The Subject of Art

Alain Badiou

My Father was accustomed to say, "we must begin by the beginning." So, I must begin this lecture about the subject of art by its beginning. But, what is this beginning? I thin we ha!e to begin with the oldest "uestion#the "uestion of being, the "uestion of being as being, of being "ua being. $hat is being? $hat are we saying when we say something is, something of art is%? Something of art is a joy fore!er, for e&am'le. $hat are we saying? I begin by a fundamental distinction between three le!els of the signification of being. First, when I say something is, I just say something is a 'ure multi'licity. (Something is( and (something is a multi'licity( is the same sentence. So, it(s a le!el of being "ua being. Being as such is 'ure multi'licity. And the thin ing of a 'ure multi'licity is finally mathematics. )he second le!el is when we are saying something e&ists. It is the "uestion of e&istence as a distinct "uestion of the "uestion of being as such. $hen we are saying something e&ists we are not s'ea ing of a 'ure multi'licity. $e are s'ea ing of something which is here, which is in a world. So e&istence is being in a world, being here or, if you want, a''earing, really a''earing in a concrete situation. )hat is *something e&ists.( And finally, the third le!el is when we are saying that something ha''ens. $hen something ha''ens we are not only saying that it is a multi'licity#a 'ure multi'licity, and we are not only saying that it is something in a world#something which e&ists here and now. (Something ha''ens( is something li e a cut in the continuum of the world, something which is new, something also which disa''ears#which a''ears, but also which disa''ears. Because ha''ening is when a''earing is the same thing as disa''earing. And so we ha!e to understand the relation between the three le!els, the relation between being "ua being +'ure multi'licity,, e&istence +multi'licity but in a world, here and now,, and ha''ening or e!ent. And so we can see that in a concrete situation we ha!e, finally, two terms- first, a world, a world situation#something 3

where all things e&ist. and after that, an e!ent, sometimes, an e!ent#which is something which ha''ens for this world, not in this world, but for this world. And I call a subject (a relation between an e!ent and the world.( Subject is e&actly what ha''ens when as the conse"uence of an e!ent in a world we ha!e a creation, a new 'rocess, the e!ent of something. And so we ha!e something li e that. It(s something li e in a 'rotest% )he 'oint is that the relation, the subjecti!e relation between an e!ent and the world cannot be a direct relation. $hy? Because an e!ent disa''ears on one side, and on the other side we ne!er ha!e a relation with the totality of the world. So when I say that the subject is a relation between an e!ent and the world we ha!e to understand that as an indirect relation between something of the e!ent and something of the world. )he relation, finally, is between a trace and the body. I call trace (what subsists in the world when the e!ent disa''ears.( It(s something of the e!ent, but not the e!ent as such. it is the trace, a mar , a sym'tom. And on the other side, the su''ort of the subject#the reality of the subject in the world#I call (a new body.( So we can say that the subject is always a new relation between a trace and a body. It is the construction in a world, of a new body, and jurisdiction#the commitment of a trace. and the 'rocess of the relationshi' between the trace and the body is, 'ro'erly, the new subject. So when you ha!e to s'ea of the subject of art you ha!e to s'ea about a lot of things. First, what is a world of art? $hat is a world for artistic creation? It(s not the world in general. It is a s'ecific world for the artistic creation% ah/ the 'olice. So this is the first "uestion. )he second "uestion is#what is an artistic e!ent? $hat is the new singularity in the de!elo'ment of the art world? )hird, what is a trace? $hat is the trace of an e!ent in the art field? And after all that#what is the construction of the new art body? But before all that, I want to clarify by some e&am'les the "uestion of the subject as a relation between trace of an e!ent and construction of the body in a 3

