# Art > Art & Art History >  art and portraits

## cacian

is there a difference between a genuine portrait of a real person and a made up imaginary one?
what examples of made up portraits are there?
and can the artist tell the genuine from the imagined one?

----------


## North Star

I suppose it depends on how a 'made up portrait' is defined. Rembrandt certainly didn't have Aristotle sitting for him in this picture. I find it troublesome to think of portraits, or art in general, as either 'genuine' or 'imagined'. Art is artifice, it is never entirely 'genuine', even if there aren't winged children flying around.

----------


## Lokasenna

Cacian, as a French-speaker, will appreciate René Magritte's famous painting _The Treachery of Images_:



Magritte, when questioned about this, said:

"The famous pipe. How people reproached me for it! And yet, could you stuff my pipe? No, it's just a representation, is it not? So if I had written on my picture 'This is a pipe', I'd have been lying!"

The intention seems to be to provoke the idea that a thing and the image of a thing are not the same.

----------


## stlukesguild

Matisse famously responded to a woman who was critical of one of his paintings of a woman:

Woman- Monsieur Matisse, that woman's arm is entirely too long.

Matisse- Madame, but you are mistaken. That's not a woman; that's a painting.

----------


## stlukesguild

To respond to the OP, a portrait is a painting (or drawing, or sculpture) of a specific person. It is usually made from direct observation, but it can be made from memory, or symbolic. 

This painting, by Pierre Bonnard, is a portrait of the artist's wife:



Bonnard portrays a young woman bathing... although his wife, Marthe, was by then probably already in her 60s. He paints her as he remembers her... and as he imagines her in his mind's eye.



This portrait is also of the artist's wife... although it was painted some years after Marthe had died. She had an obsession with bathing, often taken 3 or 4 baths a day. The artist remembers her in the tub... as he had seen her so many times... but he also imagines her magically transformed through light and color... and perhaps he even imagines her as a princess enclosed in her sarcophagus within a Byzantine church in which everything seemingly melts away or disintegrates into fragments of light and color dancing across mosaic tiles.

----------


## Danik 2016

Seated-Woman-Marie-Therese-By-Pablo-Picasso.jpgThat´s a portrait of one of Picasso´s loves. He captures her essence by distorting the image.

----------


## cacian

> I suppose it depends on how a 'made up portrait' is defined. Rembrandt certainly didn't have Aristotle sitting for him in this picture.* I find it troublesome to think of portraits, or art in general, as either 'genuine' or 'imagined'. Art is artifice, it is never entirely 'genuine', even if there aren't winged children flying around.*


great painting :
interesting what you have just said i am not sure i understand why troublesome however
art is genuine because it means something to the artist
and imagined because art allows one that,

----------


## cacian

> Cacian, as a French-speaker, will appreciate René Magritte's famous painting _The Treachery of Images_:
> 
> 
> 
> Magritte, when questioned about this, said:
> 
> "The famous pipe. How people reproached me for it! And yet, could you stuff my pipe? No, it's just a representation, is it not? So if I had written on my picture 'This is a pipe', I'd have been lying!"
> 
> The intention seems to be to provoke the idea that a thing and the image of a thing are not the same.


could the opposite be true?
ceci est une pipe?

----------


## cacian

> Matisse famously responded to a woman who was critical of one of his paintings of a woman:
> 
> Woman- Monsieur Matisse, that woman's arm is entirely too long.
> 
> Matisse- Madame, but you are mistaken. That's not a woman; that's a painting.


which leads to think what is a painting?

----------


## Lokasenna

> could the opposite be true?
> ceci est une pipe?


Nope. That's the point.

----------


## North Star

> which leads to think what is a painting?


Painting is a work of art that is made by applying paint on canvas, wood, stone, or on any other medium.

----------


## cacian

> Painting is a work of art that is made by applying paint on canvas, wood, stone, or on any other medium.


indeed but 
metaphorically speaking it is more then that.

