To watch with chapters “1912,” “1927a” and “1928b”
This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.
June 18 WORDS
Early 20th-Century Art in Europe and the United States
City College CUNY | 21036-1XM | Summer 2026
Putting it how I see it That pipe by René Magritte from 1929? Not just a picture – more like a quiet riddle about seeing, naming, and believing. Though painted decades ago, its ideas still hum beneath how we think about images today. Behind calm colors lies a trick: what you name isn’t always what you hold. Meaning slips sideways here, between object, word, and mind. A single sentence on canvas – “This is not a pipe” – unhooks truth from appearance. Curious, really, how such soft lines can stir sharp questions. Still studied, still slippery after all these years. Surprising how the artwork shows such a sharp, precise version of a tobacco pipe – clean lines, like something out of a textbook or a store poster. Underneath sits handwriting that looks taught at school: “Ceci n’est pas une pipe,” which means “This is not a pipe.” What strikes most is the clash – the picture says one thing, the words say another, yet both sit still beside each other. The artist once explained it plainly after people kept asking; he called it simply “the famous pipe.”. People really gave me grief about that thing. Still, might you fill my pipe now? Nope – it’s only a picture, right?. That idea seems small. But it pulls apart something we take for granted every day. Painting works by pulling apart what something is, how it looks, how we label it. Not the real thing – just shapes made of pigment stretched over cloth. That mark labeled “pipe”? A sign built from letters, nothing more. Through these splits, Magritte pushes people to notice how pictures deceive – our habit of mistaking copies for actual objects.
One idea shows up across many areas of thinking. Like how Alfred Korzybski put it – a description isn’t the real thing, just like words aren’t what they name. Then there’s Michel Foucault, who once dug into that artwork, looking at its tangled word-picture puzzle, where meaning slips loose from sight. His piece unpacked how Magritte breaks apart the usual link between phrase and picture.
Still pulling viewers in, The Treachery of Images works not by fooling the eye, yet opening doors to question how sight and symbols shape what feels true. Because of this spark, creators such as John Baldessari, Jasper Johns, Roy Lichtenstein leaned into its idea-driven heart. Even now, decades on, the artwork speaks clearly – what we take in, whether gallery pieces or snapshots online, stands apart from actual life.
Hi Reginal!
I agree with your statement of The Treachery of Images, its such a complex but amazing idea rené had made that caused a huge impact further down the road with advertisements
Hi Reginal,
I like your point that Magritte’s painting is not only about the pipe, also about naming and believing. I agree that the work makes us slow down and think about the difference between the real object, the image, and the word.
For the theme I’ve noticed that it obviously has to do something with words, which is also the assignment’s title. Pablo Picasso’s violin, 1912 is a really nice example with this theme, looking closely you can see newspaper articles on it, with also a sketch drawing of the violin part. What Picasso did was phenomenal, using the newspaper articles and making a jigsaw like cut. Now the symbolism here likely is how both words and art can make a big artwork if you use the right things. I think the idea behind this also was how the material is sort of like the color of musical notes on a paper, usually when looking at it in a faraway place, it may look like something gibberish. But when looking at it closer you can actually see music notes. I feel like that’s what Picasso was thinking, violins are commonly used throughout time, especially during this period. People saw it as a simple and loving instrument but when you get a closer understanding it’s completely complex, which would explain the ripped and cropped newspaper articles. They could be all about the violin and its complicated use while also making the work have a nice background to show off the violin figure.
