Thoughts on Adorno and Schoenberg

      I've had a lot less free time to blog as a result of committing to two jobs and my M.A. But I'm learning so much from interacting with my students, as well as my graduate classes that force me to read books and journals that I otherwise would have left alone. And I felt that I had to share my newest philosophical "find"... the Frankfurt School/ Critical Theory philosophers that include Theodor Adorno.
 
     I've always believed that Art is good in itself, but that it is so much better if it is "useful" in some way. Now I've finally found a  philosopher who formed some of my disconnected fragmentary ideas into an entire philosophy of art.

(Incidentally, Meewa/Mika, he also advised Thomas Mann as the latter wrote Doktor Faustus)

This is a short summary:

Theodor Adorno's Concept of Art as Lighthearted and Liberatory
by Emanuel L. Paparella

As is well known, Theodore Adorno (1903-1969) was a member of the famous Frankfurt School, a group of Marxist philosophers which included Max Horkheimer and Herbert Marcuse. All three were concerned with the concept of liberation from oppressive social forces. Echoing Marx, they believed that capitalism is not a mere economic system largely based on the exploitation of the workers, but also a social and cultural system that usurps human freedom. Nowhere did Adorno elaborate this view more vehemently than in his wide ranging and subtle philosophy of art.

This philosophy of art proclaims that art is one of the few domains where the human being is able to attain “something like freedom in the midst of unfreedom.”  In other words, art can bring to consciousness the aspiration for freedom even in those societies which systematically deny it. It takes place in the midst of totalitarian regimes, of both the right and the left, governed by an inflexible political ideology, in its very jails and chambers of torture. What Adorno emphasizes is art’s presentation of the contradiction between the possibility of reconciliation, that is to say, transcendence of conflict, and the society in which such reconciliation is not only absent but unattainable. He gives as an example (in section three of his brilliant essay “Is Art Lighthearted?”) the music of Mozart. When we listen to Mozart’s music we are not simply aware of its sublime harmonies or, as Adorno would put it, of its presentation of reconciliation, but we also compare this awareness with the social cacophonous blasphemous world in which we live, a world in which the bully rules by rhetorical or even physical intimidation and arrogance, wherein there isn’t even an attempt at the common good and the meeting of the needs of all. What art does is to let us see both what is possible and how far that possibility is at present.

For the whole article, click here.

While reading up on Adorno and his colleagues for a paper, I couldn't help but think of some people who accuse artists/musicians of being "impractical" and "useless" in today's world. The irony is, most of these people are associated with the left, and here is "justification" for Music in the works of Marxist philosophers. :p

From what I've understood of Adorno's analysis of society, we are living in an increasingly dehumanized world where people are reduced to objects, where social relationships are commodified and where success is the only measure of right and wrong. Our social institutions implant us with false needs, and rob us of our ability to think critically, and therefore kill our individuality. We are born free but are everywhere in chains, thinking the same thoughts, possessing identical consumerist mindsets, and losing everything that sets us apart as human beings.

In such a world, Adorno saw Art as a beacon of hope. Art, by its "impracticality," is revolutionary by its mere existence. In his philosophy, Art = critical thinking, and can therefore provide a stimulus for change.

I wish I could wax poetic but I am pressed for time. Just felt that something this interesting was too good to keep to myself. :)

~ ~ ~

At present, the "little things I'm busy with" include rehearsing for a Schoenberg opera, Von heute auf Morgen, which will be premiered in the UP College of Music on April 2. It was quite difficult to learn, but I'm not complaining. It's a beautiful learning experience. You see, my ears have been conditioned to find beauty in Bach and Beethoven, as well as The Corrs and Westlife. I must confess, when I was first introduced to atonality as an undergrad, I was repulsed by all the dissonances. But now I've realize that it's just a matter of conditioning and lack of exposure.

While I do not claim to have a deep appreciation of Schoenberg in the same level as the composition majors, I can now understand his music better. I hope that, in the near future, I find the beauty that is inherent in every "true" art form, in every work of art that was produced with sweat and blood, with philosophical thought and the utmost care to produce a work that is as "beautiful" as its author could make it. Schoenberg's music, though not as "easy to swallow" to ears used to tonal music, definitely fits the "truth" criteria.

P.S. Adorno had a footnote on Schoenberg. He pointed out that Schoenberg's message lost some of its effectiveness due to the difficulty of comprehending the atonal medium of composition. Compo majors, what are your thoughts on the matter? :)