Adorno Subject Object

8/16/2019 Adorno Subject Object

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/adorno-subject-object 1/11

“Subject and Object”: Adorno

https://frankfurtschool.wordpress.com/2008/02/2/class!summar"!

subject!and!object!b"!theodor!adorno/

#elow $s a summar" of the class d$scuss$on we had on both %ednesda" of

last week and th$s past &onda". 'lease feel free to add an" (uest$ons and

comments that "ou m$)ht ha*e+

,n “Subject and Object”- heodor Adorno d$scusses the relat$onsh$p between

subject and object and (uest$ons the real and the $llusor" elements w$th$n

that relat$onsh$p. %hat becomes real l$es $n re)ards to the face that we as

subjects ha*e a pr$*ate l$fe1 the eper$ence of our “$nner l$fe” where$n l$es

the subject and object d$st$nct$on $s taken as pure. 3owe*er- Adorno makes

$t clear that that separat$on $s $llusor". 3ere then- what we mean when we

sa" “subject”- becomes compl$cated. At the same t$me that we are subjects

we are objects $n the world as well. 4rammat$call" speak$n)- $f one were to

sa" “, take a dr$nk”- the “,” $s the subject. o replace the “,” w$th a “&e”- the

“,” becomes an object. o th$s etent- subject and object are completel"

$ntertw$ned w$th each other. Subject$*$t" $s not a subject- $t $s an object as

well and the subject $s then of and a part of the world at lar)e.

Adorno cont$nues and epla$ns that due to th$s subject/object relat$onsh$p-

man as a human be$n) $s a result- not an e$dos essence5see p). 6. 7or

Adorno- we human be$n)s- subjects and objects are a result of the

$ntertw$n$n) of soc$et" at e*er" le*el lan)ua)e- culture- art- etc..

an)ua)e- for eample- does not come from us1 we d$d not $n*ent lan)ua)e

as such- we absorb the words for our subject$*$t"5$t does not )row out of

$t. o th$s etent then- lan)ua)e makes us a result of the world because $t

does not come from us onl". 7urther- th$s onl" further eempl$f$es the

relat$onsh$p between subject and object- but more $mportantl" $t h$)hl$)hts

how the separat$on between the two $s $llusor".

he subject $s empt" w$thout an object. %hen reflect$n) upon one9s own

subject$*$t"- when ask$n) “what am , do$n)”5"ou are mak$n) "ourself $nto

an object for "ourself the subject to stud": for Adorno- "our subject has

an object. ;o matter how deepl" we retreat $nto the subject- there $s an

object. Adorno wants to bu$ld a d$st$nct$on between the $deal$sm beh$nd

https://frankfurtschool.wordpress.com/2008/02/12/class-summary-subject-and-object-by-theodor-adorno/






subject$*$t" and $ts act$*e state. 3e draws awa" from the $deal$sm of be$n)

wrapped up $n oursel*es- of objects ha*$n) a mean$n) apart from our

subject$*$t". he *er" mean$n) of the object- for Adorno- $s t$ed to our

subject$*$t". ,f there $s an object w$thout mean$n)- then the subject has no

mean$n). he act of nam$n) $n and of $tself br$n)s up th$s $ntertw$nement of

subject and object: <%hat $s th$s9 br$n)s object$*$t" $nto subject$*$t".

%hat makes someth$n) mean$n)ful and how $t becomes mean$n)ful $s all

t$ed $nto th$s subject/object relat$onsh$p. Our *er" be$n) as humans5how

we th$nk- know and are5$s $nseparable from h$stor". Our know$n) and be$n)

elements of a pure subject$*$t" are $nseparable from h$stor" objects. o

th$s same de)ree- $n the attempt to understand who , am- $t turns me backto the world soc$et"/culture of wh$ch , am $ntertw$ned. he" are a product

of h$stor": the" are reproduced to such a de)ree that to ask “%ho am ,” $s

$nseparable from “%hat $s the mean$n) of h$stor$cal eper$ence”

h$s moment $n Adorno9s p$ece reflects back to the relat$onsh$p between

h$stor$cal mater$al$sm and h$stor$c$sm wh$ch comes about $n %alter

#enjam$n9s “heses on the 'h$losoph" of 3$stor"”. %hen Adorno epla$ns

that “man $s a result- not an e$dos”- the (uest$on emer)es: Are we

barbar$sm $tself- s$nce we as subjects and objects are a part of h$stor"