Words can also play a part in the artwork, this is a strong idea from René Magritte’s The treachery of images, 1929. Words play a giant role to this simple artwork, as also this was used for advertisement as well during the time! Advertisements would have large words to explain the product shown. René however had a different approach, he wanted the words to have a psychological aspect , he would put “this is not a pipe” underneath a drawn pipe. So it would have people thinking about it. Is it a pipe or is it not? It really shows how words can make a person think about something. It’s a really interesting concept to see in action, the separation between words and artwork is something new within the time and that is what he wanted us to see. As said earlier his work had something to do with a psychological aspect making viewers question their reality within art. That’s what I enjoy about this specific artwork by René. It doesn’t have a complex symbolism to it, it doesn’t have multiple colors, it just shows a “pipe” and words. Yet despite that, it has become an iconic piece of art
Written words frequently appear in our daily lives. When people see a specific word, they often form a mental image of it; conversely, upon seeing an image of an object, they can immediately associate it with the corresponding word. However, both words and images are two-dimensional; because they do not exist as the actual objects themselves, they cannot establish the concept that they are identical to the actual objects themselves. This touches upon a question explored by René Magritte: what is the true relationship between words, images, and reality? Magritte’s work *The Treachery of Images* (featuring the caption “This is not a pipe”) illustrates his philosophy: the “pipe” he painted is merely an image, not a real pipe. A painting cannot represent the actual object, nor can language. However, I do not believe that René Magritte’s *The Treachery of Images* (featuring the caption “This is not a pipe”) was truly intended to convey that the word “pipe” fails to represent the object itself. Rather, he sought to prompt the viewer to question reality, facts, and everything they thought they knew. When you view the painting with a completely different mindset, the familiar world transforms into something alien; you no longer see things as you did before.
One cannot simply equate an object with the word assigned to it by others—after all, this raises the question: who defines the names and words we use for objects? You could easily assign a different word to a pipe; the current term exists merely due to convention and conformity. If society universally uses the word “pipe” to refer to that object, would you choose to call it something else? This question of definition links back to the ideas and inquiries of Marcel Duchamp—much like asking who defines what constitutes art, one might ask who defines which word corresponds to which object. This is Surrealism: an artistic approach to understanding emotions and ideas without complicating the image by tethering it to preconceived notions already in your mind. Surrealism represents artistic honesty. To grasp the connection between reality and language, one must step outside habitual patterns of thought; once free from these conventions, it becomes clear that words, images, and reality are not equivalent. Words cannot truly represent images or actual objects, as one cannot use or physically touch the object symbolized by the word—a principle that applies equally to images. Yet, humans create words and images to better perceive and understand the reality that exists around us.
In this lecture, I think this topic is very interesting because words and images are usually seen as different things. A word explains something, and an image shows something. But in modern art, many artists started to mix words and images together. They did not only use words to describe art. They made words become part of the artwork itself.
One idea that interested me is that words can change how we see an image. If we see a picture by itself, we may understand it in one way. But if the artist adds words, the meaning can change. The words can explain the image, question the image, or even confuse the viewer. This makes the viewer think more carefully. Instead of just looking, we have to read and look at the same time.
I think this is important because modern artists were questioning the old rules of art. Traditional painting often tried to show the real world. But when words enter the painting, the artwork becomes less about copying reality and more about thinking. The viewer has to ask: Is the word telling the truth? Is the image telling the truth? Or are both of them unstable?
This reminds me of Magritte’s The Treachery of Images. The painting shows a pipe, but the words say, “This is not a pipe.” At first, this seems strange because we can clearly see a pipe. But the sentence is also true because it is not a real pipe. It is only an image of a pipe. I think this artwork is powerful because it shows the difference between an object, an image, and a word. A real pipe, a painted pipe, and the word “pipe” are not the same thing.
Also connects to everyday life. We often trust words and images very quickly. Advertisements, signs, and media use words and pictures together to guide what we think. Modern artists used this relationship in a more critical way. They showed that meaning is not always simple. A word can make an image clearer, but it can also make it more confusing.
Throughout history, human cognition of shapes and images has often preceded that of written language. Pictographs in early civilizations serve as the most obvious example; the characters themselves almost directly mimicked the physical forms of real-world objects to distinguish and name things. Even today, children rely on images to reinforce their understanding when learning a language; picture books and preschool reading materials almost invariably feature illustrations to help children forge connections between words and actual objects. This suggests that human comprehension of images far surpasses the imaginative scope provided by language alone.
