Aesthetic theory

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Aesthetic Theory is a posthumous work by the philosopher and sociologist Theodor W. Adorno . It contains Adorno's philosophy of art as a cross- genre theory of artistic modernism with the leitmotifs of negativity and reconciliation as well as the basic aesthetic categories of the beautiful and the sublime . As his last major work, it is one of his major philosophical works. Although it was published from the estate as Torso in 1970, it represents the sum total of his aesthetic considerations and insights.

In Aesthetic Theory, Adorno draws on his lifelong - also active as a composer - occupation with art and the arts. Based on the peculiarities of modern art, Adorno unfolds a comprehensive categorical analysis of art, its non-discursive truth content while at the same time being puzzling and its utopian core: the reconciliation of the general and the particular, of nature and spirit, of mimesis and construction. He understands art as the "social antithesis to society" (AT 19) and "governor of a better practice" (AT 26).

Significance in Adorno's work and formal structure

According to the German scholar Gerhard Kaiser , all motifs of Adorno's thinking are "narrowed down" in aesthetic theory . For Günter Figal , the aesthetic theory is to be seen as the main work and philosophical legacy of Adorno. More consistently than in his other writings, Adorno uses “his guiding concepts as a multitude of centers around which his reflections are formed” and which, when constellated with one another, result in a whole.

In his editorial afterword, the editor Rolf Tiedemann writes about the work, albeit almost complete, but still a fragment:

“The outstanding final work step, which Adorno intended to complete by mid-1970, would have resulted in numerous changes within the text, including cuts; it was reserved for him to incorporate those fragments which are now printed as Paralipomena; the early introduction would have been replaced by a new one. "

The text of the book presents the recipient with unexpected difficulties. Formally it is structured neither by chapters nor by paragraphs, but solely by spaces . In terms of content, there is no basic concept, no order or hierarchy of problems. Understanding the complex work - Ruth Sonderegger ascribes a rhizome-like structure to the text - stands in the way of the fact that "with Adorno almost all categories are Janus-faced , more precisely: they are now shown in good, now in bad form". According to Rolf Wiggershaus , the work is “an ensemble of essayistic considerations”. This explains why summarizing representations of this work select different fragments as an introduction to the interpretation (e.g. reconciliation, natural beauty , sublime , appearance, rational construction, puzzling character, mimesis, monad ), without ignoring the key phenomena preferred by other authors as an introduction .

Construction and mimesis

For Adorno, the work of art is the result of a rational construction that harmoniously combines individual “material” (sounds, words, colors, wood, metal, etc.) into a unit. The musicologist Carl Dahlhaus points out that Adorno describes the substance of the concept of material in music as "on the one hand the mere tone substance and on the other hand the epitome of historically developed relationships in tone substance", whereby Dahlhaus at the same time points out "whether the term material for something given, that consists primarily in relations, the lucky choice was ". The construction means installation, organization and distribution of the material. Although appropriately designed, the result of the work of art appears to have been naturally produced, because the formative capacity - as pre-spiritual sensuality or as a creatural reflex - itself belongs to "nature in the subject" ( Immanuel Kant ). The construction can only succeed if it mimetically clings to the underlying sensual impulses (of the subject as well as the material) . The concept of mimesis is fundamental to Adorno's aesthetic. As Ruth Sonderegger emphasizes, in this term Adorno emphasizes less the moment of imitation than the aspect of making oneself equal; What is important to him is the interplay of construction and mimesis, which makes the successful work of art appear as a harmonious unit.

Art's dual character

A recurring theme is the “dual character of art: that of autonomy and fait social” (ÄT 340). As fait social , a work of art is the product of social intellectual labor and becomes a commodity, although in its autonomy it simultaneously strips off the commodity character. According to Adorno, works of art embody the opposite of ideology and goods, they stand for promises of happiness and social utopia. Art lets speak “what ideology hides”. The work of art tells the truth about society in a different language than critical social theory does in the medium of the term. For Adorno, art is socially related not through the design of social phenomena, but through the forms and means of design. This means that the social content consists on the one hand in the fact that society and class struggles have an impact on the structure of the work, so that works of art can be understood as "the historiography of its epoch, unconscious of itself" (ÄT 272); on the other hand, works of art have an effect on society, not through a manifest statement, but through their “immanent movement against society” (ÄT 336). In them "denunciation and anticipation" (ÄT 130) - denunciation of the existing, anticipation of the liberated society.

