The starting point of Adorno's aesthetics is modern art, and the final result is to save reality. He believes that only by organically combining philosophy and art can we revitalize traditional aesthetics, promote the development of art and save the declining human civilization. Adorno pays attention to tapping the potential of traditional aesthetics, constructing modern aesthetic theory from the reality of modern art, and paying attention to the openness of aesthetic theory, which has reference significance for the construction of contemporary aesthetic theory in China.
[Keywords:] Adorno; Modern aesthetics; * * * There is resistance.
[China Library Classification Number] B2 1 [Document Identification Number] A [Document Number] 1008? 1763(20 13)0 1? 0 128? 04
Facing the myth of enlightenment and the illusion of extreme identity, Adorno urgently needs to find a kind of power in reality, which penetrates the magic of the whole society under the cover of commodity fetishism. He is concerned about the philosophy and art that human beings have high hopes for, and the possibility that aesthetics can save human spirit. He believes that only by organically combining philosophy and art can we revitalize aesthetics, promote the development of art and save the declining human civilization. one
Philosophy and art, as human cultural phenomena, have gradually formed their own unique personality with the development of history: art relies on thinking in images and resists meaning; Philosophy relies on logical thinking and rejects direct things. ? Philosophy and art are both faithful to their own essence through their opposition: art relies on resisting its meaning; Philosophy does not depend on grasping anything directly. ? [ 1]
It can be seen from the history of philosophy that human beings have high hopes for philosophy. Plato envisions being ruled by philosophers? Utopia? ; Hegel regards philosophy as the last stage of realizing absolute spirit; Adorno also said that philosophy is not a topic, not a basic science, nor a general science, but a force against influence. The determination to strive for spiritual freedom and practical freedom? [2]。 It can be seen that the goal of seeking truth and objective understanding of the objective world in philosophy has long been the meaning of the title and the principle of nature. The problem is that resorting to philosophy is based on rational thinking of concepts, and concepts and facts are never the same thing. From this point of view, philosophy has been striving for this ideal rather than completing its mission in the past two thousand years, and is busy within itself. Deconstruction (simultaneous construction)? Reconstruction (simultaneous deconstruction)]. No wonder some people sigh? The truth is hidden? Or? No truth? No wonder Schelling asserted that art appeared when knowledge could not relieve human's predicament.
Adorno has his own understanding of rational cognition of philosophy: rational cognition has its serious limitations, and it has no ability to cope with suffering. Reason can put suffering under the concept and provide a means to alleviate suffering, but it can never express suffering through the experience medium; If we act according to the principle of rationality itself, it will be irrational. Even if you understand suffering, it will remain silent and meaningless. ? [3] That is to say, in addition to the binary opposition structure of rational cognition and perceptual cognition, there is also an imitation that combines rational factors and perceptual factors. Imitation is the essence of art, and imitation is the defection of the subject to the object, unlike the philosophical concept of absorbing the object into itself. Only imitation can grasp human experience, just as human suffering and shock can only be expressed through imitation, that is, through art. Adorno once pointed out Beckett's works? The historical experience embodied can't express the seriously weak subject and reality in a direct non-artistic form? [4]。
The shortcomings of the philosophy described above can only be made up by art, is art omnipotent? No. Plato's Utopia? Exclude art as secondary imitation; Hegel no longer regards art as the highest form of reality. All these show that art itself has limitations in objectively expressing the objective world. Imitation art is somewhat similar to witchcraft. According to anthropologists' research, Adorno speculated that art and witchcraft originated from primitive witchcraft, but later they parted ways. Art participated in the Enlightenment, while witchcraft became a relic of primitive ancestors' life. ? All works of art show that the world around them rejects the real thing. Witchcraft has been passed down more and more firmly because it has the characteristic of giving up its influence on the surrounding world. What is the difference between this and art? [5] The imitation of art itself is an explanation of the objective world, which cannot further clarify itself. So Adorno once said that for reflection, art itself cannot be treated and governed. Only philosophy can discover the truth hidden in works of art.
