fifteen theses on contemporary art

8/3/2019 Fifteen Theses on Contemporary Art

1/11

Fifteen

Theseson

Contemporary Art

Alain Badiou

To resumeagain...

Religion,PsychoanalysisJACQUES-ALAIN MILLER

The SupremeLuxuryMEHDI BELHAJ K ACEM

The Birth of the IntimateGRARD WAJCMAN

Jews,Christians,and other MonstersSLAVOJ ZIZEK

AConversationwith AlainBadiouMARIOGOLDE NBERG

FifteenTheses onContemporar y ArtALAIN BADIOU

KatyGrannanCATHY LEBO


2/11

WITZinterviews JOSEFINA AYERZA

I think everybody has the 15 theses, it isnecessary, I think, for the talk. I' ll commentabout the theses and you can read them. I think thegreat question about contemporary art is how not tobe Romantic. I t ' s the great question and a verydifficult one. More precisely, the question is how

not to be a formalist-Romantic. Something like amixture between Romanticism and formalism. On oneside is the absolute desire for new forms, alwaysnew forms, something like an infinite desire.Modernity is the infinite desire of new forms. But,on the other side, is obsession with the body, withfinitude, sex, cruelty, death. The contradiction ofthe tension between the obsession of new forms andthe obsession of finitude, body, cruelty, sufferingand death is something like a synthesis betweenformalism and Romanticism and it is the dominantcurrent in contemporary art. All the 15 theses haveas a sort of goal, the question how not to beformalist-Romantic. That is, in my opinion, thequestion of contemporary art.

Lombardi is reallya good example,and I am very gladto speak heretonight. We cansee that there issomething like ademonstration, aconnection, pointsof connections.You have somethingvery surprising,because Lombardi

knew all that before the facts. We have somewhere,a great drawing about the Bush dynasty which isreally prophetic, which is an artistic prophecy,that is a creation of a new knowledge, and so it ' sreally surprising to see that after the facts. Andit ' s really the capacity, the ability of art topresent something before the facts, before theevidence. And it ' s something calm and elevated,like a star. You know, it ' s like a galaxy, see,it ' s something like the galaxy of corruption. So,the three determinations are really in the works ofLombardi. And so it ' s the creation of a newpossibility of art and a new vision of the world,our world. But a new vision which is not purely

conceptual, ideological or political, a new visionwhich has it ' s proper shape, which creates a newartistic possibility, something which is newknowledge of the world has a new shape, like that.I t ' s really an illustration of my talk.

The first thesis: Art is not the sublime descent ofthe infinite into the finite abjection of the bodyand sexuality. I t is the production of an infinite


3/11

subjective series through the finite means of amaterial subtraction.

This is an intimation of how not to be a Romantic.I t consists of the production of a new infinitecontent, of a new light. I think it s the very aimof art; producing a new light about the world bymeans of precise and finite summarization. So, youhave to change the contradiction. The contradictiontoday is between the infinity of the desire for newforms and the finitude of the body, of thesexuality, and so on. And new art needs to changethe terms of this contradiction and put on the s ideof infinity new content, new light, a new vision ofthe world, and on the side of finitude, theprecision of means and of summarization. So, thefirst thesis is something like the reversal of thecontradiction.

Subtraction: the word subtraction has two meanings.First, not to be obsessed with formal novelty. I think it s a great question today because thedesire for novelty is the desire of new forms, aninfinite desire for new form. The obsession of newforms, the artistic obsession with novelty, ofcritique, of representation and so on, is reallynot a critical position about capitalism becausecapitalism itself is the obsession of novelty andthe perpetual renovation of forms. You have acomputer, but the following year it s not the truecomputer, you need a new one. You have a car, butthe coming year it s an old car, something like anold thing and so on. So, it s a necessity for us tosee that the complete obsession with new forms isnot really a critical position about the world asit is. I t s a possibility that the real desire,

which is subversive desire, is the desire ofeternity. The desire for something which is astability, something which is art, something whichis closed in-itself. I don t think it s quite likethat, but it s a possibility because the perpetualmodification of forms is not really a criticalposition, so the desire of new forms is certainlysomething important in art, but the desire for thestability of forms is also something important.And, I think we have to examine the question today.