concrete world. And I want to refer to our situation today#to our world today# because I thin that there are today two subjecti!e 'aradigms. I can 'ro'ose that the concrete situation of our world today is something li e a war between two subjecti!e 'aradigms, two norms of what is a subject. )he first one is a strictly materialist and monist 'hiloso'hy of the subject. And what is, finally, a monist 'hiloso'hy of the subject? It is the affirmation that there is no distinction, no real distinction between the subject and the body. If you want, in the first 'aradigm, I show% +drawing figure,. )he first 'aradigm% the subject is something which is finally identified to the body as such. So the subjecti!e creation as a sort of 'aradigm is only e&'erimentation of the limits of the body. e&'erience of the limits of the concrete unity of the body. )he subject is something li e an e&'erience of its 'ro'er limits, an e&'erience of finitude, an But finally, what is a limit of the body, a limit of the li!ing body? )he strongest limit of the li!ing body is death. So we can say that in the form of the subjecti!e 'aradigm the subject is e&'erimentation of death as final limit of the body. And I thin , for e&am'le, that there is something li e that in the e&tremist form of body art. Body art is e&'erimentation, direct e&'erimentation of the limits of the body as e&'osition of itself. But, in fact, the absolute limit of something li e body art is e&'erimentation of death as such. and the real and final e&'erimentation in the field of body art can be to commit suicide in 'ublic. for death. And it(s a 'hiloso'hical determination, because a long time ago 0eidegger said that finally 1asein or subject is a subject I can name, in general, the subjecti!e 'aradigm which is e&'erimentation of the limits of the body something li e enjoyment because enjoyment is the name of e&'erimentation of death in life, e&'erimentation of the big thing +das 1ing, as death in life itself. So we can say that the first 'aradigm of subjecti!ity in our world is the 'aradigm of subjecti!ity as enjoyment. But in enjoyment we ha!e to hear the French jouissance#that is e&actly the same word. And the definition of enjoyment is e&'erimentation of death in life with e&'erimentation of the limits of the body. And naturally enjoyment is beyond 'leasure. 2leasure is something li e e&'erimentation of life in life, but enjoyment is beyond 'leasure because it(s e&'erimentation of the limit of the body as death. So we can say that the sort of subjecti!ity, the 'aradigm of subjecti!ity is a 3

subject for enjoyment. And I thin it is the $estern 'aradigm today. it is, in fact, our 'aradigm#subject for enjoyment and the e&'erimentation of the limits of the body. )he second one, the second 'aradigm is an idealistic, theological, meta'hysical 'hiloso'hy of the subject. )he subject can be com'letely se'arated from its body. In the first 'aradigm the subject is finally the body itself. In the second 'aradigm, the subject is com'letely se'arated from its body. it is against the subject as subject for enjoyment, the re!i!al of a 'rofound desire of se'aration, the desire of e&istence of the subject as se'arated of its body. )he goal is to find #in life, in action#the 'oint where the body is only the instrument of the new se'aration. And you see, it is not e&'erimentation of death in life as in enjoyment, but it(s assum'tion of a new subjecti!e life by the mean of death itself. So we can say that that sort of subjecti!e 'aradigm is e&'erience of life in death, which is o''osed to the e&'erience of death in life. And we can name sacrifice that sort of subjecti!e e&'erience of life in death. And the contem'orary world is a war between enjoyment and sacrifice. And the war against terrorism is, finally the war between enjoyment and sacrifice. But in this war there is something in common. )here is something in common between the two 'aradigms. $hat is common to enjoyment and to sacrifice, finally, what is common is the 'ower of death, the 'ower of death as e&'erimentation of the limits of the body on one side but e&'erimentation of death as the means for a new life on the other side. So with the war between enjoyment and sacrifice, we ha!e finally confronted the 'ower of death. And there is no real 'lace for artistic creation in that sort of war#I am con!inced of this 'oint#neither on the side of the 'ower of death as enjoyment neither on the side of the 'ower of death as sacrifice. )here is no real o'ening for new artistic creation. So we ha!e to find a third 'ossibility, a third 'aradigm. $e ha!e to 'ro'ose something as a new subjecti!e 'aradigm which is outside the 'ower of death#which is neither enjoyment +that is 'leasure beyond 'leasure and limits of the body, nor satisfaction in the sacrifice +that is enjoyment in another world, of 'leasure 3

beyond suffering,.

$e can say that#neither 'leasure beyond 'leasure nor In a much more

'leasure beyond suffering, neither enjoyment nor sacrifice. theoretical framewor we can say something li e that.

