, the more I realize how true it is. By using representations to its advantage, the media controls our thoughts on certain topics and products.
ReplyDeleteBy putting a thin woman, which invariably makes the general public think of that certain diet product as something that works, and then the phrase, "results may vary," on the bottom, diet commercials are emulating this painting. If people actually paid attention to that statement (often put in white and very small lettering so you can't see it), then it would make them realize that the diet isn't that representation, but rather that's just the image the company wants to see.
This image points out what commercials are like now days, except people don't see that lettering on the bottom. What would happen if that bottom print was bolded and shown to the public on each commercial?
Would people not care, and continue their consumerism habits, or would they stop to think about what big corporations have done to their perceptions?
When I saw this painting and read your explanation, I thought that this captures the essence of simulacra and simulation. This pipe represents a physical object, which is the original, yet does not exist. Only the painting exists. The copy of the copy. Although, at first, I had trouble grasping the concept of simulation and how reality is meshed with the unreal, this painting is able to vividly show the implications of postmodern ideology.
ReplyDeleteAt first when I was reading this post I was like "where is this painter going with this..." but now I see that it is a perfect representatino of postmodernism. The painting is of the concept of the pipe - not an actual pipe itself. It also illustrates that our concepts of the pipe does not match up with the actual thing. We have a mental set for what things look like and what concepts go with what - therefore when sometime goes against our mental set we feel like it does not make sense. In this painting, the pipe looks like a pipe but it actually does not depict an accurate picture of the pipe.
ReplyDeleteIt's funny the artistic choices made that distinguish this painting as being important. If the "this is not a pipe" had been taken out, no one would have thought twice about this representation. If you cover up those words and show it to someone they will undoubtedly say it is a pipe. Telling them otherwise would force them to challenge how examine every object they see. It's our conditioning that allows us to see everything as concrete and real, even when it's fake. This painting forces us to change how we perceive everything we see.
ReplyDeleteBut this picture raises another interesting prospect that has not been raised before. Why do we listen to the painter's words? Do we have to accept his words as true? The postmodern aspect is there, yes, but if we question the nature of reality, then we must also question the people who tell us what they believe, as their words don't have to be true. Its like disposing of one dictator to be taken over by another, perhaps with a different message but a dictator nevertheless.
ReplyDeleteBrilliant post, and one that really captures the essence of Surrealism. Surrealism, while technically a Modernist movement, contains many elements of postmodernism, and those are on display in this painting. Part of post-modernism's goal is destruction of the metanarratives, the semiotic "frames" that govern our lives. In a pre-postmodern frame, the drawing must a pipe, because it looks like what we've been told the pipe looks like. But by telling the viewer that the painting is not a pipe, Magritte is essentially removing the violet-colored glasses and forcing the viewer to examine the "pipe" on its own merits.
ReplyDeleteAlex's explanation also reminds me of semiotics. The instant we see the image, we are unable to think it is anything but a pipe. This is because we have our "Semiotic lenses" on, that force us to see the curved wooden design as a pipe and not simply a sketch of a curved wooden object. This is similar to Jean Piaget's idea of schema's which applies to little children. His theory states that people will assimilate objects into schemas, if this and the semiotic symbols we apply to the world are this similar, then it seems as though we don't think at a level that is more complex than that of a 3 year old.
ReplyDelete