WORDS IN ART - LEVEL 4 FINE ART ESSAY

HOW HAVE RENÉ MAGRITTE, JOSEPH KOSUTH AND JOHN BALDESSARI USED WORDS IN THEIR WORK AND TO WHAT EFFECT?

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure 1: La Trahison Des Images (The Treachery Of Images), René Magritte, 1928-1929. Source: http://www.renemagritte.org/the-treachery-of-images.jsp

Figure 2: La Clef Des Songes (The Interpretation Of Dreams), René Magritte, 1935. Source: http://dailyserving.com/2013/12/magritte-the-mystery-of-the-ordinary-1926-1938-at-moma/

Figure 3: L’Espoir Rapid (Swift Hope), René Magritte, 1927. Source: https://sites.google.com/site/amittusha/Surrealism-Paris-1926-1930

Figure 4: Art As Idea As Idea [Water], Joseph Kosuth, 1966. Source: http://www.guggenheim.org/new-york/collections/collection-online/artwork/2362

Figure 5: One and Three Chairs, Joseph Kosuth, 1965. Source: http://www.moma.org/learn/moma_learning/joseph-kosuth-one-and-three-chairs-1965

Figure 6: Semi-close-up of Girl by Geranium, John Baldessari, 1966. Source: https://theartstack.com/artist/john-baldessari/semi-close-up-of-girl-by-geranium

Figure 7: Prima Facie (Third State): From Aghast to Upset, John Baldessari, 2005. Source: http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/features/kuspit/john-baldessari1-20-10_detail.asp?picnum=4

Figure 8 : Pure Beauty, John Baldessari, 1966-68. Source: http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/reviews/drohojowska-philp/john-baldessari7-14-10_detail.asp?picnum=2

‘A picture is worth a thousand words’. This essay aims to explore the ways in which artists reject this common phrase, either using word and image in their works or rejecting image altogether in favour of text. I will begin by discussing the work of René Magritte (1898-1967) before analysing the works of Joseph Kosuth (1945-) and John Baldessari (1931-), comparing the use and effect of words in all three artists’ practices. I will also touch on philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein’s (1889 – 1951) ideas about language and how these support or conflict with the artworks I am discussing.

When considering the use of words in art for this essay, the piece of artwork which immediately sprung to mind was René Magritte’s iconic La Trahison Des Images (The Treachery of Images) (Magritte, 1928-1929) (fig.1) and, upon further reading, I realised a discussion of words in art would have poor foundations without addressing his work. As Leslie Ross states, ‘Magritte’s profound influence on later twentieth-century art cannot be underestimated’ (Ross, 2014), and so it seems fitting that before I begin my discussion of more recent artworks I should begin with their predecessor.

Figure 1 : La Trahison Des Images (The Treachery of Images) (Magritte, 1928-1929)

The words ‘Ceci n'est pas une pipe’ (this is not a pipe) used in Magritte’s La Trahison Des Images (The Treachery of Images) (fig.1) guides the viewer to think about the image presented to them (a painting of a pipe) in a particular way and evokes questions which may never have been addressed without it. Initially, it seems that the image and the text in this work directly contradict each other and that the words painted here are altogether false. However, upon further consideration, we realise that the words tell an obvious truth. John Harkness phrases this brilliantly, writing that ‘when asked to identify the painting, we reply “It’s a pipe” – words we shall choke on the moment we try to light up’ (Harkness, 1983). Magritte sought to ‘illuminate the confusions and oversimplifications which are so deeply rooted in our habits of language that they are not even noticed’ (Gablik, 1985).

Magritte has explored the confusion that words and text can evoke in a number of other works. It is perhaps most directly addressed in La Clef Des Songes (The Interpretation of Dreams) (Magritte, 1935) (fig.2) where what seems to be a blackboard, a tool for education, becomes a tool for confusion. Images of everyday objects such as a clock and a jug are given incorrect titles (the wind, the bird). However, if we have learned anything from La Trahison Des Images (The Treachery of Images) (fig.1) we will realise that neither the image nor the word are the ‘real’ thing, simply a depiction or representation of something else. So, which is wrong? The image or the text? Maybe the words do not title the image but both the image and the text are there to communicate something altogether more complex. ‘What misleads us is the inevitability of connecting the text to the drawing’ (Foucault, 1983).

