I see the relationship to photography as a negative one: a kind of bras d'honneur of painting towards the limitations of photography. Manet also did a few paintings that went against the laws of optics to prove the point that painting had abilities beyond what the camera could do.
So there is the representation of the impossible, or the fictive, implicitly in opposition to the common perception of photography as an art petrified in the here and there. Other Magritte paintings, like the pipe, the painter creating a woman, or the apples, are representations of the impossible, but I think it's the use of light to represent impossibility that makes the painting more relevant to photography.
Magritte is drawing with light, but what's more he is drawing light itself, and having a ball doing so.
I agree, to go past, nay, to defeat realism was his and the other surrealists' goal.
aristotelis grammatikakis www.arigram.gr Real photographs, created in camera, 100% organic,
no digital additives and shit