But the past aesthetic practice is often not like this. Due to the lack of philosophical reflection on artistic experience, traditional aesthetics and art are gradually separated. Traditional aesthetics once faced a boring choice because of its lack of artistic experience: either following trivial general concepts or * * * stages, or making arbitrary statements about art based on conventional abstract results. ? [6] For art, traditional aesthetics has become? Extra things? . Due to the loss of the protection of reflective philosophy, art has been expelled from the temple of reason, and since then it has lost its critical function to society and degenerated into ideology. ? Unfortunately, that kind of society (referring to the whole social importer) assimilated and customized the art of resistance, and as a result, it was entrusted to an irrational protected area, where reflection and intervention were strictly prohibited. ? [7] ? No reflection and intervention? Art? Irrational? Art is farther from reflective aesthetics.
Art bound by traditional aesthetics has become ideology. Due to the lack of philosophical reflection, art either goes to the extreme of pure self-discipline or becomes a vassal of politics, leaving only an empty shell of so-called art and losing its original indirect social criticism function. Under the background of cultural industry, art and ideology are becoming the same thing? [8]。
Traditional aesthetics cannot explain the phenomenon of modern art, and it is at a loss in the face of this new thing, modern art, because this new thing has escaped the explanation it can give. It can only try to restore new things to old and familiar things, and vilify those things that can no longer be interpreted as non-art. Anyone who has experienced the great works of Kafka and Proust will have a feeling that traditional artistic concepts cannot explain their works. There are indications that traditional aesthetics? Lack of sensitivity to the historical function of artistic phenomena? .
Accordingly, based on Hegel's traditional philosophical aesthetics? The end of art? However, it has become popular, temporarily satisfying the depressed psychology of those nostalgic people who think that art is not as good as before and the moral world is getting worse. The premise of this psychology is that they turn a blind eye to the rapid development of modern art.
Since the separation of philosophy and art has led to such serious consequences, is it possible to combine them? In other words, do philosophy and art have the same philosophical basis? Facts have proved that this possibility exists.
First of all, art and philosophy are both ways for human beings to try to grasp the world objectively. ? What art and philosophy have is not a form or a process of construction, but a way of behavior that prohibits hallucinations. ? [9] The relationship between them is very similar to the dialectical relationship between facts (objects) and concepts. From the philosophical origin of concept, the relationship between fact (object) and concept is dialectical. Facts and concepts are not diametrically opposed, but mutually mediated. Facts (objects) are the premise of the existence of concepts, and facts (objects) can only be grasped through concepts.
Journal of Hunan University (Social Science Edition) No.20 1 31Sun Lijun: Similarity between Philosophy and Art Resists Adorno's Modern Aesthetic Conception and Its Significance. Secondly, philosophy has a strong desire for heterogeneity. ? For real philosophy, the connection with heterogeneous things is actually its main theme. ? [10] Philosophical thinking is conceptual thinking, and concepts and entities are not the same thing. Philosophy is really interested in the concept of right and wrong, individuality and particularity. This involves dialectics. Adorno pointed out? Does the name of dialectics mean that an object will not completely enter the concept of an object without being pulled? [ 1 1]。 The emergence of dialectics means that people begin to try to make up for the deficiencies and defects of concepts from within philosophy. Traditional philosophy always regards these things as temporary and meaningless things; Hegel called it? Inert entity? Thus, the concept is pushed to the absolute, which lays the foundation for the philosophical distraction that the concept of fooling people is equal to the object. Because of the imagery of artistic thinking and the heterogeneity of artistic language, the heterogeneity pursued by philosophy is preserved to the maximum extent in art. ? Dialectics exchanges what seems to be thinking defects in history for the power of thinking, that is, nothing can completely destroy its connection with language. ? [12] Finally, art needs philosophical reflection to reveal its hidden truth. ? It is through philosophical interpretation that the truth of works of art can be revealed. ? [13] Similarly, in order to express what it cannot express, art needs a philosophy to explain it. This? Something that cannot be expressed? Is the content of a work of art true? It is this variation of truth content in art and this variation itself that can be explained philosophically. Aesthetic experience must be transferred to philosophy, otherwise it is not a real aesthetic experience? [ 14]。 In other words, the existence of aesthetic experience is based on philosophical reflection; The truth content of artistic works cannot be separated from philosophical interpretation. two
Adorno believes that art is the only territory that has not been conquered by extreme identity, and it has the truth content to effectively resist the invasion of identity illusion. However, art itself longs for the full support of philosophy, defends philosophy and reveals the truth hidden in it. Otherwise, it is still fragile and in danger of being expelled from the rational world. The support of philosophy to art is embodied in the aesthetics that connects the two. In Adorno's eyes, aesthetics is an ideal beachhead to resist the invasion of extreme identity into human spiritual field. However, traditional aesthetics is far away from artistic experience, which leads to the separation of philosophical reflection and artistic experience, and art is not strongly supported by philosophy, and its territory is gradually swallowed up by extreme identity. For example, the fake art caused by the emerging cultural industry is an example of extreme identity attack art in Adorno's view.