Figure 2 : La Clef Des Songes (The Interpretation of Dreams) (Magritte, 1935)

Many of Magritte’s ideas surrounding language echo the ideas of philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein. In his first book Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (Wittgenstein, 1922), Wittgenstein proposed the theory that verbal or written language worked by triggering pictures in our minds. If this is true, then one can expect problems of communication to occur between people who associate the same word with different images, or different images to the same word. Although it is not known that Magritte ever read any of Wittgenstein’s theories, his piece L’Espoir Rapid (Swift Hope) (Magritte, 1927) (fig.3) suggests that he had similar ideas to the philosopher about how words can conjure images in one’s mind. The painting features a number of dark abstract shapes, unrecognizable as anything in particular, which appear to be labelled very clearly as features of a landscape. The words include ‘nuage’ (cloud), ‘cheval’ (horse) and ‘village a l’horizon’ (village on the horizon) and it is very easy to find oneself projecting new pictures, inspired by these words, onto the image, in one’s imagination. It is interesting to me that the scene imagined by individuals will never be the same, and it raises questions about who really creates the image here; is it Magritte or the viewer? Although, of course, Magritte has created an image, it just doesn’t seem a satisfactory companion for the words due to what the words represent to us. In his essay Les Mots et Les Images Magritte writes that ‘any shape whatever may replace the image of an object, an object never performs the same function as its name or its image’ (Magritte, 1929 quoted in Gablik, 1985) which reiterates the ideas in the two previous works discussed. Neither the word ‘cloud’ nor an image of a cloud is a cloud.

Figure 3 : L’Espoir Rapid (Swift Hope) (Magritte, 1927)

The next artist I wish to discuss is Joseph Kosuth. Kosuth was one of the pioneers of conceptual art in the 1960s and his use of text demonstrated his interest in challenging pre-conceived ideas of what art should be. Following Marcel Duchamp’s (1887 – 1968) bold proposition that art is defined by little other than the simple declaration “this is a work of art”, Kosuth employed language as his medium, rejecting images and objects in favour of what he saw as the most direct way of communicating an idea. This is perhaps best exemplified in his series of works Art as Idea as Idea (Kosuth, 1966-1968) (fig.4).

These works are based on definitions from dictionaries and rather than having a permanent physical presence, Kosuth maintained that the definitions themselves were the work. However, for ‘the purposes of presentation’ his original cut-out definitions would be photographically enlarged to specified dimensions for each exhibition they featured in. Although, surely, if the words alone are considered the work, it could be spoken or written in any way and remain as so. Therefore the work is a prime example of word as art, devoid of all other materials and is probably the earliest example of this type of work. Unlike in Magritte’s L’Espoir Rapid (fig.3) where the words serve to conjure images in the viewers’ minds, Kosuth’s Art as Idea as Idea (fig.4) series does not seem to attempt this. Most of the words he has chosen such as ‘art’, ‘meaning’ and ‘definition’ can’t be easily translated into an image and perhaps this is where written language is more useful than a picture. Pictures are useful for describing objects but perhaps not always so clear when trying to explain a larger concept in a direct manner. These more elusive words also seem to contradict Wittgenstein’s ideas about words triggering images. I am not sure that one can picture ‘meaning’ and I suppose this creates an argument for the use of words in art, to enable us to express the ideas that exist outside of the visual world.

Figure 4 : Art as Idea as Idea [Water] (Kosuth, 1966)

However despite this difference between Kosuth’s and Magritte’s works, there is definitely a cross-over of ideas. Prior to Art as Idea as Idea (fig.4), Kosuth had created another series of works titled One and Three… (Kosuth, 1965). In One and Three Chairs (Kosuth, 1965) (fig.5) the audience are presented with the ‘idea’ of a chair 3 times, through 3 different mediums; a real chair, a photograph of that chair hung on the wall to the left and a dictionary definition of ‘chair’ hung on the wall to the right. There is a clear connection to be made here between this piece and Magritte’s La Trahison Des Images (The Treachery of Images) (fig.1). Just as the pipe in Magritte’s work is not a pipe – the photograph and the text are not chairs, but representations of a chair, and when displayed with the chair itself we recognise this as quickly as if they both had ‘this is not a chair’ written beneath them. However, despite the chair itself being the only ‘real’ chair of the three, the dictionary definition is arguably the most accurate representation of the ‘idea’ of a chair as it encompasses all possible chairs, whereas the object and the photograph represent only one chair. Without the words here, we would not approach the artwork in the same way. It is the text that makes us consider the chair as an ‘idea’ rather than a physical subject. To suggest the entire idea of a chair through a photograph or an installation you would have to use every chair that has ever been made and ever could be made. Here, Kosuth shows that words are sometimes the only way to express something as clearly as we would like.