However, upon further reflection, a question arises: why are images and words capable of representing a specific object in reality? And who endowed them with this representative quality? Ferdinand de Saussure posited that linguistic signs are “arbitrary.” For instance, if a child were to call a banana an “apple”—and if the person who originally named the fruit had labeled it an “apple” instead of a “banana”—then what we now call a banana could just as easily be known as an apple. René Magritte gave this concept a groundbreaking expression in his work *Ceci n’est pas une pipe* (“This is not a pipe”), conveying that there is no inherent link between a name and the object it denotes; both are merely representations of reality. Images and words share no intrinsic connection; they point to the same object solely because human society has established this correspondence through long-term learning and communication. The actual object, the image depicting it, and the word naming it are like three independent lines—they may intersect at a given moment, but they do not overlap from start to finish. Images and language evolve from concepts formed within the human mind; one cannot truly encounter the object itself through paintings or text. Without a complete understanding of the object itself, everything born of these “creations” remains merely a product of imagination. While imagination certainly aids our understanding of the world, it is not synonymous with reality itself. How, then, do we distinguish between reality and representation? This perspective echoes the views of Marcel Duchamp; both rejected the notion that art is merely the imitation or reproduction of reality. They recognized that the meaning of an artwork derives not from its outward appearance, but from how the viewer perceives and interprets it. Both artists’ work transforms the audience from passive observers into active thinkers, making the act of thinking itself an integral part of the work.
Words can hold powerful influence over people in everyday life, so utilizing words amongst art is a very intriguing idea. Words can conjure ideas within the mind, paint an image, even invoke deep thought, the inherent ability that words may be used in cannot be ignored. The art presented in this lecture was thought provoking, meant to question the reality of the world, which I find interesting. It allows a viewer to question what they believe to be true, what is false within this reality.
The Treachery of Images made by Magritte changes the meaning of his painting simply by adding the words “This is not a pipe.”. Without the simple additive of these words there would be less of a need to question the existence of the pipe itself. Clearly the image is of a pipe, but is it truly a pipe in a literal sense? Are these words simply supposed to be taken at face value and truthfully that what is undoubtedly to be a pipe is not one, or are these words untruthful?
What is real and what is not is questioned and now debated upon when this idea is brought to light. The image is not truly a pipe, it is something created to the resemblance of a pipe on a two-dimensional plane, it has no functionality, a difference between what is portrayed, versus the reality of the world. Then the Human Condition, also from Magritte, further envelopes this questioning of reality. I find it very symbolic, as what is reality but what we ourselves make it? The easel blending into reality calls the question the perception we hold. Both of these paintings are representations of reality, and in turn allow us the ability to question our own.It is no doubt that the combination of words and art will hold a deep impact into our interpretation of our world and influence what we believe.
The figure who stood out to me was Ferdinand de Saussure, and his “Course on General Linguistics.” For one, I think the breakdown of the conventional side of language is spot on…for the most part. The painting “Adam Naming the Animals” is an example of the naturalistic side of language, but I think you need to understand the biblical context and include historical context before you reject the naturalistic side of language, which is what Ferdinand did. And before I go into the rest of my spiel, your personal beliefs play a big role in where you would side regarding the way you think about language.
Now, Biblically speaking, there’s obviously the naming of animals in the garden, and there’s the Tower of Babel, where people started speaking different languages and couldn’t understand each other anymore. There’s verses mentioning God having his own names for every star. ( I forgot the exact verses )
Historically, I think it’s important to mention the Mesopotamians with their writing on clay tablets, or the hieroglyphs from Egypt. They used pictography in their writing system. It doesn’t completely counter what Ferdinand was talking about because they ultimately developed a system that was agreed upon, but there’s a lot of religious influence involved in the hieroglyphs, specifically, which can contradict the “conventional way” to a degree. “Hiero” means holy, and “Glyphs” means writing in Greek.