Adorno repeatedly quotes Stendhal's formula from the promesse du bonheur , for him a characterization of art that suggests utopia (ÄT 461). But: "Art is not only the governor of a better practice than that which has prevailed to this day, but also a criticism of practice as the rule of brutal self-preservation" (ÄT 26). Authentic works of art are "the historiography of their epoch, unconscious of themselves" (ÄT 272), whereby "the critical concept of society [...] is inherent". “Art is the social antithesis to society” (ÄT 19). “Social struggles, class relationships” were not expressed in the manifest content, but in the structure of the works (ÄT 350 and 344).

Since modern art no longer knows any binding norms for artistic design, the works of art have to develop their own rules from their material and their construction in a singular manner and establish their standards from their peculiar logic.

Truth and appearance

According to Albrecht Wellmer , Adorno ties the truth of art to the coherent concreteness of the individual works of art, which are true, "in so far as they bring reality to appearance as unreconciled, antagonistic, torn apart", but - because they synthesize what is split - in the "light of Make reconciliation appear ”. In Adorno's words: “Paradoxically, it [the art] has to attest to the irreconcilable and at the same time tend to reconcile; This is only possible for her in her non-discursive language ”(ÄT 251). The antinomy of art is therefore that it articulates the negation of meaning in an aesthetically meaningful way. Adorno sees her aesthetic appearance in this, namely “that she cannot escape the suggestion of meaning in the midst of the meaningless” (ÄT 232). The mark of its untruth is that it can only symbolically bring about reconciliation in an unreconciled reality. In order to hope for real reconciliation, however, art must take this guilt and save appearances, says Wellmer.

Dissonance as a "sign of all modernity"

As “a kind of invariant of modernity” Adorno identifies the dissonance “since Baudelaire and Tristan ” (ÄT 29 f.). Once recognized, it becomes perceptible as a structural principle in earlier epochs. The ugly is regarded as its synonym in the aesthetic view (AT 74). The dissonance in the work of art converges with that in the external reality, “what vulgar sociology calls social alienation ” (AT 30).

Natural beauty

Adorno pays special attention to natural beauty , which has been "suppressed" in philosophy since Schelling . Art would not imitate nature, but the beauty of nature (ÄT 112). Albrecht Wellmer points out that Adorno does not mean the imitation of the real, but that which in the real already points beyond reality and interprets the connection between the work of art and the natural beauty as follows:

“In natural beauty, Adorno sees the code of a not-yet-existing, a reconciled nature [...]. The work of art, as an imitation of natural beauty, thus becomes an image of an eloquent nature freed from its muteness, a redeemed nature, as well as an image of a reconciled humanity. "

Reconciliation and the sublime

Like the natural beauty , Adorno has also rehabilitated the category of the sublime for modern art, albeit by changing the composition of the category: In a certain negation, he returns the category reserved by Kant for the overwhelming size of external nature to that of the experience of the “self-consciousness of the People from its naturalness ”(GS 7: 295). What Adorno means with regard to the subject as a possible communion of spirit with nature, he articulates for art as a replacement of the beautiful by the sublime.

The importance of the sublime for Adorno's reconciliation-philosophical construction of art is assessed differently by Wolfgang Welsch and Albrecht Wellmer. Welsch believes he recognizes an “explosive device within the aesthetic theory ” in the sublime , because Adorno uses it to describe the “constitutive irreconcilability” (GS 7: 283) of works of art. Welsch's reasoning follows Adorno's dialectical thought movement in two ways. First of all, it shows how Adorno transforms Kant's traditional concept of the sublime in a characteristic way with the definite negation . According to Kant, the sublime belongs only to the description of the overpowering external nature, later (e.g. in Friedrich Schiller ) the term, still in Kantian reading, also found its way into art theory for the "great matters" and "sublime processes". In modern art (e.g. in Beethoven's music, Caspar David Friedrich's painting and Baudelaire's poetry), the beautiful is replaced by the sublime. Finally, Adorno transforms the sublime into a category of the experience of “man's self-awareness of his naturalness” (ÄT 295). In the course of his reflections, Adorno increasingly replaced the ideal of reconciliation with his synthesis of mimesis and construction in the work of art with the sublime as a “farewell to the manorial gesture towards the material” and as a “consistent turn to its own tendencies”. This explains the “turn towards the fragile and fragmentary” of the works of art, which Adorno comments with the statement “that there are no perfect works”; because their “constitutive irreconcilability” cuts “also from them reconciliation” (ÄT 282f.). Adorno strives to keep his conception of the work of art as a “figure of reconciliation [...]” and to “radically question it” with the category of the sublime. According to Adorno, with the paradoxical formula of a “reconciliation of the irreconcilable”, Adorno can only do justice to the motive of reconciliation by giving up the thought form of reconciliation.