3$stor" makes $t poss$ble to see the barbar$sm $n who we reall" are as

subjects and objects- but what does $t reall" matter %h" would $t matter

%h" not look at cultural treasures as just treasures %h" not sta" bl$nd to

h$stor" as a mound of wrecka)e upon wrecka)e. ,f the an)el of h$stor" $s

tell$n) the truth of h$stor"- of be$n) blown awa" b" the wrecka)e of

pro)ress- then wh" would $t matter to look upon $t $n the f$rst place %e

become the products of the catastrophe. #ut were would we be w$thout $t

s$nce $ts part of our be$n) and the d$st$nct$on between subject and object $s

all but $llusor" Are we doomed to be part of the wrecka)e Or $s there a

wa" out

here $s a comple relat$onsh$p to the past $n re)ards to what Adorno sees

as the barbar$sm of e*er"da" l$fe. ,t $s eas" to for)et how much the subject

$s an object at the same t$me. he relat$onsh$p between subject and object

allows for each ent$t" to reflect and $nfluence the other1 $n the same wa"



that one would sa" <, am us$n) a pen9- "ou can re*erse $t and sa" <he pen

$s us$n) me9 at the same t$me. here $s barbar$sm $n object$*$t" and there $s

barbar$sm $n subject$*$t": but how does th$s obl$)ate me 3ow am , made

respons$ble towards the catastrophe of h$stor" Of wh$ch shapes m"

subject$*$t" and object$*$t" ,f th$s relat$onsh$p $s one where there can ne*er

trul" be a d$st$nct$on between e$ther ent$t"- then what does $t mean and

what does $t matter

=e" passa)es:

“he d$st$nct$on between subject and object $s both real and

$llusor"”Adorno- >?8.

“he object- too- $s med$ated1 but accord$n) to $ts own concept- $t $s not so

thorou)hl" dependent on the subject as the subject $s on object$*$t".

,deal$sm has $)nored such d$fferences and has thus coarsened a

sp$r$tual$@at$on that ser*es abstract$on as a d$s)u$se. et th$s occas$ons a

re*$s$on of the stand toward the subject wh$ch pre*a$ls $n trad$t$onal theor".

hat theor" )lor$f$es the subject $n $deolo)" and slanders $t $n

ep$stemolo)$cal pract$ce. ,f one wants to reach the object- on the other

hand- $ts subject$*e attr$butes or (ual$t$es are not to be el$m$nated- for

prec$sel" that would run counter to the pr$mac" of the object. ,f the subject

does ha*e an object$*e core- the object9s subject$*e (ual$t$es are so much

more an element of object$*$t"” Adorno- 602.

“he a pr$or$ and soc$et" are $ntertw$ned. he un$*ersal$t" and necess$t" of

those forms- the$r =ant$an )lor"- $s none other than that wh$ch un$tes

mank$nd. ,t needed them to sur*$*e. Bapt$*$t" $s $nternal$@ed1 the $nd$*$dual

$s no less $mpr$soned $n h$mself that $n the un$*ersal- $n soc$et". 3ence the

$nterest $n the re$nterpretat$on of capt$*$t" as freedom. he cate)or$cal

capt$*$t" of $nd$*$dual consc$ousness repeats the real capt$*$t" of e*er"

$nd$*$dual” Adorno- 60>!606.

“&an $s a result- not an e$dosC”Adorno- 6.



“What You See is What You See”: Constructing the Subject-Object

Aaron Da*$s

http://www.artandeducat$on.net/paper/what!"ou!see!$s!what!"ou!see!construct$n)!the!subject!object/

,n h$s ??8 essa"- “Art and Objecthood” &$chael 7r$ed mounts a cr$t$(ue of

&$n$mal$st Literalist b" h$s account Art su))est$n) that $t amounts to

noth$n) more than an abstract$on of theatr$cal$t" that marks both the death

or suspens$on of subject$*$t" as he sees $t. 7urther- he ar)ues that$teral$sm also pro*$des a nemes$s that &odern pa$nt$n) and sculpture must

<defeat9 so that *er$s$m$l$tude as he sees $t- ma" pre*a$l.EF%h$le one must

certa$nl" respect &r. 7r$ed9s pos$t$on as a noted cr$t$c- h$s attack $s m$splaced

