understanding art

This post is about Mandy's tumblr entry about the Surrealist artwork below, Magritte's La Trahison des images (1928-29).

This is the statement I disagree with most:
"I think this piece is supposed to symbolize how art is not always what it seems, and also how art is very elitist. If you do not understand art the way that I do, because I am an educated person, you will not understand how a pipe is not always a pipe."

Let's be honest and fair here. First of all, this isn't a pipe! The caption is correct! It's a painting of a pipe. Next, you don't need to be an art snob to notice it isn't, you just need to think rationally, and thinking is something even non-art historians (urinal installers, for example) can do. Finally, I'm thinking of starting a blog about art that doesn't insult my viewers' intelligence. Maybe I'll tell folks about art in such a way that they realize that it need not be viewed as "elitist" or "confusing". I'll assume they can tell the difference between say, a pipe, a photograph of a pipe, and a painting of a pipe, and instead of telling them about those nuances, I'll tell about what's actually significant about the artwork. Would anyone be interested in hearing about what I have to say about this work?

ps. dear mandy- i'm sorry- but i really needed to get all that off my chest. xoxo


Kaitlyn said...

you know i'm a huge supporter of unpretentious or non-intimidating art - so by all means.

magdalyn said...

im extremely interested. everyone is entitled to their opinions but it seems that the public is quick to call art snobby or elitist.

ps mandy. its true; that is not a pipe. perhaps magritte is instructing the viewer to look and think critically, rather than being so quick to judge or write off.

a. said...

rene magritte is some of the (for me) most interesting artists because he was so different so classic and conservative. he always worked in a suit.

Anonymous said...

yes veronica. pls!

-megan l.