Scan barcode
lettersinthemargins's review
challenging
informative
lighthearted
reflective
slow-paced
4.5
For readers pondering the questions of aesthetics and its politics.
These are a set of writings placed around the time when Fascism was on the rise in Germany.
These are a set of writings placed around the time when Fascism was on the rise in Germany.
wolfiedude14's review against another edition
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
relaxing
slow-paced
A collection of essays, correspondence, letters, convening on the subject of Expressionism following the 30s in Germany.
It is clear to me that my knowledge of this general movement is insufficient to a point where I can't pass judgement on any individual writer's argument in a really determinate manner but I certainly get impressions.
Lukacs here comes across as the weakest of all of them in his arguments, there's a certain level of conceptual analysis I can appreciate but as Bloch rightly points out in the first essay that responds to Lukacs' essay (which generally started this whole thing it would seem) an analysis of Expressionism without reference to any of its key writers is very odd indeed. He also comes across theoretically weak apart from rather broadly non-aesthetic concepts such as reification and so forth. I just don't feel his arguments bear any weight, I'm not convinced expressionism reproduces bourgeois reality and systems nor fascistic in nature. That said on a reread I could change my view.
The back-end essay by Adorno which starts to rope in so many forms of media it's astounding is very good and worth the book I would say. It is a response to Sartre, Brecht, and others and is probably the most direct and engaging of the texts.
In terms of a collection it's pretty good volume. If anything there is a good sense of the history of the period, as well as the brilliant concluding section by Jameson who manages to tie it all together (and slightly redeems Lukacs in my view.)
It is clear to me that my knowledge of this general movement is insufficient to a point where I can't pass judgement on any individual writer's argument in a really determinate manner but I certainly get impressions.
Lukacs here comes across as the weakest of all of them in his arguments, there's a certain level of conceptual analysis I can appreciate but as Bloch rightly points out in the first essay that responds to Lukacs' essay (which generally started this whole thing it would seem) an analysis of Expressionism without reference to any of its key writers is very odd indeed. He also comes across theoretically weak apart from rather broadly non-aesthetic concepts such as reification and so forth. I just don't feel his arguments bear any weight, I'm not convinced expressionism reproduces bourgeois reality and systems nor fascistic in nature. That said on a reread I could change my view.
The back-end essay by Adorno which starts to rope in so many forms of media it's astounding is very good and worth the book I would say. It is a response to Sartre, Brecht, and others and is probably the most direct and engaging of the texts.
In terms of a collection it's pretty good volume. If anything there is a good sense of the history of the period, as well as the brilliant concluding section by Jameson who manages to tie it all together (and slightly redeems Lukacs in my view.)
matthew4's review against another edition
3.0
Sure it would be interesting to those with more prior knowledge than myself, however I found it slightly difficult to get through. Nonetheless interesting to see into the interactions between these figures.
jesslynsukamto's review against another edition
4.0
An outstanding collection of dialogic essays gathered from the key years of imperial and aesthetic crisis surrounding the rise of Fascism and leading up to WWII. Lots of notable thoughts, interesting as to how Adorno ties the notable literary works of Kafka, Beckett, Mann, Sartre, et al onto his theory of aesthetics and that he, and other authors on this collection of essays believe that we must seek desperately to renew the aesthetic of novelty today by ever more rapid rotations of its own axis, and to hold on the aporia that contains the crux of a history beyond which we have not yet passed, and also, to perpetually reinvent one. This is an absolutely vital collection for anyone interested in the history of political aesthetics in the 20th century.
jesswalsh's review against another edition
3.0
The translations are good, although at times they suffer from grammar so clunky that you can feel the original German trying to claw its way onto the page.
The real fundamental issue with this book is: what is the point of it? On paper, the concept of positing critique/reply style mini essays on Marxist Aesthetic theory against each other seems positive in that it could stimulate dialectic analysis and position theory within a historical framework. In reality, though, it quickly devolves into personal opinion and hang ups veiled in academic language. For example, Lukács can seemingly only conceptualise art as novels, and throughout the only time a piece of non-literature art is mentioned is a brief reference to Picasso’s Guernica. Actual consideration of art and aesthetic takes a back seat to arch comments about the rigorousness of another critic’s theoretical approach. There is not a speck of praxis to be had and the thinkers represented in the book come off, at best, as catty, aloof, and superficial. The choice, for example, to include the correspondence from Adorno to Benjamin wherein in the midst of general quibbling he remarks ‘The laughter of the audience at a cinema... is anything but good and revolutionary; instead, it is full of the worst bourgeois sadism’ in a letter dated 18th March 1936 - 11 days after German forces re-militarised the Rhineland and violated the treaty of Versailles - smacks of ‘complaining about the colour of the curtains while the house burns down’.
