Foucault Magritte Exchange

Ceci n'est pas une pipe Author(s): Michel Foucault and Richard Howard Source: October, Vol.
1 (Spring, 1976), pp. 6-21 Published by: The MIT Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/778503 . Accessed: 15/10/2013 18:02
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to October.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 130.212.18.200 on Tue, 15 Oct 2013 18:02:58 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
"Ceci n'est pas une pipe"
MICHEL FOUCAULT
TRANSLATED BY RICHARD HOWARD
I.
Here Are Two Pipes
Firstversion,thatof 1926,I believe:a pipe, carefully drawn;and underneath a artificial the kind of hand, (in regular,deliberate, schoolboy scriptyou might findon the first line of an exercisebook or remainingon theblackboardafter the teacher'sdemonstration), this sentence:"This is not a pipe." The otherversion-and thelast,I should think-can be foundin Dawn at the samescript. But insteadofbeingjuxtaposed Antipodes.Same pipe, same statement, in an indifferent neither with limit nor text and figure areplaced space specification, withina frame, on itself an easel stands on which evident floorboards. resting very but much larger. Up above, a pipe just like theone drawn in theframe In the first The second visibly version,only the simplicityis disconcerting. The frameleaning against the easel and multiplies the deliberateuncertainties. exhibitedwork restingon wooden pegs suggestsa painter's picture:a finished, which bears,fora potentialspectator, thestatement on commenting or explaining it. And yetthisnaive scriptwhich is in factneitherthework's titlenor one of its theabsenceofany otherindicationof thepainter'spresence, the picturalelements, simplicityof the grouping, the broad planks of the floor-all this suggestsa blackboardin a classroom;perhapsa wipe ofa ragwill soon erasebothdrawingand 'themistake' text;or perhaps it will eraseonly one or theotherin orderto correct which will not reallybe a pipe, or writing a sentence (drawingsomething affirming thatthisis indeed a pipe). A temporary mistake(a 'miswriting', as we mightsaya which a gesture will scatter into so much whitedust? misunderstanding) But even thisis only theleastof theuncertainties. Here are some others:there are twopipes. Or rather twodrawingsofone pipe? Or else a pipe and itsdrawing, or else two drawings each representing a pipe, or else two drawingsone of which a pipe but not theother, or else twodrawingsneither one ofwhich is or represents a pipe? And now I catchmyself as ifthey were represents confusingbeand represent and I also see thatifI had (and I equivalent,as ifa drawingwerewhat it represents;
w. .., .eo.
.:.
Cr4
= . . *.. ..
a2
o
al oom
Cec.?
oO
.___ _..._........
FI
\\\-
_7oomt "!7
"o
OCTOBER
has urgedme to do have) to dissociatein all conscience(as theLogic of Port-Royal forover three a representation from what it represents, I should have to centuries) returnto all thehypotheses I have just proposed and multiplythemby two. But this strikesme as well: the pipe represented in the frame-on slate or fastenedin a painted canvas, it doesn't matter-this pipe 'underneath'is firmly width(thewritten theupper and lower text, space with visiblepoints of reference: the legs of theeasel), depth(the edges of theframe), height(thesides of the frame, A stableprison.On theother hand thepipe up above has groovesofthefloorboards). no coordinates. The enormity of itsproportions makesitsplacementuncertain (the converseeffect of what we findin The Wrestlers' Tomb wherethegiganticrose is confined withinthemostprecisespace): is thisdisproportionate ofthe pipe in front framed picture, pushing it farto therear?Or is itsuspendedjust above theeasel like an emanation,a vapor which mighthave just detacheditselffromthe picturepipe smoke assuming the shape and volume of a pipe, thereby opposing and in we find resemblingthepipe (accordingto thesame play of analogy and contrast theBattleof theArgonneseriesbetweenthevaporousand thesolid)? Or mightwe not even suppose thatthe pipe is behind the pictureon the easel and even more gigantic than it seems: it would be the picture's depth tornaway, the interior dimensionbreakingthroughthecanvas (or thepanel) and slowlyback there, in a henceforth without to references, space dilating infinity. I am, however, notevencertain ofthisuncertainty. Or rather whatseemstome is doubtful the between the of thepipe unlocalized quite simple opposition levity above and the of the one underneath. we can see thatthe up stability Looking closer, of thiseasel holding theframed feet canvas on which thedrawingappears,thesefeet on a floor whose very crudeness makesitvisibleand sure,arein fact bevelled: resting theircontactsurface is no morethan three delicatepointswhichdeprivethewhole rather massivegroupingofall stability. Is a fallimminent? Collapse oftheeasel,the thecanvas or thepanel, thedrawing,thetext? Brokenpiecesofwood,figures frame, in fragments, letters each otherso thatthevery wordscan no longer separatedfrom be reconstructed--all this rubble on thefloor, while up above thehuge pipe with neithermeasurementnor reference point persistsin its inaccessible balloonlike immobility? II. The Broken Calligram