Against Welsch, Wellmer insists that the category of the sublime with Adorno retains its place within the reconciliation-philosophical construction of art. If, according to Adorno, modern art says that the world can no longer be combined into a whole, that after Auschwitz it has reached a state of perfect negativity, then in the context of aesthetic experience the sublime is the “place of standing against the overwhelming power of the Negativity".

reception

Adorno's aesthetic theory is generally received as a “negativity aesthetic ”. It is the subject of numerous dissertations and habilitation theses. On the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the publication date of Aesthetic Theory , literary scholars Martin Endres, Axel Pichler and Claus Zittel have published twenty-one articles by well-known authors in an anthology, who outline their personal views of the book from different perspectives.

Hans Robert Jauß argues on several levels against Adorno's social positioning of autonomous art as a certain negation of the given state of society and the utopia of an apparently different, liberated society . On the one hand, he refers to the process of subsequent appropriation of works of a critical nature in the “classical” canon as “educational heritage”. On the other hand, he ascribes the function of education, justification and change of social norms to the (pre-autonomous) works of art in reception. Thirdly, he turns against Adorno's brusque rejection of the enjoyment of art, which is expressed in the recipient as “admiration, emotion, laughing along, weeping along”. In essence, his criticism aims at Adorno's categorical limitation to the “work aesthetics ” while neglecting the “ reception aesthetics ”.

Rüdiger Bubner criticized Adorno for "abolishing theory in aesthetics" and making art the "accomplice of the critical intentions of theory" and thus subjecting aesthetics to a profound heteronomy . Even Jürgen Habermas referred critically to in the Aesthetic Theory sealed "transfer of knowledge expertise to the art in which the mimetic faculty objective takes shape".

Various recipients complained that Adorno only accepted large and authentic works of the musical, literary and visual arts. An aesthetic narrowing of the gaze can be demonstrated for all of the art genres he deals with. Albrecht Wellmer noted blind spots in the musical field : due to his fixation on the German-Austrian musical tradition, Adorno could not do anything with other traditional lines of new music, for which Debussy , Varèse , Bartók , Stravinsky and Ives stand. In the literary field, Peter Bürger and Jan Philipp Reemtsma in particular have highlighted deficits: Bürger the exclusion of committed literature , Reemtsma the selective view of novel literature. Reemtsma relativizes Adorno's statement about the narrator's position in the traditional novel by referring to literary-historical important novelists (e.g. Jean Paul, Diderot, Sterne, Melville) who do not adopt the “peep-box” perspective stylized by Adorno in their works. According to Bürger, Adorno excludes two of the most important authors of the 20th century, Bertolt Brecht and Jean Paul Sartre, for theoretical reasons, i.e. his verdict against committed literature . In the fine arts, representational painting found no resonance with Adorno - after Cubism and abstraction , he saw it, like neoclassicism in music, as a regression on a technical level of artistic form that had been overcome.

Text output

  • Theodor W. Adorno: Aesthetic Theory. Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1970.
  • Theodor W. Adorno: Collected writings . Volume 7: Aesthetic Theory . 6th edition. Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1996. (Quotations in the running text from this edition).
  • Theodor W. Adorno: Aesthetics (1958/59) . Legacy writings, Department IV: Lectures, Volume 3. Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main.

