David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
International Journal of Philosophical Studies 19 (2):155 - 175 (2011)
Abstract Aesthetic autonomy has been given a variety of interpretations, which in many cases involve a number of claims. Key among them are: (i) art eludes conventional conceptual frameworks and their inherent incompatibility with invention and creativity; and (ii) art can communicate aspects of experience too fine?grained for discursive language. To accommodate such claims one can adopt either a convention?based account or a natural?kind account. A natural?kind theory can explain the first but requires some special scaffolding in order to support the second, while a convention?based account accommodates the second but is incompatible with the first. Theodor W. Adorno attempts to incorporate both claims within his aesthetic theory, but arguably in his aesthetic theory each is cancelled out by the other. Art?s independence of entrenched conceptual frameworks needs to be made compatible with its communicative role. Jürgen Habermas, in contrast, provides a solution by way of his theory of language. I draw upon the art practice of the contemporary Icelandic?Danish artist Olafur Eliasson in order to demonstrate this
|Keywords||aesthetic autonomy Habermas Adorno Olafur Eliasson|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
M. W. Skees (2011). Kant, Adorno and the Work of Art. Philosophy and Social Criticism 37 (8):915-933.
Lambert Zuidervaart (2003). Cultural Paths and Aesthetic Signs: A Critical Hermeneutics of Aesthetic Validity. Philosophy and Social Criticism 29 (3):315-340.
Robert W. Witkin (2000). Why Did Adorno "Hate" Jazz? Sociological Theory 18 (1):145-170.
Christy Mag Uidhir & Cameron Buckner (2014). A Portrait of the Artist as an Aesthetic Expert. In Gregory Currie, Matthew Kieran & Aaron Meskin (eds.), Aesthetics and the Sciences. Oxford University Press
Keith Lehrer (2011). Art, Self, and Knowledge. Oxford University Press.
James Gordon Finlayson (2015). The Artwork and the Promesse du Bonheur in Adorno. European Journal of Philosophy 23 (3):392-419.
Harold Osborne (1972). Aesthetics. London,Oxford University Press.
Bed P. Paudyal (2009). Mimesis in Adorno's Aesthetic Theory. Journal of Philosophy: A Cross-Disciplinary Inquiry 4 (8):1-10.
Noël Carroll (2004). Non-Perceptual Aesthetic Properties: Comments for James Shelley. British Journal of Aesthetics 44 (4):413-423.
Samantha Matherne (2013). The Inclusive Interpretation of Kant's Aesthetic Ideas. British Journal of Aesthetics 53 (1):21-39.
Matthew Kieran (2010). The Vice of Snobbery: Aesthetic Knowledge, Justification and Virtue in Art Appreciation. Philosophical Quarterly 60 (239):243-263.
G. I. Demiryol (2012). Film as a Mobilizing Agent? Adorno and Benjamin on Aesthetic Experience. Philosophy and Social Criticism 38 (9):939-954.
Gary Iseminger (2004). The Aesthetic Function of Art. Cornell University Press.
Ronald L. Hall (1982). Michael Polanyi on Art and Religion: Some Critical Reflections on Meaning. Zygon 17 (1):9-18.
Added to index2011-06-16
Total downloads379 ( #5,298 of 1,935,082 )
Recent downloads (6 months)29 ( #19,422 of 1,935,082 )
How can I increase my downloads?