Lukács, Adorno, and Beckett: The Modernism Debate Revisited

김재철 새한영어영문학회 2014 새한영어영문학 Vol.56 No.2

By revisiting the Lukács-Adorno debate on modernism, this essay surveys the aesthetic theories of Lukács and Adorno: in particular, this essay critically investigates Adorno’s aesthetics presented in Aesthetic Theory from the Lukácsian perspective. The scope of this essay also covers a critical investigation of the recent critical trend that Adorno is more favorably received by critics than Lukács after the rise of post-structuralism. This is because critics tend to esteem Adorno’s “negative dialectic” as a sort of deconstructive practice while considering Lukács’s notion of totality as an expression of Stalinist totalitarianism. Nonetheless, what we should not fail to notice in this regard is that the Lukács-Adorno debate has its own significance not just because it is the culmination of the modernist debate but behind it resides critical issues such as how we should take the social engagement of writers and how art could be an expression of social praxis. The essay will begin with a brief survey of Lukács and Adorno’s aesthetic theories, and then it critically examines Adorno’s essay “Reconciliation under Duress” which allegedly shows the way Adorno successfully confutes Lukácsian theory. Nonetheless, Adorno’s theory in “Reconciliation under Duress” is possible only when he forecloses the possibility of art’s social engagement―thus making an argument of “Negation under Duress.” In the final section of this essay, I read Beckett’s Endgame in terms of and from the perspectives of Lukács and Adorno’s aesthetic theories. Endgame becomes a significant work to frame the debate not only because the debate itself formed around Beckett’s work but also the play which negates any possible engagement of art to its existential condition (i.e. the society), thus praised by Adorno, shows the way Adorno’s aesthetics forecloses any sort of social praxis.

Lukács, Adorno, and Beckett

Kim, Jaecheol(김재철) 새한영어영문학회 2014 새한영어영문학 Vol.56 No.2

By revisiting the Lukacs-Adorno debate on modernism, this essay surveys the aesthetic theories of Lukacs and Adorno: in particular, this essay critically investigates Adorno’s aesthetics presented in Aesthetic Theory from the Lukacsian perspective. The scope of this essay also covers a critical investigation of the recent critical trend that Adorno is more favorably received by critics than Lukacs after the rise of post-structuralism. This is because critics tend to esteem Adorno’s “negative dialectic” as a sort of deconstructive practice while considering Lukacs’s notion of totality as an expression of Stalinist totalitarianism. Nonetheless, what we should not fail to notice in this regard is that the Lukacs-Adorno debate has its own significance not just because it is the culmination of the modernist debate but behind it resides critical issues such as how we should take the social engagement of writers and how art could be an expression of social praxis. The essay will begin with a brief survey of Lukacs and Adorno’s aesthetic theories, and then it critically examines Adorno’s essay “Reconciliation under Duress” which allegedly shows the way Adorno successfully confutes Lukacsian theory. Nonetheless, Adorno’s theory in “Reconciliation under Duress” is possible only when he forecloses the possibility of art’s social engagement―thus making an argument of “Negation under Duress.” In the final section of this essay, I read Beckett’s Endgame in terms of and from the perspectives of Lukacs and Adorno’s aesthetic theories. Endgame becomes a significant work to frame the debate not only because the debate itself formed around Beckett’s work but also the play which negates any possible engagement of art to its existential condition (i.e. the society), thus praised by Adorno, shows the way Adorno’s aesthetics forecloses any sort of social praxis.