literature

  • Martin Endres, Axel Pichler, Claus Zittel (eds.): Eros and Knowledge - 50 Years of Adorno's “Aesthetic Theory”. De Gruyter, Berlin 2019, ISBN 978-3-11-063839-4 .
  • Martin Endres, Axel Pichler, Claus Zittel: “still open”. Prolegomena for a text-critical edition of Adorno's “Aesthetic Theory”. In: Editio. International Yearbook for Edition Studies 2013. Vol. 27, H. 1, pp. 173–204.
  • Günter Figal : Theodor W. Adorno. The natural beauty as a speculative figure of thought. For the interpretation of the "aesthetic theory" in the context of philosophical aesthetics (= treatises on philosophy, psychology and pedagogy. Vol. 122). Bouvier, Bonn 1977, ISBN 3-416-01351-4 (also: Heidelberg, Univ., Philos.-Histor. Fac., Diss., 1976).
  • Günter Figal: Aesthetic Theory. In: Franco Volpi (Hrsg.): Großes Werklexikon der Philosophie. Vol. 1: A-K. Kröner, Stuttgart 2004, p. 8.
  • Marc Grimm, Martin Niederauer (Ed.): Aesthetic Enlightenment - Art and Criticism in Theodor W. Adorno's theory. Juventa, Weinheim 2016, ISBN 978-3-7799-3354-0 .
  • Jörg Heininger: Aesthetic Theory. In: Historical-Critical Dictionary of Marxism . Vol. 1, Argument-Verlag, Hamburg, 1994, Sp. 676-682 ( online ).
  • Hans Robert Jauß : Critique of Adorno's Aesthetics of Negativity. In: Ders .: Aesthetic experience and literary hermeneutics (= Suhrkamp-Taschenbuch Wissenschaft. Vol. 955). 2nd Edition. Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1997, ISBN 3-518-28555-6 , pp. 44-71.
  • Gerhard Kaiser : Theodor W. Adorno's “Aesthetic Theory”. In: Ders .: Benjamin. Adorno. Two studies (= Fischer Athenaeum pocket books. Vol. 2062). Athenaeum, Frankfurt am Main 1974, ISBN 3-8072-2062-3 .
  • Till R. Kuhnle: Civitas aesthetica - theological aspects of Adorno's aesthetic theory. In: Hans Vilmar Geppert, Hubert Zapf (Ed.): Theories of Literature. Basics and perspectives. Volume 3. A. Francke, Tübingen et al. 2007, ISBN 978-3-7720-8222-1 , pp. 128-158.
  • Burkhardt Lindner , W. Martin Lüdke (ed.): Materials for aesthetic theory. Theodor W. Adornos Construction of Modernity (= Suhrkamp-Taschenbuch Wissenschaft. Vol. 122). Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1980, ISBN 3-518-07722-8 .
  • Marcus Quent, Eckardt Lindner (ed.): The promise of art. Current approaches to Adorno's aesthetic theory. Turia + Kant Verlag, Vienna 2014.
  • Britta Scholze: Art as Critique. Adorno's way out of dialectic. Königshausen & Neumann, Würzburg 2000, ISBN 3-8260-1828-1 .
  • Ruth Sonderegger : Aesthetic Theory. In: Richard Klein, Johann Kreuzer, Stefan Müller-Doohm (eds.): Adorno manual. Life - work - effect. JB Metzler Verlag, Stuttgart 2011, pp. 414-427.
  • Albrecht Wellmer : Truth, Appearance, Reconciliation. Adorno's aesthetic salvation of modernity. In: Ders .: On the dialectic of modernity and postmodernism. Critique of reason according to Adorno. Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1985, ISBN 3-518-28132-1 , pp. 9-47.
  • Albrecht Wellmer: On Negativity and Autonomy of Art. The topicality of Adorno's aesthetics and blind spots in his music philosophy. In: Axel Honneth (Ed.): Dialektik der Freiheit. Frankfurt Adorno Conference 2003. Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 2005, ISBN 3-518-29328-1 , pp. 237-278.
  • Wolfgang Welsch : Adorno's Aesthetics. An implicit aesthetic of the sublime. In: Christine Pries (ed.): The sublime. Between borderline experience and megalomania. VCH, Acta Humaniora, Weinheim 1989, ISBN 3-527-17664-0 , pp. 185-213.
  • Rolf Wiggershaus : Aesthetic Theory. In: Axel Honneth (Ed.): Key texts of the critical theory. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden 2006, ISBN 3-531-14108-2 , pp. 81–84.

