Ceci n’est pas une thèse sur une pipe hanna hesemans Ce i est pas une thèse sur une pipe Maastricht, 21/10/2016 Ceci n’est pas une thèse sur une pipe Hanna Hesemans Maastricht, October 20, 2016 University College Maastricht HUM3036 – Narrative Media Tutor: Aagje Swinnen Word count: 4264 2 Ce i est pas une thèse sur une pipe Maastricht, 21/10/2016 Introduction Be ause s ar ely has he stated, This is a pipe, efore he ust orre t hi self a d stutter, This is ot a pipe, ut a drawi g of a pipe, This is ot a pipe ut a se te e sayi g that this is ot a pipe . The se te e 'this is ot a pipe' is ot a pipe, I the se te e this is ot a pipe, this is ot a pipe: the pai ti g , writte sentence, drawing of a pipe-all this is ot a pipe . (Foucault, 1983, p. 30) This is not a pipe. This paper is not, and the painting by René Mag itte s (cf. 1) that is described in the previous quote is not. At least, not really. What we see in The Treachery of Images is a pipe for sure. But we cannot smoke the pipe. What we also see is a comment, saying that what we think is a pipe is actually not. At the very least, the painting is puzzling. Yet, what has this to do with narratology, especially with the narratological term metafiction? Metafiction in narratology is the toolbox that a writer uses to draw attention to the fictionality of illusion (Waugh, 1984). Like the pipe i Mag itte s painting is not smokeable, so a character in a novel will never come to life. We all know this. Nevertheless, our mind makes us – if even for a moment – believe that the pipe or character are real. Metafiction counters this cognitive process (Fludernik, 2009). It cuts through the realm of illusionism created by the representation of both fictional writing a d Mag itte s pipe, a d sho s us that eall the e is o pipe. Many literature has been written on metafiction in textual narratives. Less literature has been written on the possibility of metafiction in painting, or: meta-painting. Having an interest in the visual arts, I would like to investigate what the concept of metafiction can bring to the analysis of painting. I am convinced that the self-reflective nature of The Treachery of Images and its concern with the problem of representation validate a metafictional view on the painting. The question I will answer in this paper therefore is: What can a metafictional analysis of ‘e é Magritte s pai ti g The Trea hery of Images tell us about the meaning of the painting? First, I will shortly define the concepts modernism, metafiction and meta- painting. After this conceptual introduction I will analyse the two main dynamics that a metafictional view highlights from The Treachery of images. These dynamics are the problem of representation and self-reflexivity. Moreover, my analysis will highlight the similarity of the systematic approaches used in metafiction and The Treachery of Images. Possible concerns on my thesis will be presented after, for what if language is still necessary for metafiction to happen? Above all, Magritte uses language as interrupting device in his Treachery of Images. And what about the made comparison of visual art and text? Coming back to my own argument I will conclude that a metafictional analysis can help us to unravel the ode ist d a i s i Mag itte s Treachery of Images, among them the problem of representation and self-reflexivity. 3 Ce i est pas une thèse sur une pipe Maastricht, 21/10/2016 Figure 1 - The Treachery of Images, Oil on canvas, René Magritte, 1948 4 Ce i est pas une thèse sur une pipe Maastricht, 21/10/2016 Clarification of concepts For the purpose of clarity, I will now first elaborate on three concepts that are central to this thesis: modernism, metafiction and meta-painting. Modernism The term modernism means very different things within several realms of the arts, and even within the same realm the meaning of modernism is not clear-cut (Irvine, 2013). The definition of modernism I propose is that of Greenberg and is concerned with the quest for a self-reflexive critique and the problem of representation in the visual arts (2007). In literary theory, this type of modernism is referred to as post-modernism, being after-modernism in the sense that this form of post-modernism elaborates on the questions of modernism (Irvine, 2013; Waugh, 1984). For my argument however, I have chosen to leave the narratological term post-modernism behind me. I will proceed this thesis with ode is , sig if i g the self-critical tendency that began with the philosopher Kant he ei characteristic methods of a discipline [are used] to criticise the discipline itself (Greenberg, 2007, p. 1.). Metafiction As outlined in the introduction, I will analyse The Treachery of images by Magritte according the narratological concept of metafiction. Most simply stated, metafiction is a synthesis of illusion and the interruption of this illusion (Fludernik, 2009; Waugh, 1984). In my paper I will use the definition of metafiction by Patricia Waugh, who states that [Metafiction] is fictional writing which self-consciously and systematically draws attention to its status as an artefact in order to pose questions about the relationship between fi tio a d ealit Waugh, 1984, p. 2). This definition comprises four distinct features of metafiction. 