Eine Studie zum Vergleich des Konstruktivismus und der Identitätskritik Adornos: Implikationen für pädagogische Forschung

홍은영 한독사회과학회 2019 한독사회과학논총 Vol.29 No.4

This paper critically examines the constructivist epistemology that has been actively accepted and actively discussed in pedagogical research for the past two decades, and compares the constructive fundamentals with the views of Adorno's critique of identity. It aims to draw some implications. Adorno, in contrast to the constructivist approach to knowledge and truth, argues for a critique of identity that is to note something that is not fully captured by human conceptual thought, something that is not identical. First of all, this paper examines the basic perspective of constructivism, focusing on the constructivism of the cybernetics Foerster, among other types of constructivism. Constructivist education understands human perception and learning as an active and self-organizing process, and sees the subjective experience and learning of learners in the process of interacting with the environment of individual learners. Adorno, on the other hand, uses the topic of “priority of object” to note the subject's conceptual thinking categorizes and defines the object, thereby observing the trigger of violence that excludes a particular experience of something that is not identical to the concept itself. In this sense, Adorno's critique of identity can be understood as emphasizing that perception and thought require continuous reflection of the subject, while paying attention to the object ‘in concept’ rather than capturing the object by concept. In conclusion, this thesis has in common that criticism of constructivism and Adorno's identity avoids the absolutization of objectivism, but the difference between these two theories is that they overlook the logical coercion of identity. As implications for pedagogical research, this study presented the subject's introspection on objective knowledge acquisition, and the consciousness of inconsistency between concept and object in the light of inconsistency, and the uninterrupted reflection of the conceptual thought of the subject. Diese Arbeit beschäftigt sich mit der konstruktivistischen Erkenntnistheorie, die in den letzten zwei Jahrzehnten in der pädagogischen Forschung aufgenommen und diskutiert wurde. Außerdem vergleicht sie den Konstruktivismus mit Adornos Identitätskritik. Es sollen dadurch einige Rückschlüsse gezogen werden. Theodor W. Adorno plädiert im Gegensatz zur konstruktivistischen Herangehensweise an Wissen und Wahrheit für eine Identitätskritik, die etwas festhält, das vom begrifflichen Denken nicht vollständig erfasst wird. Zunächst wird in dieser Arbeit der Grundgedanke des Konstruktivismus untersucht, wobei unter anderem der Konstruktivismus der Kybernetik Heinz von Foerster und Ernst von Glasersfeld im Mittelpunkt steht. Aus der Sicht der konstruktivistischen Bildung versteht sich menschliche Wahrnehmung und Lernen als aktiver und selbstorganisierender Prozess. Die subjektive Erfahrung und das Lernen der Lernenden erfolgen im Prozess der Interaktion mit der Umwelt der einzelnen Lernenden. Adorno hingegen spricht vom Vorrang des Objektes und stellt die Theorie auf, dass das begriffliche Denken des Subjekts das Objekt kategorisiert und definiert und dabei den Aspekt von Gewalt beinhaltet, der eine bestimmte Erfahrung von etwas ausschließt, das mit Begriff selbst nicht identisch ist. In diesem Sinne kann Adornos Identitätskritik dahingehend verstanden werden, dass Denken eine ständige Reflexion des Subjekts erfordert, indem sich das Subjekt dem Objekt annährt. Zusammenfassend lässt sich die Gemeinsamkeit von Konstruktivismus und Adornos Identitätskritik in der Kritik an der Absolutierung des Objektivismus finden. Jedoch besteht der Unterschied zwischen den beiden Theorien darin, dass die konstruktivistischen Theorien den logischen Zwang der Identität vernachlässigen. Als Implikationen für die pädagogische Forschung lassen sich aus dieser Studie die folgenden drei Punkte resultieren, erstens die Selbstreflexion des Subjekts auf seinen objektiven Wissenserwerb, zweitens das Bewusstsein der Diskrepanz zwischen Begriff und Sache im Lichte lebendiger Erfahrung und drittens die ständige Reflexion des begrifflichen Denkens.

