Aesthetic Autonomy and Praxis: art and language in Adorno and Habermas

dc.contributor.authorMcMahon, J.
dc.date.issued2011
dc.description.abstractAesthetic 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. Jrgen 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.
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityJennifer A. McMahon
dc.identifier.citationInternational Journal of Philosophical Studies, 2011; 19(2):155-175
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/09672559.2011.539365
dc.identifier.issn0967-2559
dc.identifier.issn1466-4542
dc.identifier.orcidMcMahon, J. [0000-0002-2400-0166]
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2440/64770
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherRoutledge
dc.rights© 2011 Taylor & Francis
dc.source.urihttps://doi.org/10.1080/09672559.2011.539365
dc.subjectart and ethics
dc.subjectphilosophy of language
dc.subjectAdorno
dc.subjectHabermas
dc.subjectOlafur Eliasson
dc.subjectKant
dc.titleAesthetic Autonomy and Praxis: art and language in Adorno and Habermas
dc.typeJournal article
pubs.publication-statusPublished

Files