Magritte: The Mystery of the Ordinary, 1926–1938
 

There's a show of Magritte works going on at MoMA right now and running till January 14th.

http://www.moma.org/interactives/exh...e/#/featured/1

Then it will travel to Chicago and Houston.

I love Magritte's work! I wish it was coming here. There are a few in this display, posted above, that I have never seen. "La Find des Contemplations" and "Ceci est un Morceau de Fromage" are new to me and very interesting.

I went. It has all of his famous pieces except for "The Son of Man" (the one with the apple in front of the man's face) which is privately owned, if one can privately own an iconic painting, and "Empire of Lights" which actually is there, but downstairs on permanent display in the main gallery. He was at one time my favorite painter and had an influence on my writing, but my tastes have moved to the minimal and geometric. I think the show had too much Magritte, actually. His work takes time to process--the images, the ideas, and especially the titles--and so many pieces together meant one has to sample, and not savor, each one.

One thing I had failed to notice before is how amateur a painter he was. I don't mean this as a negative thing. But the lines and colors and figures are simple. I think the exhibition makes note of this somewhere. One of my favorite pieces from the show, and one I had never seen before, was a piece called "Nocturne" made of ripped sheet music around which he painted spindly black trees without leaves. I can't find a picture of it online. It is one of his earliest works.

Go see it if you can. It'll probably be the only time I see "The Human Condition" or "The Treachery of Images" in person. Despite being such a famous artist, his work is difficult to find in museums.

Actually posters of Magritte's work as just as good as the paintings themselves. Or I think so. The only surrealist who was a really good painter was Max Ernst. But it doesn't matter at all. It's the image that you need.

I think the simplicity of Magritte's figures was intentional. I have not researched it or anything, but I feel as thought the images would not be so good if the figures were rendered as realistically as a Rembrandt. It would be a distraction. It would go against the meaning and whimsy of the paintings.

I think you have it, Sharon.

Another thing I love about Magritte's work is snare aspect. You see the image, get some delight from the clever twist, muse a little, chuckle a little even, the whole time unaware that the serious is slipping in undetected. Maybe it's not a blatant statement of something horrid, but there is a definite ominous quality.

It reminds me of Dolly Parton's line in "Steel Magnolias" - "Laughter through tears is my favorite emotion."