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