Really, Is it just “Backwards”?—Reevaluating Adorno's Multifaceted Analysis of Stravinsky

Xi Zhao(Xi Zhao) Korea Institute for Humanities and Social Sciences 2024 PROCEEDINGS of the International Conference on Cul Vol.1 No.-

With Adorno playing a significant role in academic debates, Chinese musicology has placed a greater emphasis on the study of the connections between music and philosophy as well as between music and society since the 20th century. This work aims to demonstrate Adorno's multifaceted view of Stravinsky and dialectical assessment of him. This article is based on domestic scholars' research on Adorno's “retrogressive” assessment of Stravinsky. It finds that scholars primarily elaborate on Adorno's critical assessment of Stravinsky, ignoring the dimensions of the critique as well as the correlation between his multifaceted critique of musicianship, sociability, and philosophicality and his affirmative premise of Stravinsky as a representative of new music. The use of musical form as a critical social mediator in Adorno's social critique. In his assessment of Stravinsky, Adorno highlights the musical material's historical nature while also drawing a comparison between the musical work's internal formal components and external social phenomena. Stravinsky insists on using the harmonic character of classicism, which Adorno views as the same as the bourgeois ideology, a sort of hypocrisy, evasion, and regression. He is adamant that only Schoenbergian atonal music can save the unconscious social group under the brutal and broken social phenomenon, and he uses the break of atonal music against tonal music as a metaphor to identify the false bourgeois ideology. According to Adorno, Stravinsky's insistence on the use of classical harmonic features is hypocritical, an escape from, and a regression from the identity of bourgeois ideology. The only way to achieve the preservation of the social status quo and human freedom is to remain non-identifiable with the society's ideology. The affirmative premise of retrogression, Stravinsky's “return” to the use of classical music elements, and a pejorative retrogression that contrasts with Schoenberg's progressive and socially non-critical function are the three dimensions that retrogression also points to within the field of retrogressive evaluation. In order to provide a dialectical perspective of great comprehensiveness to the study of musicology, Adorno bases his musical evaluation process on the analysis of musical works, combines sociology and philosophy, emphasizes the correlation between the inner and outer musical works, and investigates the cognitive function of musical works in the correlation process.

