T. W. 아도르노 예술이론 연구

Abstract

This paper is to explore the question of ‘What is art?’ in the modern capitalism society, ‘an era of overall consumption’, whose focus is the ‘autonomy of art’. Generally, art is considered ‘autonomous’ when it is unrelated to society. The autonomy which is given to art seems to retain ‘the state of art for art’. However, Adorno argues that art should be autonomous while also denying the autonomous art that is detached from society. He asserts that the real art work could embrace the antimony of autonomy in its own structure. He conceives the ‘autonomy of art’ as necessity not to retain the state of art for art, but to criticize society without a word of lie. Art could be freed from the ideology that dominates society only when it is autonomous and then it could end up criticize society without any doubt. As for such a seemingly antimony, he explains that the vanguard artworks produced in 1910’s embraced ‘antimony’ in its own structure. The artwork in 1910’s did not served as political mean but as autonomous art itself. Despite this fact, it was a social object that was intended to ‘the revolution of life’ continuously. In this context, he added that the vanguard artwork produced at that time makes people experience a feeling of ‘anxiety and impulse’. Through the aesthetic experience accompanied by those feelings, people could recognize a reality. According to his translation, such an aesthetic experience was possible because the vanguard art in 1990’s tried to destroy its own aura. Adorno says that the aesthetic renovation has emerged in 1910’s at a time when the aura of the vanguard art was about to destroy. He construes that the aesthetic renovation at that time did not pursue the organic uniformity. Specifically, it could be understood that while the components of traditional artwork followed uniformity, the vanguard artwork in 1910’s pursued division and denied ‘organic unity’. Such denial of ‘organic unity’ has served as the foundation of the theory of modern artwork that leads to an understanding of reality. He explains that the modern art work that gives chances for understanding reality pursues ‘division’, denying ‘organic unity’. This is the reason Adorno argues that the concept of traditional art should be changed. Although modern artwork denies the traditional integrated form, it still could be experienced as if it delivers ‘singular and consistent meanings’. In a word, modern artwork can’t get rid of its aura despite its struggle to detach itself from ‘aura’, and understood only by the viewers as an imaginary work that enables aesthetic experience. Therefore, Ardorno’s theory on art could be a translation for the productive motive of modern artwork recognized as an imaginary to viewers. As for the first theory on the productive motive for artwork, Adorno says that modern work necessarily accompanies real factors as it is the byproduct of society. This is a very critical prerequisite to hold his position that artwork is autonomous itself and the social subject at the same time. He conceives artwork as an autonomous object despite the real factors it includes. It later relates to formalization. From his point of view, artwork could serves as autonomous and social object as long as it resolves its formation although real factors are reflected into artwork. As for the second theory, he put his focus on the ‘construction’ instead of ‘traditional form of artwork’. Construction, a rule on the form of artwork, gets rid of traces of social ideology among the real factors in artwork. In short, it is about to facilitate unreasonable factors among real factors. Adorno believes that ‘The principle of identity’ dominates the modern society. Such principle is combined with ‘reasonable factors’ that accord aforementioned principles and ‘unreasonable factors’ lying beyond the principle. To separate formation from real factors is end up to detach dominant ideology from real factors, leaving behind ‘unreasonable factors’ in artwork. The ‘unreasonable factor’, the component of