Materialist aesthetics rejects abstract theory for period-specific history

Evidence

The method of grasping the epoch on the basis of small, superficial symptoms appears to be showing all of its power on this occasion. You are taking a great stride beyond previous materialist explanations of aesthetic phenomena.’ The study made it clear that `there is no abstract theory of aesthetics, but rather the theory always corresponds to the history of a specific period.’ — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School, 215

Categorization

• XREF: Echoes the reader’s notes on Adorno treating style and aesthetic categories as historically contingent rather than universal. — connects to: Materialist historiography alone resists the dehistoricizing of canonical texts — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures, 1149; Materialist thought takes a different shape in each historical epoch; Historical materialism is fundamentally historicist, not metaphysical (+5 more)
• DEFINE: Horkheimer articulates the methodological premise of Institute aesthetics: theory corresponds to a specific period’s history.
• yield-rescued: below the book’s yield-target cutoff, included anyway for connecting to: Materialist historiography alone resists the dehistoricizing of canonical texts — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures, 1149; Materialist thought takes a different shape in each historical epoch; Historical materialism is fundamentally historicist, not metaphysical (+5 more)