Badiou Confusion

As a matter of fact, I’d like to start by gossiping about Badiou a little. By being aware that he does not far from politics, I cannot understand that which sides he takes: whether he regards cinema as transcending to all art or he considers it as a collage of other arts.  Also, in his Cinema as a Democratic Emblem, he has really big expressions starting in the very beginning of his article and  they dominate it. Even he says that he has chosen statement that is simpler and removed from all philosophical preformation for beginning of five attempts to cinema as a mass art; he uses his own understanding of philosophy regarding its existence only insofar as there are paradoxical relationships. Then, he has set cinema as a mass art, he indicates that cinema exists in paradoxical relationships as well and he comes to imperious point that this “philosophy” goes to cinema itself, lastly for philosophy, he says it becomes mass philosophy. For philosophy and cinema relationship, for now, I take Cavell’s side and thanks to his quote that saves me from this big issue in Badiou’s article: “Film is made for philosophy; it shifts or puts different light on whatever philosophy has said about appearance and reality, about actors and characters, about scepticism and dogmatism, about presence and absence.” (1999 25)

For I believe that it is really hard to fit philosophy in such a sentence saying big “things”, I aspire to skip to tell what kind of paradoxical relations he possibly would like to say for existence of philosophy. Thus, after arguing some points of his five attempts, I’ll speculate his article in the context of what I really work through in these days, namely whether cinema is art or not.

Even it reveals some ideas to me, I really obsessed the argument that cinema as a mass art. First of all, we notice that giving five attempts to his argument, Badiou seems to justify his sayings. Yes, for beginning, he derives the idea of paradoxical relations which philosophy exists only insofar with them. However, he puts “mass” and “art” together on his own. Although he regards mass which is millions of people from all social groups who see and like the “masterpieces” of art works, the mass in itself belongs to only and actually political category. (Do you think that to be masterpieces of art is about their (that millions of people’s) own taste i.e do they make the artwork as artwork by seeing and liking them?) To say that to be seen by millions is associated with understanding of the “mass” without political aspect would be naïve. As regard to “art” part, like he said, it is about individuality (such as individual education) which really makes sense for me. Then, for him, paradoxical relations came on the scene and he shows these relations in his five “attempts” that I’ve critics for some. Nonetheless, after saying that cinema as a mass art, I can also say that it is really simple to justify himself since you can talk anything related to “masses”. However, the issue is greater than that: rather than being mass art or not, it is about whether cinema is art or not.

First attempt is about image. He simply argues that “cinema is the height of the visual offered as semblance. And since there can be no identification without support of semblance, we’ll say that cinema is the final mastery of the metaphysical cycle of identification”. (p.3) However, as we know, cinema can set the identification via the difference. It is not that simple like he has mentioned. After taking mass in the account, cinema’s masses can be at base pious masses for him.  Moreover, he says that cinema is the series of the arts in his third attempt. He is right to point that cinema retains from paintings, music, novel and theatre. Now, at this point, despite he seems to offer a “good” insight into cinema by related it with others, I think that he insults the cinema itself. Since cinema is not only collage of other arts which are make popular in Badiou’s understanding, but also it is filmic experience itself.

Additionally, as come to fourth point which makes me really confused, we can see cinema is in the place of where art and non-art indistinguishable. For him, cinema is the edge of non-art and by his expression “Cinema is an art particularly charged with non-art” (p.4). He says this since he thinks that even masterpieces of cinema have great number of banal and ordinary images, stereotypes etc… However, do you think that it is enough to say that cinema is, by a high number of its ingredients, always beneath art? We can say that cinema can live on banal images and vulgar material but do they make cinema as an art charged with non-art? What if other cinema films which do not include banal images? Isn’t it much simple explanation for cinema? Maybe, if we say cinema as a mass art, it can be plausible but, as you understand my concern, the issue is truly about cinema as an art or not?

Beyond saying that cinema as a mass art, he also interprets cinema having democratic advantage since after seeing a film, he thinks that even an ordinary audience can leave the movie theater by rising. (Actually, what he means by saying to rise unexpectedly is problematic, too; it makes sense only his reference of Aristotle) Yet, my point is this: by his sayings, namely, after seeing a movie, there can be “rising” (but it is not possible by seeing a painting) but I understand that he, as a matter of fact, talks about filmic experience which makes me takes sides to idea that cinema as an art in the sense of film-itself, since the film flows as experiencing Gogh’s Starry Night or Virgin of Klimt.

Cinema may not be an art but it is not a mass art. Let me say this: I do not know whether cinema is an art or not but I know that it is not a mass art like Badiou has called even though I respect his sayings and for some points I really think that they are significant. Unfortunately, we cannot think art without politics since we cannot think art without human in a sense. Even if it is naïve to say, I’d like to say that art can be associated with politics but art is above politics, like philosophy.

Last remonstrance: Leave the masses, it is art; a work of art or art can lead the masses but art, for me, cannot be for masses. Art cannot be a medium; if it is seen as a medium, it should also be seen that to be a medium is inevitable result in one sense but it is not necessary cause for being art itself.

Sinem Aydınlı