On Badiou a bit

In the first two paragraphs of his article Cinema As A Democratic Emblem, French philosopher Alain Badiou tries to give an account of philosophy through cinema. In this account, middle term enabling the account is paradoxical relations. For Badiou, philosophy only exists insofar as there are paradoxical relations and cinema offers us paradoxical relations. So without a difficulty, it can be inferred that cinema has a vital role for the existence of philosophy.

Although it is problematic, I do not disagree with the claim that since it offers paradoxical relations, cinema is crucial for the possibility of philosophy requiring paradoxical relations. But in order to say that philosophy only exists insofar as there are paradoxical relations [italic is mine], one should show that without these paradoxical relations, philosophy does not exist. Or if he argues that cinema alone can manage to offer paradoxical relations, he should not base his claim on the idea that there is a clear requisitioning of philosophy by cinema or vice versa, because via this additional claim, his argument seems to be circular.

Moreover, although cinema’s offer of paradoxical relations requires some kind of requisitioning, I think, it is not requisitioning of cinema by philosophy, but rather requisitioning of philosophy by cinema, because it is cinema which offers paradoxical relations, argues Badiou.

Meanwhile French philosopher makes a strange definition of philosophy stating that philosophy is the violence done by thought to impossible relations. Although it is also worth mentioning, strangeness of the definition above is not due to the use of the word impossible instead of the word paradoxical as if they are synonymous, but rather due to the use of the word violence which has negative connotations. But it is used in sense that since it is done to impossible relations having also negative connotations, the word violence seems to get rid of its pejorative sense.

Apart from my views concerning the definition, via it, Badiou refers to Deleuze. Although thinking seems an intentional act which is under our control, Deleuze maintains that we do not think, but thinking happens to us surpassing our anatomy of choice or beyond our morality. Violence of thinking or thought implies this situation as a kind of necessity (Colebrook, 2006, p. 38).

For Deleuze, since it demands a reconsideration of both time and image, cinema also offers a reconsideration of both becoming and life. As far as cinema transforms it, philosophy remains open to life and in this respect cinema’s offering of an image of time is crucially important (Colebrook, 2006, p. 29). So   the expression of “after Deleuze” which is followed by the statement there is a clear requisitioning of philosophy by cinema is the only expression about which I am not skeptical in the first two paragraphs of Badiou’s article.

Since they are both short and yet dense, these first two paragraphs have quite indirect character. More than this, Badiou does not convey his prior arguments and justification causing the remarks that he expresses. So they are difficult to make sense of.

As far as I understand, in the fourth paragraph, Badiou posits cinema as an ontological art in the sense that cinema offers a more fundamental relation, namely the relation between being and appearance, than the relation between the virtual and the actual. At this point, in my opinion, it is important to note that Badiou avoids using the concept of reality, but instead he prefers using the concept of being. Since the concept of being along with the concept of event is crucial in Badiou’s philosophical project. So it is important to understand what being means to Badiou for further elaboration.  Anyway the fundamental relation offered by cinema stems from a kind of simultaneity between the copy of reality and the artificial dimension of this copy. But prior to articulating his proclaim as cinema as an ontological art, Badiou uses concepts such as real, artifice and false in such a way that he ends up with devastating statements for my mind. The false copy of a false real or the real artifice of the copy of a false copy of the real are some illustrations.

After stating it is an ontological art, Badiou offers a new definition for cinema: Cinema is a mass art. With its emphasis on “at the very moment of their creation”, Badiou’s definition is relevant as well as interesting. I think cinema’s being a mass art is directly related with the concept of generic humanity. Since, though not always, cinema can offer a view of humanity which is devoid of its differences, it can be liked millions of people from different social and cultural backgrounds. If “at the very moment of their creation” will be taken as the main criterion for the masterpieces of mass art, cinema as a mass art has no opponent.

When Badiou further elucidates his notion of mass art, why cinema offers various paradoxical relations become more apparent. Since the syntagm of mass art itself is paradoxical in its own. Although I am still not sure about the meaning of paradoxical in Badiou’s lexicon, the contrast between mass and art, i.e. democracy and aristocracy makes sense.

Colebrook, C. (2006). Gilles Deleuze. New York: Routledge.

M. Kemal İz