Traditional aesthetics shows two extreme forms: one is top-down philosophical aesthetics, which tends to reflect on concepts, represented by Kant and Hegel's aesthetics; A bottom-up experiential aesthetics that pays more attention to aesthetic experience is what Adorno said? Introducing radical nominalism into the field of aesthetics? Represented by Croce and his later aesthetics. Both have their own advantages and disadvantages: philosophical aesthetics is longer than reflection, shorter than being too far away from artistic experience; Experiential aesthetics destroys the theoretical basis of aesthetics in the traditional sense. It is longer than the ever-changing artistic experience, but suffers from the lack of artistic experience. Erase yourself from certain phenomena when it comes to art? Philosophical and aesthetic reflection is irreplaceable. So Adorno said: Beauty cannot be defined, but the concept of beauty cannot be written off. Without conceptualization, aesthetics will fail and become a pot of porridge. It can only describe what is considered beautiful in different societies or styles in a historical and relative way. Although it may extract some * * * features from these empirical materials, the resulting abstract definition is bound to be a poor imitation, and once it meets a specific artistic object picked up at random, it will be unconvincing. ? [ 15]
Adorno believes that the task of contemporary aesthetics is to unify aesthetic experience and conceptual reflection, and dialectically communicate philosophical reflection and artistic experience, so as to grasp the truth content of artistic works. ? For future aesthetics, an effective but difficult method may be a good combination of production-oriented experience and philosophical reflection. Such aesthetics will transcend the phenomenology of works of art, thus connecting it with the conceptualized intermediary. ? [16] From the quotation? Production experience? It can be seen from the text that Adorno's so-called artistic experience refers to the aesthetic experience of art producers and artists, not the aesthetic experience caused by readers' reading, although Adorno does not think that the truth content of his works is related to the artist himself. The exclusion of readers' aesthetic experience is consistent with Adorno's exposition on readers' lack of aesthetic experience under the background of cultural industry.
Modern aesthetics is the unity of aesthetic experience and conceptual reflection, which should be concrete and historical.
Adorno opposed the traditional philosophical aesthetics, and put his main energy on the philosophical discussion of the origin and essence of art, because in this case, aesthetics may lose its direction. He said:? Aesthetics should not explore the essence of art in vain like chasing geese; These so-called essences should be viewed from its historical background. ? He believes that aesthetics is not so much concerned with what art was or will be in the future, but rather with what art is producing now. If we can't examine the unique artistic phenomenon from the unique historical background, aesthetics will be as futile as chasing geese.
For the current modern art, Adorno believes that modern aesthetics should try to reflect on the experience of modern art rather than anything else. Adorno called it reflection? Secondary reflection? To distinguish it from the reflection of art on reality (that is, artistic experience). The second kind of reflection goes further than art's reflection on reality, which is a reflection on artistic experience and can reveal the true content of artistic works. Without its intervention, aesthetic experience is not aesthetic experience.