$n $ts parado of jutapos$n) bombast$c presentat$on w$th $ntellectual r$)or-

parad$n) the former as the latter. 3$s obser*at$ons on the work $tself

const$tute an acute and comprehens$*e )rasp of the s$n)ular cultural shape

of the work- def$ned part$cularl" b" the role of art $n popular culture- wh$le

h$s ab$l$t" to understand form as $teral$st art presents $t- $s consp$cuousl"

absent. 7r$ed9s cr$t$(ue $s le*eled at Donald Gudd and Hobert &orr$s b"

eample- and $t $s throu)h a close read$n) of Gudd9sSpecific Objects that an

ar)ument can be made not onl" $n pra$se of $teral$st work- but w$ll also

re*eal that such work offers an escape from the d$dact$c relat$onsh$p

subject!object relat$onsh$p that pla)ues modern percept$ons of space. he

Spec$f$c Object offers an autonomous def$n$t$on and understand$n) of space

and mater$al that has been prematurel" abandoned $n fa*or of the

spectacular technocrat$c not$on of “pro)ress” that has produced noth$n)

more than add$t$onal d$stract$ons- add$t$onal subst$tut$ons- and add$t$onal

theatres of compl$c$t" wh$ch further entrench us $n a percept$on of real$t"

wh$ch $s not our own. ,nstead- $t ensures the th$n)s we see are consumed $n

the wa" the" are pro)rammed to be. Gudd offers an alternat$*e1 the wa" $n

wh$ch we sa" $s able to be man$pulated to free us from constructed

mean$n). ,n other words- $f &$chael 7r$ed represents the des$re to cr$t$(ueth$n)s as consumable objects- and $t $s $mposs$ble to create a work wh$ch $s

http://www.artandeducation.net/author/aaron_davis/

http://www.artandeducation.net/paper/what-you-see-is-what-you-see-constructing-the-subject-object/


http://www.artandeducation.net/author/aaron_davis/





not consumable- how we consc$ousl" see and that act$*e s$)ht $s a cho$ce

$s the most pr$m$t$*e- most for)otten- and most l$berat$n) act of autonom".

%$th$n th$s space- wh$ch all soc$al construct$ons of mean$n) and *alue are

short c$rcu$ted- the *$ewer becomes subject and object- and the work

therefore $s present and absent- den"$n) the *$ewer” the sat$sfact$on of

Ethe$rF *an$t"” E2F and places the onus of der$*$n) “mean$n)” s(uarel" on

them- l$berat$n) the art$st of the narrat$*e and plac$n) $n cr$s$s the e$stence

and need of mean$n).

“;o ,llus$ons. ;o Allus$ons.” EIF %$th th$s- Donald Gudd clears a path for

$teral$st Art wh$ch $s a reject$on of the ps"cholo)$cal and subject$*e real$t$es

$mpl$c$t $n &odern Juropean pa$nt$n) and sculpture. “hree!d$mens$onal$t" $snot as near be$n) s$mpl" a conta$ner as pa$nt$n) and sculpture ha*e seemed

to be- but $t tends to that. #ut now pa$nt$n) and sculpture are less neutral-

less conta$ners- more def$ned- not unden$able and una*o$dable.” E>F he

descr$pt$ons of h$s form of art- Spec$f$c Objects- e$sts not as a s"nthes$s or

re$ma)$n$n) of these trad$t$ons but as a )roup of works- and more

$mportantl" a wa" of work$n)- that are )enerall" def$ned $n ne)at$*e terms

$n that the" are ne$ther pa$nt$n)s- as the" are )enerall" three!d$mens$onal

and ha*e *olume- nor are the" sculpture because the" lack parts wh$ch

frees the work from both compos$t$on and effects as well as l$berates the

work $tself from trad$t$onal Juropean allus$ons to the bod".E6F 7urthermore-

the" locate the *$ewer- both the true subject and true object of the artwork

$n the *ac$llat$n) def$n$t$on the work sets forth- $n the same space as the

object. he new work s$ts d$rectl" on the floor or hun) on the wall-

estran)$n) the work from $ts trad$t$onal means of presentat$on- remo*$n)

the pedestal and d$stant$at$on wh$ch character$@es trad$t$onal sculpture and

$s $nterest$n)l" enou)h the watermark of modern commerc$al control- and

project$n) the pa$nt$n) off of the wall plane. #" mak$n) what 7r$ed calls the

“l$teral shape” EKF $f the work clearl" $ndependent of the wall- refus$n) to

support $t or be supported formall" b" $t- the work $dent$f$es w$th the

*$ewer- e$st$n) compl$c$t" thou)h seem$n)l" temporar$l" $n the )$*en space1

both estran)ed- both objects. Gudd descr$bes th$s po$nt:



“he one th$n) o*erpowers the earl$er pa$nt$n). ,t also establ$shes the

rectan)le as a def$n$te form1 $t $s no lon)er a fa$rl" neutral l$m$tC he

rectan)ular plane $s )$*en a l$fe span. he s$mpl$c$t" re(u$red to emphas$@e

the rectan)le l$m$ts the arran)ements poss$ble w$th$n $tC he plane $s also

emphas$@ed and nearl" s$n)le. ,t $s clearl" a plane one or two $nches $n front

of another plane- the wall- and parallel to $t. he relat$onsh$p of the two

planes $s spec$f$c1 $t $s a form. J*er"th$n) on or sl$)htl" $n the plane must be

arran)ed laterall".” ELF

h$s $s the f$rst t$me that the artwork $s cons$dered coetens$*e w$th the

med$um wh$ch $t $s presented $n and on. he art object then $s bound b" a

s$te $n the same wa" that a work of arch$tecture $s and has the ab$l$t" to$mpl" space outs$de of what $s rendered on the surface. 7r$ed fa$ls to see

th$s s"nchronous relat$onsh$p $t $s now s"nchronous $n that the shape of

the can*as and the percept$on of $t now e$st $n t$me. 3e states- “he

shape is the object1 at an" rate- what secures the wholeness of the object $s

the s$n)leness of the shape. ,t $s- , bel$e*e- that emphas$s on shape that

accounts for the $mpress$on- wh$ch numerous cr$t$cs ha*e ment$oned- that

Gudd9s and &orr$s9s p$eces are hollow .” E8F

'rec$sel". ,t $s $n the hollowness that the work $tself $s man$fest $n $ts

project$on and def$n$t$on of space outs$de of $tself. ,f the works were

themsel*es full- the" would conta$n a subject be"ond the$r boundar$es and

therefore rema$n stat$c $n t$me and s$te. h$s leads to another cr$t$cal po$nt

wh$ch $s m$ssed b" 7r$ed et al. he works are not $ntended to be seen en

vaccua as objects to be contemplated- but $t $s the$r presence wh$ch

act$*ates the space around them throu)h the$r or$entat$on and mater$al.he$r $dent$t" as Spec$f$c Objects- no lon)er mere objects- $n that the$r

effects are etens$*e- not $ntens$*e1 subject$*e- not prescr$pt$*e. %ere the"

mere objects- then the" would ha*e no d$fferent effect $n a trash b$n than $n

the ou*re.

“hree d$mens$ons are real space. hat )ets r$d of the problem of $llus$on$sm

and of l$teral space- space $n and around marks and colors.! wh$ch $s

r$ddance of one of the sal$ent and most object$onable rel$cs of Juropean art.

“E?F Gudd cont$nues h$s cr$t$(ue b" re$ntroduc$n) the $dea of Heal Space $n



oppos$t$on to $teral Space. Heal space $s the space $n wh$ch the object and

the subject res$de rather than the theatr$cal space the art object $n*$tes the

subject into. Sculpture fa$ls th$s test as well because $ts compos$t$on of parts

does not allow $t to be full" present and le)$ble- den$es $t a le*el of

$mmed$ac" that Spec$f$c Objects operate w$th$n. rad$t$onal sculpture also

establ$shes a f$)urat$*e lan)ua)e of an object $n space w$thout order$n)

space. &orr$s h$mself commented that un$tar" forms do not mark a

reduct$on of s$mpl$f$cat$on of eper$ence- but ser*e to order $t $n a more

cohes$*e manner shutt$n) off an" “s"mbol$c $llus$on” and focus the subject

on purel" formal read: real $ssues of color- scale- *olume- and the

surround$n) space. “h$s d$rect$on leads to a s"stem wh$ch subst$tutes the

trad$t$onal (uest$ons of what to represent where w$th $deas of presence and

placeC $ts role chan)ed from that of a transm$tter of object$*e content to a

constructor of $ts own epress$*e )rammar.” E0F

h$s epress$on of the work as a th$n) epress$n) $ts $nherent (ual$t$es

$ndependent of outs$de $nfluences $s d$rectl" taken from &aur$ce &erleau!

'ont"9s essa" The Phenomenology of Perception- publ$shed $n the MS when

the $teral$st sculptors were start$n) out. 'ont"9s tet (u$ckl" became a

sem$nal tet $n the format$*e per$od of the art$sts and was attract$*e

because $t opposes the “dual$sm wh$ch presents consc$ousness as $nter$or$t"

and the bod" as a th$n).” EF 7or h$m- human eper$ence $s not made up of

separate subject$*e and object$*e st$mulus- but rather throu)h a s"nthes$s

of $ntell$)ent acts and emot$onal percept$ons. As 4on@ales po$nts out- “hus

for &erleau!'ont"- the d$stance and the *$ewpo$nt are not added to the

object- but are an $nherent part of $ts mean$n).” Gudd cr$t$c$@es th$s

separat$on of object and eper$ence when he notes that abstract pa$nt$n)

