Irmeli Hautamäki,
Ph.D.
University of
Helsinki
A paper presented
in the BAMS conference Modernism Now! in London 28.6. 2014.
Adorno has
considered the problematical relation between the special and general in art in
his unfinished Aesthetic Theory. Art
has always attempted to rescue the special, he says, progressive
particularization has been immanent to it. Successful art works have been those
in which specification has flourished. In aesthetics there is an oppositional
tendency to develop general concepts which describe genres, types, styles and
aesthetic value. It is, however questionable, Adorno points whether these generalizing
concepts correspond what is crucial in the works. On the other hand, it is as
problematical, how can art and art criticism manage without such general
notions.
Adorno outlined
the tension between particular and universal as a dilemma between nominalism
and universalism. What he termed nominalism or a nominalistic tendency in
modern art means the historical advance of numerous specialized art forms which
do not share common characteristics as art in general or as a genre. From the
point of view of aesthetic theory the multiplying of modernisms is a contingent
and uncontrolled process. It means that, “the universal is no longer granted in
art through new types and the older types have drawn into whirlpool”. The
nominalistic tendency which has strengthened in modernist art is not a new
thing; according to Adorno it was Benedetto Croce who raised this tendency to
the level of theoretical aesthetics by suggesting, “that every work should be
judged, as the English say, on its own
merits”. While it is true, that probably no important artwork has ever
corresponded completely to its genre, it is a shame that Croce, who dismissed
the genres, diluted the element of universality in art, says Adorno. Croce did not seriously undertake to
transcend the notion of genre, Adorno objects (AT, 199).
Today the
opposition between the special and general has led to a situation where the
practices and theory of art have completely torn apart. There are no more
general aesthetic concepts which could be used in description, reception and
evaluation of art; no one seems to miss such general concepts, but without them,
art remains inconceivable. Adorno complained already in the 1960s that it was
awkward that “aesthetics was compelled to drag its concepts helplessly behind a
situation of art” in which radical art sought to undermine those concepts (AT,
339). Since that radical contemporary art has been looking for the borders of art
and attempted to transgress them, indifferent to the consequences. What is awkward today is that contemporary
art has come to a situation where it is forced to defend itself against the attacks
of the cultural conservatives who completely condemn modern art (or the
so-called post-modern art). Without convincing general concepts or a theory of
modern art both contemporary art and its defenders find themselves helpless in
front of the conservative critique.
Adorno, who was
concerned about the situation already in the 60’s, did not, however, reproach modern
art. The problem was according to him in aesthetic theory, which in the modern
era had become hopelessly backward. It was inevitable that the classical
aesthetic theories of Kant and Hegel were obsolete. Kant and Hegel could develop
their aesthetic theories in terms of their philosophical systems without a
touch to the practices of art. In their time it was possible to develop general
aesthetics which “scarcely ever confronted itself with its object”, says Adorno
(AT, 333). He continues that, “Hegel
and Kant were the last who, to put it bluntly, were able to develop major
aesthetics without understanding anything about art” (AT, 334).
It is well known,
for example, that Kant did not say anything about art in his aesthetics. The
experience of sublime is related to nature whereas the notion of beauty is
connected to imagination and its capability to play with forms. The Kantian
concept of taste: the aesthetic distancing is completely incompatible with progressive
modern art such as Kafka in which the secure aesthetic distance to the object
is undermined (AT, 339). Hegel’s aesthetics had more progressive elements than
Kant’s but Hegel did not reach the modernity. Most importantly, what makes Hegel’s
aesthetics obsolete is its commitment to the old form/content distinction, which
refers to classical representational art.
As a consequence,
Adorno outspokenly proposes the elucidated and concrete dissolution of
traditional aesthetic categories – such as taste and aesthetic value – it is
the only remaining form that
aesthetics can take today (AT, 341). It must be replaced with a modern
aesthetics which has understanding of what is immanent in art, what is inherent
in its practices. The development of modern aesthetics presupposes that it is
constituted from below, which means that theoreticians should learn from the
artists. At the same time the artists should become reflective, they should consider
their practices and methods conceptually (AT, 343).
Adorno outlined some
characteristics of modern aesthetics in his Aesthetic
Theory. The most important of them is what he called the open form of an
artwork. The open form is thus a modern aesthetic concept – or a
proposition for such – which replaces the traditional concept of form (the
unity of form and content) in classical aesthetics.