In addition, Adorno believes that there should be no preconceptions and philosophical premise in the examination of contemporary art; We should look at the present art with the internal criticism of aesthetics. He emphasized that aesthetic comprehension's model is a behavior model, in which the perceptual process revolves around the movement of artistic works. People who only know the inside story of art don't understand this point, but people who only look at art from the outside are used to distorting this point because they lack affinity with art? Instead of vacillating between these two positions, aesthetics might as well show its inevitable connection with specific works. He also pointed out? Aesthetics must understand the objectivity of historical content from the perspective of its own form, not from the inevitable process of history? [ 18]。 Only in this way can we gain an understanding of the objective world through art? Is it the truth content of time phenomenon? . Generally speaking, Adorno believes that art contains many possibilities for the development of this objective world, and aesthetics is to reveal these possibilities, instead of analyzing art with a pair of colored glasses of historical development inevitability. In that case, you will lose the truth contained in art.
Modern aesthetics of concrete history must sublate traditional aesthetics.
Adorno's negation of traditional aesthetics embodies his dialectical negation spirit, that is, his negation is concrete and historical. ? To deny traditional aesthetics is to give tradition its due rights. ? [19] To a great extent, he left a huge living space for traditional aesthetics, although the modern aesthetics he strongly advocated was qualitatively different from the traditional aesthetics. Adorno's attitude towards traditional aesthetics is consistent with his attitude towards traditional philosophy and traditional art.
Adorno's sublation of traditional aesthetics is reflected in his dialectical negation of Kant and Hegel's aesthetic thoughts. His dialectical negation of Kant and Hegel's aesthetic thoughts is concrete and historical. Some scholars pointed out that Adorno admired Hegel's aesthetics and called it? Spiritual aesthetics? What is the name of criticizing Hegel's aesthetics? Content aesthetics? . Although there is some truth in this statement, it is not entirely true. Because Adorno was right? Spirit? And then what? Content? The connotation has its own understanding, which is different from Hegel's.
Regarding the relationship between Adorno and Hegel's aesthetics, some scholars think? Adorno's basic ideas are not from others, but from Hegel? [20],? Adorno's thought is deep hegelianism? [2 1]; Some scholars believe that Adorno and Hegel have essential differences in aesthetics. [22] Those who advocate the ideological connection between the two believe that Adorno is reflecting on Hegel's philosophical motif in Hegel's way, such as the final conclusion of art, artistic spirit, dialectical relationship between form and content, natural beauty and so on. Those who advocate the essential difference between them believe that the same aesthetic concepts, categories and propositions have essentially different connotations and diametrically opposite value orientations in Adorno's aesthetics. It should be said that Adorno's borrowing of Hegel's aesthetic concepts, categories and propositions has his own intention, that is, his own value orientation. Adorno's criticism of Hegel's aesthetics is mainly manifested in his criticism of Hegel's aesthetic system thought, saying that the system is? The ominous field of the concept of independence? Is it the bourgeoisie? Mysterious? . Although he also affirmed the application of Hegel's dialectics in aesthetics, he criticized the incompleteness of dialectics in Hegel's aesthetics. He said:? Hegel's artistic dialectics is limited to artistic style and history, but there seems to be no dialectics in his view of artistic works, at least it is far from enough. ? [23]? Hegel's aesthetics, like his historical philosophy and many other analytical studies, did not carry out the dialectical concept expounded in his main works, although it contained many valuable insights. ? [24] others such as Hegel? The end of art? Criticism of artistic spirit, dialectical relationship between form and content, and natural beauty are all concrete and historical.
It is precisely because Adorno realized that the mistakes in Hegel's aesthetic system have reached an irreparable level, which has caused substantial consequences in the history of aesthetics, that he pursued an older aesthetic history and rediscovered the potential of Kant's aesthetics. He said,? Kant's theory may be more valuable today, because it tries to combine the understanding of inevitability with the idea that this inevitability is potential in aesthetics? [25]。 But this does not mean that Adorno advocates uprooting Hegel's aesthetics and Kant rewrites the history of aesthetics. He fully affirmed Hegel's contribution on many specific issues. However, his criticism of Kant's aesthetics showed a rather sharp side. What if he is right? View of artistic genius? The criticism hit the nail on the head: The worship of genius began with Kant. ? [26]
In a word, Adorno's aesthetics is deeply influenced by Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche and Freud's aesthetic thoughts. In philosophy, besides these philosophers, he also criticized Kierkegaard's philosophy of existence, Husserl's phenomenology and Heidegger's existentialism, which can be said to be indirectly influenced by them. In addition, Adorno has a close relationship with Lukacs' philosophy and aesthetic thought, whether it is positive acceptance or negative sublation; Benjamin's aesthetic thought had a far-reaching influence on Adorno's aesthetics. The source of Adorno's aesthetic thought is complicated, but we should notice that he criticized their views more or less while accepting the influence of these masters. Among them, Hegel and Kant, as two representatives of traditional aesthetics, suffered the greatest impact.
