르네 마그리트(René Magritte)와 회화적 재현에 관한 연구

Abstract

The Belgian painter Rene Magritte is known as "one of the leading figures in Surrealist Movement,"which is recorded in the history of modern art as one of the art movements that had the greatest impact in modern art of the 20th century nowadays. She started her painting works as cubist-futurist style in her early years, and then switched to Surrealist Movement in 1995, when she was 27 years old, under the influence of Giorgio de Chirico, who was the Italian painter, sculptor, designer, and also the founder of "Metaphysical Painting." On the next year, she participated in various activities as a "highly idiosyncratic writer’ among the painters that represented surrealism, and she "always remained as a faithful surrealist" until she died as 69 years old. Then, what is this "high idiosyncrasy" that characterizes the surrealist painter Magritte? In what respects was he consistent as a surrealist painter but on the other hand evaluated as being ‘highly idiosyncratic’ and developing his own creative painting world? According to Richard Calvocoressi, a Magritte student, although Magritte is known as "one of the most approachable surrealist painters today," he was "actually not much interested in accidental effects, automatism, and other typical surrealist methods"that surrealist painters generally pursued, and "as Magritte himself said, he was interested in an objective representation of objects." Also, in this case, "the way he re-expressed the objects was so objective as to be called deliberately prosaic." Magritte’s idiosyncrasy was that even though he was a surrealist, he abandoned the typical and essential methods in surrealist painting; rather, he was interested in and actually used the methods or techniques in naturalist painting, which directly opposes surrealist painting. That is because in general, surrealist painting has the purpose of drawing the world of dream in a Freudianistic sense and the world of latent consciousness or unconsciousness. Thus, surrealist painting is considered to be a completely different dimension of painting from traditional naturalist painting, which aims to objectively reproduce the actual objects. In this point of view, even though Magritte was a surrealist painter, one of the art movements that represent the 20th-century modernpainting, at least his painting method or technique is considered to be a completely different dimension of painting from the traditional naturalist painting before the emergence of modern painting. In this point of view, even though Magritte was a surrealist painter, one of the art movements that represent the 20th-century modern painting, at least his painting method or technique is found to be essentially different from that of the traditional naturalist painting before the emergence of modern painting. A well-known Magritte student, Jaques Meuris described that Magritte is "idiosyncratic" such that he exists "outside of all standards that determine the nature of fine art, the common sense accepted at least until the early 20th century, and all the standards accepted for their long tradition." Accordingly, he asks, "how can we become a painter like Magritte?" That is, while the painting of Magritte uses the traditional method, or technique, of "objective recreation of the objects," rather than returning to traditional painting, his painting stays completely outside the world of traditional painting. In this perspective, he defines Magritte as a surrealist and at the same time as "the Undogmatic Surrealist" who went beyond the dogma of surrealism. He also explains Magritte’s "idiosyncratic" world of painting in relation to his "interest in recreation of the objects." This study aims to, based on such general notions about the painting of Magritte, analytically investigate what, to this surrealist painter, is the method or technique that he himself calls "the objective recreation of the objects" and examine what purpose, contents and meaning it has. By doing so, the purpose of this study is to approach the nature of his creative and unique surrealist painting. The purpose is to approach the essence of the painting mentioned so far about Magritte’s painting. As shown in the above evaluation, it seems that Magritte, while based on the world of surrealist painting, had interest in and pursued "the objective representation of the objects" and thereby constructed a "highly idiosyncratic," that is, Magritte’s own unique painting world. Therefore, this study attempts to critically analyze Magritte’s "objective representation of the objects" using the typical theory of "pictorial representation."Even though Magritte may not have returned to traditional painting before the 20th-century modern painting, it was a core component of "pictorial representation" prior to modern painting. However, the fact that he did not return to traditional painting despite using this traditional technique or method indicates that the concept and contents of the pictorial representation focused on his "objective representation of the objects" were originally his own features different from those in the traditional painting. Therefore, the analysis of this study focused on showing how Magritte’s pictorial representation differs from the traditional one and where this originality comes from. Rene Magritte presented mystery and poetry and painted images of an awakened world rather than dreams or realities, weighing internality in his artistic work. Namely, his works can be summarized as poetic mystery of image representation. The reason why his favorite technique depaysement was important in his painting is that he borrowed such a strange technique in a conscious way, unlike other surrealist painters. It is also a fundamental factor allowing for mysterious experiences, which he set his ultimate goal in his painting. He went beyond the dimension of perception, destroying the inherent meaning of an object with language. Principles underlying his paintings originated from the Hegelian dialectic. His works influenced greatly on describing methods in the development of a work and perception of the object of a painting, not the fantasy of surrealist. His work suggested new ideas to pose a question to a fixed thinking and to stir changes in viewpoint of a thing and recompose images, which had an effect on pop artists in the later period. In particular, he created his own unique domain of painting and brought hyper-reality to life by employing depaysement as logical doubt of reality and cross-question to perception-related issues. The hyper-reality which he aimed ultimately through depaysement was to make reality strengthened by destruction. Illusion existed no more, and there was only an effort to search an object and intently look for scattered fragments. In other words, there was neither metaphor nor metonymy, except for continual inherence being supervised by sight. By raising a question to reality, what did reality in practice and hyper-reality as a totally different dimension of reality mean for him? Reality and virtuality were confused in the same bigger framework, and such aesthetic illusion was in his depaysement. His depaysement was that everyday realities can be solely special moments, and that is why his artistic world is highly realistic in a sense.