This Is Not a Pipe (Volume 24) (Quantum Books)

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.

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."

This is an interesting little essay. The book really is just a short essay (about 40 pages) but I am glad they decided to publish it as its own stand alone book because it allowed them to include black and white prints of all the paintings discussed within the essay. It would have been very difficult to follow the essay without being able to easily reference the paintings that Foucault discusses. The theme of the essay, stated briefly, is representation, pursued through an analysis of the paintings of Rene Magritte. Like a great deal of Foucault's work it is essentially a detailed case study that carries a far more universal philosophical message. Those who are looking simply for a work of art criticism should probably look elsewhere. This is a work of philosophy disguised, so to speak, as a commentary on the work of a painter.The essay raises very general questions about the relation between language and reality, the dominance of representation in the history of Western philosophy, the status of art, and the nature of images. To be honest, I am not entirely sure I have grasped all the points that Foucault is attempting to make in this little essay. Like a lot of Continental philosophers Foucault is a good writer but he rarely ever comes out and says directly what he is trying to say.Foucault certainly raises problems relating to representation. There is a problem when we take a sign, or an image, as referring transparently to an object, or as standing in for that object. There is a gulf between seeing and saying. The question I still have about Foucault's text, and Foucault's work in general, is: does that produce an unbridgeable gulf between language and reality? Is language forever closed in on itself? Or, is Foucault contesting the very notion of reality? Is there nothing but a chain of similitudes or simulacra, none of which can claim the title of "reality"? Is there no "original", so to speak? Does language no longer refer to anything other than itself? These are questions that seem to me to be raised by the essay, but I have not studied it closely enough, nor am I familiar enough with all of Foucault's work, to know what his answer to those questions would be.There are parts of this essay that reminded me of an essay in Bruno Latour's book  Pandora's Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies  which I believe was called "Circulating Reference". Latour argues that there is no single divide between representation and reality. There is a chain that moves from the real forest, to the scientific paper, each step in the chain being a representation in relation to the previous link in the chain, and an object in relation to the next link in the chain. In this way it is possible to move from the real forest to the representation, and back again, through a series of reversible steps. This overcomes the supposedly unbridgeable ontological divide between subject and object.There are some similarities between Latour's analysis and Foucault's analysis in this book. There is a chain of similitudes rather than a single ontological divide separating representation and reality. But would Foucault admit the possibility of moving from words to the real forest or vice versa? Even if we insert a series of intermediate steps, is it possible to cross the divide between words and things? As Kierkegaard would no doubt say, even a very short leap is still a leap, and therefore, essentially infinite.It is clear to me that Foucault is dealing with this problem in this essay, it just is not entirely clear to me what his answer is. I get the feeling that Foucault is saying something like "A representation NEVER is the thing it is representing, the worlds do not touch", which seems to me to move in the direction of a fairly radical linguistic idealism; but it is certainly possible I am misreading Foucault on this. I would be curious to hear what other people's interpretations were of this book, or of Foucault's work in general. If you have an opinion, one way or the other, feel free to post a comment under my review.One thing is certain: Foucault has written a very interesting little essay that deals with some extremely important philosophical problems. Even if, at the end of reading it, you are a bit mystified about Foucault's answer (as I am), you will still be glad you read the essay, since it does such a good job raising the questions. I happen to think that most philosophy books do that. The best philosophy books are not books that provide answers to supposedly long standing problems. The best philosophy books are books that raise new (or old) problems in interesting ways. This little essay, and Foucault's work in general, certainly belongs in that category.

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 it helps to understand the painting: imagine a certificate promising gold with "this is not gold" written upon it.

it's foulcault...i named a cat after him...it's brilliant. reviews are silly.

I liked how the author presented his opinions. I am not in any way an art critic, but this is one of my favorite paintings. I liked the background material: (letters and essays), They gave me a better understanding of where the author was coming from, and a deeper understanding of the work.

Nice book, a really good food for thought. Arrived quickly with care.

This edition includes the 'plates'/'illustrations'/images for readers to refer too. If you are familiar with this book, this edition is highly enriched.

Très bon mais reçu en retard