Magritte's drawing (I am speakingforthemomentonlyof thefirst version)is as simple as a page taken froma botanyhandbook: a figure and the textwhich labels it. Nothingeasier to recognizethan a pipe, drawnlike thisone--the French language has an expression which acknowledges the fact forus-"nom d 'une thestrangeness of thisfigure is merelythe 'contradicpipe!" Yet what constitutes tion' betweenthe image and the text,and fora good reason: a contradiction can exist only betweentwo statements, or within one and thesame statement. Now I see thatthereis only one statement and thatit cannot be contradictory, since the
False, then?But who would subject of the propositionis a simple demonstrative. above the textis a pipe? What seriouslycontend that thispatch of cross-hatching relatethe textto thedrawing(as thedemonstrais confusingis thatwe inevitably tivesuggests, as well as themeaningof thewordpipe, and theverisimilitude of the thelevel on which we could say image), and the factthatit is impossible to define thatthe assertionis true,false,contradictory, necessary. I cannot get rid of the idea that the mischieflies in an operation made invisible by the simplicityof the result but which alone explains the vague uneasiness it provokes.This operation is a calligram secretly formed by Magritte and thencarefully undone. Each elementof the figure, theirreciprocalposition, and theirrelationderivesfromthisoperation cancelled as soon as performed. In itsage-old tradition, thecalligram has a triplerole: to compensateforthe alphabet; to repeat without the aid of rhetoric;to catch objects in the snare of a double graphic form.Firstit brings textand figure as close as possible to each other: it composes into lines which delimit the object's shape the lines which constitutethe succession of letters;it lodges statements within the space of the and makes the text what the On the one hand, it figure, say drawingrepresents. the it with discontinuous letters and thereby alphabetizes ideogram,populates makes the silence of the uninterrupted lines speak. But conversely, it distributes theaccessibility and the writingin a space which no longer has the indifference, inertwhitenessof paper; its task is to distribute itselfaccording to the laws of a simultaneous form.It reducesphonetismto being, forthe instantaneousglance, no more than a gray murmurwhich completes the outlines of a figure; but it makes drawinginto a thinenvelope which mustbe penetrated in orderto follow, fromword to word, the unwinding of its inner text. The calligram is therefore a tautology. But the converse of Rhetoric. Rhetoricexploits the superabundance of language; it employs thepossibility of the same twice in different it the extra wealth which words; profits saying things by allows us to say two different thingswith one and the same word; the essenceof is allegory.The calligram makes use of thisdouble property rhetoric of letters to functionas linear elementswhich can be arrangedin space and as signs which must be read according to a single chain of phonic substance.As sign, the letter permitsus to establish words; as line, it permitsus to figure objects. Hence the calligram playfullyseeks to erase the oldest oppositions of our alphabetical civilization: to show and to name; to figure and to speak; to reproduceand to articulate;to imitateand to signify;to look at and to read. Pursuing twice over the thing of which it speaks, it sets an ideal trap: its double access guaranteesa captureofwhich merediscourseor pure drawingis not capable. It undermines the invincible absence over which words never quite which functions in prevail by imposing on them,throughthedevicesofa writing space, the visible formof theirreference: cunninglyarrangedon the page, the signs summon from elsewhere-by the margin which they delineate, by the silhouetteof theirmass on the emptyspace of thepage-the verythingof which
10
OCTOBER
is emptiedbythewriting, thevisible form belaboredby theyspeak. And in return, the words which sap it fromwithinand, exorcisingthe motionless,ambiguous, of significations which baptize,determine, namelesspresence,weave the network establishit in theuniverseof discourse.A double trap,an inevitablesnare:where of birds, the transitory formof flowers, are they now to escape, the flight the rain? streaming And now, Magritte's ofa drawing.It seems to me to consistof thefragments it assumes brokencalligram. In the guise of a returnto a previousarrangement, to the calligram's three functions,but in order to corrupt them,and thereby disturball the traditionalrelationsof language and image. The text which had invaded the figurein order to reconstitute the old to its natural site-down below, ideogram is now back in place. It has returned whereit servesas a prop to theimage, whereit names,explains, and decomposes it, insertingit within the series of textsand within the pages of the book. It becomes, in the heraldic sense of the word, a legend once again. The form reascends to its heaven from which the complicityof letterswith space had momentarily broughtit down: freefromany discursivebond, it can go back to floatingin its native silence. We returnto the