----------


## cacian

> Nope. That's the point.


i see. I get the feeling that denying one's owning can be contradictory to art expressive or implosive.

----------


## North Star

> indeed but 
> metaphorically speaking it is more then that.


We must not run before we can walk.  :Smile: 



> i see. I get the feeling that denying one's owning can be contradictory to art expressive or implosive.


As usual, I have no idea what you are saying, or trying to say.

Magritte's point is that art is art, it is not reality. You cannot grab the image of a pipe and smoke it. You cannot kill Odysseus and marry Penelope - they only exist as words on paper [and perhaps as images in film adaptations...]. No matter how 'realistically' a work of art is painted or written, it is not real in the sense that they exist in the actual world as anything more than the works of art.

----------


## tonywalt

I miss these discussions.

----------


## cacian

> We must not run before we can walk.


art dominates must we dominate it ? 



> As usual, I have no idea what you are saying, or trying to say.


i meant to propose something such as a painting and deny it is not is contrary to art.




> Magritte's point is that art is art, it is not reality.


not reality? we are submerged surrounded by reality there is no escape everything we do say and create is as a consequence of our realty
a picture may not be palpable but it is credible, 
the act of seeing something means we recognise/identify what it is/what we see and therefore it is real.
the maker is also real.




> You cannot grab the image of a pipe and smoke it.


you can show it being smoked. there is a chain of event, things are not separate entities they are part of a bigger picture. they serve a purpose hence their creation.




> You cannot kill Odysseus and marry Penelope - they only exist as words on paper


I believe words are changeable and so should art.





> [and perhaps as images in film adaptations...]. No matter how 'realistically' a work of art is painted or written, it is not real in the sense that they exist in the actual world as anything more than the works of art.


I don't understand the 
''it is not real''..
if i am able to depict it to the original form then is it not that real ?
I feel the basis of art is a real part.
however
the example of babies with wings is an adaption of two very different form put together to create the illusion of flight.
it is not real in this case because it is entirely based on a idea or ideology that is not true to life.
i cant see an alien then 
it cannot be real.

----------


## North Star

> art dominates must we dominate it ?


The idea is to form logical thoughts and then trying to convey them efficiently to others.




> i meant to propose something such as a painting and deny it is not is contrary to art.


It is a painting. Thinking that it is a pipe is as foolish as thinking that I could punch you in the face if I hit my monitor.




> not reality? we are submerged surrounded by reality there is no escape everything we do say and create is as a consequence of our realty
> a picture may not be palpable but it is credible, 
> the act of seeing something means we recognise/identify what it is/what we see and therefore it is real.
> the maker is also real.


The image is real, but what it depicts is only an image. We can recognize what images represent, and they can stimulate our brains in much the same way as the actual thing, but you will die of starvation if you only look at images of food instead of eating. And you can't get lung cancer by looking at Magritte's not-pipe.




> you can show it being smoked. there is a chain of event, things are not separate entities they are part of a bigger picture. they serve a purpose hence their creation.


No you can not. You can create a diferent image where there is an image of a similar pipe and an image of smoke, but you cannot smoke that image of a pipe. 




> words are chnageable and so is art


You can create a different version of the Odyssey, but you cannot stab them or kiss them or win them at checkers, they are not real people.




> i don't understand the it is not real..
> if i see it then it must be,
> i cant see an alien then 
> ''it is not real''


They've made lots of movies of aliens, so I would think that by your standards, they are real.

----------


## cacian

> The idea is to form logical thoughts and then trying to convey them efficiently to others.


art conveys an idea to others 
by suggesting the pipe is not a pie or that they could not smoke it is denying them the idea.

art is primarily a shape and not the act of it.




> It is a painting. Thinking that it is a pipe is as foolish as thinking that I could punch you in the face if I hit my monitor.


how is that?
I can only see what is in front of me. 
to suggest what i see is not what it is is obscure thinking.
even a camera obscura manages a picture that we can all see and appreciate.
it makes no sense to suggest one cannot smoke it.
we already know a pipe is for smoking, that is the point of a pipe
to say one cannot smoke it because it is a painting is going around in circle and distating the obvious .




