January 6th, 2010
This Is Not A Pipe
Perhaps only at a tech company would the graffiti be so clever. A door emblazoned with the words that it is not an entrance is adorned with the René Magritte artwork, The Treachery of Images. For those unfamiliar with the work and not familiar with French, the words under the pipe are “Ceci n’est pas une pipe” which translates into “This is not a pipe”. And of course, it is not a pipe. It is simply a drawing of a pipe. So is this door really not an entrance? But then what is an entrance? If one uses the door to get into the building then isn’t it an entrance? Is it not an entrance simply because the sign says it isn’t? And is the outside in the door the actual outside or merely a reflection of the outside? If it is the outside then does that mean this door is not an entrance into the outside? Yes, it is the treachery of images, indeed.
Jen wrote,
Yes, I liked this one quite a bit too. Thanks for introducing me to PAN a few months ago.
—Jen
Link | January 6th, 2010 at 3:07 pm
Elbog wrote,
You failed to notice your own, er, shift, even as you made it. It is *not* an entrance, it is a door. The door’s existence and purpose is determined by both design and how it is used by those who control it. If it it is locked, and entry can not be made, then it is not an entrance. If it is constructed with ‘panic hardware’ on the inside, then it will always be an exit. Such is the life of a door.
Agreed, if it is not locked, and entry can be made, then merely labeling it “not an entrance” only expresses the wishes of the signmaker. The same could be said of a STOP sign, but then we are on the road to an even more subversive path than you suggest, mon frere’.
Actually, for me, it is only a picture of a door.
Entrancing, nonetheless.
(And no, I don’t wonder why people don’t want to talk to me)
Enjoyed this, thoroughly.
Link | January 6th, 2010 at 4:52 pm
Tom wrote,
Jeff, if you weren’t on the other side of the country I would give you a hug.
Link | January 6th, 2010 at 5:10 pm
Wifey (aka mum) wrote,
U and Jeff make my head spin
Link | January 6th, 2010 at 5:16 pm
elizabeth wrote,
This oddly reminds me of F is for Fake by Orson Welles only while Welles creates a sort of meta-image film where the lie and true of image meanings, Fake or Real, is mixed in with the way we accept narration and language, this seems a minimalist version. It is of course not a entrance, except metaphorically as pointed out above, it is a pixeled representation of something our minds interpret. Most will see a door.
It also reminds me of my first degree at a college where a psych class put up a sign saying, “This door is broken” on a door which opened fine, just to count how many people stopped, and then obeyed the message they had been given without question. Who needs governance directly when people willingly simply accept what is printed without direct experience? I only found out about the experiment because I was reading a book, opened the door, someone stopped me and told me “no, it’s broken” so I looked up and ripped off the sign and went through, thus, it turns out, ending the experiment.
I can assure you, that with a good understanding of Newton’s laws of motion, it will be a entrance, bank robbers in BC make really good living on following the abstract into culmination (it is ludicrous we live on an ISLAND and there are 17 bank robberies!).
Link | February 13th, 2010 at 9:57 am
Tom wrote,
I like the sign, “This door is broken.” It doesn’t say, “Don’t use this door because it is broken,” it merely tells you that it is broken and leaves it up to you to decide what that means and what the proper reaction to the sign is.
If you came to the entrance to a building and the sign said, “There is no air in this building,” how would you react? Would you run in holding your breath? Would you leave? Or would the silliness of it make it obvious that it must be a hoax?
Link | February 15th, 2010 at 8:39 pm