Talk:The Treachery of Images

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (core areas): Logic

Contents 1 OR watch 2 the true translation of "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" 3 T-shirt 4 Other interpretations 5 A Webcomic? 6 That's not "The Treachery of Images" 7 Quote attrributed to magritte

[edit] OR watch

• the template on this article claims there's original research. where? i can't spot any. i'm removing the template in a while unless someone can find any evidence of any W guice 14:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

here you go: It might be true that Magritte's point in these "Ceci n'est pas" works is that no matter how closely, through realism-art, we come to depicting an item accurately, we never do catch the item itself, per se, as a Kantian noumenon, but capture only an image on the canvas. But that interpretation trivializes Magritte's insight -- for it is true of any painting, and every artist and child would admit it, that what the painting does is only present an image of a thing, and the thing itself is not on or in the canvas. It might be more plausible to interpret Magritte as commenting on Freudian psychoanalysis -- a topic not very far removed from many of his surrealistic works, anyway. Sigmund Freud, especially in his dream analysis, continually asserted that what clearly and obviously seemed to be an X in a dream was not really an X, that it was an X only patently, on the surface, but not latently or deeply, that the X in the dream represented or was a metaphor for some other thing, Y. The dream-image train is really a penis, for example. So when Magritte says "This is not a pipe," what he means is that it may be possible to think that it is only an image that stands for something else, that the phenomenal reality of the pipe obscures or hides the true reality lying underneath. The difficult question, if we go this far, is whether Magritte intended to provide support for or to illustrate sympathetically Freudian dream analysis -- the treachery of dreams -- or, instead, was mocking it: "You mean this image, which is obviously a pipe-image, is not really a pipe-image? Tell me another!" i can see how you'd miss that, it's only half the article. --dan 05:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• while i appreciate your ever-so-clever sarcasm, i think [[citation needed]]s would probably be more apt for this bit W guice 11:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

it reads very strongly to me as the thoughts of whoever wrote that up, but since they don't actually say it is, i suppose citation needed would be more appropriate. --dan 21:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the true translation of "Ceci n'est pas une pipe"

the true translation of "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" is "this is not a blow job".

You must rethink The Treachery Of Images, adding the sense of humor that used the autor...

89.128.232.190 18:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

either the above is a joke, or the above is a statement by a person who didnt do their french homework very well -69.29.145.150 01:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

No, he's right. 'Blow job' actually does translate as 'pipe', though the French word 'pipe' has multiple meanings. --poorsod^talk 20:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

"Pipe" is really a slang term for "blow job" in French. I am pretty certain that Magritte knew it and that he was fully aware of the possible interpretations of his work. Just google search for "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" and you'll find a few explicit pictures. Hugo Dufort (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I took the initiative to add the translation about this. As a french, I must say that the two translation are either true. The only thing to check is : does "pipe" mean blow job when the artist painted this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.233.32.66 (talk) 14:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I took the initiative to delete it. It is rather unencyclopaedic, unless there is clear evidence that that alternative translation was in the minde of the painter. LachlanA (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a clear evidence! It is the whole purpose of this painting! That's the funny part of it, the thing that make this painting so interresting for the public. So I ask to re add the two translation. And in any case, it is important for english spoking person to explain the two possible interpretation for french public. No? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.233.32.66 (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] T-shirt

http://www.threadless.com/product/543/This_is_not_a_Pipe

Could this be included in the "In Popular Culture" section? Raz.you.up 19:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other interpretations

What's with the other interpretations? They're nonsense and smell of original 'research'. They're currently marked with [citation needed], but I think plain removal is more in order.

[edit] A Webcomic?

Robert Zakheim, author of the webcomic Legendary created a parody of the image consisting of Colonel Mustard hefting a lead pipe. The caption was, "Ceci n'est pas Colonel Moutarde avec une pipe."

Is this really necessary? I hardly think a public comment is 'pop culture' 72.65.22.88 00:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] That's not "The Treachery of Images"

It's an image of "The Treachery of Images". SnappingTurtle 16:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

from.

[edit] Quote attrributed to magritte

I don't have any verification for the quote on this page, but in _Obit Magazine_ <http://www.obit-mag.com/news.php?id=160> there is the quote

He explained, “Can it be stuffed with tobacco, my pipe? No, it’s only a depiction, isn’t it? If I had written ‘This is a pipe’ under my picture, I would have been lying!”

Unfortunately, that article doesn't cite a reference either... LachlanA (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)