I think the disconnect for Ferdinand and a lot of people today is that we strayed so far from God, and specifically that era where indisputable proof was being shown. So, I can’t necessarily blame Fernidand and people in general for not just going on “blind faith” and belief that a higher power made these words and labels.
But I mention the disconnect because at a certain point, the second way to think about language, which is the conventional, did become the primary way we go about our use of words. When we think of new animals being discovered, new cities being made, the stars, sicknesses—like there are things God didn’t tell us to name. The things we made ourselves…Humans, governments, leaders…they ultimately decide the names of these things, and the listener accepts that label. Ferdinand’s analogy on Chess and the use of any item replacing the Knight, as long as it’s understood between both parties, perfectly breaks down the arbitrary signs.
So once again. Flowers to Ferdinand. However, my main critique is that I believe we use both ways of thinking about language, if not more, yet to be labeled in this context. Now again, personal beliefs play a big part, but there are things God made for us that we didn’t bother changing the label, name, or understanding of. In fact, there might be a level of ignorance involved because we all can’t agree on the existence of God, so much less a God having names for things different than our own.
Then there’s the advancement of language and discoveries that we as a society have developed in the conventional sense. But it has evolved since Ferdinand’s day. We use a lot of Metonymy today and stretch metonymic statements to the limits of what can be understood at times. I’m referring to all the slang and unique terms our generation keeps making, which then spread easily on TikTok and Instagram until they become the norm.
To conclude, because I think you can go on for a while about this… while Ferdinand’s breakdown is sound, it’s underdeveloped depending on your personal beliefs and your level of ignorance on certain topics. ( sry if I wrote too much )
on the topic words i feel like in comparison it is a lot more tongue and cheek with the idea of bring the concept of words and pictures together to tell a whole story. This breaks not just visual concepts that were establish but also the subverts the functional purpose of words such as in the work of Magritte. the purposeless of using both the image and the word in a confusing manner creates this feeling that the viewer in some way is less than the artist in that they are not in on the joke or the trick that is in play in the works of art. it mocks the whole concepts of symbolic systems almost to call it obsolete within the confines of their art style. while words and periodic works are chosen as the subjects of interest in these works it also calls out other system that lack inherent value such as the media. Picasso specifically calls out the political machine at the time using clip outs from both newspapers and magazine at the time to critique the empty gestures of both and how it profiting off of event such as the Balkan war. Now there is this massive concern for periodic and literature as a whole is due to the artists fondness for poetry. It stand to question if these artist were mathematicians would they have a similar take on the massive expansions of wall street in the U.S and attempt to subvert the modern usage of number as opposed to words.
i do feel like that artist like Magritte does not hold that same kind of standard for numbers as to words even through numbers can be argued to have spiritual value akin to words besides its pure usage as a tool such as described by Hilbert’s paradox of the grand hotel that was founded in 1924. while some may argue that Magritte may have extended that same courtesy to math as well as he did to language i think he only explore the aspects of math that dealt in form and as a means not explore a mathematical concept but rather as a means to explore human perception hence why his works mainly consist of trippy yet relatable subjects. An artist that i feel better represents math within the art world would be M. C. Escher. His works explores mathematical concepts like infinites and topology through unique perspectives and no the other way around.
In this lecture I like how in the early 20th century completely changed how we see the relationships between language, images and reality. One thing that interested me is how artists and others came up with the whole “meaning is constructed, not innate.” Like how Ferdinand was lecturing on how language is a system of convention and Picasso and Braques discovered the same thing through Synthetic Cubism. In the reading, it talks about the shift with Synthetic Cubism, pretty much expanding the lecture with collages. For years, the western art operated on some iconic representations that the idea of a picture needs to resemble its subject. Like a painted banana or apple needs to resemble and look like a real fruit. For Picasso and Braque, they proved that art can be used as a symbolic sign. In the reading it shows that it wasn’t a new technique but a discovery of its signs and how it was able to create its meaning.