page, and to its old principle of distribution.But only in appearance. For the words I can now read under the words thathave been drawn-images of wordswhich the drawingare themselves painter has placed outside the pipe but within the general (and, moreover, of its drawing.From thecalligraphicpast I am forced to unassignable) perimeter attribute to them,the words have retainedtheirallegiance to drawingand their stateas a drawn thing:so thatI must read themsuperimposedupon themselves; of the words which say that theyare, on the surfaceof the image, the reflections thisis not a pipe. A textas image. But conversely therepresented pipe is drawnby the same hand, and with the same pen, as the letters of the text:it extends the writingmore than it illustratesit and compensates for its defects.We might with tinyjumbled letters, and imagine it filled graphic signsreducedto fragments scattered over thewhole surface of theimage. A figure as a graphic configuration. The invisible and previous calligraphic operation had hybridizedwritingand drawing; and when Magritteput thingsback in place, he made certainthat the should remain written and thatthe textshould neverbe anythingbut the figure drawn representation of itself. The same applies to the tautology. Magritte seeminglyabandons calliofimage to legend:a muteand graphicduplication forthesimple correspondance without shows, sufficiently recognizablefigure saying it, the object in itsessence; and underneath, a name receivesfromthisimage its 'meaning' or rule of use. Yet comparedto the legend's traditionalfunction, Magritte'stextis doubly paradoxical. It undertakes to name whatobviouslyhas no need tobe named (theshape is too well known,thename too familiar). moment whenhe should give And so at thevery thename, he gives it but in doing so denies thatit is thename. Whataccountsfor thisstrangeinterplay, if not the calligram?-The calligram which says thesame
11
be sufficient); thecalligramwhich, thingstwiceover(whereonlyonce would surely a negativerelationbetween withoutseemingto,introduces whatitshowsand what it says; forby drawing a bouquet, a bird,or a showerof rain by a sprinklingof thecalligramneversaysof thishypocritically letters, spontaneousshape, "thisis a a shower of rain"; it avoids naming what the arrangement of dove, a flower, graphic signs draws.To show what is happening throughthewords,in thehalfsilenceof theletters; not to saywhat theselines are which,at thetext'sedges,limit and frameit. Now thatMagrittehas cast the textoutside theimage, thesentence mustrepossess,forits own sake, thisnegativerelationand make it,withinitsown and silentlyanimated the syntax,a negation. The 'not saying' which internally calligram is now spoken fromoutside, in the verbal formof "not." However, because of this calligram hidden behind it, the textwhich runs underneaththe pipe is enabled to say severalthingsat once. "This" (this drawing you see and whose shape you doubtlessrecognize)"is not" (is not substantially linked to . . , is not formed of . . . , does not refer to the same substance as ...) "a pipe" (which is to say, that word belonging to your language, consistingof sounds you can pronounce,and which theletters you are now readingtranslate:This is not a pipe can thusbe read as follows:
W'est pas
pipe /une /
But at thesame time,thissame textstatessomethingquite different: "This" statement which you see arrangedbefore (this youreyesin a line ofdiscontinuous elements,and of which this is both the designatorand the first word), "is not" be to nor for . . substitute cannot (cannot equivalent adequatelyrepresent ., ...) "a pipe" (one of thoseobjects of which you can see here,above the text,a possible figure, anonymous,hence inaccessible to any name). Then we interchangeable, mustread:
Icoed.. I .
l n'est pas
12
OCTOBER
Now, it readilyappears, all thingsconsidered,thatwhat negatesMagritte's is theimmediateand reciprocalallegiance of thedrawingofthepipe and statement of the textby which we can name thisvery pipe. To designateand to drawdo not which lurksin thebackgroundof the in the coincide,except calligraphicinterplay and exorcised which is by thedrawing,and by simultaneously by the text, group, of thestatement: "This" (this theirpresentseparation.Whence the thirdfunction a and in of drawn a the constituted text)"is not" (is by style writing, by pipe group fromboth which derives element with "a ...) pipe" (that hybrid incompatible discourseand the image, and whose ambiguous being thecalligram'sverbaland visual interplay sought to produce).
Ceci
une ceci n'est / pas pipeI
n'est pase pipe
