Talk:René Magritte
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
Can someone do clean up the Philosophical and artistic gestures? It's really long-winded. --somesuch
It's a painting of a pipe. I call it abstract surrealism. Since surrealism was based off of freud, along with the conscious interpreation of visual perception, i call it surreal. --Cyberman 21:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Here we go again about the "abstract" versus the "representational" branches of surrealism! SURREALISM IS AN ARTISTIC MOVEMENT! so one should not analyse it only in terms of painting. Miró was not an abstract painter. He vehemently denied this and detested "abstract painting." --Daniel C. Boyer
I disagree. Wikipedia currently defines an art movement as "a tendency or style in art with a specific common philosophy or goal, followed by a group of artists during a restricted period of time", which surrealism clearly is, the tendency being towards weirdness. --User2.0
I think that it is fairly undeniable that Surrealism was a movement (cf. the manifestos of Breton, the internal wrangling, etc.). One may be able to interpret it is a non-artistic movement, especially considering its revolutionary politics, but I think that given the program laid out by Breton himself, surrealism is best understood as an artistic movement. Of course, to describe it as simply the tendency "towards weirdness" is to miss most (if not all) of what Surrealism (and certainly Magritte's work) was about (although I am certainly not accusing to previous poster of actually subscribing to such a view!). --shudder 07:24, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Title Beneath
"The title of the painting is written beneath it, seemingly a contradiction, but meaning that the image of the pipe is not itself a pipe." As far as I know (limited indeed), 'Ceci n'est pas une pipe' is written below it, not 'The Betrayal of Images', which is the generally accepted title of the work. Perhaps clarification may be worthwhile. Tolo 08:14, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Treachery/Betrayal of Images
Before my edit, the article contained two references to the translation of La trahison des images as The Betrayal of Images and one to The Treachery of Images. I changed the former to conform to the latter. My reasoning (besides the fact that I've always heard of this particular painting referred to as The Treachery... and never The Betrayal...) is that although the French trahison can mean either "betrayal" or "treachery," the two English words have very distinct meanings -- a betrayal is a treacherous action, and "betrayal" without the indefinite article refers to specific treacherous acts being committed, whereas "treachery" is the character trait of being prone to committing such acts -- and Magritte seems to clearly mean that images can be deceptive by their nature, not that images are collectively committing a single act of betrayal. So The Treachery of Images seems to me to be the better translation. Andrew Levine 07:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] The Young Gaze Scents the Festivity of the Old Tree
I have done a web search for this title and couldn't find any matching images. The title however, was mentioned in an article on the website mysanantonio.com. You can visit the article by clicking here. The description in that article seems to match that of a work from 1950 titled The Legend of the Centuries, which already appears in the list. If anyone is familiar with this work they could run an image search for The Legend of the Centuries to see if it is the same. Justin Foote 01:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Ban 72.10.122.167
I would like to propose a ban against this IP for vandalism. (Sorry if I can't do that here) BDM1039 01:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
The IP address is registered to the University of Connecticut, and has consistently vandalised this and other articles.
[edit] Photo additions; disrespectful substitutions for the artists' actual work
Please do not insert your photograph of the article's subject at the top of the page, as was done on 23 November with Henry Moore and René Magritte, without discussing it here on the Talk page. Even if the photograph did show us clearly what the artist looked like, and these do not, such an addition should be discussed here first. The photo caption credit to wikilinked Lothar Wolleh is also troubling, as the Lothar Wolleh article has two lines about the photographer, then approximately 100 wikilinked (most of them red) artists' names, and one external link – to Wolleh's web site.
Beyond the simple addition of such photographs, on 16 November an image of arguably the most famous work of each of these artists was replaced by the same photographs. Please cease this harmful behavior. --CliffC 04:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Adding portait of Magritte
Hello everybody, hello CliffC,
I am very new to this forum and I obviously underestimated the complexity of the editing process. I therefore like first of all to apologize that I made things more complicated. I registered now at Wikipedia making myself familiar with the procedures.
Let me respond to CliffC´s comments. I am suggesting to add the portrait of Magritte into the article. This portrait captures significant elements of the work of René Magritte and is in a way toying with his symbolism (the bowler head, suit, curtain). I therefore think that it fits really well into the article corresponding also to the Magritte pictures displayed in the article.
Placing: Since this photo tells us something about the artist I would place it at the beginning of the article but this does not have to be so necessarily because it is a portrait that does not show Magritte´s face. A classical face front foto would be certainly better for encyclopaedic article.
Linking: The linking is not necessary. Particularly because CliffC is right that the current English article on the photographer Wolleh is hardly in an embryonic stage and looks in deed quite strange at the moment. The German version is certainly more developed. I hope the English will develop soon too.
One point I did not understand in your comment CliffC and that is the part regarding the “replacing”. I am not aware to have deleted something or replaced. I inserted the photo to the article but for me this is not a “disrespectful substitution”. The photo I am suggesting to place in the article is not just an ordinary snap-shop like “Magritte entering one of his exhibitions”. It is a portrait-situation authorised by Magritte himself that emerged in a cooperative process between him and the photographer and that was mend to be part of a book.
I hope you find my arguments convincing. Let me state that I will not upload the photo again if we do not reach something like a consensus. Looking forward to your comments. -- SG
- I have responded over in Talk:Henry Moore where some discussion of this has already begun. --CliffC 22:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] La Grande Famille
Could somebody include a small fair use version of La Grande Famille in this article?--GunnarRene 05:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Copy of other Information
I noticed similarities between this website - www.annlongfineart.com/artists/magritte/ - and the 'life' section of this article. Blubba112 06:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- An examination of the edit history of this article shows that it has reached its present form through incremental additions and rewrites by many contributors, so it's safe to say our article is not a plagiarism. It looks like www.annlongfineart.com/artists/magritte/ is using text created in Wikipedia, which would be ok if they referenced Wikipedia as source and showed GFDL. I'll add this to Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks -- thanks! Ewulp 02:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
