Now. Case in reference. This is a parody in my mind.

For those of you who don't know, originally there was a painting entitled "The Treachery of Images" by Rene Magritte, a Belgian surrealist.

Here is a link to the painting in case you have never seen it before.:
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/0/02/300px-MagrittePipe.jpg

The text below is from one of my former art papers giving some insight to his original painting.

René’s style is very apparent in his The Treachery of Images. The painting is oil on canvas, and is only 1’ 11 5/8” x 3’1”, yet is stirred up many opinions about the painting. The painting itself it extremely simplistic, of a pipe on a plain background. Underneath, a description reads, “this is not a pipe.” (Ceci n’est pas une pipe.) With this text, it only “challenges the assumptions underlying the reading of visual art” (Kleiner 999). Quite clearly the image is of a pipe. It’s painted in perspective with highlights to show the curvature of the pipe. Of course the “visitor’s jeered at the early exhibitions of the law-breaking painter’s art” (Waldberg 22). Who wouldn’t? If a person only thinks in one mindset of it being a pipe rather than an image on a canvas, the text doesn’t make sense. But René’s painting of the pipe “is not the reproduction of a physical object, nor an idealized pipe [it is] the Platonic model of the object pipe” (Abadie 19).

Now we can conclude the pipe is not a three-dimensional object, which most people know as. However, this pipe is illustrated on a canvas with oil paint. René simply wanted to let us know that what we see on the canvas is not what is what we know in real life. We know the real life version of a pipe can hold tobacco, and a person is able to smoke it. In his painting, it is just that: a painting. It is impossible to smoke an image, making the pipe on the canvas not a pipe. This painting simply “wreaks havoc on the viewer’s reliance on the conscious and the rational” (Kleiner 999). But as Roudaut states, a person cannot hold the pipe, pick it up, or use it (24). If only the rest of the world could view into René’s style and realize that it is only a painting to view.

As I said before, this is a clever spin on Magritte's idea. It doesn't use the entire painting, yet it uses the text for a newer, pop culture idea. It uses the same philosophy he does, but it helps if people knew about Magritte's painting; however, not everyone is educated in the arts as most people would like to think.

But I find this to be a clever use and tie to pop culture.

Unfortunately, most of my friends have never heard of a blue-footed booby.

But most recently I was in MN visiting a friend, and I saw a girl wearing this shirt.

I had to explain it to my friend who I was with about the shirt. (He wanted to know why she was wearing a shirt with two birds that looked like that on it. He said he usually had seen sparrows.) It was hilarious when I explained it, as he had to go up to her and then say the title to her.

I have to say, if you're a girl and you wear this, congrats for being so bold, even though I find it in absolute hilarity how this is designed.

I absolutely love this.

It almost reminds me of the story of "Big Fish."

Well, the story behind it you know...

But, doesn't this design have 7 colors? I thought that 5 was the maximum limit.