$e ha!e three 'ossibilities of relation between a subject and its body. )hree 'ossibilities. And so, we ha!e three 'ossibilities for a subjecti!e 'aradigm. )he first one#reducibility. 3educibility. )he subject can be reduced to its body. $e can say that we ha!e, in that case, an immanent identity of the subject, immanent identity because there is no se'aration at all, but com'lete identification between the 'rocess of the subject and the becoming of its body. In that case the norm#the final norm is enjoyment, the e&'erimentation of death in life. )he second is se'arability. Se'arability% )he subject can be se'arated com'letely from its body. )here is, in that case, transcendent difference, transcendent difference because the subject e&'eriments itself in the transcendent world and not in the sacrifice of its 'ro'er world. )he third 'ossibility that I 'ro'ose is something li e immanent difference, not immanent identity, not transcendent difference, but immanent difference. In that case, the subject is not reducible to its body, so there is something li e an inde'endent subjecti!e 'rocess. )here really is a creation, which is not reducible to the So there is neither e&'erimentation of the limits of the body. But it(s im'ossible that there e&ists some se'aration between the subject and its body. se'aration nor reducibility. And that is the situation of the subject when we can understand it as a 'rocess of creation, a 'rocess of 'roduction, a 'rocess, which really organi4es the relation between the trace of an e!ent and the construction of a new body in the world. And so we ha!e to find something which is not in the field of the contem'orary war between enjoyment and sacrifice. And I thin the "uestion of the subject of art is today this "uestion#to find something li e a new subjecti!e 'aradigm, which is outside the contem'orary war between enjoyment and sacrifice. And we ha!e a lot of 'roblems to organi4e in this new 'aradigm# a new 'aradigm, which has to understand com'letely how a new body can be oriented by a subjecti!e 'rocess without se'aration and without identification. So

we ha!e to maintain the distance between the trace of an e!ent and the construction of the body. I show you once more my re!endication which is, you can understand now, is a re!endification of a new subjecti!e 'aradigm. 5i!e me a new subjecti!e 'aradigm. And so you can see that if the subject is com'letely an identity with the body there is no real difference between the trace and the body. And so, finally, the subject is com'letely in the world. If you ha!e a com'lete se'aration between the subject and the body, the subject is com'letely on the side of the trace, and so it is com'letely de'endent on the e!ent as an absolute e!ent, an e!ent which is outside the world. So on one side, the subject is com'letely in the world and it is an e&'erimentation of the limit of the world, and on the other side, it is com'letely outside the world and so it is on the side of something li e an absolute e!ent, and so something as god, li e god. 6an you understand? So in the two subjecti!e 'aradigms of the contem'orary war we find the subjecti!e 'rocess as a com'lete immanent situation and in distinction with the world, or com'lete se'aration and in distinction with the radical absolute e!ent. $e can see in the two 'aradigms that we cannot ha!e something li e a real 'rocess of 'roduction without e&'erimentation of the limits, finally, of death in the life of the world, or you ha!e something li e transcendency and religious determination. So the "uestion of the subject of art is really to maintain the distinction between the body on one side and the trace of the e!ent on the other side. And so we ha!e, I thin , to sol!e something li e fi!e 'roblems. So it(s a criterium of si4e that I gi!e to you to sol!e fi!e 'roblems. First one, first 'roblem#if really the subjecti!e 'rocess as a 'rocess of creation is in the field of a distance +but an un7se'arated distance, between the trace and the body we ha!e to inter'ret the e!ent as an affirmati!e one and not as a 'urely disa''earing or transcendent thing. If really the trace of the e!ent is in the constitution of the subject, but not reducible to the body, we ha!e to understand that an e!ent, a real e!ent is something affirmati!e. And it(s a com'le& "uestion because certainly there is a sort of disa''earing of the e!ent, and e!ent is a s'lit, 3

a brea of the law of the world. So what is the relation in a real e!ent between the negati!e dimension#ru'ture, brea , s'lit, as you want#and the affirmati!e necessity if really an e!ent is not absolute and real e!ent? So we ha!e to thin of an e!ent, and for e&am'le, of an artistic e!ent, as something li e an affirmati!e s'lit. It(s the first 'roblem. )he second 'roblem is the !ery nature of the trace#the trace of an e!ent if an e!ent is something li e an affirmati!e s'lit. $hat is a trace? And it is a !ery com'le& distinction because a trace has to be in the world. )he e!ent is not e&actly in the world, but the trace has to be in the world. And so, what is the trace? $hat is the real trace, which is in the world but which is in relation with the e!ent as affirmati!e s'lit? It(s the second big 'roblem. )he third 'roblem is#what is the constitution of the new body? Because

naturally we ha!e in the case of the subjecti!e 'rocess something li e the new body. 8nly a new body is in the 'ossible dis'osition to ha!e something new in the creation in relation to the trace of the e!ent. )he trace of the e!ent is not reducible to the body, but the body is not reducible to the world. 8nce more, once more. +showing figure, 9ou can see that if the subjecti!e 'rocess is really in the distance of the trace and the body, we ha!e to inter'ret the construction of the body as the new body because if the body is not the new body it is com'letely in the world and it(s not in relation, in com'lete relation to the trace of the e!ent as an affirmati!e s'lit in direction of the world. So the third 'roblem is #what is a new body in the world? $hat is a new com'osition of multi'licities? $hat is really something, which is the su''ort of the subjecti!e 'rocess, the su''ort of a trace? )hat is the third 'roblem. )he fourth 'roblem is the "uestion of conse"uences. $e ha!e a new body. $e ha!e a relation to the trace of an e!ent, so we ha!e something which is materialist creation, the 'rocess of materialist creation of something new. $hat are the conse"uences of all that and how can we be in the disci'line of the conse"uences? Because naturally, if there is something new in the subjecti!e 3