Figure 5: One and Three Chairs (Kosuth, 1965)

American conceptual artist John Baldessari is another artist who has rejected images in favour of words in a number of his works. He says that ‘it is fundamental to my work that I tend to think of words as substitutes for images. I can never seem to figure out what one does that the other doesn’t do’. He has created a number of painted text-based works on canvas, my favourite of which being Semi-close-up of Girl by Geranium (Baldessari, 1966) (fig.6), which features a written description of a girl watering a flower. Similarly to Magritte’s L’Espoir Rapid (fig.3), and in contrast to Kosuth’s Art As Idea As Idea (fig.4), the words here serve to create an image in the viewer’s imagination. ‘Language operates in the absence of objects, arousing but simultaneously frustrating our desire to see… who, then, is responsible for creating the image – the artist or the viewer?’ (Gardener, 1989 quoted in Ross, 2014). This question from Colin Gardener echoes my own in response to L’Espoir Rapid (fig.3) and I would argue that the viewer creates the image but Baldessari inspires the viewer to do so, and if we agree with Kosuth’s belief that art is idea, Baldessari is very much the creator of the artwork. What is interesting about the words offered in this painting is that they don’t describe a static scene, like that of a painting, but are more like stage directions: a series of consecutive actions. Arguably, the painting of words communicates these actions more effectively than a static image would do.

Figure 6: Semi-close-up of Girl by Geranium (Baldessari, 1966)

In Prima Facie (Third State): From Aghast to Upset (Baldessari, 2005) (fig.7) Baldessari has paired a single image with 16 words, all of which could be used to describe the expression in the pictured woman’s face, but some of which mean completely different things. This illustrates how an image is not always successful in communicating something exactly. Sometimes words are needed to clarify. It also suggests the power of a picture and how perhaps more can be interpreted in one picture compared to one word. However, Baldessari also suggests how words can be just as vague as images in his piece Pure Beauty (Baldessari, 1966-68) (fig.8). Similar to Semi-close-up of Girl by Geranium (fig.6) in appearance, Pure Beauty (fig.8) is a white canvas with the words ‘Pure Beauty’ painted on the surface in black. If we are supposed to interpret these words in any way, and create images from them – what do we see? ‘Beauty’ is a very subjective term and different people will have different ideas of what this is.

Figure 7 : Prima Facie (Third State): From Aghast to Upset (Baldessari, 2005)

In conclusion, I feel that all three artists have exemplified how words have gained recognition as an artistic medium. Words can be used to guide viewers in their approach to an image or create entirely new images in the viewer’s mind. Depending on the way they are employed they can either help express an idea more clearly or they can be vague and ambiguous, creating confusion - which is something, as Wittgenstein proposed, rooted in language itself.

Figure 8 : Pure Beauty (Baldessari, 1966-68)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books:

Gablik, S. (1985) Magritte. 2nd ed. Thames and Hudson.

Harkness, J (ed.) and Foucault, M. (1983) This Is Not A Pipe. 2nd ed. Berkely and Los Angeles, California: University of California Press.

Hunt, J D and Lomas, D and Corris, M. (2010) Art, Word and Image: 2000 Years of Visual/Textual Interactions. Reaktion Books.

Morgan, J and Jones, L. (2009) John Baldessari: Pure Beauty. Tate Publishing.

Obrist, H. (2009) John Baldessari (The Conversation Series). Walther König, Köln.

Ross, L. (2014) Language in the Visual Arts: The Interplay of Text and Imagery. McFarland.

Wittgenstein, L. (1922) Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. 2007 ed. New York: Cosimo, Inc.

Online:

http://www.frieze.com/issue/article/art_as_idea_as_idea/

http://www.guggenheim.org/new-york/collections/collection-online/artwork/2362

http://www.moma.org/collection/works/137438

http://www.theartstory.org/artist-kosuth-joseph.htm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQ33gAyhg2c