The second meaning of subtraction is not to beobsessed with finitude, with cruelty, body,suffering, with sex and death, because it s onlythe reversal of the ideology of happiness. I n ourworld there is something like an ideology ofhappiness. Be happy and enjoy your life and so on.I n artistic creation we often have the reversal ofthat sort of ideology in the obsession withsuffering bodies, the difficulty of sexuality, andso on. We need not be in that sort of obsession.Naturally a critical position about the ideology ofhappiness is an artistic necessity, but it s alsoan artistic necessity to see it as a new vision, anew light, something like a positive new world. And


4/11

so, the question of art is also the question oflife and not always the question of death. I t is asignification of the first thesis; we have tosearch for an artistic creation which is notobsessed with formal novelty, with cruelty, death,body, and sexuality.

Second thesis: Art cannot merely be the expressionof a particularity (be it ethnic or personal). Artis the impersonal production of a truth that isaddressed to everyone.

The great question here is a question ofuniversality: is there, or i s there not, auniversality of artistic creation? Because thegreat question today is the question ofglobalization, the question of the unity of theworld. Globalization proposes to us an abstractuniversality. A universality of money, theuniversality of communication and the universalityof power. That is the universalism today. And so,against the abstract universality of money and ofpower, what is the question of art, what is thefunction of artistic creation? I s the function ofartistic creation to oppose, to abstract fromuniversality only a singularity of particularities,something like being against the abstraction ofmoney and of power, or as a community againstglobalization and so on? Or, is the function of artto propose another kind of universality? That s abig question. The more important issue today is themain contradiction between capitalisticuniversality on one hand, universality of themarket if you want, of money and power and so on,and singularities, particularities, the self of thecommunity. I t s the principal contradiction between

two kinds of universalities. On one side theabstract universality of money and power, and onthe other the concrete universality of truth andcreation. My position is that artistic creationtoday should suggest a new universality, not toexpress only the self or the community, but thatit s a necessity for the artistic creation topropose to us, to humanity in general, a new sortof universality, and my name for that is truth.Truth is only the philosophical name for a newuniversality against the forced universality ofglobalization, the forced universality of money andpower, and in that sort of proposition, thequestion of art is a very important questionbecause art is always a proposition about a newuniversality, and art is a signification of thesecond thesis.

Third thesis. I t s only a definition of theuniversality of art. What is an artistic truth?Artistic truth is different from scientific truth,from political truth, from other sorts of truths.The definition is that artistic truth is always atruth about the sensible, an outline of thesensual. I t s not a static sensible expression. An


5/11

artistic truth is not a copy of the sensible worldnor a static sensible expression. My definition isthat an artistic truth is a happening of l I d e inthe sensible itself. And, the new universality ofart is the creation of a new form of happening ofthe I dea in the sensible as such. I t s veryimportant to understand that an artistic truth is aproposition about the sensible in the world. I t s aproposition about a new definition of what is oursensible relation to the world, which is apossibility of universality against the abstractionof money and power. So, if a rt seems very importanttoday, it is because globalization imposes to usthe creation of a new kind of universality, whichis always a new sensibility and a new sensiblerelation to the world. And because the oppressiontoday is the oppression of abstract universality,we have to think of art along the direction of thenew sensible relation to the world. And so, today,artistic creation is a part of human emancipation,it s not an ornament, a decoration and so on. No,the question of art is a central question, and it scentral because we have to create a new sensiblerelation to the world. I n fact, without art,without artistic creation, the triumph of theforced universality of money and power is a realpossibility. So the question of art today is aquestion of political emancipation, there issomething political in art itself. There is notonly a question of art s political orientation,like it was the case yesterday, today it is aquestion in itself. Because art is a realpossibility to create something new against theabstract universality that is globalization.

