(Modern painting series)
René Magritte (1898-1976)
Like many of his French colleagues in the Surrealist movement, René Magritte was strongly influenced by the work of Giorgio de Chirico in the early 1920s. He was an important figure in the Belgian surrealist movement, which developed during the period. between the two world wars and he also regularly participated in activities initiated by André Breton in Paris. Magritte’s painting, with its emphasis on the non-correspondence between thinking and seeing, is considered to be one of the clearest illustrations of the philosophy of surrealism.
For the person who translated this article, René Magritte was the most interesting discovery in my research about surrealism. It can be said that Magritte used visual language to express the propositions of surrealism: surrealism is, therefore, intuitive, lighthearted and especially humorous. Magritte’s painting shows its logical surrealism, not arbitrary chaos.
*
To equate my paintings with symbolism, consciously or unconsciously… is not really paying attention to its true nature… People are completely ready to use objects without looking for anything. What symbolic intention was contained in them, but when they looked at the pictures, they did not see any usefulness in them. So, they hunt for some meaning to get out of that dilemma and also because they don’t understand what to think when faced with the picture… They want something to lean on, to make them feel. feel more comfortable. They want something secure to cling to, because that way, they can protect themselves against emptiness. Those who seek symbolic meaning cannot grasp the inner poetic and mysteriousness of the image. They must have felt this mystery too, but they wanted to shake it off. They are afraid. By asking the question, “What does this mean?”, they express a desire that everything is understandable. But if they hadn’t denied the mystery, they might have had a different reaction. Other questions will be asked.
Images must be seen as they are (The images must be seen such as they are). Furthermore, my paintings do not imply an authority for the invisible in relation to the visible. (The letter behind the envelope is not invisible; just as the sun is not invisible when it is hidden behind a tree.) Our intellect loves the unknown. It loves images whose meaning is unknown because the meaning of the mind itself is already unknown. Intellect does not understand its own reason for being.
The word “dream” is often misused when talking about my art. We certainly want the realm of dreams to be respected – but our work does not belong to dreams. If “dreams” are used in this context, they are very different from what we experience in sleep. Rather, we must refer here to the “dreams” that cling to us stubbornly (self-willed), where there is nothing more ambiguous than how we feel when we come out of those dreams… dreams” do not lull us to sleep; they wake us up.
If one were a fatalist, one would always believe that a cause would produce a similar effect. I’m not a fatalist, but I don’t believe in randomness either. It also serves as another “interpretation” of the world. This is where the complication lies, when we reject any interpretation of the world, whether through chance or fatalism. I don’t believe that man can decide anything, be it the future or the present of humanity. I think we are responsible for the universe, but that doesn’t mean we can decide anything.
One day someone asked me if there is a connection between my life and my art? Honestly, I don’t think they’re related, except that life pushes me to do something. And so I draw. But I am not concerned with “pure” poetry or “pure” painting. Rather, it is futile to place our hopes in a dogmatic perspective, for it is only the power of spontaneity that counts.
(1959)
sea Pearl Translate
The source: Twentieth – Century Artists on Arts, ed.by Dore Ashton, NY:Pantheon Books, 1985, pp. 47-8. (The title of the article is set by the translator).
