Ciao a tutti,
Oggi vi spieghero' un po' della vita di Theodor Adorno, una figura famosa per la sua contribuzione e la sua parte nella scuola di Francoforte, e si distinse per le sue critiche puntate al tardo capitalismo e la societa'. Nacque in Prussia a Francoforte, e fu un filosofo, sociologo, psicologo, musicologo, e compositore ma oggi e' conosciuto per le sue opere con Max Horkheimer. Nel suo libro collaborativo con Horkheimer titolato dialectic of enlightenment (1947), si ritengono che l'industria della cultura crea soggetti sotto capitalismo. La cultura popolare produce beni culturali tramite film, radio, tv, ecc, che strumentano il popolo da gente con agenzia individuale a soggetti passivi che dipendono sulla strutta di capitalismo e sono contenti con essa. La cultura viene commodificata paragonabile agli effetti della globalizzazzione.
-
Please see the title above.
-
Which òf the two definitions of "rondo" applies here?
-
Why would a composer like Schoenberg be "laughed at with a composition of seven bars"? Sechs kleine Klavierstücke Op. 19 has more than 7 bars, but would any reasonable musicologist laugh at them?
I quote from p 6 of the liner notes written by Jens Hagestedt, translated in 1993 by Gery Bramall, to SONY Classical's Arnold Schoenberg: Suite, Op. 29; Verklärte Nacht; 3 Pieces conducted by Boulez. Interestingly, Pierre-Laurent Aimard played the harmonium.
>The Three Pieces for chamber orchestra were found among Schoenberg's papers at his death. They date from 1910, from the period of free atonality. The third piece remained unfinished, and the brevity of the first two gives rise to the assumption that these three pieces do not necessarily constitute the complete cycle. Theodor W. Adorno has provided some illuminating interpretative analyses of these seldom-played, athematic miniatures in his essay On Some of Arnold Schoenberg's Works, which investigates the remaining echoes of traditional patterns. Adorno claims that the form of the first piece is conceived as a "stretto without a theme" and that of the second — "if I were not afraid of being laughed at with a composition of seven bars" — as "a rondo without a theme, without a refrain". The pieces are held together, as these descriptions indicate, by reminiscences of polyphonic texture or homophonic song forms. The unity of the third piece, what there is of it, is mainly provided by a sustained six-note chord — a stylistic device which is at the same time more abstract, yet simpler and more primitive; possibly this unsatisfactory aspect was the reason why Schoenberg abandoned work on the piece.
I looked up in the The Oxford Dictionary of Music (6 ed. 2013).
> # rondo [It.] (properly spelt rondó) > > Round. Form of comp., usually instr, in which one section intermittently recurs. By Mozart’s day it was the usual form for the last movt of a conc. or sonata. Frequent pattern is ABACADA etc., A being the recurring rondo theme and B, C, and D contrasting episodes. Mozart and Beethoven combined this with sonata
... keep reading on reddit ➡É comum ver aqui no /r/Brasil perguntas sobre se tal parente seria fascista, se tal policial agiu de modo fascista, se algum jornalista é fascista, como definir o fascismo etc. Bom, existe um teste empírico para isso, que pode ser replicado com metodologia científica. O teste da Escala F (de Fascismo) inventado por Theodor W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel Levinson e Nevitt Sanford, no Instituto de Pesquisas Sociais de Nova York, em 1947, no contexto da desnazificação. É um teste indireto que não depende de respostas verdadeiras para satisfazer os critérios, que são:
- Convencionalismo: conformidade com as normas e valores sociais tradicionais da classe média;
- Submissão autoritária: uma noção passiva em relação à adesão às normas e valores convencionais;
- Agressão autoritária: punir e condenar pessoas que não aderem aos valores convencionais;
- Religião e ética;
- Superstição
- Poder e "tenacidade";
- Anti-intracepção, isto é, "rejeição de toda interioridade, do subjetivo, do imaginativo, do terno e da autocrítica"
Entre outros, como a afirmação exagerada da força, hostilidade, e uma preocupação exagerada com sexo. A metodologia não é super atualizada, mas pode ajudar a sanar as dúvidas dos participantes.
A recent thread asking about reads that moved us reminded me of one text that resonated deeply with me when I was just 20.
In university they assigned us to read a few art related texts of German philosopher Theodor W. Adorno, in the context of art and design criticism subject, already into the 3rd year of the career. They weren't his personal texts as much as the ones he's more famous for, describing the changes in art culture and industry of the mid S.XX. His style of writing, however, reminded me of my way of thinking, so I took the chance to get the entire book, called Minima Moralia: Reflections From Damaged Life.
Among the society and art ones, there were plenty of unexpected texts that described a society and world where someone like the author felt they didn't have a place anymore —hence the book's subtitle—. And they felt like a ethics manual of sorts for me, with pieces just about describing a simple social setting or dynamic and everything observable involved, which for someone like me, that never received an education of any sorts at home, was kind of relieving. So I immediately incorporated many of that book into my identity. Bad idea, in retrospect, because I was allowing the thinking of an already damaged person in me.
The following one starts the third part of the book, and it described me at the time, but would describe me way better a few years after, feeling urges that are more proper of preadolescents when I was already in my mid 20s. The first read at 20 was just as I started acknowledging I had mental health issues.
Wanted to share to see if it's one of those things that would make sense with the only recent schizoid diagnosis, or you think it's more of a common sentiment, or just a general thing that could be attributed to other kinds of issues.
(The translation to English that I've found is a bit dense for my likings, the translation to my language felt more fluid, but maybe it's just my language barrier.)
>####Hothouse plant > >The talk about early and late maturers, seldom free of the death-wish for the former, is specious. He who matures early lives in anticipation. His experience is a-prioristic, an intuitive sensibility feeling out in images and words what things and people will realize only later. Such anticipation, saturated, as it were, with itself, withd
... keep reading on reddit ➡https://preview.redd.it/biwh0zhu51151.png?width=1920&format=png&auto=webp&s=0c0b1d42c70f356c8dd9f250ac38bb534d4dd2cf
Hi, I'm really interested in learning more about philosophy so I started with this quote I heard some time ago. I know Auschwitz was a brutality but what does it have to do with poetry?
I keep seeing texts that attribute the following quote to Adorno:
"Auschwitz begins whenever someone looks at a slaughterhouse and thinks: they're only animals."
The thing is, Adorno never said this. I don't usually care if people misattribute or misquote authors, but in this case I wanted to at least rant about it on Reddit. Most people who use this quote take it from Charles Patterson's Eternal Treblinka. For some reason they don't seem to bother checking where exactly Adorno said this, what the context was, what the overall argument was about, etc. They take Patterson's word for it and use Adorno's name to give their argument validity.
If you check Patterson's references he doesn't actually cite any of Adorno's texts. Instead, he cites Christa Blanke's Da krähte der Hahn. So, being the curious type, I bought her book to find out where the Adorno quote was actually from. Low and behold, on p.48 the quote is given without any references at all.
I'm irked by this for two reasons. The first is that it shows some laziness in certain academic circles. Even first year undergraduates are expected to check that their references are valid. The second reason is slightly more serious. Both Blanke and Patterson, and many of the authors who use this quote, use Adorno's Jewish identity as part of the proof of their argument. Both Blanke and Patterson make sure to mention that Adorno was a Jew before they use the quote. In trying to equate Auschwitz with factory farming they use Adorno as the token Jew who gives the comparison validity.
People are going to carry on using this quote, but I hope that anyone who reads this will avoid using it!
I hope I translated that right. And for the readers here - read Adorno. He was a wise man.
»Die Menschen verlernen das Schenken. Der Verletzung des Tauschprinzips haftet etwas Widersinniges und Unglaubwürdiges an; da und dort mustern selbst Kinder mißtrauisch den Geber, als wäre das Geschenk nur ein Trick, um ihnen Bürsten oder Seife zu verkaufen. Dafür übt man charity, verwaltete Wohltätigkeit, die sichtbare Wundstellen der Gesellschaft planmäßig zuklebt. In ihrem organisierten Betrieb hat die menschliche Regung schon keinen Raum mehr, ja die Spende ist mit Demütigung durch Einteilen, gerechtes Abwägen, kurz durch die Behandlung des Beschenkten als Objekt notwendig verbunden. Noch das private Schenken ist auf eine soziale Funktion heruntergekommen, die man mit widerwilliger Vernunft, unter sorgfältiger Innehaltung des ausgesetzten Budgets, skeptischer Abschätzung des anderen und mit möglichst geringer Anstrengung ausführt. Wirkliches Schenken hatte sein Glück in der Imagination des Glücks des Beschenkten. Es heißt wählen, Zeit aufwenden, aus seinem Weg gehen, den anderen als Subjekt denken: das Gegenteil von Vergeßlichkeit. Eben dazu ist kaum einer mehr fähig. Günstigenfalls schenken sie, was sie sich selber wünschten, nur ein paar Nuancen schlechter. Der Verfall des Schenkens spiegelt sich in der peinlichen Erfindung der Geschenkartikel, die bereits darauf angelegt sind, daß man nicht weiß, was man schenken soll, weil man es eigentlich gar nicht will. Diese Waren sind beziehungslos wie ihre Käufer. Sie waren Ladenhüter schon am ersten Tag.
Ähnlich der Vorbehalt des Umtauschs, der dem Beschenkten bedeutet: hier hast du deinen Kram, fang damit an, was du willst, wenn dir’s nicht paßt, ist es mir einerlei, nimm dir etwas anderes dafür. Dabei stellt gegenüber der Verlegenheit der üblichen Geschenke ihre reine Fungibilität auch noch das Menschlichere dar, weil sie dem Beschenkten wenigstens erlaubt, sich selber etwas zu schenken, worin freilich zugleich der absolute Widerspruch zum Schenken gelegen ist. Gegenüber der größeren Fülle von Gütern, die selbst dem Armen erreichbar sind, könnte der Verfall des Schenkens gleichgültig, die Betrachtung darüber sentimental scheinen. Selbst wenn es jedoch im Überfluß überflüssig wäre – und das ist Lüge, privat so gut wie gesellschaftlich, denn es gibt keinen heute, für den Phantasie nicht genau das finden könnte, was ihn durch und durch beglückt –, so blieben des Schenkens jene bedürftig, die nicht mehr schenken. Ihnen verkümmern jene unersetzlichen Fähigkeiten, die nicht in der Isolierzelle der reinen Innerl
... keep reading on reddit ➡