artwork, makes it an autonomous object that is unrelated with dominant social ideology and the social object manifestation of historic pain. For Adorno, pain is the social product which is made when the freedom is deprived by the rationality for identification. He thinks that unreasonable factors without rationality have become pain in history for this reason. And next, construction preserves the ‘unreasonable factors’, expressed the suppressed anxiety in artwork, as separated as well as integrated. The construction does not forcefully allow ‘unreasonable factor’ integrate or remain fragmentized. In a word, the artwork could be not only separated but also completed through the construction. As described above, construction is a kind of rule which turns the artwork into one and only existence. It also means that construction is a rule by which the object could be externalized as well as freed. In this sense, it could be considered as aesthetic rationality that blames instrumental rationality in a society where everything is under the pressure toward the identification. Therefore, the modern artwork could be an embodiment of historic pain as a singular as externalized and expressed through the construction. Adorno pointed out the ‘material’ and ‘technology’ as productive motives of the modern art work. He explains real factors reflected into the artwork with the concept of ‘material’. He adds that even when those factors appear naturally, it seems to take the historic form thoroughly. Artists argue that they have to comply with the request for material to be expressed in the artwork as it is. So to speak, artist should not suppress what material tries to express but to encourage it to be externalized. For Adorno, the concept of ‘technology’ is an aesthetic term which deals with aforementioned material. ‘Technology’ in his art theory refers to the byproduct of social production relationship that is clearly distinct from the construction view. Therefore, externalizing the expressive impulse of ‘irrational factors’-the material of the artwork- is following the construction as rule of form. Through this process, art could not only be autonomous but also a social object.;아도르노(Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno, 1903-1969)의 예술이론에서 ‘예술의 자율성’을 이해하는 것은 예술에 대한 아도르노의 입장을 이해하는 데 핵심적인 역할을 한다. 아도르노는 사회적 산물인 예술작품이 자율성을 획득하게 되는 것에 대한 해명을 생산적 계기에서 찾는다. 생산적 계기에 대한 해석을 통해 결국 예술작품은 사회적 대상이라는 것을 말한다. 이처럼 아도르노가 말하는 ‘예술의 자율성’은 예술이 사회와의 관계에서 자율적이면서도 사회적인 대상이라는 것에 대한 해명이자, 그렇게 자율성을 획득한 예술작품만이 사회에서 진정한 역할을 할 수 있다는 것에 대한 주장이다. 아도르노의 예술이론에서 자율적인 예술작품은 ‘원만하게 완성된 것’, ‘자기완결적인 것’으로서의 단독 존재이다. 아도르노는 예술작품에서 일어나는 모든 것을 예술작품에서 유래하는 것으로 본다. 생산과 동시에 수용도 예술작품에 포함된다는 입장이다. 아도르노의 예술이론에서 예술작품에 대한 해석은 자체의 카테고리를 중심으로 이루어지며, 작품의 생산자도 수용자도 아닌 예술작품 그 자체가 예술적 운동이 일어나는 과정의 중심이다. 그렇기 때문에 아도르노의 예술이론에서는 작품을 만드는 예술가의 영향도, 작품의 수용자도 논의의 중심에 있지 않다. ‘예술의 자율성’도 예술작품이 스스로 획득하는 것이지 예술 바깥에서 주어지는 것이 아니다. 예술작품은 스스로의 힘으로 자율적으로 되고, 자율적으로 된 예술작품은 계몽의 역사 끝에 만들어진 도구화된 합리성을 한 번 더 계몽할 수 있는 대상이 된다. 아도르노가 보기에 태고적 자연지배에서부터 시작된 계몽의 역사는 ‘자연적 상태에서 벗어나고자 하면서 또 다시 자연적 상태로 돌아간’ 야만의 역사였다. 최초 자연적 상태가 ‘자기 유지 본능’을 가진 인간을 위협하는 주어진 것이었다면, 벗어나고자 애쓴 뒤에 또 다시 겪는 자연적 상태는 최초 자연을 극복하는 과정에서 잘못 만들어진 합리성 때문이었다. 태고적 인간은 통제가 불가능한 자연의 공포에서 벗어나고자 자연을 언어-개념화 하여 통제하고자 했고, 그 과정에서 만들어진 합리성은 ‘언어-개념’으로 만들 수 없는 요소들을 배제하며 강화되었다. 현대사회에 와서 합리성은 편리한 지배를 위해 동일성의 원칙에 부합되는 것들만을 동일화 시키는 합리성이 되었다. 아도르노가 비판하는 합리성은 이처럼 동일화의 원칙이 강화되며 만들어진 소통이 불가능한 합리성으로서 ‘이질적인 것, 통합할 수 없는 것, 침묵하고 있는 것, 축출된 것, 비논리적인 것, 감각적인 것, 우연적인 것, 즉흥적인 것’ 등 일종의 비합리적 요소를 소외시키는 합리성이다. 하지만 아도르노는 계몽 그 자체를 부정하지 않는다. 계몽을 자연의 공포에서 벗어나고자 했던 인간의 필연적 과정이었다고 보았기 때문이다. 아도르노는 그러한 계몽의 잘못된 결과물로 만들어진 현대사회의 야만성을 극복하기 위해서는 지금까지의 계몽을 한 번 더 계몽해야한다고 말한다. 현대예술만이 그러한 ‘계몽을 위한 계몽’의 대상이 될 수 있다고 주장한다. 계몽의 가장 큰 잘못은 ‘사유를 사유하라’는 애초 계몽에 포함되었던 사유에 대한 반성적 태도를 무시한 점인데, 아도르노가 보기에 자율성을 획득한 현대예술작품은 지금까지의 사유를 변화시켜 계몽의 방향을 전환시킬 수 있었다. 이처럼 아도르노는 현대예술작품이 자체의 생산적 계기를 통해 자율적 상태가 되면 지금까지의 계몽을 한 번 더 계몽할 수 있는 대상이 된다고 주장한다. 본 논문에서는 이러한 아도르노의 역사철학적 입장이 근거가 된 그의 예술이론을 살펴본다. 아도르노가 자신의 예술이론에서 말하는 ‘예술의 자율성’에 대한 이해를 바탕으로 예술과 사회의 관계를 되짚어 보고, 예술작품이 사회의 합리성이 배제시킨 비합리적 요소가 표현되는 ‘미적 합리성’의 대상임을 확인한다.