In aesthetic theory, Adorno's criticism focuses on traditional philosophical aesthetics rather than empirical aesthetics, which may be related to the rise of modern art and the emergence of modern artistic experience, while traditional philosophical aesthetics not only turns a blind eye to this, but becomes a reactionary force hindering its development. The theoretical starting point of Adorno's aesthetics is to understand modern art and defend it theoretically. However, Adorno does not object to the reflective elements in traditional philosophical aesthetics. He believes that there is only one way to understand today's art, and that is criticism and self-reflection. Although Adorno mercilessly criticized traditional philosophical aesthetics, he still called his own aesthetics philosophical aesthetics, which was different from the popular empirical aesthetics at that time. It can be seen that Adorno's contradictory attitude towards traditional philosophical aesthetics: the deeper he loves, the more he hates. Therefore, he also has a strong desire to reform it in order to release new truth content and make unremitting efforts for it in his later years. three
Adorno analyzed the shortcomings and deficiencies of philosophy and art in the pursuit of truth, and pointed out a seemingly feasible way for the development of new aesthetics. His aesthetic theory has achieved practical results at least in defending the achievements of modern art and changing people's attitudes and views on modern art, but we should also see that Adorno, as an advocate of negative dialectics and a philosopher of historical materialism, did not avoid making the same mistakes when criticizing Hegel for not consistently adhering to dialectics: First, is the separation of philosophy and art a product of a certain historical stage, and is it possible to reunite? Second, besides philosophy and art, what is the status of science?
The former question involves Adorno's evaluation of the truth content of traditional art and the development mode of this truth content. Although he does not deny the truth content that traditional art once had, he also admits that they still have influence in the historical geological layer. The separation between philosophy and art is definitely historical, and there is no consistent and obvious difference between them. The distinction of ideas began with Plato; The division of disciplines is the product of the educational system of capitalist society. Adorno is eager to plan the blueprint of his theory, but he completely ignores the hidden danger of the dichotomy between philosophy and art, and to some extent, he is far away from the negative dialectics he strongly advocates. The latter question involves the intensity of Adorno's aesthetic utopia, the possibility of art continuing to exist after modern art, popular art, post-modern culture and so on. It can be said that the embarrassment of Adorno's aesthetic theory largely stems from this.
In addition, Adorno's vision of modern aesthetics and the possibility of saving reality do not mean that Adorno directly entrusts the important task of saving reality to aesthetics. No one thinks that Adorno, as one of the main practitioners of critical theory, will confuse the boundaries between life and aesthetics. In view of the view held by Weimar, Wolin and other scholars that Adorno regards aesthetics as the last position to save reality [27], some scholars have clearly pointed out that Adorno's aesthetics are different from Benjamin's romantic aesthetics because Adorno put? Aesthetic experience with the concept of natural history is considered as the antidote to modern enchanted reason? . In other words, Adorno saved rationality rather than social reality through aesthetic experience. [28] It is undoubtedly profound to restore rationality as an intermediary between aesthetics and saving reality. Saving reason is to oppose the myth and extreme identity of enlightenment. Only in this way can we gain a realistic power and completely change the social reality. The problem is that the truth content of art can only be obtained through philosophical reflection, and the premise of reflection lies in having a real philosophical reason completely different from enlightenment reason and identity thinking, and the paradox can be imagined. Adorno denied the existence of dialectics in Dialectics of Negation. Through this negative philosophy or dialectics, people's ability to understand the negative law of motion in reality is preserved? [29] instead of showing one? Hibernation strategy? It is better to say that Adorno himself is really in trouble in theory, turning the negative dialectics that is not a position into a position, which is criticized by future generations.