> The image is real, but what it depicts is only an image. We can recognize what images represent, and they can stimulate our brains in much the same way as the actual thing, but you will die of starvation if you only look at images of food instead of eating. And you can't get lung cancer by looking at Magritte's not-pipe.


an image is not necessarily always a stimulant it can be an ambulant ie the reason or the drive to produce more images.
i



> No you can not. You can create a diferent image where there is an image of a similar pipe and an image of smoke, but you cannot smoke that image of a pipe.


the image does not suggest at any time that it can be smoked.
what is your point?





> You can create a different version of the Odyssey, but you cannot stab them or kiss them or win them at checkers, they are not real people.


they are characters based on the idea of a person,




> They've made lots of movies of aliens, so I would think that by your standards, they are real.


a movies is not real and therefore the alien is not,

----------


## Gilliatt Gurgle

> art conveys an idea to others 
> by suggesting the pipe is not a pie or that they could not smoke it is denying them the idea.
> 
> ...we already know a pipe is for smoking, that is the point of a pipe
> to say one cannot smoke it because it is a painting is going around in circle and distating the obvious .
> 
> ...the image does not suggest at any time that it can be smoked.
> what is your point?...


Cacian, all,
In this instance it is possible to smoke the pipe.
Mr. Magritte's pipe is described as being oil on canvas, both being combustible materials.
Please refer to the attached thumbnail image below. (click on image to see it larger)



I have a couple of pipes that could be used to smoke "The Treachery of Images"...
Note the "X-acto" knife that could be used to cut ouy Mr. Margritte's pipe.

----------


## stlukesguild

art conveys an idea to others

ART... and here we are speaking of PAINTING... is at its most basic an organization of lines, colors, and shapes on a flat surface. Sometimes these elements result in the illusion of visual reality... but a painting of a woman or a landscape or a pipe is not a woman, a landscape, or a pipe; it is a painting. Painting can communicate a wealth of ideas and feelings that are as much a result of what the viewer brings to bear as they are the result of the artist's intentions.

by suggesting the pipe is not a pie or that they could not smoke it is denying them the idea.

The central "idea" that Magritte sought to convey was the recognition that a painting of a pipe is no a pipe... the idea that ART and REALITY are not one and the same thing... an idea that many still struggle with. Jasper Johns would play with an even more subtle irony in paintings like this:



Johns plays with the question of what is "real"... the word "red" or that which we actually see (the color red). 

art is primarily a shape and not the act of it.

 :Shocked:  :Confused5: 

I can only see what is in front of me. 
to suggest what i see is not what it is is obscure thinking.

You do understand that a painting or a photograph is not the same as that which it represents?



These are not women. Its is rather a block of marble that has been carved... quite skillfully... to look like a beautiful ideal of women.



These are not Maria Callas (she's dead) rather they are photographs of Maria Callas.

I don't see how such ideas are difficult to grasp.

it makes no sense to suggest one cannot smoke it.
we already know a pipe is for smoking, that is the point of a pipe

Again, Magritte's painting is NOT A PIPE it is A PAINTING of a pipe. 

to say one cannot smoke it because it is a painting is going around in circle and distating the obvious .

I don't know how obvious this is as you... and many others... seem to struggle with the realization that ART and REALITY are not one and the same.

----------


## mona amon

I'm sure Cacian understands that! Which normal person who is not crazy or hallucinating mistakes art for reality? What she is trying to do in her posts is explore the idea of pictorial illusion and depictions of reality, something that Magritte fails to do. The Jasper Johns painting that St Lukes posted does a much better job, I feel.




> not reality? we are submerged surrounded by reality there is no escape everything we do say and create is as a consequence of our realty
> a picture may not be palpable but it is credible, 
> the act of seeing something means we recognise/identify what it is/what we see and therefore it is real.
> the maker is also real.
> 
> 
> you can show it being smoked. there is a chain of event, things are not separate entities they are part of a bigger picture. they serve a purpose hence their creation.