Fourth thesis. This thesis is against the dream of

totalization. Some artists today are thinking thatthere is a possibility to fuse all the artisticforms, it s the dream of a complete multimedia. Butit s not a new idea. As you probably know, it wasthe idea of Richard Wagner, the total art, withpictures, music, poetry and so on. So the firstmultimedia artist was Richard Wagner. And, I thinkmultimedia is a false idea because it s the powerof absolute integration and it s something like theprojection in art of the dream of globalization.I t s a question of the unity of art like the unityof the world but it s an abstraction too. So, weneed to create new art, certainly new forms, butnot with the dream of a totalization of all theforms of sensibility. I t s a great question to havea relation to multimedia and to new forms ofimages, of art, which is not the paradigm oftotalization. So we have to be free about that sortof dream.

A few words about theses five and eight. Thequestion here is what exactly is the creation ofnew forms. I t s very important because of what I previously said about the infinite desire for newforms being a problem in contemporary art. We have


6/11

to be precise about the question of new forms inthemselves. What is the creation of new forms? I hint that, in fact, there is never exactly purecreation of new forms. I think it s a dream, liketotalization, pure creation of absolute new forms.I n fact, there is always something like a passageof something which is not exactly a form tosomething that is a form, and I argue that we havesomething like impurity of forms, or impure forms,and purification. So, in art there is not exactlypure creation of forms, God created the world, ifyou want, but there is something like progressivepurification, and complexification of forms insequence. Two examples if you wish. When Malevichpaints the famous white on white, the white squareon white square. I s that the creation of something?I n one sense yes, but in fact, it s the completepurification of the problem of the relation betweenshape and color. I n fact, the problem of therelation between shape and color is an old one witha long story and in Malevich s white square onwhite square, we have an ultimate purification ofthe story of the problem and also it s a creation,but it s also the end, because after white squareon white square there is, in one sense, nothing, wecannot continue. So we have a complete purificationand after Malevich all correlation between shapeand color looks old, or impure, but it s also theend of the question, and we have to begin withsomething else. We may say that with artisticcreation, it s not exactly the pure creation of newforms, something like the process of purificationwith beginnings and with ends too. So, we havesequences of purification, much more than purerupture of pure creation. And it s the content oftheses five and eight.

We come now to theses six and seven. The questionhere is what exactly is the subjective existence ofart? What is the subject in art, the subject in thesubjective sense? I t s a great discussion, a veryold one. What is the subject in art? What is theagent of art? The subject in art is not the artist.I t s an old thesis too, but an important one. So,if you think that the real subject in artistcreation is the artist, you are positing theartistic creation as the expression of somebody. I fthe artist is the subject, art is the expression ofthat subject, thereby art is something like apersonal expression. I n fact, it is necessary forcontemporary art to argue the case that art is apersonal expression, because you have nopossibility to create a new form of universalityand you oppose to the abstract form of universalityonly the expression of the self or the expressionof communities. So, you understand the link betweenthe different problems. I t s imperative for us tosay that the subject in artistic creation is notthe artist as such. Artist is a necessity forart, but not a subjective necessity. So, theconclusion is quite simple. The subjective


7/11

existence of art are the works of art, and nothingelse. The artist is not the subjective agent ofart. The artist is the sacrificial part of art.I t s also, finally, what disappears in art. And theethic of art is to accept the disappearance.Sometimes the artist is someone who wants toappear, but it s not a good thing for art. For art,if you want art to have today the very importantfunction of the creation of a new universality, ifyou think that art is something like a subjectiveexpression for the market, it s necessary that theartist make a great appearance, naturally, but ifart is the creation, the secret creation, somethinglike that, if art is not something of the market,but is something against the force of universalityof the market, the consequence is that the artistmust disappear, and not to be someone who appearsin the media and so on. And a critique of art issomething like a critique of something likedesperation. I f the ethic of art is something likedesperation, it is because what show are works ofart, which are the real subjective existence of artin-itself.

I t s also the same thing in thesis nine. I don tcomment The question of the ethic of art is not tobe imperial. Desperation because operation isalways something like imperial operation, becausethe law of operation is today imperial law.