아도르노와 예술적 천재 개념 -칸트와 셀링의 천재 개념과 아도르노의 비판을 중심으로-

박영선 ( Young Sun Park ) 한국미학회 2003 미학(美學) Vol.35 No.-

Game and Art - On Adorno’s criticism of the “Magic Circle” -

랄프베이탄 서강대학교 철학연구소 2020 철학논집 Vol.63 No.-

This paper explores the question of how Adorno determines the relationship between play and art. The aim is (based on Adorno’s “aesthetic theory”) to show that Adorno not only sees a constitutive connection between play and art, but also argues that there is a profound difference. To clarify the difference, Adorno falls back on the classical game theory of the cultural theorist Huizinger (“Homo Ludens”), and interestingly, he subjects Huizinger’s thesis of a “magic circle”, which is much discussed today in the context of game studies, to a critical revision. The following study will (1) work out the conceptual differences between the concept of play and art that are decisive for Adorno; (2) Adorno’s criticism of Huizinger’s thesis that games are genuinely separated from everyday reality (“magic circle”) is examined more closely and systematized; (3) Adorno’s criticism of the “magic circle” is further specified in a systematic comparison to McLuhan’s game theory in “Understanding Media”, which at the same time raises the question of the extent to which games themselves are understood as art. The aim of the study is twofold: On the one hand, it should be shown that and why for Adorno the thesis that games can be art seems impossible; on the other hand, at the end it should become clear under which conceptual conditions, following Adorno, this thesis of ‘game as art’ could nevertheless be possible. It is intended, from the perspective of Adorno’s aesthetics, to help to clarify the conceptual prerequisites for the thesis that video games can be art. 본고는 아도르노의 놀이 (게임)와 예술의 관계가 어떻게 규정되는지를 집중적으로 고찰한다. 이는 그의 저작인 『미학이론』을 통해 이뤄질 것이며, 이를 통해 아도르노가 단순히 놀이와 예술의 상호 구성적인 관계를 발견했다는 것뿐만이아니라, 동시에 근본적인 차이점에 대해 논증했다는 사실이 드러날 것이다. 이러한차이점을 드러내기 위해서 아도르노는 Huizinger (이하 하위징아)의 고전적인 놀이이론 (Homo Ludens)을 끌어 오며, 여기서 아주 흥미롭게도, 특히 오늘날의 게임학에서 다방면에서 논의되는 테제인 “마법적인 원”을 비판적인 검토한다. 본고의 상세한 고찰은 다음과 같이 진행될 것이다. (1) 아도르노에 있어 놀이와 예술 개념에대한 결정적인 차이점을 부각한다. (2) 놀이가 근본적으로 일상적인 현실과 분리되어 있다는 하위징아의 테제 (“마법적인 원”, Magic Circle)에 대한 아도르노의 비판이 면밀하게 검토하며 체계화한다. (3) 더 나아가 “마법적인 원”에 대한 아도르노의 비판을 『미디어의 이해』 저작에 있는 맥루한 (McLuhan)의 놀이 개념과 체계적인 비교를 통해 더 자세하게 상술한다. 여기서 동시에 드러나는 것은 어느 정도까지 놀이 자체가 예술로서 이해가 될 수있는지에 관한 질문에 관한 답이다. 따라서 본고의 목적을 두 가지로 정립할 수 있다. 첫째로, 아도르노에게 있어 왜 놀이가 예술일 가능성이 있으며, 불가능하게 보이는지에 대한 이유를 모두 규명한다. 둘째로, 아도르노와의 연관성 속에서 그럼에도 불구하고 결론적으로 어떠한 개념적 조건 아래서 놀이가 예술로서 다뤄질 수있는지가 정당화될 것이다. 즉, 아도르노의 미학적 관점을 통해 놀이가 예술로서다뤄질 수 있다는 주장에 대한 개념적 전제조건을 규명하는 것이 본고의 목적인것이다.

김현 비평의 아도르노 미학 수용 양상 연구

한래희 ( Lae Hee Han ) 국제비교한국학회 2014 비교한국학 Comparative Korean Studies Vol.22 No.2

The aim of this thesis is to study how critic Kim Hyun accept T. W. Adorno’s aesthetic theory. Kim Hyun accepts Adorno’s aesthetic theory in 1970’s as a efficient method of negation. The important thing we should pay attention to is that T. W. Adorno and Gaston Bachelard is similar in their theory in Kim Hyun’s view. Kim Hyun thinks that both Adorno and Bachelard regard alienation and reification as a most serious problem in modern society. How Kim Hyun accept Adorno’s aesthetic theory have an effect on lots of parts of his criticism. It influences his literary theory which is composed of two important factor : uselessness and absence of repression. The former is Adorno’s concept and the latter is Bachelard’s concept. The nature of uselessness makes art(literature) negativity of society. Absence of repression in art(literature) causes self-reflection. Modern art(literature) shows the attitude of negativity. The reader finds in Utopia in art(literature). Utopia is the power of negativity of society. The idea about utopia in art(literature) is different between Kim Hyun and Adorno. Kim Hyun and Bachelard think that readers find positive utopia in art(literature) and feels freedom. That experience becomes the power of denying negative society. Adorno has an opinion that art show negative utopia and the experience of negative utopia has power to deny society. In short, Kim Hyun accept Adorno as good theory of sociology of literature. Bachelard is the basis of that acceptance of Adorno, which has an great impact on the method of Kim Hyun’s attitude toward literature and his literary theory.

