/lit/ - Literature

Ceci n'est pas un literature.

OH THE WIT

Rene Maggie:'This is not a pipe'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svWtl1v3_a4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6CTBMlu1PA
It is surreal! 'Cuzz you know, it isn't a pipe, it is a tableau du une pipe.

LOL I GET IT IT'S NOT A PIPE IT'S A DRAWING OF A PIPE

Never understood the worth of that piece. It's not a true paradox. It's just a failure of logic.

>>2002011
I guess it's a computer rendered image of a drawing of a pipe for that matter.

>>2002015
>It's not a true paradox. It's just a failure of logic.
wouldn't that make it a paradox?

>>2002015

It's not supposed to be a paradox, it's supposed to be a statement on the nature of painting/representation.

>>2002029
I know that. For some reason critics seem to call this a paradox and seeing how much it's called a paradox I felt I was missing something.

Even still, it's just an amateur painting with a witty line below it. Well art is subjective, so whatever.

>>2002035

>Magritte
>Amateur

Now you've gone too far.

>>2002049
>implying a great artist must make quality work 100% of the time

>>2002052

>implying Magritte didn't make great work 100% of the time

>>2002053
Well if you'd like to discuss why that pipe was painted so well to be put in a museum, do tell.

>>2002063
Because it isn't just a witty line. It wasn't supposed to be some clever little quip that the viewer would respond to by saying, "Aha! That is just a picture of a pipe! How clever!". It is a commentary on how we think. If you showed that picture minus the text, people would say "This is a pipe", but it is not a pipe, it is a representation of a pipe. If you show someone a picture of a guy named John, they will say, "This is John", but it is not John, it is a picture of John. If you put someone in front of a window, and on the other side of the window is John's actual face, they will say, "This is John", but it is not John, it is John's face.

So really it is a picture about representation. What "is" something? If I put a pipe in a glass case and show it to you, are you correct in saying "that is a pipe"? Does the visual representation of something imply nature of the object? If a man wear's a mask that makes him look like John, is he John? No. If you give a man a voice modifier that makes his voice sound like John's, is he John? No. There is something deeper that makes an object that object. Something beyond the visual/auditory/olfactory/etc. representation that makes an object an object, and that is what this picture is saying.

And even if that isn't the intent, the fact that that idea can be derived from this painting, the fact that it can raise questions like that and can move the viewer in ways that will cause them to question the very nature of identity makes this painting art.

Good enough for you?

Even if a physical pipe was in front of you. It is still not a pipe. What constitutes a pipe? From different people's perspective you could get a million different answers. We can see the pipe from infinite different perspectives, in infinite conditions, but we can never see it's true essence. In other words, what is it to be a pipe, what is 'pipeness'. It is impossible to experience a pipe. I'm fucking serious man. So just give up and kill yourself.

>>2002090

Get that platonic shit out of here. There's no essence of pipeness.

>>2002104
>>2002104

Of course there is man. I discovered the essence of your mom last night.

>>2002104
Yes there is. He was killed by his son, then found the Anti-Life Equation and became a sort of anti-Ein Sof. It took a copy of the miracle machine rebooting the universe to kill him, and even then he still exists as a sort of ur-concept.

Pic related, it's Peipseid getting killed by his son, Cigarion.

>>2002084
>>2002084
>>2002084
>That sir, is sublime