Abstract

Maldiney was born in 1912, when cinema became an art of an industrial type for the first time. So this philosopher was its contemporary all through his life. And yet he obviously never took any interest in it. This is all the more intriguing since, although painting had always been the reference art to him, he had nevertheless been able to turn to many other forms of art. Even if he did not know, like Stanley Cavell, Hollywood comedies, why did he not also, unlike his colleague from Lyon, Gilles Deleuze, take an interest in what this art made possible? Was this a matter of taste, then private and naively subjective? Or can this blatant disinterest tell us something about what he had sought in art, and thus about what can be called his philosophical style?