About theses ten and eleven, I think we candemonstrate that imperial art is the name for whatis visible today. I mperial art is exactly Romantic-formalism. That is a historical thesis, or apolitical thesis if you want. The mixture ofRomanticism and formalism is exactly the imperial

art. Not only today, but, for example, during theRoman Empire too. There is something common betweenthe situation today and the situation at the end ofthe Roman Empire. I t s a good comparison, you see,and more precisely between the United States andthe Roman Empire. There is really something veryinteresting with that sort of comparison, and infact the question is also a question of artisticcreation, because by the end of the Roman Empire wehave exactly two dispositions in artistic creation.On one side, something really Romantic, expressive,violent, and on the other, something extremelyformalist, politically straight. Why? When we dealwith the situation of something like an empire,something like having the formal unity of theworld, if you want, it s not only the UnitedStates, it s finally the big markets, when we havesomething like a potential unity of the world, wehave in artistic creation something like formalismand Romanticism, a mixture of the two. Why? Becausewhen we have an empire, we have two principles.First, all is possible because we have a bigpotency, a unity of the world. So we may say, allis possible. We may create new forms, we may speakof everything, there is not really laws about what


8/11

is possible, what is not possible, so everything ispossible. Yet, we also have another maxim,everything is impossible, because there is nothingelse to have, the empire is the only possibleexistence, the only political possibility. So, youcan say that everything is possible and you can saythat everything is impossible, and when the two aresaid you have an artistic creation, formalism, thatis to say all is possible, new forms are alwayspossible, and Romanticism and nihilism because allis impossible, and finally, we have the mixture ofthe two, and contemporary art is saying that all ispossible and that all is impossible. Theimpossibility of possibility and the possibility ofimpossibility. That is the real content ofcontemporary art. To escape that sort of situationis to state that something is possible, not all ispossible, not all is impossible, but something elseis possible. There is a possibility of somethingelse. So, we have to create a new possibility. Butto create a new possibility is not the same thingas to realize a new possibility. I t s a veryfundamental distinction, to realize a possibilityis to think that the possibility is here and I needto conceive the possibility. For example, if all ispossible, I have to realize something, because allthings are possible, but, naturally, it s quite adifferent thing to create something possible. Thepossibility is not here. So, it is not true, thatall is possible, some things are not possible, andyou have to create the possibility of that thingwhich is not possible. And it is the great questionof artistic creation. I s artistic creation therealization of a possibility or is artisticcreation the creation of a new possibility? Thepossibility of something, the possibility of saying

something is possible. I f you think all is possible(that is the same as to think all is impossible),your conviction in the world is finished, the worldis something closed. I t is closed with all thepossibilities, which is the same thing thateverything are impossibilities and artisticcreation is closed too, it s closed in formalist-Romanticism which is the affirmation that all ispossible and all is impossible. But the truefunction of artistic creation today is thepossibility of saying that something is possible,so to create a new possibility. But where can wecreate a new possibility when something isimpossible? Because we can create a new possibilitywhen something is not a possibility. I f all ispossible, you cannot create a new possibility. So,the question of a new possibility is also thequestion of something impossible, so we have toassume that it s not true that all is possible,that also it s not true that all is impossible, wehave to say something is impossible where somethingis impossible. I have to create a new possibility.And, I think the creation of new possibility istoday the great function of art. I n otheractivities of circulation, communication, the


9/11

market and so on, we have always the realization ofpossibilities, infinite realization ofpossibilities. But not creation of possibility. Andso it s also a political question, because politicstruly means the creation of a new possibility. Anew possibility of life, a new possibility of theworld. And so the political determination ofartistic creation is today whether it is possible,or impossible to create a new possibility.Actually, globalization carries the conviction thatit is utterly impossible to create a newpossibility. And the end of Communism, and the endof revolutionary politics is, in fact, the dominantinterpretation of that all: it is impossible tocreate a new possibility. Not to realize apossibility, but to create a new possibility. Youunderstand the difference. And I think the questionof artistic creation lies here. I t proves foreverybody, for humanity in general, that it is apossibility to create a new possibility.