Remarks

  1. ↑ All references in the running text with the code "ÄT" and page reference come from: Theodor W. Adorno: Gesammelte Schriften . Volume 7: Aesthetic Theory . 6th edition. Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1996.
  2. ^ Gerhard Kaiser: Theodor W. Adornos "Aesthetic Theory" . In: Ders .: Benjamin. Adorno. Two studies . Athenaeum, Frankfurt am Main 1974, p. 109.
  3. ^ So Günter Figal, quoted from: Walther Müller-Jentsch : Theodor W. Adorno (1903–1969). Art sociology between negativity and reconciliation . In: Christian Steuerwald (Hrsg.): Classics of the sociology of the arts. Prominent and significant approaches . Springer VS, Wiesbaden 2017, pp. 351-380, here p. 357 f. and 374 f.
  4. ^ Rolf Tiedemann: Editorial afterword . In: Theodor W. Adorno: Gesammelte Schriften . Volume 7: Aesthetic Theory . 6th edition. Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1996, p. 537.
  5. ↑ Ruth Sonderegger: Aesthetic Theory . In: Richard Klein / Johann Kreuzer / Stefan Müller-Doohm (eds.): Adorno manual. Life - work - effect . Metzler, Stuttgart 2011, pp. 414f.
  6. ↑ Ruth Sonderegger: Aesthetic Theory . In: Richard Klein, Johann Kreuzer, Stefan Müller-Doohm (eds.): Adorno manual. Life - work - effect. JB Metzler Verlag, Stuttgart 2011, p. 417.
  7. ↑ Karl Markus Michel : Try to understand the 'aesthetic theory' . In: Burkhardt Lindner, W. Martin Lüdke: materials for aesthetic theory. Theodor W. Adorno's Construction of Modernity. Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1979, p. 64.
  8. ^ Rolf Wiggershaus: Aesthetic Theory . In: Axel Honneth (Ed.): Key texts of the critical theory . VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden 2006, p. 81.
  9. ^ Günter Figal: Critical Theory. the philosophers of the Frankfurt School and their surroundings . In: Anton Hügli / Poul Lübcke (ed.): Philosophy in the 20th century , volume. 1: Phenomenology, Hermeneutics, Existential Philosophy and Critical Theory . Rowohlt, Reinbek bei Hamburg 1992, p. 332.
  10. ^ Carl Dahlhaus: From the aging of a philosophy . In: In: Ludwig von Friedeburg / Jürgen Habermas (ed.): Adorno Conference 1983. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, ​​pp. 133-137, here p. 134.
  11. ^ Georg W. Bertram: Art. A philosophical introduction . Reclam, Stuttgart 2005, p. 144.
  12. ↑ Gunzelin Schmidt Noerr: The mind of nature in the subject. On the dialectic of reason and nature in the critical theory of Horkheimer, Adornos and Marcuse . Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt 1990. S. IXf., 146, 150.
  13. ↑ Ruth Sonderegger: Aesthetic Theory . In: Richard Klein / Johann Kreuzer / Stefan Müller-Doohm (eds.): Adorno manual. Life - work - effect . Metzler, Stuttgart 2011, pp. 417f.
  14. ^ Theodor W. Adorno: Collected writings . Volume 11: Notes on Literature . 3. Edition. Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1990, p. 52.
  15. ↑ Peter Bürger: The mediation problem in Adorno's art sociology . In: In: Burkhardt Lindner, W. Martin Lüdke: Materials for aesthetic theory. Theodor W. Adorno's Construction of Modernity. Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1979, p. 171.
  16. ^ Günter Figal: Critical Theory. the philosophers of the Frankfurt School and their surroundings . In: Anton Hügli / Poul Lübcke (eds.): Philosophy in the 20th Century , Volume 1: Phenomenology, Hermeneutics, Existential Philosophy and Critical Theory . Rowohlt, Reinbek bei Hamburg 1992, p. 334.
  17. ↑ Ruth Sonderegger: Aesthetic Theory . In: Richard Klein, Johann Kreuzer, Stefan Müller-Doohm (eds.): Adorno manual. Life - work - effect. JB Metzler Verlag, Stuttgart 2011, p. 418f.
  18. ↑ Albrecht Wellmer: Truth, Appearance, Reconciliation. Adorno's aesthetic salvation of modernity . In: Ludwig von Friedeburg / Jürgen Habermas: Adorno Conference 1983 . Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1983, pp. 144f.
  19. ↑ Albrecht Wellmer: Truth, Appearance, Reconciliation. Adorno's aesthetic salvation of modernity . In: Ludwig von Friedeburg / Jürgen Habermas: Adorno Conference 1983 . Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1983, p. 147.
  20. ↑ Norbert Schneider: History of Aesthetics from the Enlightenment to Postmodernism . Reclam, Stuttgart 1996, p. 197.
