Q: What are some differences between a photograph of something and thing itself?

Belgian surrealist Rene Magritte once painted a picture of a pipe (entitled “The Treachery of Images”). While the image itself was simple, the message it conveyed was anything but. A caption within the painting read simply “This is not a pipe.” Now that Magritte has told us what it is not, I am going to describe what it is. It is merely visual representation of a pipe. What prevents it from being an actual pipe is the lack of physical properties*. You cannot hold it, or smoke it, or even throw it at someone you don’t like. It exists only within a 2-dimensional universe you will never be a part of. The same concept can be applied to photography. Had Magritte used a photograph of a pipe, the message would have remained unchanged. However, I think that this provides a productive challenge to photographers. Photography can allow us to view the world from a completely unique perspective. If it is, in fact, just a visual depiction of a pipe, then depict the shit out of it! Like nobody has before. There are an infinite number of ways to look at something, find one that’s unique. The camera’s eye sometimes has the ability to capture images ours cannot, and it would be foolish to ignore these powers. What I’m suggesting is a departure from visual representation into visual creation.

*Most pictures these days don’t even exist within the 2-dimensional, physical world. Rather they exist virtually within the screen of your computer. In this case, the pipe has become a clusterfuck of tiny electronic pixels. In his book "A Man without a Country", Kurt Vonnegut writes:
"Electronic communities build nothing. You wind up with nothing. We are dancing animals. How beautiful it is to get up and go out and do something. We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different."
Pixelation is destroying the world, go smoke a pipe.