'rocess we ha!e to acce't the incor'oration in the new body and so the disci'line of the conse"uences, of the 'ractical conse"uences of the new body. And the final 'roblem is to find something li e an immanent infinity because if the subjecti!e 'rocess is something li e a new creation in the world we ha!e an infinity of conse"uences. $e cannot ha!e an e&'erimentation of the limits, 'recisely. $e are not in the first 'aradigm which is e&'erimentation of the limits. In fact, there are no limits. )here are 'otentially#!irtually +to s'ea as 1eleu4e, #we ha!e !irtually an infinity of conse"uences. But this infinity is not a transcendent one. it(s an immanent infinity. It is the infinity of the body itself in relation to the trace. So we ha!e to understand what is an immanent infinity and not a transcendent infinity. So our fi!e 'roblems are- e!ent as an affirmati!e s'lit. $hat is e&actly the trace of an e!ent? $hat does the constitution in the world of the new body mean? 0ow can we acce't the disci'line of conse"uences? And what is an immanent infinity? And that is the "uestions we ha!e to sol!e to say something about the artistic subject. So I ha!e to sol!e the fi!e 'roblems. 8r I ha!e to say something about the 'ossibility of sol!ing the fi!e 'roblems, but in the artistic field, not in general#not in general since the 'roblem is absolute% It concerns all ty'es of subjecti!e 'rocesses. But what is the "uestion in the artistic field? +drawing diagram,% First, we ha!e to say what is an artistic world. $hat is a world of art? Something li e that is our first "uestion, our 'reliminary "uestion. I 'ro'ose to say that a world is an artistic one, a situation of art, a world of art when it 'ro'oses to us a relation between chaotic dis'osition of sensibility and what is acce'table as a form. So an artistic situation, in general, is always something li e relation between a chaotic dis'osition of sensibility in general +what is in the 'hysical, what is in the audible, and in general, and what is a form. So it(s a relation +an artistic world, between sensibility and form. And it(s finally a 'ro'osition between 3

the s'lit of sensibility, between what is formalism#what can be formali4ed of the sensibility#and what cannot. So, it(s something li e that. +drawing diagram, (S( is sensibility, (F( is form, so the general formula for an artistic world is sensibility in the dis'osition of relation between what is a form and what is not a form. So something li e that, !ery sim'le. So when we ha!e something li e an e&'erimentation of relation of that ty'e between sensibility and form we ha!e something li e general artistic situation. It(s a com'letely abstract definition, but you can see the nature of the definition. So, if you want, the state of affairs in the artistic world is always a relation between something li e our e&'erimentation of chaotic sensibility in general, and the distinction, which is a mo!ing distinction, between form and inform, or something li e that. And so we e&'eriment with an artistic situation when we e&'eriment with something which is in the relation between sensibility, form, and inform. But if this is true, what is an artistic e!ent? $hat is the general formula for an artistic e!ent? $e can say that, generally s'ea ing, an artistic e!ent, a real artistic e!ent is a change in the formula of the world. So it(s a fundamental transformation of that sort of formula. So it(s something li e the becoming formal of something which was not. It(s the emergence of a new 'ossibility of formali4ation, or if you want, it(s an acce'tance li e form of something which was inform. It(s the becoming form of something which was not a form. And so it(s a new current in the chaotic sensibility. It(s a new dis'osition of the immanent And we can ha!e relation between chaotic sensibility and formali4ation. affirmati!e s'lit. +drawing figure,

something li e that, which is, if you want, the e!ent#the artistic e!ent as an )his time, (S( is always sensibility, (F( is form and (F:( is the new dis'onibilit; of the formali4ation. And so you ha!e something li e that when you ha!e an artistic e!ent. Sensibility is organi4ed in a new way because something which was inform#that is, a symbol of negation, we ha!e negation +drawing, yeah?#something which was inform, or no formali4ation is acce'ted as a new form. So we ha!e here the becoming of inform in something which is formalism and the s'lit is with the new negation of form, which is the

