Adorno and Benjamin’s aesthetic-modernist reading displaced the bourgeois-culture reading at the Institute.

Evidence

When these sentences, which were as true of Lowenthal’s as of Adorno’s work, were written, there was still room at the Institute for both variants of the social-theoretical interpretation of works of art: one centred on aesthetic modernism and the other centred on the bourgeois concept of culture. But it was at this point that Benjamin and Adorno’s position, which made aesthetic modernism into the basis in experience for ideas critical of society, finally took hold at the Institute of Social Research. — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School, 916

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to Adorno’s critique of the culture industry and of authentic art as a site of critical experience, from later reading. — connects to: Benjamin and Adorno monopolized the Institute’s aesthetic criticism after 1937. — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History,…, 914; Adorno’s arrival displaced Fromm and changed the Frankfurt School’s intellectual tone — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History…, 353; Adorno and Benjamin independently converged on the same cultural-critique objects from opposite directions — Dirk Braunstein, Adorno’s Critique of Political Economy, 348

Broader Connections

• Adorno’s arrival displaced Fromm and changed the Frankfurt School’s intellectual tone #corroborates (0.85) — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination, 353
• Adorno and Benjamin independently converged on the same cultural-critique objects from opposite directions #expands (0.70) — Dirk Braunstein, Adorno’s Critique of Political Economy, 348