Art is not graspable by pure contemplation apart from its tradition

Evidence

The belief put about by aesthetic theorists that a work of art is to be understood as an object of immediate contemplation, purely on its own terms, is unsound. It is limited not merely by the cultural presuppositions of each work, its ‘language’, which only the initiate can follow. Even where there are no such difficulties, the work of art demands more than that one should merely abandon oneself to it. Anyone wishing to find the Fledermaus beautiful must know that it is the Fledermaus: his mother must have told him that it is not about the winged animal but a fancy-dress costume; he must remember having been told: tomorrow you can go to see the Fledermaus . To be within tradition used to mean: to experience the work of art as something sanctioned, valid: to participate through it in all the reactions of those who had seen it previously. Once this falls away, the work is exposed in its nakedness and fallibility. The plot, from a ritual, becomes idiocy, the music, from a canon of significant figures, flat and stale. — Theodor W. Adorno, Minima Moralia, 246

Categorization

  • XREF: Connects to Benjamin’s concept of aura and to aesthetic theory debates over autonomous form; the Fledermaus example is classic Adorno. — connects to: Genuine artistic negation requires being saturated with tradition first — Theodor W. Adorno, The Culture Industry: Selected Essays…, 165; Art cannot be studied apart from other social activities.; The Institut rejected individual-expression views of art as historically transcendental — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History…, 544 (+4 more)
  • SHARE: The Fledermaus anecdote — that the operetta’s title must be explained to newcomers — is a sharp illustration of how tradition, not the object alone, constitutes the aesthetic experience.

Broader Connections