1. Fictionality. Acording to Ryan fictionality is a mode of representation that involves recentering (Ryan, 2010). In other words: a game of make-believe in which we pretend the truth of propositions, and willingly suspense our disbelief (Fludernik, 2009). Whereas the pipe of Mag itte s pai ti g pipe Mag itte, ight ot e a eal pipe, ou i d e og izes a pipe. To sa this is ot a is de i g the fi tio al t uth that is i he e t i the d awing of the pipe. In the fictional representation of the painting, the pipe is really a pipe. 2. Self-consciousness. According to the oxford dictionary self-consciousness is feeli g u due a a e ess of o eself, o e s appea a e, o o e s a tio s O fo ddi tio a ies. o , a). Waugh uses the term to describe the awareness of a writer on the process of his own writing (1984). Whereas self-consciousness is passive, the term is often passed over to the audience 5 Ce i est pas une thèse sur une pipe by means of self-reflexivity, a te Maastricht, 21/10/2016 used to des i e a ts that [ o tain] a reflection [on] or i age of itself O fo ddi tio a ies. o , . 3. A systematic approach. The use of different narrative concepts in order to perform metafiction is systematic (Waugh, 1984). 4. The problem of representation. The problem of representation is the problematic distinction between what Derrida calls the truth of the thing itself – unmediated reality - , and the truth of representation – mimesis of reality - (Derrida, 1987). The problem concerns the fictionality of the illusion that is constructed within fiction (Waugh, 1984). Whereas a representation aims for truth to real-life, or mimesis, the representation can never fulfil this ideal (Gombrich, 1977). We see a pipe in The Treachery of Images, but this is not a real pipe. Meta- painting If one understands the concept of metafiction in the novel, metapainting is but one step away. All theories I found about meta-painting derive from the early work The Self-aware image: an insight into early modern meta-painting by Victor Stoichita (1997). All of them name self-reflexivity and the representational problem as essential for meta-painting. The theories moreover often focus on renaissance works of meta-painting (Bertram, 2015; Verstegen, 2008; Serban, 2013; Bokody, 2015) There are hardly any considerations of meta-painting in modernist, or contemporary art. In this paper, I take on the quest to apply the concept of meta-painting to modernist art. I proceed with the following definition of metapainting: metapainting is the whole gamut of pictorial de i es th ough hi h pai ti g stages its fi ti e ess (Pericolo, 2013, p. 12). The term metapainting comprises different types, among them the staging of the painter himself in a painting (The Adolfini Portrait by Van Eyck), the image within an image (Las Meninas by Velazquez) and the strategy of u o e i g a pai ti g s ate ialit that Magritte uses in The Treachery of Images (Pericolo, 2013). By means of metapainting a painter draws attention to his own methods (self-reflexivity) and the fact that what he paints is not really what we name it, but a representation (Kascheck, 2015): e i est pas une pipe (Magritte, 1948). Analysis The following metafictional analysis of The Treachery of images is build-up of four parts. In line with Serban, who has investigated meta-aspe ts ithi Velaz uez Las Meninas (2013), I will start with investigating the problem of representation (1) and the self- efle i it of Mag itte s pai ti g. After this, I will elaborate on the similar systems (3) that are used in both metafiction and The Treachery of 6 Ce i est pas une thèse sur une pipe Maastricht, 21/10/2016 Images. Finally, I will draw on some concerns on the incorporation of a textual element in The Treachery of Images, and the comparison of textual and visual fiction (4). The problem of representation Just as less as the picture in the beginning of this essay is a real painting, so less Mag itte s pipe is really a pipe. This knowledge comes to all of us naturally. At least, if I am right to suppose that you did not feel the urge to smoke the illustration that I presented to you in the beginning of this paper. Nevertheless, there is a point in our thought process where we do not seem to want to believe the fact that the pipe is not a pipe. We recognize the brown item as a pipe, and the only