The philosophical pomology of Magritte

Advertisements

~ by Peter Lach-Newinsky on March 1, 2010.

2 Responses to “The philosophical pomology of Magritte”

  1. One can only wonder at Magritte’s reasons for un-naming une pomme unless this is considered within the context of Modern Art; the DaDa movement, Surrealism and then all the ensuing contemporary art movements. Then one can say, “Eureka, the man has something there!” That is he was following his own creative path, yet somewhat influenced by societal changes. Art speaks of what is unique in it’s time. Occasionally, a genius may leap out with something absolutely new. Cezanne comes to mind. Picasso was influenced by Cezanne’s alteration of the figure planes. So when Magritte said this apple is not an apple he was very much saying this painting is not a painting, as the colorfield painters did with wide swaths of colors. Art for art’s sake.
    In any case, it does look like an apple. It is an apple. And yet if we can agree with Magritte just for a moment, we may see that it is not an apple after all!
    All the best
    Laara
    Vancouver, B.C.
    Canada

    • Thanks, Laara. If interpreting the image I’d just say the obvious: you can’t eat a painting, the representation is not the represented, the signifier is not the signified, the map is not the landscape. Goes for words/poetry too. P.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: