Is this a thought, a post, a sentence, a list?

This week we are supposed to focus on a specific image with a religious theme or subject.  Although a picture with obvious spiritual symbols would be easy and practical to analyze, I decided to focus on two paintings by Rene Magritte that have no specific religious affiliation.  Both C’est Ne Pas Une Pipe and The Human Condition seem to comment on the difficulty of expressing one’s experience through a concrete human medium.  Since pictures are essentially symbolic representations of the physical and the abstract, I thought it would be interesting to apply some of the concepts found in these paintings to the works we have discussed in class.

Both On Christian Teaching and the Psalms use symbolic imagery to convey ideas, and even The Indian Mounds of Wisconsin is comprised of symbolic representations of concepts (words are symbols, as Saint Augustine notes).  However, symbols are simply a representation of one thing conveyed through the use of another.  In essence, this is like a translation; the same meaning can be intended by the use of two separate words, even though the words themselves are different.  This creates a problem, because as Theodore Sturgeon once said, “there are no true synonyms.  There are no two words that mean exactly the same thing.”  Sure, one can represent an idea or concept by using symbolic imagery or poetic language, but some connotations of the original concept will be, quite literally, lost in translation. 

One can see this dilemma at the forefront of both of the two paintings that I selected.  In C’est Ne Pas Une Pipe Magritte makes a bolt statement when he claims that a realistic looking picture of a pipe is not actually a pipe (literally, the words “translate” into “this is not a pipe”).  However, the picture itself is obviously of a pipe, and it seems similar to a drawing that one would find in an advertisement or in an illustrated book.  However, as Magritte subtly points out, even though thoughts of a pipe itself may be conjured up by staring at this “pipe”, the image is only a representation of the pipe itself.  In no way does the picture of a pipe function as a pipe, and many aspects of the pipe are not conveyed by this two-dimensional representation.  Essentially, this “pipe” that we perceive is simply a collection of pigment on a prepared surface that humans interpret as similar to another object that we experience in the physical world.  Furthermore, even the association of the word “pipe” with various kinds of physical objects we perceive as pipes is as somewhat arbitrary designation.  This separation between our existential experience and our ability to portray it is elaborated upon in , as Magritte presents a representation of a reality (a picture) that is partially constructed from a human representation of existence (a painting of the environment).  Although our ability to represent our thoughts in a symbolic manner is an extremely important trait, and religion certainly couldn’t exist without it, but at the same time there are many dangers and shortcomings of symbolic representation.  

To connect this to the material that we have been covering in class, sentient thought processes combined with the ability to construct symbolic representations of emotions, thoughts, and experiences have essentially enabled human society to flourish.  At the same time, these symbols, although engaging and enjoyable (as Saint Augustine notes), are often incapable of conveying precise meanings, and often times the original concept is inaccurately or incompletely represented.  Even with these shortcomings, symbols are really the only way to convey information to other people.  With this in mind, I think it is fascinating that religions are capable of conveying such complex and profound ideas via symbols, although I wonder how much of the original concepts behind the religions have been preserved in their present form.  I am not saying this is a necessary thing, as religions change and can interpreted in many ways (as symbols often are), but I think it would be interesting to compare the original ideas behind the formation of major world religions and their current interpretations by individuals.