way in which we can describe the thing to another person is by naming it. The not-really pipe looks like a pipe for sure. This process, wherein we willingly suspense our disbelief and assume the truth of the pipe, is essential to fiction (Fludernik, 2009). Yet, the problem of representation goes further than mere fiction. The problem concerns the relationship between fiction and reality. The ancient Greek philosopher Plato is the first to write on the representational dilemma. According to him, every artwork is a copy. Even worse, an artwork is a copy of a copy: a simulacrum (Durham, 1993). For Plato, the ultimate truth resides within the Ideas. The Ideas are the constructs in our minds that enable us to categorise all sorts of different things within one category. They make it possible for us to label for example different types of chairs with the generic o ept chair . O je ts su h as the hai a e ep ese tatio s of the idea hai . A t a d lite atu e a e mere representations of these objects, and hence very much distanced from the ideal. Yet, after Plato, the ideal art and literature were art and literature that were successful in mimicking reality. Until modernism, the suspension of disbelief was seen as the norm for successful painting (Pericolo, 2013). At a certain point however, both artists and writers recognised that this was an in vain purpose. The pipe in the painting could never be a real pipe. The man in the novel, could never be a real man. Metafiction highlights exactly this distinction between man and character; smokeable and non-smokeable. For, metafiction lays bare the fictionality of the illusion that is constructed in the novel (Waugh, 1984; Fludernik, 2009). The concept of metafiction hereby touches upon the problem of representation. If a writer aims at representing the real world (mimesis), he or she will realize soon that his or her task is in vain (Waugh, 1984). The fictional world inside his novel will never be the real o ld outside Waugh, . Mo eo e , the fi tio al o ld de eloped i a eade s i d ill e e be real. The writer can now choose to make the audience aware of this dilemma by means of metaterms. For, metafiction explores the relationship between the fictional world, and the real world that is outside (Waugh, 1984) and hence interrupts the dispense of disbelief that readers adopt in the course of recentering themselves in the fictional world,. 7 Ce i est pas une thèse sur une pipe Maastricht, 21/10/2016 The capability of raising awareness on the problem of representation places metafiction on a par with Magritte s o e t i the Treachery of Images. Where a reader by means of metafiction might be transported from an entranced reading state to imaginative involvement (Ryan, 2001), Magritte does the same for painting (1948). By interrupting our unconscious thought process of labelling the representation of a pipe as a real pipe, he makes us aware that the pipe is really artificial. As “e a ould e plai it, Mag itte ea s of a i te se tio ele e t o f o ts the isi le – a representation of a pipe - and invisible – a thought process (Serban, 2013, p. 47). Magritte lays bare the fictionality of the illusion that is constructed in his painting, as much as metafiction does this in writing. Magritte tea hes us that hat o e sees i a o je t, is a othe i isi le o je t Meuris, 1993, p. 101). But the o e t Ce i est pas u e pipe (Magritte, 1948) does not only direct us to reflect on the representational problem in painting (a). As Foucault is capable of explaining, Magritte teaches us of a three-way representational dilemma, wherein he also reflects on representation in language (b, and c). The real pipe is absent from all three forms of representation, and at the same time present as an idea. a. This [the painting] is not a pipe, but a drawing of a pipe; b. This [the sentence] is not a pipe but a sentence saying that this is not a pipe; c. I the se te e this is ot a pipe , this [the word] is not a pipe. In sum, The comment Ce i est pas u e pipe Mag itte, gi es di e tio to a efle tio o the artificiality of representation, both in painting and in language. Inherent in metafiction is also the capability to similarly interrupt and mediate reality (Fludernik, 2009). Fludernik shows that – although often thought of as interrupting the illusion of reality – a metafictional comment can be used to strengthen the idea of illusion. So what about this apa ilit i Mag itte s pai ti g? Mag itte hi self is est apa le of des i i g this. In his letters, the painter compliments Foucault on comparing him with Roussel (1973), fo hat he i agi es e okes nothing imaginary, it evokes the reality of the world that experience and reason treat in a confused a e (Magritte, 1973, p. 58). What Magritte does in The Treachery of Images is not solely to disrupt