As one of only four works that Rene Magritte ever identified as a self portrait - today’s painting is on a par with Salvador Dali’s “Persistence of Memory” as being one of the most iconic Surrealist pieces in art history.
Instantly recognisable, even to people who know nothing about Art history or the artist himself - it can be found printed on everything from T-Shirts, Posters, Cushions and Notebook covers, to countless copies and parody artworks which have sought to reference Magritte’s image over the years.
Although, surprisingly, the one place you will rarely see painting is in an actual art gallery.
The original painting was last sold to a private buyer in 1998 (fetching just upwards of $5 million dollars) - and has since only been exhibited publicly on a handful of occasions.
Yet still, Magritte’s work continues to spark a great deal of debate; not least in the sense of whether the painting really does deserve it’s current “iconic” status (especially when we consider that, in terms of sheer recognisability, this piece shares a stage with the likes of Leonardo’s Mona Lisa or Vermeer’s Girl with the Pearl Earring)
But also, perhaps even more important than it’s fame, are the discussions around the meaning of the work itself.
What should we make of a portrait where we cannot even see the face?
Is the artist trying to hide himself out of a kind of self consciousness - or a secret shame that he fears we would pick up on if we looked at him too closely?
Or, does he depict himself like this as a kind of practical joke instead - hence, we notice his eye slightly peaking out from behind the apple, as if to check whether we are really laughing along with him about it all?
_
And while we are asking all these questions . . . we can’t help but bring into focus the topic of that curious green apple too.
Admittedly, it pops up as a motif in a number of other works by Magritte (see bottom of this article for bonus features)- thus, our artist really must have put a lot of weight in it’s symbolic resonance.
But still . . . what does it actually mean? And why put it here, at the front and centre of a “self portrait”?
Is Magritte trying to tell us that, in spite of being such a remarkable artist, his way of seeing this world had actually always been somehow blocked (possibly by the trauma he had lived with ever since his mother had taken her own life when he was only thirteen years old)
This would make sense, especially given that green apples are generally more sour than red . . . thus, in symbolic terms, the artist is essentially telling us that his perspective on life is always shaped by bitterness, or that even sweet beauty itself sadly always had something of a sour aftertaste for him.
But, at the same time, there of course many other possible interpretations here too.
For example - perhaps Magritte is using the apple for it’s connotations to the concept of “original sin”; taking inspiration from the famous story of Eve being tempted by the fruits of Eden. (Thus, the message of the picture could be more about facing our sins / struggles head on, rather than trying to hide them)
Or - maybe it relates to the famous saying of how “the apple never falls to far from the tree” . . . and could be seen as a metaphor for how an artist will always return to making art, regardless of what direction their life takes them in, because it it in their very nature to do so.
Or . . . maybe it is just entirely random instead. And in typical surrealist fashion, Magritte has simply chosen to make an icon out of the most trivial object he could think of.
_
Frankly, anything is possible here. So, as always, it is important to note that this is very much open to each individual perspective. And as such, I encourage all of you to consider your own individual interpretations too.
What do you think all of this could mean?
Bonus Pictures
Three more occasions where Magritte’s paintings centre around that famous green apple.
To send a tip, make a donation, or buy me a coffee instead - please follow this link (pay whatever price you choose)
All support is immensely appreciated
His absurdities don't leave room for dismissal. His art insists that we keep looking--and guessing--until we see what he sees.
Magritte was 66 (three years before he died of pancreatic cancer) when he made this painting, yet it is a painting of a young/middle aged man. So it's a self-portrait but an abstract one.
You can make a case that it is a "universal self portrait" as well. Like Delacroix, I think that Magritte took a Christian turn in his work at the end of his life. I see the apple in this painting as representing sin (original sin, in all of us). "Son of Man" is a translation of the Hebrew for mankind. He is commenting on our state.
The last piece identified as a masterpiece on the Rene Magritte web page is called The Pilgrim, from (two years later) 1966. It is very similar to the Son of Man painting. But, it shows a face (of a youngish middle-aged man) offset from the suit and bowler. Christians are called to be Pilgrims, passing through this world. I think he is identifying with that sense of being a pilgrim, as well as a son of Adam. (https://www.renemagritte.org/the-pilgrim.jsp)
In 1966, Magritte also tried his hand at The Last Supper (The Endearing Truth, https://www.renemagritte.org/the-endearing-truth.jsp). He goes for a trompe l'oeil painting of a mural of a table floating above three dead-end porticos. The table has bread, wine, a bowl of green apples, and one green apple. It is reminiscent of Jesus telling his disciples at the last summer "when you eat this bread and drink this cup, remember Me until I come again in glory." Jesus said this as a prelude to dying to redeem us from the debt of our sins.
I see those three paintings as three-in-one, a work in three acts. And it is hopeful, that he had that to "hang his hat on" as he faced gruelling pancreatic cancer.
Sorry to get heavy on your George! It's real, though.