“Open forms are
those universal genre categories that seek equilibrium with the nominalistic
critique of universality”. An open form of a particular artwork means that it does not completely fulfill the
characteristics of a general style or
a genre but contains some contingency, some deviation from it. The classical
Viennese sonata form was a typical closed form, but its closure was precarious,
because the rondo part in the sonata was open, Adorno explains (AT, 220). Thus
even in classical works there is some openness of form, especially in music.
The social or political
characteristics that Adorno connects to the open form are worth noticing. “The
liberation of form, which genuinely new art desires, holds within it above all
the liberation of society, for form – the social nexus of everything
particular – represents the social relation in the artwork; this is why
liberated form is an anathema to status quo” (AT, 255). The liberation of form is related to
the freedom of society and the emancipation of the subject and his or her
experience – while the closed form (the strict unity with form and content)
corresponds with the conservative, hierarchic society. Adorno also considers the open forms in
psychological terms pointing out that an authoritarian personality has
difficulties to stand the open form or any contingent elements in an artwork. The liberation of
form is possible only in a social context which also guarantees the freedom of
an individual.
Though Adorno welcomes the liberation of form he does not
embrace techniques which produce chance. As examples of this he mentions Action painting, l’ art informelle (informalism) and aleatorical works, which were
new artistic practices in the 60’s. Adorno comments some what bitterly that in artworks
which rely on chance “the aesthetic subject exempts itself from the burden of
giving form to the contingent material it encounters and instead shifts the
responsibility for its organization back to the contingent material” (AT, 221).
Adorno considers the aesthetic “gain” of this kind of art dubious. He means
that such nominalistic art works need the guiding hand – of form.
Today Adorno’s
doubt of the chance producing techniques in art may sound backward and even
intolerant. Yet there is a point in this doubt. Though it has been correctly pointed
by recent authors like Tyrus Miller, for instance, that art works which use
chance producing techniques, such as John Cage’s compositions or Marcel
Duchamp’s ready-made works, help to emancipate the subject, there is a
reservation that must be made.[1]
Namely there is a danger that
these experiences fragment without the shared (general) signifying concepts.
The emancipation of the subject thus obtained concerns only to isolated
individuals. It remains unattainable in general, political level.
To conclude: the opposition
between singularity and universalism does not find a solution in Adorno’s Aesthetic Theory. Adorno’s attempt to
reconcile singularity and universal remains obscure and seems to refer to
Platonism. The genres in Adorno’s sense refer to platonic ideas and at the same
time they are claimed to be historical, which is a contradiction. In Adorno the
attempt to formulate general concepts leads either to essentialism, which is at
odds with (modern) art, or to another extreme: nominalism or singularity
wherein art has been liberated from all general characteristics.
As a solution to
the contradictory relation between essentialism and nominalism I would like propose
conceptualism.[2] In conceptualism
the essential characteristics that transcend time and place are not accepted; but
the relevance of general concepts are not denied altogether. According to conceptualism in all
singular phenomena there are some common characteristics, and on this basis it
is possible to create a general concept to describe these phenomena. The
classification of phenomena and conceptualization can be done in different ways
depending on which characteristic is emphasized. For a conceptualist the
meanings of concepts are necessarily historical; they do not have meanings that
transcend time and place.
As a matter of
fact a theoretician who attempts to develop modern aesthetics should proceed
toward conceptualism. He or she should describe singular examples, works and
their immanent artistic methods and from this basis search common
characteristics which allow to classify them conceptually. This method does not, however, prevent
the possibility that the genres and concepts thus obtained will not become
norms in art. Because, as Adorno says, art does not need aesthetics that will
prescribe norms where it (art) finds itself in difficulty, but rather of an
aesthetic theory that will provide the capacity of reflection, which art on its
own is hardly able to achieve (A, 341).
References:
Theodor Adorno, Aesthetic Theory, University of
Minnesota Press, 1997 (1970).
Tyrus Miller: Singular Examples, Northwestern
University Press, 2009.
Ronald N. Giere: Scientific Perspectivism, University of
Chicago Press, 2006.
[1] Miller believes that as such artworks “offer the audience unique,
one-time and anarchic occasions for experience” they encourage members of the
audience to make individual and exceptional choices in their lives and promote
variants, deviations and differences as the texture of freedom in society (Singular
examples, 10 -11).