has reopenedthetrapsprungbythecalligramon Third disturbance: Magritte has thereby what it was speaking about. But the object itself escaped. We are not to thatnarrowwhitespace on thepage ofan illustrated accustomedto pay attention them as book whichrunsabove thewordsand underthedrawingsand whichserves for their incessant transactions:for it is here,on these few a common frontier millimeters of whiteness, on the calm coast of the page, thatall relationshipsof are formed betweenwordsand classification nomination,description, designation, but once it is reopened,the shapes. The calligram has reabsorbedthis interstice; it; thetraphas been brokenoverthevoid: imageand text calligramdoes not restore fall apart, each according to its respective They no longer have any gravitation. and where words can receivea figure of common space, any place intersection, in and which enter a The colorless neutral into lexical order. slender, images strip from must seen as a an uncertain be void, text, Magritte's drawingseparatesfigure in its image-heaven from and mistyregionwhich now separatesthepipe floating the terrestrial marchof thewordssuccessively on their line. It even is too parading much to say thatthereis a void or a lacuna: ratherthereis an absenceofspace, an and thelinesoftheimage. erasureof 'commonground'betweenthesignsofwriting The "pipe" which was undivided betweenthestatement which named it and the that which thelineaments which would combined it, drawing figure shadowypipe of words,has fledforgood. A disappearance which,on the of shape and the fiber otherside of thegaping hole, the textsadlyacknowledges:thisis not a pipe. The now solitary theshape whichthewordpipe toresemble drawingof thepipe maytry usually designates;the textmay unfurlbeneaththedrawingwith all theattentive of a legend in a textbook:all that can pass between them now is the fidelity
13
formulation of theirdivorce,the statement which contestsboth the name of the and of the reference the text. drawing From thispointon, we can understand lastversionof This is nota Magritte's the of the and the statement which servesas its pipe. By placing drawing pipe on the delimited of a it surface legend veryclearly picture (if is a painting, the are only the image of letters; letters if it is a blackboard,the figure is merelythe didacticcontinuationof a discourse),by placing this pictureon a heavywooden does all thatis necessary to reconstruct tripod,Magritte (eitherby theeverlastingness of a work of art, or by the truthof a schoolroom demonstration) the site common to image and language. But this surfaceis also contested:forthe pipe which Magrittehad so carefully juxtaposed to the text,which he had enclosed with the text inside the institutional along rectangleof the painting or blackboard, has now escaped: it is up above, floatingwithout references, leaving betweenthe textand thefigure ofwhich it should have been thelinkand thepoint of convergenceon the horizon,only a tinyblank space, the narrow wake of its absence-as ifit weremerelytheunparticularized markof its escape. Then, on its beveled and so obviously unstable legs, the easel need only collapse, the frame the letters scatter: the common break,the pictureand the pipe roll on the floor, ground-a banal workof art or an everyday disappeared. demonstration--has III. Klee, Kandinsky,Magritte Two principleshave governedWestern Painting,I believe,fromthe 15thto the 20thcentury. The first separatesplastic representation (which implies resemblance)and excludes This distinctionis articulatedin linguistic representation (which it). such a way as to permitone or anotherformof subordination:eitherthe textis a governedby the image (as in those paintings in which a book, an inscription, a person'sname are represented); or else theimage is governed the text letter, by (as in the books where drawing completes,as if it were merelytakinga short-cut, what thewordsare intendedto represent). It is truethatthissubordination seldom remainsstable: forthe textof a book may be onlya commentary on theimage and the successiveroute, by means of the words, of its simultaneous forms;and a painting may be dominated by a text of which it produces, plastically,all the But the formof the subordinationor the manner in which it is significations. extended,increased,and invertedmatterslittle; the essential thing is that the verbal sign and the visual representation are nevergiven at the same time.They are always hierarchically and it is thesovereignty of thisprinciplewhich ordered, Klee abolished by emphasizing in an uncertain,reversible, floatingspace (both page and canvas, sheet and volume, graph-paperand surveyreport,storyand and thesyntaxof signs.In theinterlacing map) thejuxtapositionof figures of one and thesame fabriche presents thetwosystems ofrepresentation: whereby (unlike the calligrapherswho reinforced, by multiplyingit, the interplayof reciprocal
14
OCTOBER
subordinations)he collapsed theircommon space and undertookto build a new one. The secondprincipleproposestheequivalence betweenthefactof similitude link. That a figure should resemblea thing of a representative and theaffirmation betweenthem,is of there should be a relation that other some analogy figure), (or to assertin all our paintingan obvious, banal, thousand-times-repeated sufficient and yet almost always silent statement (it is like an endless, haunting murmur which surroundsthe figures'silence, invades it, seizes,dispossesses,and finally it into therealmof thingswe can name): "Whatyou see,is that." Here again shifts functionsis of littleimporthe directionin which the relationof representation to the visible world surroundingit or tance whetherthe painting is referred whetherit creates for itselfalone an invisible world which resemblesit. The essential