the illusion of reality, but to paint what is real (1948). The processes in our mind are the truth of things, as Derrida would call it (Derrida, 1987). In reality, there is no pipe. In reality, there is only our mind that thinks that the representation of a pipe is a pipe. This reality – the truth of things - is what Magritte highlights. By telling his viewers of his own real dilemma in representation, he makes himself as a narrator more credible (Fludernik, 2009). Residing within the field of narratology, specifically with the term metafiction, thus enables us to clarify the ambiguous tendencies within The Treachery of Images. One the one hand there is an u o s ious eadi g p o ess wherein we as viewers are recentered in the fictional world of the 8 Ce i est pas une thèse sur une pipe Maastricht, 21/10/2016 painting, and consider the pipe real. On the other hand, there is the comment e i est pas u e pipe (Magritte, 1948) that brutally interrupts this process of recentering and makes us aware that the pipe in the painting is not really a pipe. By comparing The Treachery of Images with metafiction, we can he e u a el the puzzle that the ode ist d a i of ep ese tatio al dile a s i the painting posed upon our minds at first. Self-reflexivity The problem of representation is not the only post-modernist dynamic in The Treachery of Images that metafiction can explain. As e e plified i Waugh s defi itio , a other important aspect of metafiction lies in its ability to question its own methods. Metafi tio e plo es a theo p a ti e of iti g fi tio of fi tio th ough the (Waugh, 1984, p. 2). I argue that for The Treachery of Images too an important part of its meaning resides within such self-reflexive critique. For, what Magritte s pai ti g really is about is not a pipe, but painting. Mag itte s Treachery of Images (1948) is not painting as an end in itself, but rather painting for the sake of deconstructing the methods of painting (Foucault, 1973). A first hint of self-reflexivity within the Treachery of Images is Mag itte s efle tio the history of the medium of painting. Whereas many of his forerunners have tried to imitate reality the closest as possible (Pericolo, 2013), Magritte shows the futility of this ultimate truth in painting. As a true modernist, Magritte is conscious of the limitations of the medium of painting. For a painting can only represent and mimic, and is forever caught within the realm of representation of reality (Gombrich, 1977), so Magritte shows us. This development of self-reflexivity in modernist painting – especially The Treachery of Images - parallels the development of self-critique in textual fiction. Whereas both painting and writing had aimed at a realistic representation, it is with metafiction and modernism that writers and artists recognize the impossibility of such quest. ‘efle i it o the une pipe Mag itte, ediu of pai ti g is o eo e esse tial to the o e t e i est pas . What this te tual i te uptio does is efle ti g o the i possi ilities of the painted image. The text – according to Magritte integral to the painting (Foucault, 1973) – reflects on the limits of representation from within. For, the image of a pipe would never be able to deny its existence as a pipe but for the incorporation of the text. Mag itte s self-reflexivity is further supported by his work The two mysteries (1966) (cf. 2). In it, we see The Treachery of Images. Yet, now the painting is no longer portrayed full-screen. The painting has transformed into an image within an image, and its mirror image is portrayed on the wall. We zoom out as it where to reflect on the painting from a distance. Magritte here distances himself from the original painting, as an author distances himself from the story to reflect on his own writing 9 Ce i est pas une thèse sur une pipe Maastricht, 21/10/2016 Figure 2 - The Two Mysteries, Oil on canvas, René Magritte, 1966 10 Ce i est pas une thèse sur une pipe Maastricht, 21/10/2016 within metafiction. The mirror image of the pipe (the one at the wall) is however not able to escape the realm of the first painting (Foucault, 1973; Durham, 1993), as the comments of a writer will never escape his original text. Magritte shows the viewer with humour that painting can never escape being a representation. As such, Magrittte elaborates on the limits of painting. We see a pipe, yet it still not really is a real pipe. The real thing: the idea is nowhere to be found but in our imagination (Foucault, 1983; Durham, 1993). Self-consciously, Magritte thus shows us that what we see is a mere representation (Foucault, 1983). The last aspe t of Mag itte s self-consciousness that I would like to point out is that the artist is not only reflexive on his own methods, but also makes the viewer aware of their o ie i g p o ess . As Foucault outlines, Magritte directs us to reflect on the automatic construct of our mind that this pai ted i age is that thi g Fou ault, , p. . As a viewer we become aware that we are part of a game of make-believe. We come to see that our believe in a true pipe is futile, and suddenly become conscious of our placement in a world of fiction. Actually, there is only a painting and some language, and a pipe is nowhere to be found. As post-modernist writers such as Joseph Andrews (Fludernik, 2009), have made their readers aware of the limits of their writing and the reading process, so Magritte makes us aware of the limits of the painting and our viewing process. He places himself within history, reflects with a comment, looks then from a distance and finally transfers his self-reflexivity to the viewer. Metafiction hence unravels that The Treachery of Images – being reflective on its own ways of representing – concerns a modernist self-reflection. Similar systems Hitherto, I have showed how metafiction is capable of explaining the modernist concepts highlighted of the problem of representation and self-reflexivity that play into The Treachery of Images (1948). But, how does Magritte draw upon these concepts in his work; and, what can metafiction tell us about Mag itte s ethods? I argue that both metafiction and The Treachery of Images employ a similar toolbox in bringing to awareness the problem of representation and self-reflexivity. In order to break the fiction of illusion, metafiction is dependent on exactly this illusion. Details are often seen as essential to this illusion. Now, let us take a look at the image of the pipe with this in mind. Although the pipe might not be classified as detailed drawing at first sight, I consider it a detailed drawing. For sure, the drawing is realistic. What Magritte portrays is not merely the silhouette, but a real pipe. We see the lip, the stem and the mouthpiece (1948). If we adsorb these details, our minds magically fill in the gaps: this clearly is a pipe. According to Watson, this is exactly how the illusion of a novel works: details activate frames – parts – that evoke constructs in our minds – the whole – 11 Ce i est pas une thèse sur une pipe Maastricht, 21/10/2016 (Fludernik, 2009). Similarly, in Magritte s painting, the detailed representation of a pipe creates a conceptual frame that enables our mind to integrate the drawing into the real world (Fludernik, 2009). The frame of details e phasises the o ti uit et ee fi ti e a d eal spa e Pe i olo, 2013, p. 20) and herewith constructs the illusio that the novel [or drawing] is depicting reality (Fludernik, 2009, p. 54). Yet, illusionism only does not constitute metafiction. What metafiction does is questioning this illusionism (Waugh, 1984). This metafictional feature is deeply embedded in The Treachery of Images (1948). Primarily, both the painting and metafiction use the narrator comment to interrupt illusion. In Mag itte s pai ti g, o d a d o je t do not te d to o stitute a si gle figu e but they are deployed i t o diffe e t di e sio s (Foucault, 1973 p. 42). He e, Mag itte s e i est pas u e pipe (Magritte, 1948) is as much a distanced commentary as the novelist comment on his own writing. The oi e of Mag itte esou ds i ou ea s: this is ot a pipe , he sa s. Or at least, we assume that it is the painter himself who speaks. For here again, a parallel dooms up with metafiction. Actually, we know nothing about author nor painter. Is it Magritte who is denying the being of a pipe? Or is who speaks a fictional narrator, a schoolmaster maybe (Foucault, 1983), who tells his audience of the nonexistence of a pipe? What we envision is the implied author, or in the case of Magritte: the implied painter (Fludernik, 2009). Moreover, etafi tio a d Mag itte s o e t ithi The Treachery of Images transfer us from a position of entrancement, to a position of imaginative involvement (Ryan, 2001). Entranced viewing or reading presupposes that the knowledge that the fiction is not reality is dispensed for a while, only to reside somewhere in the back of the mind. Instead, metafiction and the meta-comment of Magritte foreground this knowledge, thereby transfo i g the ie e o eade i to a split su je t that is only imaginatively involved (Ryan, 2001). Magritte furthermore adapts different levels of narrative, as writers often do in metafictional writing. The first level is intradiegetic and concerns the pipe as being a pipe. The three possibilities of representational ambiguity (see p. 8) ithi the o e t e i est pas u e pipe are extradiegetic. They concern comments about the story – intradiegetic – level of the painting, made by an external narrator (Fludernik, 2009) . Because of the multiple extradiegetic interpretations of The Treachery of Images, I would