아도르노의 디즈니 만화영화 비판

이아름 한국만화애니메이션학회 2024 만화애니메이션연구 Vol.- No.76

이 글은 디즈니로 대표되는 초기 만화영화(cartoon film)에 대한 테오도어 아 도르노(Theodor Adorno)의 매체론적 평가를 규명하는 것을 목표로 한다. 아도르 노에게 있어 문화산업과 이로써 생산된 대중문화는 ‘대중 기만으로서의 계몽’ 을 실현하는 이데올로기의 수단으로 이해된다. 문화산업은 복제 기술을 통한 규격화와 대량생산을 통해 문화를 몰개성한 것으로 전락시키며, 나아가 표준 화와 우민화에 복무하는 지배의 도구로 만든다. 특히 영화는 기계적 복제 기 술을 토대로 하는 예술로서 문화산업의 대표적 매체로써 비판되어 왔다. 하지 만 동시에 그는 문화산업의 기술일지라도 예술의 내재적인 요건에 따라 사용 된다면 예술의 잠재성을 끌어낼 가능성을 갖는다는 낙관적인 전망을 내비치 기도 한다. 아도르노의 수많은 저작 중 직접적으로 디즈니나 만화영화를 다루는 글은 찾아보기 어려우나, 대중문화를 논하는 저작 곳곳에서 이에 대한 비판적 서술 을 확인할 수 있다. 그는 디즈니를 비롯하여 당시 부상하던 만화 영화의 가학 성이 대중을 폭력에 노출시키고 무감하게 만드는 효과를 갖는다고 비판한다. 이것은 내재적 연관을 잃고 오직 속도만을 강조하는 플롯에 의해 배가된다. 또한 당시 디즈니가 자랑하던 ‘미키마우징’의 기술, 즉 화면과 음향을 일치시 키는 고도의 테크닉이 개별적인 매체의 독립성을 약화시키고 전체주의에 기 여한다고 보았다. 이러한 주장은 자칫 그가 만화영화라는 대중문화의 매체 일반을 부정하는 것으로 읽힐 수 있다. 그러나 그는 한스 아이슬러와의 공저에서 디즈니 만화 영화의 기술이 필연적으로 여러 감각을 사용하는 영화의 매체적 가능성을 드 러내는 작법의 모델로서 활용가능하다고 보았다. 또한 거대 자본이나 문화산 업에 의해 발전되는 기술일지라도 사용에 따라 예술적 일신으로 이어질 수 있 다고 서술하며, <환타지아>를 상연하기 위한 진취적인 기술적 혁신을 고평가 하기도 한다. 만화 영화에 대한 아도르노의 서술은 다소 파편적으로 분포되어 있는데다 함축적이기 때문에 일반론으로 종합하여 이해하기 어렵다. 그러나 그의 시선은 만화 영화의 기술이 구현하는 매체성과 감각적 경험의 효과에 대 한 경각심을 갖도록 한다. 이 글은 다소 일면적으로 이해되어 온 아도르노의 대중문화 이론에 대한 새로운 시각을 제시함과 동시에 그의 논의를 통해 만화 영화의 근본적인 매체적 힘을 돌아보고 성찰하기 위한 하나의 지침을 제시하 고자 한다. This study aims to analyze Theodor Adorno’s critique of Disney’s cartoon films. Adorno perceived the culture industry and the mass culture it engenders as ideological tools that realize “enlightenment as mass deception.” Through standardization and mass production facilitated by reproductive technologies, the culture industry deindividualizes culture, transforming it into an instrument of domination that serves standardization. Film, in particular, is critiqued as a representative medium of the culture industry, grounded in mechanical reproduction technology. Nonetheless, Adorno also believed that the technologies of the culture industry possess the potential to unleash the artistic possibilities inherent in art when utilized according to art’s intrinsic requirements. Although Adorno did not specifically focus on Disney or cartoon films in his extensive body of work, his critical perspective is evident in his writings on the culture industry. He condemned the sadism prevalent in Disney and cartoon films, arguing that they desensitized the public to violence. This desensitization is exacerbated by disjointed plots that prioritize speed over narrative coherence. Adorno further criticized Disney’s celebrated “Mickey Mousing” technique — a sophisticated method of synchronizing sound with visuals — as undermining the independence of individual media and contributing to totalitarian tendencies. This critique could be interpreted as a broader rejection of cartoon films as a medium of culture industry. However, in his collaboration with Hanns Eisler, Adorno recognized the technology in Disney’s cartoon films as exemplifying the potential for a multisensory cinematic experience. He also argued that technologies developed by large capital or the culture industry could lead to artistic development, depending on their application, and he praised the innovative technical approaches used in the production of Fantasia. Adorno’s account of cartoon films is somewhat fragmented and implicit, making it difficult to synthesize into a generalization. However, his focus remains on the effects of the medium and the sensory experiences that the technology of cartoon films enables. This article aims to shed new light on Adorno’s theory of mass culture, which has often been understood in a one-dimensional manner, and to use his discussion as a guide for reflecting on the fundamental mediumistic power of cartoon films.

