I do not apologize for the joke in the title.

In fact, I am proud of it.

  • simple@lemm.eeEnglish
    471·
    4 months ago

    Alright I guess I’ll be the first to admit: I don’t get it.

    • samus12345@lemmy.worldEnglish
      35·
      4 months ago

      The point was that it’s not an actual pipe, but a representation of a pipe. Magritte liked being the best kind of correct.

    • Sotuanduso@lemm.eeEnglish
      377·
      4 months ago

      The person who drew that pipe captioned it “This is not a pipe” in French.

      For some reason it’s a popular piece. I don’t really like it because I prefer art to be aesthetically interesting rather than “any creative work that makes a statement.”

      • unreasonabro@lemmy.world
        114·
        4 months ago

        Ahh I see. Seems like andy worhol level creativity. i never really understood why his stuff was considered art, but my brain glides over stuff better than gretzky’s skates so I’m probably no judge.

        • Monument@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
          211·
          4 months ago

          I actually love the Dadaist movement, although this piece is not really my favorite. Truth be told, I don’t love the art of the Dadaist movement, so much as I love what it represented.

          This piece is named “The treachery of images” but most people refer to it by ‘This is not a pipe’ because, well, that’s what’s written on it.
          It’s basically an art shitpost. Of course it’s not a pipe. It’s a painting of a pipe.

          But the Dadaist movement is basically all art shitposting. Dada is an utterance that roughly means “yeah, whatever” and came about as a form of protest art against the bourgeoisie, and their overly rigid definition of art after WW1. In that time it was common for the rich of various nations to embrace specific forms of art as an expression of nationalism.

          Dadaists were like “fuck that, art is whatever the hell the artist says it is.” Because art for just the rich sucks, as does art that’s only in one format, and nationalism, too.

          My favorite story is that Marcel Duchamp submitted “Fountain” a urinal that had been turned sideways and signed “R. Mutt” to an art show that ostensibly showed everything submitted to it, but the organizers hid his piece, and it’s rumored that they threw it away after taking a photo of it.
          The treatment of the submission and mystery surrounding it brought about tremendous attention, furthering the Dadaist movement.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOPM
            6·
            4 months ago

            Dada imagery shitposting is nothing compared to Dada theater shitposting. Ever seen Ubu Roi? You’ll probably wish you didn’t.

            On the other hand, I can’t be too critical of Alfred Jarry. He used to walk around Paris with a lobster on a leash.

        • Kilgore Trout@feddit.it
          4·
          4 months ago

          I never really understood why his stuff was considered art

          Someone will be saying this looking at internet memes in a museum in 50 years, while everyone else will be acclaiming a portray of loss.

        • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
          1·
          4 months ago

          Dadaism inspired Warhol. The Dadaist movement was shitposting and asking questions about what was art and about perspective. It also inspired surrealism which did similar things, often more pleasingly.

          Warhol though was basically the capital friendly version of Dadaism (which was largely socialist like surrealism). I don’t like his style of pop art, though I do like the more old school comic book style pop art. I find it to be a lot less interesting than surrealism for example (which was always my favorite art movement), but it’s an aesthetic that I associate with my grandma so I can’t hate it even if I don’t find it nearly as deep or interesting as other forms of art. And as for what he was trying to say, that a lot of our commercial and mass produced world is artistically interesting in its own way. Which yeah, far more friendly to capitalism than a signed urinal. I don’t think he deserved to be shot for his aesthetic failings, but someone did.

        • Sotuanduso@lemm.eeEnglish
          11·
          4 months ago

          I don’t mind if it actually makes me think. I’d like it to be aesthetically interesting anyways.

          I do mind if a cheap trick (like “this isn’t a pipe, it’s just a picture of a pipe”) gets touted as a thought-provoking masterpiece. Because then if I say I don’t like it, I get accused of not wanting to think.

          • Peppycito@sh.itjust.works
            1·
            4 months ago

            I don’t mind if it actually makes me think.

            You can lead a horse to water…

            The “cheap trick” is the whole point. You probably really won’t like Magrittes buddy, Duchamp and his Fountain https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)

            “The impact of Duchamp’s Fountain changed the way people view art due to his focus upon “cerebral art” contrary to merely “retinal art”, as this was a means to engage prospective audiences in a thought-provoking way as opposed to satisfying the aesthetic status quo “turning from classicism to modernity”.”

            • Sotuanduso@lemm.eeEnglish
              1·
              4 months ago

              Fountain is in the realm of trolling art museums, and I appreciate that. I also appreciate the dadaist sentiment of rejecting art snobbery.

              I’m not a huge fan of the “everything is art” mindset, but I don’t mind it on its own. The part that’s bothering me, which you’re highlighting, is the Emperor’s New Clothes treatment some of these pieces, like The Treachery of Images, get. The art sages say it’s a thought provoking masterpiece. I say it’s simple, and I get called a simpleton.

              I’m not saying you have to agree with my opinion. Just let me have it in peace. Don’t let dadaism turn back into snobbery.