even like to speak of such concept as continuous framing (Fludernik, 2009). Especially when we return to the quote of Foucault in the beginning of this paper this framing becomes very clear. In his quote, Foucault analyses The two mysteries (1966) by Magritte. In this image, a bigger pipe is visible next to the schoolboard with The Treachery of Images i p i ted o it. Fou ault s uote takes a school master as narrator. As the schoolmaster tells the children in the class room of the painting of the pipe, that is 12 Ce i est pas une thèse sur une pipe Maastricht, 21/10/2016 not a real pipe, his story is corrected by a new narrative level that pops up. Actually, this is a sentence that is ot a pipe. The a othe le el i te upts: the o d this is ot a pipe. A othe o e: hat I a saying, all of this is not a pipe. In the end, the pipe is nowhere (Foucault, 1973). Finally, Magritte also employs the combination of familiar and unfamiliar aspects, so common to metafiction (Waugh, 1984). According to Waugh, successful metafictional novels tend to proceed from a familiar base. If there is no familiar base, readers will not be able to interpret works of fiction according to their known schemata. They will not understand the meaning of a work of fiction when the work is too difficult (Waugh, 1984). In The Treachery of Images, Magritte aligns himself with Waugh s o e ta i o i i g the fa ilia ith the u fa ilia . The object of a pipe is so basal that there can be no dispute over it being a representation of a pipe. Everyone who sees the image will construct that it is a pipe. What is unfamiliar to the viewer is the comment. Whereas we expect the e to e the la el of hat e see: this is a pipe o a pipe , hat the o pipe Mag itte, . The o e t sa s is this is not a e t de-familiarises the conventional construct of the pipe, yet also proceeds from it. As such, Magritte combines the familiar and the unfamiliar in a successful way. By means of using a simple object to visualize the problems of representation and limitation that he encounters, he enables his viewers to understand these problems. Just as metafiction has enabled its eade s to u de sta d oth the p o le of ep ese tatio a d itself Waugh, , so Mag itte s The Treachery of Images enables us to understand both the problem of representation and its own nature. In sum, the methods that Magritte employs in The Treachery of Images show parallels with the methods used in metafictional writing. As such, a metafictional analysis of the painting gives us important insights in the way in which narratological concepts such as framing, narrator comment, implied author, narrative level and the distinction between the familiar and unfamiliar constitute the basis for highlighting the problem of representation and self-reflexivity in modernist painting. Comparing text and image At this point, you might wonder if the previous analysis would apply to a painting that does not incorporate text. This were indeed a p o le if ot a of Mag itte s othe pai ti gs that do ot incorporate text show a tendency to be self-reflexive and are concerned with things that are not what they seem Fou ault, . Mag itte s o k Representation (1962) for instance – yes, even without knowing its title – hints immediately at the problem of representation. The work depicts a game of soccer, together with its mirror image. Another work, again titled Representation but now from 1932, shows that auto-reflexivity is possible without text. The form of the frame is not rectangular but aligned with the portrayed o a s od . He e ith, this se o d o k questions the limits of painting, especially: the frame and the canvas. 13 Ce i est pas une thèse sur une pipe Maastricht, 21/10/2016 A further critical comment might rise from the fact that I compare two mediums: the textual and the visual without much consideration of their distinctions. What drove me to do this is the fact that both can be considered fiction. What metafiction does is raising awareness on the representational aspect of a fiction. A textual fiction is comparable to a visual fiction in that they are both representations. Hence, the representational aspect of fiction is something that can be found in both the visual and the textual. Furthermore, metafiction is self-reflexive insofar only as it reflects on the medium in which it is employed. The possibility of medium-reflexivity is hence not exclusive to one specific medium and can therefore also be used in both metafictional writing and meta-painting. As both the representation and self-reflective aspect of metafiction can be found within the visual arts and literature, I accept their similarity in my argumentation. Conclusion In this paper I have firstly showed that both metafiction and The Treachery of Images are occupied with the same problem: