Phrase-"It is self evident that that nothing concerning art is self evident anymore"

Adorno writes that, "It is self evident that that nothing concerning art is self evident anymore" (Adorno 1). This idea supports the notion that there is no concrete "thing" called art. Thus there is no "true" or "pure" art. Art is something that, like other readings have pointed out, has no concrete foundation. One cannot look at something and say, "that is not art" or "that follows the exact specifications of x form of art". Looking at art is a process of blindness that unifies what we see.

WORD- ART- NICK SEXTON

According to Adorno, "The concept of art is located in a historically changing constellation of elements; it refuses definition" (2). However, the OED defines "art" in definition 8b as "The expression or application of creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting, drawing, or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power. Also: such works themselves considered collectively." In Adorno's eyes, this definition is simply not enough. He argues that art is constantly changing and opposing concepts that have once been considered fundamental; therefore, Adorno believes that art inherently cannot be defined. He says, "Art must turn against itself, in opposition to its own concept, and thus become uncertain of itself right into its innermost fiber...By attacking what seemed to be its foundation throughout the whole of its tradition, art has been qualitatively transformed; it itself becomes qualitatively other. It can do this because through the ages by means of its form, art has turned against the status quo..." (2).
I thought that it would be interesting, and useful, to test Adorno's argument by looking at how the word "art" has been used since the 1600's using the OED online. In 1694, Dryden in his To Sir G. Kneller in Ann. Misc. 89 wrote "From hence the Rudiments of Art began; A Coal, or Chalk, first imitated Man." In other words, "art" was defined in 1694 as being highly imitational. Moreover, one could presume that "art" was characterized by an attempt to be as realistic as possible, in order to imitate human form. Later in 1927, R.H. Wilenski in Mod. Movement in Art 30 wrote that "Nineteenth-century romantics deliberately left out all the features which the admirers of classical painting were accustomed to regard as indispensable to art." This proves that over time "art" began to lose distinct characteristics that could be used to define it since 19th century romantics opposed "indespinsable" classical painting techniques and forms.

One paints a painting...

Adorno states that "One paints a painting, not what it represents" (3). A painting is more than just its aesthetic layer of pretty colors and strokes. One cannot fully understand a painting just by looking at the top layer. He also says, "The Hegelian vision of the possible death of art accords with the fact that art is a product of history" (3). Art is also "a product of history," as he states, and its meaning and 'bottom layer' become less discernible as a piece get older; what it represents fades with time. Eventually, it could become just the painting, only good for its aesthetic values.

Phrase: The happiness gained from artworks is that of having suddenly escaped...

From page 15, "The happiness gained from artworks is that of having suddenly escaped, not a morsel of that from which art has escaped; it is accidental and less essential to art than the happiness in its knowledge; the concept of aesthetic pleasure as constitutive of art is to be superceded."

This quote from Adorno addresses art's transcendent nature, not from the point of view that an idiosyncratic aesthetic can be beheld by any audience in any time, but from the idea that the knowledge of one's relish is transcendent.

PRECIS: Art as a Living Thing

The central idea of Adorno's "Aesthetic Theory" has to be the personification of art. Adorno speaks of art as if it were a living being, constantly moving and of no origin. Art has no "definition" (2) and did not come from any one thing--it is and always has been. It's twisting and turning against itself at the same time, both reflecting and rejecting the world. It is what it is because it isn't--any one thing, that is. It's only real defining quality is that it moves and never stays the same. What society would consider art in one era is redifined in another, so it is not up to our culture to say what is classified as art or not (we only know what is occurring now to be truth, 3, and that type of art may change in the course of history). "Artworks are alive," says Adorno, "in that they speak in a fashion that is denied to natural objects and the subjects who make them" (5). Art tells about society and culture in a way that no one person can, and it can often be traced back to motion among life itself (ex. dance, rituals).

This text also seems to ridicule the idea of art as being for only the high class, or one piece of art being better than another.

WORD: aesthetics

Aesthetics, as defined by the OED, has multiple definitions:
1. Of or pertaining to sensuous perception, received by the senses
2. Of or pertaining to the appreciation or criticism of the beautiful
3. Of or pertaining to a late nineteenth-century movement in England of artists and writers who advocated a doctrine of ‘art for art's sake’

Adorno uses the word "aesthetics" quite frequently within his writings. It would seem that he finds aesthetics to define art; in that what you find appealing aesthetically is what you define as your art. This broad definition leaves a lot of room for what "art" could be. Adorno does warn that while one might like something because of its aesthetics, "Art perceived strictly aesthetically is art aesthetically misperceived" (5). So while you should appreciate something because it appeals to your senses you should also view the piece in its entirety, deciphering meanings out of each artwork. One should look at art and realize that artwork has unconcious "forces" (6), which are just as material to the piece.

Bend me shape me anyway you want me.

In what way is art a mirror? Previously, we examined “the mirror stage” and the crucial moment when a child is able to create a whole image from the fragments of his body. This realization impacts greatly the way in which we as humans regard not only ourselves but also others. What, then, does this have to do with art? In Adorno’s Aesthetic Theory, it is established that “art is what it has become” and that “it […] refers to what it does not contain” (3). In some ways, our sense of self is what we in fact become, and not what we truly contain. Viewing ourselves in a mirror, we see what we see, whereas others, outside our scope, might see something entirely different. This distinction is important because art, in its many forms, is easily manipulated to tell whatever story of life the artist desires. How can we manipulate ourselves to tell our stories? In which ways must the mirror of our own presentation mimic art?

I've included the link because I think it's a pretty interesting point to consider as it sort of causes one to revert to their fragmented state. And presented art, it forces us to come to terms with a period in our lives that is familiar, yet hard to grasp (uncanny anyone?).

http://medhum.med.nyu.edu/blog/?p=130