About thesis twelve. I t s a poetic thesis. Thethree determinations of artistic creation, tocompare artistic creation with a demonstration,with an ambush in the night and with a star. Youcan understand the three determinations. Why ademonstration? Because finally the question ofartistic creation is also the question of somethingodd, something possessing a sort of eternity,something which is not in pure communication, purecirculation, something which is not in the constantmodification of forms. Something which resists andresistance is a question of art also today.Something which resists is something endowed withsome stability, solid. Something which is a logicalequation, which has a logical coherence,

consistence, is the first determination. The seconddetermination is something surprising, somethingwhich is right away the creation of a newpossibility, but a new possibility is alwayssurprising. We cannot have a new possibilitywithout some sort of surprise. A new possibility issomething that we cannot calculate. I t s somethinglike a rupture, a new beginning, which is alwayssomething surprising. Thus, the seconddetermination. And it s marvelous, like somethingin the night, the night of our knowledge. A newpossibility is something absolutely new for ourknowledge, so it s the night of our knowledge.Something like a new light. Elevated as a starbecause a new possibility is something like a newstar. Something like a new planet, a new world,because it is a new possibility. Something like anew sensible relation to the world. But the greatproblem lies elsewhere. The formal problem forcontemporary art is not the determination, one byone. The problem is how to relate the three. To bethe star, the ambush, and the demonstration.Something like that. And Lombardi is really a goodexample, and I am very glad to speak here tonight.We can see that there is something like a


10/11

demonstration, a connection, points of connections.You have something very surprising, becauseLombardi knew all that before the facts. We havesomewhere, a great drawing about the Bush dynastywhich is really prophetic, which is an artisticprophecy, that is a creation of a new knowledge,and so it s really surprising to see that after thefacts. And it s really the capacity, the ability ofart to present something before the facts, beforethe evidence. And it s something calm and elevated,like a star. You know, it s like a galaxy, see,it s something like the galaxy of corruption. So,the three determinations are really in the works ofLombardi. And so it s the creation of a newpossibility of art and a new vision of the world,our world. But a new vision which is not purelyconceptual, ideological or political, a new visionwhich has it s proper shape, which creates a newartistic possibility, something which is newknowledge of the world has a new shape, like that.I t s really an illustration of my talk.

The last thesis. I think the great question is thecorrelation between art and humanity. Moreprecisely the correlation between artistic creationand liberty. I s artistic creation somethingindependent in the democratic sense of freedom? I think if you consider Lombardi for a second time,we may consider the issue of creating a newpossibility as not exactly a question of freedom,in the common sense, because there is an imperialdefinition of freedom today, which is the commondemocratic definition. I s artistic creationsomething like that sort of freedom? I think not. I think the real determination of artistic creationis not the common sense of f reedom, the imperial

sense of freedom. I t s a creation of a new form ofliberty, a new form of freedom. And we may see herethat sort of thing because the connection betweenthe logical framework, the surprise of newknowledge, and the beauty of the star is adefinition of freedom which is much more complexthan the democratic determination of freedom.

I think of artistic creation as the creation of anew kind of liberty which is beyond the democraticdefinition of liberty. And we may speak ofsomething like an artistic definition of libertywhich is intellectual and material, something likeCommunism within a logical framework, because thereis no liberty without logical framework, somethinglike a new beginning, a new possibility, rupture,and finally something like a new world, a newlight, a new galaxy. This is the artisticdefinition of liberty and the issue today consistsnot in an art discussion between liberty anddictatorship, between liberty and oppression, butin my opinion, between two definitions of libertyitself.

The artistic question of the body in some art


11/11

forms, like cinema or dance, is precisely thequestion of the body within the body and not thebody without body. I t is an idealistic conceptionof the body without the body or the body assomething else, crucial in the story ofChristianity and in Paul. For example in the Greekclassical painting the body is a lways somethingelse than the body, and if you consider somethinglike the body in Tintoretto, for example, the bodyis something like movement which is body likesomething else than the body. But in fact today thebody has a body, the body in the body is the bodyas such. And the body as such is something veryhard, because the body has no representation whichis really a representation as a star, somethinglike that. I n that sort of painting (Lombardi), wehave names, and no bodies. I t is a substitution ofnames to bodies. We have no picture of Bin Laden,but the name of Bin Laden. We have no picture ofBush, but the name of Bush. Father and sons.

fifteen theses on contemporary art

Documents