Architecture, Philosophy, and the Pedagogy of Cinema
From Benjamin to Badiou
Nadir Lahiji
- 168 pages
- English
- ePUB (mobile friendly)
- Available on iOS & Android
Architecture, Philosophy, and the Pedagogy of Cinema
From Benjamin to Badiou
Nadir Lahiji
About This Book
Philosophers on the art of cinema mainly remain silent about architecture. Discussing cinema as 'mass art', they tend to forget that architecture, before cinema, was the only existing 'mass art'. In this work author Nadir Lahiji proposes that the philosophical understanding of the collective human sensorium in the apparatus of perception must once again find its true training ground in architecture.
Building art puts the collective mass in the position of an 'expert critic' who identifies themselves with the technical apparatus of architecture. Only then can architecture regain its status as 'mass art' and, as the book contends, only then can it resume its function as the only 'artform' that is designed for the political pedagogy of masses, which originally belonged to it in the period of modernity before the invention of cinema.
Frequently asked questions
Information
Chapter 1
Returning to the philosophy of masses
Benjamin and Badiou
The increasing proletarianization of modern man and the increasing formation of masses are two sides of the same process.âWalter Benjamin, âThe Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibilityâ1
âMassâ is a political category, or more precisely a category of activist democracy, of communism.âAlain Badiou, Cinema2
Mass reproduction is especially favored by the reproduction of the masses.âWalter Benjamin, âThe Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibilityâ3
When Marx undertook this analysis of the capitalist mode of production, this mode was in its infancy. Marx adopted an approach which gave his investigation prognostic value. Going back to the basic conditions of capitalist production, he presented them in a way which showed what could be expected of capitalism in the future. What could be expected, it emerged, was not only an increasingly harsh exploitation of the proletariat but, ultimately, the creation of conditions which would make it possible for capitalism to abolish itself.Since the transformation of the superstructure proceeds far more slowly than that of the base, it has taken more than half of a century for the change in the conditions of production to be manifested in all areas of culture. How this process has affected culture can only now be assessed, and these assessments must meet certain prognostic requirements. They do not, however, call for theses on the art of the proletariat after the seizure of power, and still less for any on the art of classless society. They call for theses defining the tendencies of the development of art under the present conditions of production. The dialectic of these conditions of production is evident in the superstructure, no less than in the economy. Theses defining the developmental tendencies of art can therefore contribute to the political struggle in ways that it would be a mistake to underestimate. They neutralize a number of traditional conceptsâsuch as creativity and genius, eternal value and mysteryâwhich, used in an uncontrolled way (and controlling them is difficult today), allow factual material to be manipulated in the interests of fascism. In what follows, the concepts which are introduced into the theory of art differ from those now current in that they are completely useless for the purpose of fascism. On the other hand, they are useful for the formulation of revolutionary demands in the politics of art [Kunstpolitik].4
The psychology of the cinematographic triumph is metropolitan psychology. Not only because the big city constitutes the natural focal point for all manifestations of social life, but especially because the metropolitan soul, that ever-harried soul, curious and unanchored, tumbling from feeling impression to fleeting impression, is quite rightly the cinematographic soul.12