thingis thatwe cannot dissociatesimilitudeand affirmation. Kandinsky deliveredpainting fromthis equivalence: not that he dissociated its terms,but because he simultaneously got rid of resemblanceand representative functioning. from Kandinskyand from Klee than No one, it would seem, is further whose painting is so attachedto the exactitudeof resemblancesthatit Magritte, them:it is not enough thatthe deliberately multiplies themas thoughto confirm anotherpipe, which in its turn,etc. pipe should resemble,in the drawing itself, to separate,deliber... More than any other,Magritte'spainting is determined ately,cruelly,thegraphicelementand theplastic element:if theyshould happen to be superimposed like a legend and its image, it is on condition that the manifest and thename we are about to give statement contestthefigure's identity of Klee and Kandinsky; it. And yetMagritte's paintingis not alien to theenterprise it constitutes, at once rather,startingfroma systemcommon to them,a figure and complementary. contrary IV. The Mute Labor of Words
The exteriority of the graphic and the plastic elements, so evident in is symbolizedby the non-relation--or in any case by the verycomplex Magritte, and very hidden relation--between the picture and its title. This immense distance,which keeps us frombeing able to be, at one and thesame time,reader and spectator, assures the abrupt emergenceof the image above thehorizontality of the words. "The titlesare chosen in order to keep othersfromlocating my picturesin a familiarregion which the automatismof thoughtwould inevitably invoke in order to avoid anxiety." Magrittenames his paintings in order to preserverespectfordenomination (a little like the anonymous hand which has "This is not a pipe"). And yetin thisbroken designatedthepipe by the statement and drifting relations are intrusions formed, occur,suddendestrucspace, strange tiveinvasions,thefall of images among words,verbalexplosions whichcrackthe a space without drawings and smash them to pieces. Patiently,Klee constructs the chain of signs and the network name or geometry of figures. by intertwining
"Ceci n'est pas. une pipe"
15
WhereasMagrittesecretly undermines a space which he seems to maintain in the traditional arrangement.But he saps it with words: and the old pyramid of is no more than a mole-hill about to collapse. perspective Even the most docile drawing requires only a caption like "This is not a isolated fromits space immediately pipe" to make the figure emergefromitself, until it begins to float,near or far fromitself-it is uncertainwhich, like or fromitself. different The converseof This is not a pipe is The artofconversation. In a landscape thatsuggests eitherthebeginningof theworldor some gigantomaa murmurimmediare speaking:an inaudible discourse, chia, two tinycharacters atelycaught up in the silence of therocks,in thesilence of thatwall whose huge blocks overhangsthe two mute chatterers; yettheseblocks, chaoticallypiled one which it is easy enough to upon another,format theirbase a group of letters decipheras the word REVE (dream),as if all thesefragile, weightlesswordshad receivedthe power to organize the power of the rocks.Or as if,on the contrary, behind the waking yetimmediately lost chatter of themen, thingscould, in their silence and theirsleep,'composea word-a stable word which nothingcould ever ofimages. But thisis not all: forit erase; yetthisword designatesthemostfugitive is in a dream that the men, finallyreduced to silence, communicate with the of things,and that theyallow themselvesto be reached by these signification wordswhich come from elsewhere.This is nota pipe was the enigmatic,insistent incision of discoursein theform of things, was its ambiguous power to denyand to double; The artof conversation is theautonomous gravitation of thingswhich formtheirown words in men's indifference, imposing withouttheirknowledge chatter. upon theireveryday Between these two extremes, Magritte'soeuvredeploys the action of words and of images. The faceof an absolutelyserious man, withoutmoving the lips, withoutblinkingan eye, 'bursts'into a laughterwhich is not his own, which no one hears,and which comes fromnowhere.Evening falls but cannot fallwithout still bearingreflections of the sun on breakinga windowpane whose fragments, theirjagged surfaces,strew the floorand the sill: the words which name the disappearanceof thesun 'a fall' have carriedwiththemnot only theglass but that other sun which has been drawn like a double on the smooth and transparent surface.Like a tongue in a bell, the keykeeps to the vertical'in the keyhole':it makes thefamiliar expressionringthereto thepoint of absurdity. Here,moreover, is what Magrittehimselfsays: "We can createnew relationsbetweenwords and of language and things generally objects, and specify certain characteristics in life." And further: "Sometimes thename of an objectreplaces ignored everyday an image. A wordcan take theplace of an object in reality.An image can takethe but place of a word in a proposition." And this,which involvesno contradiction, refers both to theinextricable network of images and words,and to theabsenceof common ground which might sustain them: "In a picture,the words are of the same substance as the images. We see the images and the words in a painting differently."
