Customer Reviews

This is Not a Pipe

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

No, Foucault is never easy. He sometimes even writes in Foucault-ese. But the intellectual payoffs are well worth it. Seeing him approach a single painting -- which you can look at while reading the book -- is much less taxing than seeing him dissect huge topics such as the history of prisons or the history of sex. Sure, those bigger Foucault tomes carry immense rewards all their own... but for a good, stimulating, and challenging (but not TOO challenging!) introduction to Foucault's philosophy of seeing and of naming, this is a great read.

Perhaps this book is a better choice for philosophy or lit-crit fams than art / art history fans. The "artistic" value of the painting is really of not much importance to Foucault; he is more concerned with its self-referentiality, its use of meaning and names, and so on.

I read this in college while studying semiotics and surrealism, yet the message of Foucault should not be relegated to the exotic and extreme "isms" of academia. I found "Pipe" to be a marvelous and playful illustration of the tryanny of language and the Orwellian control of thought which follows. Readers of Postmodern thought, Zen, Marxism, Film Theory, Psychoanlysis, and Modern Art will find moments of illumination throughout.

I really enjoyed the book. It is art theory, semiotics and Foucault in the same plate. Based on the analysis of Margitte's "This is not a pipe", he argues that modern art became autonomous from the language that lied buried in representational realism. While Klee and Kandinsky used abstraction to destroy syntax of the traditional (XV-XIX c.) visual art, Margitte used literalism to undermine itself.

It is not an easy reading but since you have picked the book (for whatever reason you did so), I believe you will enjoy it. Take your time, don't swallow it all at once, consume the words along with the images in the back of the book and I bet you won't regret it.

My favorite quote: "A day will come when, by means of similitude relayed indefinitely along the length of a series, the image itself, along with the name it bears, will lose its identity. Campbell, Campbell, Campbell, Campbell."

"If you are looking for a quick read"? What are you doing with Foucault when there's always another Tom Clancy? If you think that looking at pictures precludes thinking about them, then this book isn't for you.

This essay entitled "This Is Not A Pipe" is a fascinating excursion into the intriguing art of the great 20th C. Belgian painter. In this essay Foucault blurs the space between the critic and the subject being criticized. His thorough analysis inculcates his own hypertextual "isms" and replicating terminology that adequately reciprocates Magritte's offbeat beauty. From Foucault's view of what he considers the two principles that ruled painting (European painting?) from the 15th C. to the 20th C., to the relationship between resemblance and similitude, the mystery and static of a Magritte painting is transported onto the pages of this book. Ultimately this text is an interesting display of the interplay between text, image and the elements inculcated in the analysis thereof.

Foucault's brilliant little text about the art of Rene Magritte is probably the closest to structuralism Foucault ever got. Looking at the two paintings of pipes by Magritte, Foucault interrogates the formal nature of representation itself. As a good semiotician, Foucault is incisive in separating the image from the text, the resemblance from the copy. This is a play of simulacta-although not as decisive as Barthes, Foucault is able to re-associate resemblance and affirmation. This curious little text also includes reflections on Klee, Kandinsky, and Apollinaire.

Foucault is a difficult read. His concepts and language require much of the reader, making re-readings and multiple contemplations frequent requirements. So why is he so intent to make us read so much of it unnecessarily? That's not to say that This is Not a Pipe is not worthwhile. On the contrary, its reconsideration of the meaning of representation and originals is both thought-provoking and whimsical (in the best meaning of that word). However, the book (shall we say "long essay"?) is needlessly tedious and leads the reader too often to frustratingly conclude that this bit or that seems to have covered already. That said, what is covered (and re-covered) is a quite ingenious examination of the nature of art and its representation of the original. Foucault's assessment of René Magritte's work, which comprises the bulk of the discussion, is imminently interesting, especially when he strays from the titular Pipe paintings and goes toe to toe with a series of Magritte's works stressing the limitations of the perceptions of assumed representation. Where Foucault stumbles and drags is in his (thankfully limited) treatment of Kandinsky and Klee, whose work receives short shrift via a greatly underdeveloped evaluation of their integration of representations, essentially serving as rather weak counterpoints to Magritte. Nevertheless, this short and useless digression aside, Pipe is a challenging consideration of our concepts of reality, perceptions, images and the manner in which they are all represented in art and in the imagination.

if you consider this treacle then you certainly lack any real insight into philosophy or art criticism of the 20th century; either that, or you're carrying some kind of baggage or childish grudge.

foucault offers us just one interpretation of magritte's _pipe_, and some thought in general about art, representation and the sign. it's really just part of an on-going discussion. it's a shame he's dead; he'd have loved usenet.

in any case, this book is one voice in a chorus of discussion on the matter; his is also an informed, intelligent, and original voice - albeit controversial (see review below for ruffled feathers).

this book stands on its own, but is definetly not a good introduction to foucault per se; I think it's best to start with a history of sexuality volume I, then read the introduction of history of sexuality volume II, and then you can pretty much read any foucault from there.

Michel Foucault is a great philosopher, but his interpretation of Rene Magritte's works, most specifically, 'This is not a pipe.' is not for the beginning reader.

The only way to really sum up what this book is about is one word: treacle. For the philosopher or the art afficiando, this book is a godsend. He gives you everything you could possibly want to know; his essays incorporate others' works as well, and all of the pictures are nicely arranged in the back.

However, for those looking for a quick read, something that caught their eye, or are fans of Margitte, don't buy this book. It over analyzes the artwork, and thus ruins a brilliant piece of art by delivering a mollycoddled interpretation.

Just my opinion, hope I can be of some help.