the problem of representation. Secondly, I explained to you the parallel between the self- efle i it i etafi tio al iti g a d Mag itte s pai ti g. Fi all , I sho ed that there are similarities between the systems that are used to highlight these dynamics in metafiction and The Treachery of Images. The two dynamics: the representational problem, self-reflexivity are moreover defined as modernist. As such, I argue that a metafictional analysis is capable of unravelling the ode ist d a i s i Mag itte s Treachery of Images. To o lude essa I ould like to i g ou a k to he e it all sta ted: Ce i est pas u pipe . The Treachery of Images is not even a painting about a pipe really. The painting is a reflection on the problem of representation; a self-reflexive process that concerns the drawing as much as its viewer. Finally, so much as the pipe is not really a pipe, and the painting not really about it; so much this paper is not really about a painting of a pipe, but about a much larger tendency of parallel developments in metafictional writing and modernist painting. Further questions have to be addressed in further essays, yet I honestly hope that the presented paper may be a step towards the development of a theory on modernist meta-painting. 14 Ce i est pas une thèse sur une pipe Maastricht, 21/10/2016 Reference list Bokody, P. (2015). Introduction. Images within Images in Italian Painting. Ashgate Publishing. 1-10. Derrida, J. (1987). Passe-partout. Introduction to The Truth in Painting, trans. Ian McLeod and Geoff Bennington. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Durham, S. (1993). From Magritte to Klossowski: The Simulacrum, between Painting and Narrative. October 64, 16-33. Fludernik, M. (2009). An introduction to narratology. London: Routledge. Foucault, M., & Magritte, R. (1973). This is not a pipe with illustrations and letters by René Magritte. An art quantum. Gombrich, E. H. (1977). Art and illusion: A study in the psychology of pictorial representation (Vol. 5). London: Phaidon. Greenberg, C. (1988). Modernist Painting. In: Franscina, F. & Harris, C. (eds.). Modern art and modernism: a critical anthology. Paul Chapman publishing limited. 5-10. Irvine, M. (2013). The Post oder , Post oder is , Post oder ity , Approa hes to Po-Mo. Georgetown University. Kascheck, Bertram (2015). Das kunsttheoretische Bordell: Metamalerei bei Jan van Hemessen. In: Münch, B.U. & Müller, J. (eds): Peiraikos Er e . Die Ge ese der Ge re alerei is 55 . Wiesbaden. 359–390. Magritte, R. (1937). Representation. Edinburgh: Scottish National Gallery of Modern Art. [painting] Retrieved from https://www.wikiart.org/en/rene-magritte/representation-1937 Magritte, R. (1948). The Treasury of Images. Brussels. [illustration] Retrieved from: https://www.wikiart.org/en/rene-magritte/the-treachery-of-images-this-is-not-a-pipe1948?utm_source=returned&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=referral Magritte, R. (1962). Belgium. Representation. [painting] https://www.wikiart.org/en/rene-magritte/representation-1962 15 Retrieved from: Ce i est pas une thèse sur une pipe Magritte, R. (1966). The Maastricht, 21/10/2016 Two mysteries. Belgium. [illustration] Retrieved from: https://www.wikiart.org/en/rene-magritte/the-two-mysteries-1966 Meuris, Jacq. (1993). René Magritte 1898 – 1967. Keulen: Taschen/Librero. Oxforddictionaries.com. (2016a). Self-consciousness. Retrieved from: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/self-consciousness Oxforddictionaries.com. (2016b). Self-reflexive. Retrieved from: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/self-reflexive Pericolo, L. (2013). What is metapainting? The self-aware image twenty years later. University of Warwick. Ryan, M.L. (2001). The Text as World: Theories of Immersion. Narrative as Virtual Reality: Immersion and Interactivity in Literature and Electronic Media. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 89-114. “e a , O. . Po t a i g the u ep ese ta le: the pai ti g. Las Me i as , f o ethodi al e e of the ea l ode meta- Velaz uez to Pi asso. ANNALS of the University of Bucharest (philosopy series), LXII(2), 39-53. Stoichita, V. I. (1997). The self-aware image: an insight into early modern meta-painting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Verstegen, I. (2008). Between Presence and Perspective the Portrait-in-a-Picture in Early Modern Painting. Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte, 71(4), 513-526. Verstegen, I. (2008). Between Presence and Perspective the Portrait-in-a-Picture in Early Modern Painting. Zeitschrift Für Kunstgeschichte, 71(4), 513-526. Waugh, P. (1984). What is metafiction and why are they saying such awful things about it? Metafiction: The Theory and Practice of Self-Conscious Fiction. London: Methuen, 1-20 . 16