A picture’s worth how many words?
What happens when a painting’s title forgets its place and crawls all over the canvas? Too ambitious to loiter meekly in the little sign card next to the frame, the words decide they’re just as important as the picture, and the next thing you know you have anarchy, graffiti run amok, images and text forming a labour union and subverting the millennia-old conventions governing visual representation.
A detail of Georges Braque’s “Pedestal Table” from 1913.
Pop art made words in paintings commonplace, but its grandfather, cubism, was a sucker for shards of text blowing through the scenery, and its crazy old great-uncle, surrealism, kept scrapbooks of every flitting message scrap, quite sure they would one day all make sense.
Andre Derain’s “Portrait of a Man with a Newspaper” from about 1912.
Pictures and words are natural enough collaborators, of course, both being central to the fine arts, but traditionally they never appeared onstage together. I really don’t want to dig too deeply into this, because there are websites that are quite happy to take you on very long and not particularly interesting strolls along Semiotics Street, returning by way of Semantics Boulevard. In the case of Rene Magritte the University of Washington has an especially heavy-breathing thesis online, but do watch out for words like “intersubstitutability” — you could injure yourself.
Then there’s David Scott’s 2005 essay for Image & Narrative, “the Online Magazine of the Visual Narrative” about the words found in Paul Delvaux’s art, which I found a bit more intesting since Delvaux is a bit more interesting, not least because he was forever painting naked women sleepwalking around train stations. (He also painted a fine “Leda” in 1948, a subject I’ve lately been rattling on about.)
Dali House has also joined the wool-minders pondering the meaning of “Et in Arcadia ego” in Nicolas Poussin’s “The Shepherds of Arcadia”, but that was hardly on the same level as Magritte’s patient experimenting with what exactly it is that words and pictures do, how they do it and how you can pull the rug out from under them.
“This is Not a Pipe”, from 1929, and it’s still not a pipe today. Magritte did a string of variations on this picture over the decades in a bid to expose “the Treachery of Imagery”, ultimately putting the words on a bolted-down plaque so it looked as though the affirmation could never be removed. I think of the image every time I hear David Byrne sing, “This is not my beautiful wife!”
What was Magritte on about? Michel Foucault found a litany of layered possible interpretations in a 1973 book about the pipe picture, one cancelling out another. This picture of a pipe doesn’t make the pipe a pipe, of course, but there’s much more. This painting is not a pipe? Art is not a pipe? If you focus on the words and realise this sentence is not a pipe, suddenly a picture reclaims its dominance over the written word. See the rest.
The Museum Ludwig in Koln, Germany, owns “The Railway Station at Perpignan” from 1965 (detail here), described in the first entry on this biographical tour, as well as works by Lichtenstein and Warhol in the largest collection of pop art outside the US. 
The Munson-Williams Proctor Institute in Utica, New York, which has more than 25,000 artworks, including important pieces by Edward Hopper, Arshile Gorky, Pollock, Georgia O’Keeffe, Warhol, Kandinsky, Mondrian and Picasso, displays Dali’s “Cardinal, Cardinal!” from 1934 (detail seen here).
“My life,” Salvador Dali once said to the moans of his many detractors, “is one tragical sequence of exhibitionism.” There is a lot to dislike about Dali. He was a male chauvinist, ridiculed his friends’ needs, kowtowed to fascists, was bizarrely aberrant in sexual matters, admitted to “a pure, vertical, mystical, gothic love of cash” that ultimately almost wrecked the market for his own art, and he built a fortress of appalling megalomania around his fundamental absence of self-esteem. 