Somewhere in there she does have a good point, or at least a much better point than Magritte. His realistic (and not very interesting) image of a pipe with its famous declaration seems to me nothing more than a gimmick. It only states the obvious. Who on earth thinks it is a real pipe? Yet we have been conditioned to make that response from early childhood when our mothers take us on their laps and point out pictures to us - What is this? This is an apple! This is a pipe...and so on. How silly it would be if she were to smack the child's hand and say - that's not an apple, stupid, that's only a picture of an apple! But that's no more than what Magritte is doing.

----------


## Sea

The problem seems to be around the pronouns "this", "that", "these", and "those" which have indefinite and frequently ambiguous indications.

When we're learning about apples, pipes, etc. with our mothers "this" means "the object the picture represents" which is an apple, a pipe, etc. Magritte uses "this" to refer to the painting/symbol itself, not the referent, clearly. Of course he could also secretly be using "this" to refer to the sentence "ceci n'est pas une pipe." Wouldn't that be a twist? By extension, when the mother points to a picture of an apple and asks "what is this" the child could even figure "this" refers to the literal stream of speech sounds coming from his mother's mouth.

Though we infer from context clues the intended meaning of "this", I suppose the ambiguity in indication would technically allow for both captions "this is a pipe" and "this is not a pipe" to be simultaneously true. A more interesting discussion around this would be how substituting the word "this" with "my painting of a pipe" in _The Treachery of Images_ deflates it of many of its artistic qualities.

Magritte's (and Johns') painting is interesting because, on one level, it makes a larger comment on the merits of distinguishing the painting from the subject, which are clearly not obvious. Likewise, when Monet says "that is not a woman, that is a painting of a woman" he is challenging the very way the critic is thinking, characterized by the way she uses the word "that". If the merits of making the painting-subject distinction were obvious then the history of painting would have discovered and developed much sooner such styles as those we normally associate with modernism. _The Treachery of Images_ is also interesting because, by making such an abstruse comment, Magritte proves _ipso facto_ paintings can be, as it were, deeply self-reflective and thoughtful and also, presumably, that they should have deeply thoughtful content in general.

----------


## North Star

> Somewhere in there she does have a good point, or at least a much better point than Magritte. His realistic (and not very interesting) image of a pipe with its famous declaration seems to me nothing more than a gimmick. It only states the obvious. Who on earth thinks it is a real pipe? Yet we have been conditioned to make that response from early childhood when our mothers take us on their laps and point out pictures to us - What is this? This is an apple! This is a pipe...and so on. How silly it would be if she were to smack the child's hand and say - that's not an apple, stupid, that's only a picture of an apple! But that's no more than what Magritte is doing.


No, *Magritte* _is_ important. For modern art to exist at all, it is crucial that people realize that art is not and cannot be an accurate and complete realization of reality. Take a look at for example this *Bouguereau* painting. This is so far from reality that it's hard to fathom it. This was painted in a studio, and so the setting is completely artificial and 'made up', although it might be from some real location. Also, what looks like a frozen, photographic, moment is an illusion. *Bouguereau* used a lot more than a 60th of a second to make this image, even to sketch the composition. And the experience of looking at the image is nothing like that of actually witnessing the thing that is depicted here in real life. You cannot stare at a fleeting moment for hours, and you certainly cannot return to it.
Despite of this, people complained to *Matisse*, the Impressionists, and every other modern artist that their paintings do not look like actual women or sunsets - almost a century after *Turner*, and despite of them managing to capture so much of the world that artists before had not. The ideas *Magritte*'s _Treachery of Images_ represents are very real and important, and they certainly were not obvious to all then, and clearly they are still not. You say _"Who on earth thinks it is a real pipe?"_ as if *Cacian* had not earlier written _"it makes no sense to suggest one cannot smoke it. we already know a pipe is for smoking, that is the point of a pipe"_. And it is exactly those conditioned responses to symbols that are harmful if adults rely on them when studying art.



