You must log in or # to comment.
You’re right. It seems to be a link.
What is this a Magritte appreciation thread?
Yes
There. Are. FOUR. PIPES!
Are you at the dentist?
Picture this: The Magritte painting depicted here with the apple replaced with a poop emoji, and the whole painting with the caption Mashitte.
Now that I’ve typed this out, I’m not sure I like the idea, but it would still be art.
Ooh, this Mashitte, this Mashitte
This comic makes me sad. Magritte is great, but I don’t know where, “The Son of Man” is located. Every time I search the only thing I find is “Private Collection”.
Correct me if I’m wrong here, but I THINK that might mean that it’s located in a private collection.
Inconceivable!
Well it’s not in my private collection, so now you have one less place to look.
Wait, the
picturepainting of a guy with apple in face really exists?Here, print it out. Originals are only for making money anyway.
I highly encourage you to seek out the original paintings and other artistic mediums in museums when you have a chance. It’s not about prestige, authenticity, or clout. It’s about gazing upon relics that have somehow survived the test of time and gleaming a bit of the creator’s intentions and skill. It’s a human connection that can stretch the breadth of millennia.
Also I used to fix printers so now I have undying hatred of them. I buy quite a few art books though.
Edit: One thing photos, digital image files, and other means of reproduction of most paintings never seem to get right is the texture. Remember a painting is not flat, it’s still a 3rd dimensional object. Painting techniques can layer paints giving them texture, it’s a visual quality that is hard to appreciate when not in person.
Ah trickster rules. We’re in fey territory.
That’s a painting not a picture, your semantics have failed you
My counter argument: The Picture of Dorian Gray
It seems the word picture at the very least used to be used for paintings as well, so it’s more that it’s just an uncommon usage. Maybe the guy is a time traveler.
Or Pictures at an Exhibition (wikipaedia link) by Modest Mussorgsky?
(Especially the Emerson, Lake & Palmer version) (Youtube link)
In the UK at least, “Picture” is totally fine shorthand, even today, to refer to a flat 2D thing that might be put on a wall in a gallery, whether it be a painting, drawing, photograph etc. More formally it would tend towards being a figurative (rather than abstract) work.
The whole thing is drawn, how can you tell it’s not a picture?
Because it’s a representation of an actual painting, but if we’re going to be overly semantic then I give up. You win
It happened! Someone said someone else won on the Internet.
Yeah but you lost…
The game
You. Motherfucker.
I’m not sure I like the picture you’re trying to paint with this comment.
Great, this finally explains why there’s a difference between “a” and “the”.
The question is incorrect. He should’ve asked “can I take the picture”. And would’ve obviously received a no.
I don’t go to parties.
He could mean “one of the pictures” and then the phrasing would be correct.
I don’t see any other pictures in picture. Although, given the context of an art gallery, this would probably make sense.
There could be multiple pictures. And he chooses to take this one.
Even if there is only one picture, it is still a picture, so the question is still grammatically correct. It’s just deliberately ambiguous. I am taking this stand.
Knocks over a statue and walks away with the stand
Cartoonist hasn’t seen Airplane!
Or maybe he has…
Sinner man, where you gonna run to?
