Textual Reflection on Adorno

It was interesting to read Adorno’s Aesthetic Theory after we read Benjamin’s piece. When talking about Benjamin in class, we talked about the aura and reproduction. Benjamin focuses on authenticity and how “even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be” (Cazeaux, 432). He also looks at the ways changes in society influence artwork. He claims that, “the mode of human sense perception changes with humanity’s entire mode of existence. The manner in which human sense perception is organized, the medium in which it is accomplished, is determined not only by nature but by historical circumstances as well” (Cazeaux, 433). These discussions are a good segue into Adorno. Adorno talks about the relations between society and art. Adorno says that art is not only social because of the way it is produced or the material artwork is based on, but paradoxically, “art becomes social by its opposition to society, and it occupies this position only as autonomous art” (225) and by existing, art is partaking in a critical relationship with society. The autonimity of art comments on society by making “itself a vehicle of ideology” (226) and art now has a responsibility to do so. Not only does art thrive on opposing society, it in facts survives because of it. It is a form of social resistance that “becomes a commodity” (226). This argument is particularly interesting when contemplating the roots of artwork. Although I am not an artist, it seems to me that artwork is derived from observations in society, for example, political art. Adorno stresses the disjunction of art and society when it seems that really they compliment each other. Adorno also talks about the truth of art. He believes that truth is within the art and not in the perception of art. As Benjamin talks about artwork changing throughout historical context, Adorno brings up the idea of eventual neutralization. He comments, “works are usually critical in the era in which they appear; later they are neutralized, not least because of changed social relations” (228). Again, it seems that this claim would make sense when looking at artwork in relation to society. Historical situations change and with them, societies evolve and adapt. It seems appropriate to say that artwork is critical in the time period it arrives in because it occupies a spot in that time’s history and is influenced by those current circumstances. When the artwork is removed from its original position, viewers aren’t looking at it in the exact way it was intended to be seen. Instead, they are looking at it in a context that may or may not fit. This context to some degree must be influenced by society. Adorno says this in a way by stating, “the artistic subject is inherently social, not private…the artist unconsciously obeys a social universal” (231).