Nevertheless, Adorno's scientific and objective attitude towards traditional aesthetics from the perspective of modern art, as well as the openness of constructing his own theory, still give us inspiration and have reference significance for the construction of contemporary aesthetics.
First of all, from the reality of modern art to construct modern aesthetic theory. Adorno's view of modern aesthetics comes from the reality of modern art, which is deeply rooted in the reality of modern society. Adorno's aesthetics has a clear goal, that is, the * * * resistance between philosophy and art, the resistance to false identity and the whole society. It is of great practical significance to start from modern art, that is, from criticizing reality and from secular happiness. The essence of contemporary aesthetic construction lies in the theoretical criticism of contemporary social reality. This criticism can only be closely combined with contemporary art practice. In the construction of contemporary aesthetic theory, some impetuous aesthetic workers often like to make grand theoretical assumptions, but it is difficult to make a real breakthrough in theory. The main problem lies in the virtual theoretical framework, but it is difficult to have real realistic criticism content. Secondly, treat the aesthetic tradition correctly and tap the potential of traditional aesthetics. Adorno is not a nihilist. He criticized cultural nihilism many times in his own philosophical theory. His aesthetic theory is based on the practice of modern art, which has been divorced from the category of traditional aesthetics. It stands to reason that Adorno's aesthetic theory should completely abandon the traditional category, start a new stove and draw a clear line with traditional aesthetics, but Adorno did not do so. He gave tradition its rightful place, emphasizing? Transcending concepts with concepts? . Is this a real materialistic practice and tradition? Change the soup without changing the medicine? Systematic thinking of rational criticism. On the issue of modernist art, individual theorists after Adorno even totally denied the achievements of modernist art, which is an extreme practice. In the construction of our contemporary aesthetics, influenced by politics, we often go to extremes in theory, emphasizing the negative side too much and ignoring the inheritance side. Now, this situation should not continue.
Finally, pay attention to the openness of aesthetic theory. Just as the criticism of traditional aesthetics and traditional art is concrete and historical, Adorno's affirmation of modern art is also concrete and historical. This laid the foundation for his theory. Adorno wants to dedicate his book Aesthetic Theory to Beckett, the representative writer of modern art, which actually implies that the applicability of his theory is not universally applicable to the aesthetic theory of modern art. When asked about the future direction of art, Adorno kept his mouth shut. Because Adorno thinks that the situation of art is very dangerous, and the development of art is still unknown. Just like the development of this society, it is still up to everyone in life to make judgments and make efforts. It should be said that Adorno's practice undoubtedly reminds us that any aesthetic theoretical framework should consider the variable of artistic truth; The variable of art determines the openness of today's aesthetic theory. [References]
[1] (Germany) Teodoro? Adorno and Zhang Feng translated negative dialectics [M]. Chongqing: Chongqing Publishing House, 1993, 1 Edition, 14.
[2] (Federal Republic of Germany) Max? Hawk Hammer, Teodoro? Wei? Adorno, Hong Peiyu, etc. Enlightenment dialectics [M]. Chongqing: Chongqing Publishing House, 1990, version 1, 23 1.
[3] (Germany) Adorno, translated by Wang Keping. Aesthetic theory [M]. Chengdu: Sichuan People's Publishing House, 1998, 1, 33.
[4] Xue Hua. Hegel and artistic problems [M]. Beijing: China Social Sciences Press, 1986.
[5] (America) Frederick? Jameson, translated by Qian and Li Zixiu, Linguistic Marxism and the Cage of Form, Nanchang: Baihuazhou Literature and Art Publishing House, 1995.
[6] Liu Xinwen. A comparative study of Adorno's and Hegel's aesthetic thoughts [J]. Journal of Yantai Teachers College (Philosophy Edition), 200 1, (6): 48-54.
[7] See The Persistence Concept of Modernity (wilmer, Political Publishing House, 199 1) and Cultural Criticism. Wolin, translated by Zhang Guoqing, Beijing: Commercial Press, 2000, 1 1 Edition.
Sharing is better.