From an Ontology to a Pragmatics of Images: A Conversation

A specialist in the philosophy of art, PATRICK VAUDAY is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Paris VIII, where he has taught alongside prominent colleagues such as GILLES DELEUZE, JEAN-FRANÇOIS LYOTARD, ALAIN BADIOU, and JACQUES RANCIÈRE. The author of seven books to date as well as numerous articles, he is considered one of the leading thinkers in France working on aesthetics.

In the discussion that follows, Vauday explains his intellectual trajectory, his relationship to important figures in contemporary French thought (from Sartre and Lacan to Deleuze and Rancière), and the reasons why the status of images has been central to his work. The conversation focuses on one of his most influential publications, The Invention of the Visible: The Image in Light of the Arts, which is currently being translated into English by Jared Bly for Rowman & Littlefield International’s book series Reinventing Critical Theory. At the core of the exchange is the distinction between an ontology of the image and a pragmatics of images. The former describes the image as a secondary phenomenon, whereby it is always the image of something else (be it real or ideal, external or internal) and thus tends to lead to essentializing definitions. Vauday advocates for parting ways with this longstanding tendency, which he sees as having haunted the history of Western philosophy, in favor of following and developing one of Deleuze’s key insights: “What I found interesting in Deleuze’s analysis of images was precisely the idea that the image was not the image of something. It did not refer to a model” (see below). Vauday describes pragmatics as the analysis of the multiple effects of images—in the plural—that are understood as entities unto themselves, rather than as secondary representations of something else. In this sense, the pragmatics of images no longer begins with the quest for an essence—as in the question, “What is an image?”—but instead embarks upon a more complex inquiry motivated by questions such as these: How do images function? How do they produce effects, and within what sensible configurations are such effects registered? This de-essentializing and pluralizing gesture has far-reaching consequences for rethinking how images operate and their political stakes.

What follows is the translation of a discussion that took place at the Critical Theory Workshop/Atelier de Théorie Critique at the Sorbonne in Paris, France, on July 9, 2014.¹

Founded by Gabriel Rockhill with the generous support of Villanova University and its Department of Philosophy, the CTW/ATC is an intensive summer research program that functions as an international forum for interdisciplinary and comparative work in critical social theory. Rather than following the traditional structure of a course or a conference, the Atelier operates as a collaborative platform for the sharing and perfecting of autonomous research projects. Participants—including students, faculty, and independent researchers—are exposed to the work of contemporary thinkers, engage with current debates in the Francophone world, and polish their own projects for presentation in the workshop. Patrick Vauday was invited to participate in one of the Rencontres (Encounters), in which intellectuals are publicly interviewed on their work to date and their future projects.

gr/

I would like to begin our conversation with a broad question concerning your intellectual trajectory. What brought you to reconsider the status of images? What is specific about your theoretical development, and why has it led you to engage with certain questions in aesthetic philosophy, particularly around the issue of the image?

pv/

[In English] Hello, I’m very glad to meet you. My English is so bad that I would prefer to speak in French [laughter]. [In French] It is true that my work has revolved around the concept of the image for some years. This was not my point of departure. Rather, I found my point of departure—not the destination itself, which I have not yet reached because I am still working toward it—when I was a student in the 1970s. This point of...