William-Adolphe Bouguereau - The Nut Gatherers, 1882




J.M.W Turner - Off the Nore: Wind and Water, c.1840-45

----------


## stlukesguild

North Star is right on the mark. The idea that Magritte was putting forth was that of stating that Art and Reality are not one and the same. Now this may seem obvious... but is it really?. When the woman criticized Matisse for what she felt was an overly long arm on a woman, she felt that Matisse had failed to remain true to her idea of visual reality...



... but Matisse was not attempting to paint visual reality. Certainly, he was alluding to visual reality... he employed certain elements of visual reality... but ultimately, he was creating a painting which has its own internal logic no different from what we expect of a work of poetry or music.

The same was true of Impressionism...



Renoir's beloved _Nude in the Sun_ was attacked by leading critics as appearing as gangrenous flesh or rotting meat... because the idea that the sun might cast bluish shadows... and that an artist might exaggerate these for effect... offended the accepted notion that the role of painting was to mimic visual reality. 

The Modernists wholly questioned this idea... and in reality, artists across history have recognized that the imitation of visual reality is not the ultimate goal of art... or the standard by which "good" and "bad" art is measured. 

And it is exactly those conditioned responses to symbols that are harmful if adults rely on them when studying art.

Indeed. How much of our concept of past cultures is based upon art? Is this really what it was like to live in France in the late 18th century?



And we might apply this to film and literature and other art forms as well.

----------


## Danik 2016

You have a pipe, which you can fill, smoke, clean and so on. But you have millions of ways of representing this pipe.
But not every representation is a work of art.
Then what is a true work of art?

----------


## mona amon

> For modern art to exist at all, it is crucial that people realize that art is not and cannot be an accurate and complete realization of reality. Take a look at for example this Bouguereau painting. This is so far from reality that it's hard to fathom it. This was painted in a studio, and so the setting is completely artificial and 'made up', although it might be from some real location. Also, what looks like a frozen, photographic, moment is an illusion. Bouguereau used a lot more than a 60th of a second to make this image, even to sketch the composition. And the experience of looking at the image is nothing like that of actually witnessing the thing that is depicted here in real life. You cannot stare at a fleeting moment for hours, and you certainly cannot return to it. - *North Star*





> How much of our concept of past cultures is based upon art? Is this really what it was like to live in France in the late 18th century? - *St Lukes*


You both have good points. Magritte does not. Yes, we probably will not see anything like that idyllic moment in Bouguereau's picture with such cloyingly innocent and pretty looking girls, and maybe it will be useful if the caption "these are not real woman" was to be printed below every fashion magazine pic, but Magritte's pipe is just a pipe! Here, the image is everything. What you see is what you get. It is no more than a joke, a small semantic trick. The trick here is nothing to do with the trickery of the image, but with the meaning of the words themselves. His _The Human Condition_ series are much better - while they too do not make any profound statement about art or reality, they are much wittier than the "ceci n'est pas ..." paintings. Really, how seriously can we take a painting that relies entirely on words to explain itself?




> Cacian, all,
> In this instance it is possible to smoke the pipe.
> Mr. Magritte's pipe is described as being oil on canvas, both being combustible materials.
> Please refer to the attached thumbnail image below. (click on image to see it larger)
> 
> 
> 
> I have a couple of pipes that could be used to smoke "The Treachery of Images"...
> Note the "X-acto" knife that could be used to cut ouy Mr. Margritte's pipe.


Now that's way more clever than Magritte's Treachery of images!  :Biggrin:

----------


## cacian

I agree with mona  :Smile: 
art is an impression of a reality that surrounds our vanity and not a suppression of it which Maggrite is doing here.
art I feel must deploy the object it depicts to reinforce it in order to preserve it.
to deny its primary objective is to eventually get rid of it.
art I believe is preservation of our immediate surrounding which should in time reflect an image of belonging to which we all identify with and not take it away from us.

----------