There certainly is an important place in Marxist theory for aesthetics. The field itself is of great worth. Given the material conditions at the time - the successes and failures of the ‘popular front’ movements and the USSR, the respective positions of the contributors within governments or parties - it is not surprising that the form that aesthetic analysis takes here seems to be animated by reactionary and personal ideas. This is not to say that the essays and correspondence do not have worth, though perhaps a harsher editor could have presented the material in a more critical way and given the overall theoretical field a better sheen. The concluding afterword by Jameson does go some way towards this and is a redeeming feature. It is measured, realistic in analysis and both sympathetic towards the problems faced by the thinkers presented in this book and critical of their vindictive and narrow-minded approaches.
The real fundamental issue with this book is: what is the point of it? On paper, the concept of positing critique/reply style mini essays on Marxist Aesthetic theory against each other seems positive in that it could stimulate dialectic analysis and position theory within a historical framework. In reality, though, it quickly devolves into personal opinion and hang ups veiled in academic language. For example, Lukács can seemingly only conceptualise art as novels, and throughout the only time a piece of non-literature art is mentioned is a brief reference to Picasso’s Guernica. Actual consideration of art and aesthetic takes a back seat to arch comments about the rigorousness of another critic’s theoretical approach. There is not a speck of praxis to be had and the thinkers represented in the book come off, at best, as catty, aloof, and superficial. The choice, for example, to include the correspondence from Adorno to Benjamin wherein in the midst of general quibbling he remarks ‘The laughter of the audience at a cinema... is anything but good and revolutionary; instead, it is full of the worst bourgeois sadism’ in a letter dated 18th March 1936 - 11 days after German forces re-militarised the Rhineland and violated the treaty of Versailles - smacks of ‘complaining about the colour of the curtains while the house burns down’.
There certainly is an important place in Marxist theory for aesthetics. The field itself is of great worth. Given the material conditions at the time - the successes and failures of the ‘popular front’ movements and the USSR, the respective positions of the contributors within governments or parties - it is not surprising that the form that aesthetic analysis takes here seems to be animated by reactionary and personal ideas. This is not to say that the essays and correspondence do not have worth, though perhaps a harsher editor could have presented the material in a more critical way and given the overall theoretical field a better sheen. The concluding afterword by Jameson does go some way towards this and is a redeeming feature. It is measured, realistic in analysis and both sympathetic towards the problems faced by the thinkers presented in this book and critical of their vindictive and narrow-minded approaches.
niconorico's review against another edition
3.0
I learned a lot here, as someone with no scholarship in aesthetics and art movements it was a pleasant 'sink or swim' kind of read.
That being said the composition is messy. As a comrade of mine pointed out, having the one Walter Benjamin piece be from his diary was an odd choice. Bloch is set up as a kind of stepping stone for Lukacs here, with the discussion on Surrealism feeling like a setup for the meat of the book: a discussion on competing forms of Realism.
Adorno's pieces are highly polemical. I think it was a strong choice to include them, but ending with his unopposed polemics—though we are primed with the knowledge of CIA funding—is another strange choice.
Still, its a good read and I appreciate the knowledge.
That being said the composition is messy. As a comrade of mine pointed out, having the one Walter Benjamin piece be from his diary was an odd choice. Bloch is set up as a kind of stepping stone for Lukacs here, with the discussion on Surrealism feeling like a setup for the meat of the book: a discussion on competing forms of Realism.
Adorno's pieces are highly polemical. I think it was a strong choice to include them, but ending with his unopposed polemics—though we are primed with the knowledge of CIA funding—is another strange choice.
Still, its a good read and I appreciate the knowledge.
hallsifer's review against another edition
Just too wordy for me right now, really theory heavy and is mostly letters/presentations. Already reading a lot of dry library books.
alexlanz's review against another edition
The Brecht/Lukacs quarrel is legendary. Adorno's and Benjamin's letters to each other are adorable!
piccoline's review against another edition
4.0
Still surprisingly apt, even with so much time that has passed. This is a well-constructed collection of letter and papers on the role of art and its interaction with political thought/action. If you think art matters, but sometimes have a hard time articulating how or why, this book provides some nice theoretical exploration of just those issues.
Special appreciation must be given to the written introductions to each exchange, establishing the stakes and particular points of disagreement. Fredric Jameson's Afterword is an excellent summary, and also explains clearly why these discussions still matter.
It's a forbidding title, but the books contents make it almost a page-turner.
Special appreciation must be given to the written introductions to each exchange, establishing the stakes and particular points of disagreement. Fredric Jameson's Afterword is an excellent summary, and also explains clearly why these discussions still matter.
It's a forbidding title, but the books contents make it almost a page-turner.