  21. ↑ Albrecht Wellmer: Truth, Appearance, Reconciliation. Adorno's aesthetic salvation of modernity . In: ders .: On the dialectic of modernity and postmodernism. Critique of reason according to Adorno . Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1985, p. 15.
  22. ↑ See on this thesis: Josef Früchtl: "Great ambiguity": Kant . In: Richard Klein / Johann Kreuzer / Stefan Müller-Doohm (eds.): Adorno manual. Life - work - effect . Metzler, Stuttgart 2011, p. 316. - Martin Seel: Dialectic of the Sublime. Comments on “aesthetic barbarism today”. In: Willem van Reijen / Gunzelin Schmid Noerr (ed.): Forty Years of Message in a Bottle: "Dialectic of Enlightenment" 1947 to 1987 . Fischer, Frankfurt am Main 1987, p. 32ff. - Wolfgang Welsch: Adorno's aesthetics: an implicit aesthetic of the sublime . In: ders: Aesthetic Thinking . 3. Edition. Reclam, Stuttgart 1999, p. 143.
  23. ↑ Wolfgang Welsch: Adorno's aesthetics: an implicit aesthetic of the sublime . In: ders: Aesthetic Thinking . 3. Edition. Reclam, Stuttgart 1999, p. 127.
  24. ↑ Martin Seel: Dialectic of the Sublime. Comments on “aesthetic barbarism today”. In: Willem van Reijen / Gunzelin Schmid Noerr (ed.): Forty Years of Message in a Bottle: "Dialectic of Enlightenment" 1947 to 1987 . Fischer, Frankfurt am Main 1987, p. 33.
  25. ↑ Wolfgang Welsch: Adorno's aesthetics: an implicit aesthetic of the sublime . In: ders: Aesthetic Thinking . 3. Edition. Reclam, Stuttgart 1999, p. 149.
  26. ↑ Wolfgang Welsch: Adorno's aesthetics: an implicit aesthetic of the sublime . In: ders: Aesthetic Thinking . 3. Edition. Reclam, Stuttgart 1999, pp. 129, 149.
  27. ↑ Wolfgang Welsch: Adorno's aesthetics: an implicit aesthetic of the sublime . In: ders: Aesthetic Thinking . 3. Edition. Reclam, Stuttgart 1999, p. 136.
  28. ^ Albrecht Wellmer: Adorno, the modern and the sublime . In: ders .: Endgames: The irreconcilable modernity . Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1993, p. 193.
  29. ^ Georg W. Bertram: Art. a philosophical introduction . Reclam, Stuttgart 2005, p. 142. Similarly, Hans Robert Jauß: Aesthetic experience and literary hermeneutics . Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1991, p. 44.
  30. ↑ Martin Endres, Axel Pichler, Claus Zittel (eds.): Eros and Knowledge - 50 Years of Adorno's “Aesthetic Theory” . De Gruyter, Berlin 2019.
  31. ↑ Hans Robert Jauß: Aesthetic experience and literary hermeneutics . Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1991, p. 44 ff.
  32. ↑ Rüdiger Bubner: Can theory become aesthetic? On the main motif of Adorno's philosophy . In: Burkhardt Lindner, W. Martin Lüdke (Ed.): Materials for aesthetic theory. Theodor W. Adorno's Construction of Modernity. Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1980, pp. 108-137, here pp. 110 and 133.
  33. ↑ Jürgen Habermas: Theory of communicative action . Volume 1: Rationality of Action and Social Rationalization . Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1981, p. 514.
  34. ^ Albrecht Wellmer: Adorno, the modern and the sublime . In: Ders .: Endgames: The irreconcilable modernity. Essays and lectures . Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 1993 pp. 178–203, here p. 202. - Albrecht Wellmer: On negativity and autonomy of art. The topicality of Adorno's aesthetics and blind spots in his music philosophy . In: Axel Honneth (Ed.): Dialektik der Freiheit. Frankfurt Adorno Conference 2003. Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt am Main 2005 pp. 237–278, here p. 262.
  35. ↑ Jan Philipp Reemtsma: The dream of the distance from me. Adorno's literary essays . In: Axel Honneth (Ed.): Dialektik der Freiheit. Frankfurt Adorno Conference 2003 . Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp 2005, pp. 318–363, here p. 328.
  36. ↑ Walther Müller-Jentsch : Theodor W. Adorno (1903-1969). Art sociology between negativity and reconciliation . In: Christian Steuerwald (Hrsg.): Classics of the sociology of the arts. Prominent and significant approaches . Springer VS, Wiesbaden 2017, pp. 351-380, here p. 357 f. and 374 f.
This article was added to the list of articles worth reading on June 1, 2020 in this version .