negation of F:. So that is e&actly the general form of an artistic e!ent as an affirmati!e s'lit. $hy is it an affirmati!e s'lit? It(s a s'lit because we always ha!e relation

between affirmati!e form and negati!e one. $hat is formalist#what is acce'ted as a form and what is not acce'ted as a form. So it(s a s'lit in the chaotic sensibility between form and inform, but it(s a new determination of the s'lit, affirmati!e s'lit, because something which was in negation is in affirmation. Something which was not a form becomes something li e a form. So we are really in an artistic e!ent. Something +showing diagram,% so we can see the affirmati!e idea of the s'lit is when something which was in the negation, 'art of the formalist im'ossibility, becomes affirmati!e 'ossibility. So we can say that in the field of artistic creation the affirmati!e s'lit is finally something li e a new dis'osition between what is a form and what is not. And the becoming in a 'ositi!e form of something which was not a form is the affirmati!e dimension of an artistic e!ent. $hat is a body? $hat is the construction of a new body? A new body in the artistic field is something li e a real concrete creation#a wor of art, 'erformances, all that you want#but which are in relation with the trace of the e!ent. )he trace of the e!ent is something li e that#the declaration always that something really is a form, that something new of the dignity of the wor of art# and that is the trace. )he trace is something li e a manifesto, if you want, something li e a new declaration, something which says, "this was not a form and it(s really now a form." )hat is the declaration, so the trace of the e!ent. And a new body is something li e a wor of art, which is in relation with that sort of trace. And often in the field of artistic creation is a new school, a new tendency. )here is, generally s'ea ing, some names#names of a school, names of a tendency, names of a new fashion as a dimension of artistic creation#and that is a new body. It(s a new body, which is in the world, in the artistic world, in the new artistic world. It(s the creation of something new in the artistic world in correlation to the trace. And we understand what is the disci'line of 3

conse"uences in the artistic field#disci'line of conse"uences is a new subjecti!e 'rocess, is something li e really a new e&'erimentation, a new e&'erimentation of the forms, a new e&'erimentation of the relation between the forms and chaotic sensibility. And so it(s the same of the new school, of the new tendency, of the new forms of creation, of artistic creation. And the !ery interesting 'roblem is the final 'roblem- what is, in all that, the immanent infinity? $hat is the creation, in an artistic subjecti!e field, of a new e&istence of infinite? I thin in the artistic field the immanent infinity is finally something li e the infinity of the form itself. And what is infinity of the form itself? It(s the 'ossibility that the new form#the new 'ossibility of the form#is in relation, in direct relation with the chaotic sensibility. And a new form is always a new access, a new manner, a new entry, a new access in the chaotic of sensibility. And so we can say that in the artistic field the creation of forms is really the mo!ement of immanent infinity, is really an access of the infinity of the world as such. And so we are really in the de!elo'ment of a new tendency, so, of a new body in the artistic field, something li e a new de!elo'ment of immanent infinity. It(s not only something else. it(s a new manner of thin ing of the infinite itself. And it is why it is !ery im'ortant today to ha!e something li e new artistic e&'erimentation because I thin that the 'olitical "uestion today is !ery obscure. I was saying that our 'roblem is to find something which is not in the field of the war between enjoyment and sacrifice, to find something which is really a third subjecti!e 'aradigm. I thin that is the s'ecific res'onsibility of artistic creation# this search#because often when 'olitical determination are obscure artistic determinations clarify the situation. And so as a 'hiloso'her, I can say to you +and I thin a number of you ha!e a relation to the artistic world, the artistic field, there really is today a s'ecific res'onsibility of artistic creation, which is to hel' humanity to find the new subjecti!e 'aradigm. So the subject of art is not only the creation of a new 'rocess in its 'ro'er field, but it(s also a "uestion of war and 'eace, because if we don(t find the new 'aradigm#the new subjecti!e 'aradigm#the war will be endless. And if we want 'eace#real 'eace#we ha!e to find the 'ossibility that subjecti!ity is really in infinite creation, infinite 3

de!elo'ment, and not in the terrible choice between one form of the 'ower of death +e&'erimentation of the limits of 'leasure, and another form of the 'ower of death +which is sacrifice for an idea, for an abstract idea,. )hat is I thin , the contem'orary res'onsibility of artistic creation. )han you.