One of the Daves I know pointed out this artist to me yesterday. His name is Rene Magritte. He was a surrealist painter in the early part of last century. This painting's never going to sell like Jackson Pollock's paintings sell. And he was mentioned in one of my favorite movies: I Heart Huckabees.
I'm not much of one for art. I've got nothing against it -- but I also don't seek it out. And it's not that I'm intimidated. In fact, when I see good art, I'm always challenged. For instance, the Mrs. and I went the Columbus Museum of Art a few months back. It was very nice and we had some interesting discussions. There's a reason they say a picture is worth a thousand words.
Now I'd be interested to know what you think of this painting. I know nothing of surrealism and I don't think you need to know anything either. My thought is if you can understand a joke, you can begin to understand art. But, it seems, art is always infinite-- there's always something more to discern. Perhaps that's why it intimidates people, because it's very subjective and people like to feel right sometimes.
I'll start my thoughts here, one of the Daves I know mentioned how the apple, placed in front of the face, suggests how temptation is always in front of us. Excellent observation. This painting, as I thought about it, really resonated with me. It's beautifully colored and horrific at the same time. It's very jarring. Thanks Dave I know for our discussion, it was very inspiring.
It's also important to note the title of this painting and there's a reason I haven't mentioned it yet. When we hear titles, we tend to work backwards from the title to form our opinions. I want you to work forwards before you know the title. Because if you do so, as I did, the title makes sense. Like any good title, it becomes the culmination of the thought of the art (this applies to songs and, even, the title of this post. Hint: It's a song lyric).
Anyway, the title of the painting: The Son of Man.
Your thoughts?
8 comments:
I don't know how I came across your blog, but I've checked back every now and then. I've been a fan of Magritte since I saw his exhibit at the Met in NY back in high school. I have a few of his pieces (read: posters) hanging in my hallway. His Empire of Light is a particular favorite of mine.
I'm by no means an art critic, but I do know that it helps to view Magritte's pieces as a series. You start to see running themes, objects - the apple, a bell, the clouds. It gives some insight into understanding the individual pieces. There is much critique in his work on the social condition, social norms/reality.
Anyway, just thought I'd share that. Not much of an insight into this particular work, I realize! But thanks for letting me take up this space!
A closer look at the painting reveals something interesting. I am not into surrealism so I cannot comment on it but this tiny observation perhaps gives a clue into the artist's view. Can you notice it?
Yeah...keep coming back.
It does help, I think, to understand the history and stories behind art and sometimes that means putting it in the larger scope of an artist's work -- as you pointed out. And it's the challenge of the observer to seek these things out -- another reason perhaps why people are intimidated by art.
Of course the beauty of art is that it can stand on itself. As I think this piece does. As does the one you pointed out -- which is specatacular by the way.
It also seems clouds in a blue sky is a motif in many, many of his paintings.
I'm finding he's a very engaging artist and is providing a nice respite in my mind from the news (read: my job) today.
The painting appears symetrical except for one point, which is perhaps the rational behind surrealism. What is it?
It's probably his left hand...though I'm not sure if that's intentional or just a bad copy. Still...interesting observation. I'd been most concerned with the apple, face, sky and water -- I'd have to think about it.
It's important, I think, to notice, as well that the clouds in the sky are not "happy" clouds. They seem very foreboding. I never noticed it before, but his left eye is visible. Is it a sneaky peak? Or an attempt to see beyond the temptation?
I did a google search to try to find the picture a little larger
- I actually couldn't tell if the eye was his eye or actually a worm! In the search I also found this quote: "The Son of Man came about from a friend’s request for a self-portrait of Rene Magritte whose comment on it was that,
'Everything we see hides another thing, we always want to see what is hidden by what we see.'” (from usefultrivia.com). Gives weight to your theory, I think - that if you can understand a joke, you can begin to understand art!
Yes, the left eye is staring back at the observer! The observer is being observed. This is very funny and foreboding yet is this not true of reality. As we observe something, we are also being observed. Though our view is limited it is not so of God who sees everything. Perhaps the theological leap is too great.
Your favorite painting had a cameo appearance in the 1999 remark of the Thomas Crown Affair staring Pierce Brosnan and Rene Russo--quite ingenious. It was used as a ruse to steal another painting. All the apparent thieves were wearing Bollo hats!
Post a Comment