16
OCTOBER
Let there be no mistake:in a space whereeach elementseemsto obey theone of and of resemblance, thelinguisticsigns which principle plastic representation seemedto be excluded,which prowledat a distancearound theimage, and which the arbitrary quality of the titleseemed to have avertedforgood, have surreptitiouslyreappeared;theyhave introducedinto theplenitudeof the image, into its meticulousresemblance, a disorder-an orderwhich belongs to the eyesalone. Klee wove, in order to arrange his plastic signs within it, a new space. allows theold space of representation to prevail,but onlyon thesurface, Magritte forit is no morethana smoothstone,bearingfigures and words:underneath, there theincisionswhich draw thefigures is nothing.It is a tombstone: and thosewhich have markedthe letters communicateonly by the void, by thatnon-sitewhich is hidden under themarble'ssolidity.I shall noteonly thatthisabsenceoccasionally rises to its surfaceand appears in the painting itself:when Magrittegives us his versionof (David's) Madame Rbcamieror of (Manet's) Balcony, he replaces the the void invisiblycontained charactersof the traditional painting by coffins: betweenthe waxed oak boards releases the space composed by the volume of the of thegowns,thedirection of thegaze and all those living bodies, thearrangement facesabout to speak, the 'non-site'rises 'in person'-in place of the personsand therewherethereis no longer anyone: personne,as we say in French. V. The Seven Seals of Affirmation
The old equivalence betweensimilitudeand affirmation was thusdismissed he freed theone as by Kandinskyin a unique and sovereign gesture; paintingfrom from theother.Magritte, however, links,to proceedsbydissociation:to breaktheir establish theirinequality,to make each functionwithout the other,to maintain theone which derivesfrom and to exclude theone which is closest painting itself to discourse; to pursue as far as is possible the infinite continuationof resemwhich would undertaketo say what blances, but to freeit fromany affirmation they resemble. Painting of the 'same', freedfrom 'as if'. It is the converseof trompe-l'oeil,which seeks to pass off the heaviest burden of affirmation by a resemblance: "What see here is on the surface of a not, wall, an convincing you of lines and it is a a clouds which have drawn back colors; arrangement depth, sky, the curtainof your roof,a real column around which you can turn,a staircase which continuesthestepsyou are taking(and alreadyyou takea step towardit,in spite of yourself),a stone balustrade over which are leaning toward you the attentive facesof ladies and courtiers, wearingthesame clothes,thesame ribbons as yourself, and your smiles,making signs to you smiling at your astonishment which seem mysterious only because theyhave already answered those you are about to make to them." So many affirmations, supported by so many analogies, are opposed by Magritte'stextwhich speaks rightnext to themostlifelikepipe in theworld. But who is speaking,in thisunique textin which themostelementary ofaffirmations
17
is dismissed?The pipe itself, of all: "What you see here,theselines which I first formor which formme, all this is not what you doubtless think; but only a in itsessencefarbeyondany artificial drawing,while thereal pipe, resting gesture, in the elementof its ideal truth, is up above-look, just above thisframe floating in which I am no more than a simple and solitaryresemblance."To which the "What you see floating before pipe up above replies (still in the same statement): your eyes, outside of space, and without any fixedbasis, this mist which rests neitheron a canvas nor on a page-how could it really be a pipe? Make no mistake,I am merelya similitude-not somethinglike a pipe, but that cloudy resemblancewhich, without referring to anything,traverses and unites certain textslike the one you can read and certaindrawingslike the one which is here, down below." But thestatement, twiceoverbydifferent voices, alreadyarticulated which compose me and by which you speaks foritselfin its turn:"These letters expect when you startreading them to findthe pipe named-how would these letters dare say they are a pipe, being so farfrom what they name?This is a graphic which resemblesonly itselfand which cannot be equivalent to what it is system speakingabout." There is still more:thesevoices unitein pairs to say,speakingof the thirdelement,that"this is not a pipe." Linked bytheframe of thepaintingor blackboardwhich surroundsthemboth, the textand pipe underneath enterinto complicity:the words' power of designation,the drawing's power of illustration denounce thepipe up above and denythisapparitionwithoutreferences theright to call itselfa pipe, for its unattachedexistencerendersit mute and invisible. Linked by their reciprocalsimilitude,thetwopipes contesttherightof thewritten statementto call itselfa pipe, since it is made of signs withoutresemblanceto what theydesignate.Linked by thefactthateach comes from and that elsewhere, one is a discourse capable of speaking the