아도르노의 칸트 윤리학 비판 : 충동 개념을 중심으로

강동원 ( Kang Dongwon ) 한국칸트학회 2022 칸트연구 Vol.49 No.-

This article reconstructs and examines Theodor W. Adorno’s critique of the Kantian moral philosophy. First, using the term ‘theoreticism’, this article articulates what Adorno's critique aims at. The term ‘theoreticism’ will reveal that Adorno’s critique, focusing on ‘depracticalization’ and ‘deobjectification’ - which are immanent in Kant's concept of pure practical reason -, is grounded on the action-theoretical problematics. Subsequently, we analyze the implications of the concept of ‘impulse,’ which plays the most important role in Adorno's critique. Adorno uses a unique neologism for the concept of impulse ; “the addendum(Das Hinzutretende)”. By interpreting the relationship between the addendum and the practical reason as continuous with the relationship between “the non-identical” and the “identitythinking” - which is a more general theme of Adorno’s philosophy -, we reveal that Adorno’s critique of the Kantian ethics cannot collapse into the cliche of “rationalistic ethics of reason versus. irrationalistic ethics of impulse.” In conclusion, comparing Kant’s categorical imperative with Adorno’s “new categorical imperative”, we remark that although Adorno rejects the Kantian ethics at some point, in a sense, he is still “a Kantian”, by insisting on an irreducible remainder of rationality.

계몽과 멋진 신세계 -아도르노의 헉슬리 다시 읽기-

이하준 ( Lee Ha-jun ) 한국동서철학회 2016 동서철학연구 Vol.0 No.81

Huxley and Adorno show the negativity of instrumental reason by taking linguistic grammar of novel and philosophy. Although there is a considerable similarity in the way of raising questions and its contents on their criticisms of civilization, it is hard to find out any carefully examined comparative analysis of both Huxley’s and Adorno’s arguments of the above issues. This paper aims to examine Huxley’s Brave New World from Adorno``s perspective on Huxley, namely Rereading Huxley. There seems considerable familiarity in both Adorno’s and Huxley’s analysis of social mechanism, the realization of ruling ideology, and the criticisms of the loss of freedom. But their ways to solve the problem of enlightenment of enlightenment, namely the poison of civilization, seems to be a different strategy that would show ‘changing the social structure’, ‘individual escape’, and ‘partial improvement’ under the existing social conditions. Adorno``s ‘Rereading Huxley’ seems to have both clarity and difficulties simultaneously because it starts from only Adorno’s own philosophical perspective. The main contents of Adorno``s criticism on Huxley could be summarized in the following words: conservative color, idealistic yearn for spiritual culture, a positivistic character, anarchic individualism, implicit contributing to consolidation of domination, and the lack of practical force for the social emancipation. It seems quite certain that Adorno``s ‘Rereading Huxley’ reaches the limit caused by the matter of ideological aspects and the application of the limited text. This paper finally opens up the way of critical understanding of the era alpago throughout the examination of Huxley``s preceding criticisms of Ford Society and the issues of Adorno``s ‘Rereading Huxley’.