truthwhile the other is a kind of the textand pipe up above unite to formulate the apparition of a thing-in-itself, assertionthatthe pipe in the framedpictureis not a pipe. And perhaps it can be supposed thatbeyond thesethreeelements,an unlocalizable voice speaks in this and that a shapeless hand has writtenit; it would be in speaking statement, of thepipe of thepicture,thepipe which appears up above, and of simultaneously the textwhich it is actually in theprocessof writing,thatthisanonymousbeing would say: "None of all thisis a pipe; buta text which resembles a text; a drawing of a pipe which resemblesa drawing of a pipe; a pipe (drawn as not being a drawing) which resemblesa pipe (drawn in the manner of a pipe which itself would not be a drawing)." Seven kinds of discourse in a single statement. But it no less to raze the fortress in which resemblance was a required prisoner of affirmation. to itself-extended out fromitselfand Henceforth,similitude is referred foldedback on itself.It is no longer the index which perpendicularly crossesthe canvas surface in order to referto something else. It inaugurates a play of analogies which run, proliferate, propagate, and correspondwithin the picture or representing plane, without affirming anything. Which accounts for those
18
OCTOBER
infiniteinteractionsof purifiedsimilitude in Magritte,which never overflow outside thepicture.They establishmetamorphoses: but in what direction? Is it the offand become birds,or the birdswhich slowly botanize plant whose leaves fly into theground in a finalpalpitationofgreen(The Natural themselves, thrusting Graces, The Taste of Tears)? Is it thewoman who 'takesto thebottle'or thebottle which feminizes itselfby becoming a 'naked body' (hereoccursa perturbation of the plastic elementsdue to the latentinsertionof verbal signs and theplay of an nonetheless occurs,and twiceover,by analogy which,withoutaffirming anything, theplayfulinstanceof thestatement)? Insteadof minglingidentities, theanalogy has the power to break them:a woman's torso is sliced into threeelements(of at each regularlyincreasingsize, fromthe top down); the proportionspreserved slice guarantee the analogy while suspending any affirmation of identity: three which the but this fourth one is incalculable: lack,precisely, fourth; proportionals the head (the finalelement= x) is missing: Delusions of Grandeur,the titlesays. Another way for the analogy to freeitselffrom its old complicitywith affirmation: representative perfidiously (and by a ruse which seems to indicatethe of what it to combine a pictureand what it should represent. In contrary means) this a of is that the is its own In model. fact such appearance, way affirming painting an affirmation would imply an internaldistance,a gap, a difference betweenthe canvas and what it should imitate;in Magritte on thecontrary, thereis, fromthe in theplane, a linear passage, a continuous painting to the model, a continuity overflow fromone into theother:eitherbya transition from leftto right(as in The Human Condition where the sea's horizon continues withouta break with the horizonon thecanvas); or by inversion ofdistances(as in The Waterfall wherethe model advances on thecanvas, envelops it on thesides,and makes it seem farther back in relation to what should be behind it). Converselyto thisanalogy which denies representation by effacing duality and distance,thereis the opposite one which evades or mocks representation by means of the snares of doubling. In EveningFalls, thewindowpanebearsa redsun analogous to theone whichremains in theheavens(so much, then,contraDescartesand his way of resolvingthe fixed twosuns ofappearance into theunityofrepresentation); thecontrary occursin The Field Glass: on thetransparence ofa windowpane we see clouds passing and a blue sea sparkling;but thegap betweenthecasements revealsa black space: whatwe see on the glass is a reflection of nothingat all. VI. To Paint Is Not to Affirm
Rigorous separation betweenlinguisticsigns and plastic elements;equivalenceof similitudeand affirmation. These twoprinciplesconstituted thetensionof classical painting: forthe second one reintroduced discourse(thereis affirmation only where thereis speech) in a painting fromwhich the linguisticelementwas carefullyexcluded. Whence the factthat classical painting spoke-and spoke a itselfoutside language; whence the factthatit greatdeal-even as it constituted
19
rested thatitappropriated to itself, space; whence thefact silently upon a discursive underneath a kind ofcommongroundwhereit could restore therelationsof itself, image and signs. but withoutclaiming any Magrittejoins verbal signs and plastic elements, discourseon which resemprevious isotopism; he evades the basis of affirmative blance calmlyrested;and he bringsinto play pure similitudes and non-affirmative verbal statements in the instability of a volume withoutreferences and of a space without planes. An operation of which This is not a pipe provides a kind of formulary. 1. To devisea calligramin which we find and visible: simultaneously present affirmation and theircommon ground. resemblance, image, text, 2. Then to break the calligram so that it immediatelydecomposes and disappears,leaving only its own void as its trace. 3. To let thediscoursefall of its own weightand acquire thevisible form of letters. Letters insofar as are enter an into indefinite which, uncertain, they drawn, with thedrawingitself -but withoutany surface relation,intertwined beingable to serveas theircommon ground. 4. To permit,elsewhere,the similitudesto multiplyout of themselves, to from their own in and rise a less and less ether generate vapor endlessly spatialized wherethey refer to nothingbut themselves. 5. To make sure,at the end of theoperation,thattheprecipitate of thelast test-tube has changed color, thatit has turnedfrom white to black, thatThis is a pipe has indeed become This is not a pipe. In short,thatpainting has ceased to affirm. 1963
Two LettersfromRenek Magritteto Michel Foucault Dear Sir: May 23, 1966
You will, I hope, be pleased to considersome reflections elicitedbya reading of yourbook The Orderof Things (Les Mots et les choses) ... The wordsResemblanceand Similitudeallow you to suggestmostforcefully the-absolutely alien-presence of the world and of ourselves.However,I think thatthesetwo wordsare inadequatelydifferentiated; thedictionaries are anything but instructive as to theirdistinction. It seemsto me, forexample,thatpeas haverelations ofsimilitude, bothvisible (theircolor, theirshape, theirsize) and invisible (theirnature,theirtaste,their weight). The same is trueof the false and the authentic,etc. 'Things' have no
20
OCTOBER
betweenthemselves, resemblances theyhave or do not have similitudes. It is only thoughtwhich can resemble.It resemblesby being what it sees, or knows,it becomeswhat theworld offers understands it. to It is quite as invisibleas pleasure or pain. But painting causes a difficulty intervene:thereis the kind of thoughtwhich sees and which can be described Then is visibly.Las Menifiasis thevisible imageof Velasquez's invisiblethought. the invisible sometimesvisible? Provided thought is constitutedexclusivelyof visiblefigures. In thisregard,it is obvious thata painted image-which is intangibleby its nature-conceals nothing, whereas the tangible visible world always conceals anothervisibleworld-if we are to believeour own experience. There has been forsome timea curiousprimacygrantedto the'invisible'as a whose interest vanishesifwe recallthatwhatis visible resultof a confusedliterature can be concealed, but thatwhat is invisibleconceals nothing:it can be known or than unknown,no more.There is no reason togranttheinvisiblemoreimportance thevisible,nor theconverse. is themystery evokedinfactbythevisibleand Whatdoes not 'lack' importance the invisible,and which can be evoked potentiallyby the thoughtwhich unites 'things'in theorderwhich evokesmystery. I am takingtheliberty ofcalling to yourattention theenclosedreproductions of works I painted without concerningmyself with an original investigation of painting. Please accept . . etc. Rene Magritte. June4, 1966
Dear Sir,
The Balcony byManet) ... Your question (about my painting Perspective, asks what it already contains: what made me see coffins where Manet saw white is theimage shown by mypainting in which thesetting of the "Balcony" figures, was suitable fortheplacing of coffins. The 'mechanism'which functioned heremightserveas theobjectofa learned explanationofwhich I am quite incapable. This explanationwould be valid,even but it would still be no less of a mystery. irrefutable, The first painting entitledPerspectivewas a coffin restingon a stone in a landscape. The Balcony is a variationon this,there wereothers Perspective. previously: Recamier byDavid and Perspective. byGerard.A variation Mmne. Mmne. Rk&camier and figures of Courbet'sBurial at Ornans would be with, forinstance,thesetting moreof a parody. I believe it should be noted thatthesepaintingsnamed "Perspective"offer a
21
do nothave. This wordand meaning which the twosensesof thewordPerspective the othershave a precisemeaning in one context, but thecontext-you show this betterthan anyone in The Order of Things-can say that nothing is confused, exceptforthemind which imaginesan imaginaryworld. I am glad thatyou recognizea resemblance betweenRoussel and what I can thinkwhich deserves to be thought. Whathe imaginesevokesnothingimaginaryhe evokes thereality of theworld which experienceand reason considerin confusion. I hope to have theopportunity to meetyou duringmyexhibitionin Paris,at theIolas Gallery,towardthe end of the year. Please accept ... etc. Rene Magritte.
iA.A l0&
raoot? dalL IrJA

Foucault Magritte Exchange

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Foucault Magritte Exchange

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Foucault Magritte Exchange

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ceci n'est pas une pipe Author(s): Michel Foucault and Richard Howard Source: October, Vol.

"Ceci n'est pas une pipe"

Here Are Two Pipes

"Ceci n'est pas une pipe"

"Ceci n'est pas une pipe"

une ceci n'est / pas pipeI

n'est pase pipe

"Ceci n'est pas une pipe"

"Ceci n'est pas. une pipe"

"Ceci n'est pas une pipe"

"Ceci n'est pas une pipe"

"Ceci n'est pas une pipe"

raoot? dalL IrJA

You might also like