before ?>K and most subse(uent pa$nt$n) most l$kel" a cr$t$(ue of

Abstract Jpress$on$sm there $s a representat$onal subord$nat$on of the

whole to $ts parts- emphas$@$n) compos$t$on. Anthon" Baro- whom 7r$ed

lauds $ncessantl"- also fa$ls $n Gudd9s e"es and he compares $t to

arch$tectural referents. he d$fference- he notes- $s “l$ke that between one of

#runellesch$9s w$ndows $n the #ad$a d$ 7$esole and the faNade of 'ala@@o

Hucella$- wh$ch $s onl" an unde*eloped rectan)le as a whole and $s ma$nl" a

collect$on of h$)hl" ordered parts. “E2F



'ro)ress$n) $n spec$f$c$t"- the mater$al cho$ces outl$ned b" Gudd represent

and enr$ch ph"s$call" h$s formal $ntent$ons. ,ndustr$al products are

$mportant to use because the" do not ha*e a precedent or *ar$at$on of

product$on that make them $deolo)$call" we$)hted. Also- pract$call"- the" are

$nepens$*e and ma$nta$n a certa$n unalterable $nte)r$t" $n the$r

homo)ene$t" of tone and treatment. ,n a wa"- the" epress a (ual$t" he

sees $n Hothko9s rectan)les and ;oland9s c$rcles and later- A)nes &art$n

would champ$on: the l$m$tless percept$on of f$elds as ha*$n) been apparent

“sect$ons cut from someth$n) $nf$n$tel" lar)er.” EIF h$s (ual$t" of the $nf$n$te

$s present $n the $ndustr$al mater$als. Gudd sees th$s use of mater$al as

a))ress$*e and necessar" for the $dent$t" of a spec$f$c object $n $ts

object$*$t" based $n a neutral $naccess$ble wa". ,n other words- the coldness

and banal$t" of the mater$als do not allow the *$ewer to $dent$f" the spec$f$c

object as an artwork based $n mater$al- “he" ob*$ousl" aren9t art.” E>F 7r$ed

cr$t$c$@es th$s eecut$on of the work as theatr$cal because throu)h the

$naccess$b$l$t" of the mater$al- the work demands the ph"s$cal part$c$pat$on

of the *$ewer. Ar)uabl"- howe*er- because the work lacks spec$f$c mean$n)

or prescr$bed frontal$t" of *$ew$n)- as well as no d$stract$on- no pa"off- no

narrat$*e- the work $s not at all theatr$cal and does not need the *$ewer orthe )aller". ,f an"th$n)- the oppos$te $s true. he work re(u$res onl" space-

because $t operates $n produc$n) new space from e$st$n)- and that new

space $s noth$n) more than the estran)ement of the space from $tself.

S$mpl"- the work $s alwa"s work$n) because $t does not re(u$re an"th$n) to

work. he “pa"off” 7r$ed was look$n) for was the real$t" of the space he

was $n. 3e was presented w$th noth$n) less than real space- $n real t$me-

and was frustrated because there was no d$stract$on that would pro*e to be

fodder for h$s standard methods of cr$t$(ue.

,n th$s- Specific Objects pos$ts the most ec$t$n) and dan)erous prem$se-

and $ndeed the wa" out for art and arch$tecture: art $s noth$n) more than

space and compos$t$on- and compos$t$on $s a conce$t. aken to $ts lo)$cal

end- pa$nt$n) $s rendered as merel" p$)ment on substrate1 sculpture $s the

pretense of form $n mass. he mean$n) $s what we- the *$ewers- ha*e

projected to )$*e $t *alue be"ond $tself- the *alue of popular culture. h$s- ,

bel$e*e- $s wh" 7r$ed cannot meet Gudd on h$s own terms- and perhaps wh"



Gudd et al were so bra@en w$th the$r output1 $teral$st art procla$ms

trad$t$onal art9s $rrele*ance- thereb" tak$n) all of 7r$ed9s cr$t$cal capac$t"

awa" from h$m. Or e*en more etreme- and br$ll$ant- $s that the cr$t$cal

commentar"- whether pos$t$*e or ne)at$*e- $s a re$nforcement of the *er"

pr$nc$ples outl$ned $n the tet. ,mpl$c$t $n Stella9s famous ada)e “%hat "ou

see $s what "ou see”- was the unspoken “%hat "ou see $s what "ou are able

to see- care to see- can see- are w$ll$n) to see.” herefore- an" pra$se or

attack on $teral$st art was as neutral to the work as $ts formal )esture and

as powerful as the rhetor$cal clout of the cr$t$cal *o$ce1 an" commentar" was

)al*an$@$n). h$s $s perhaps the most powerful effect of the work- $ts

trans$t$*e ab$l$t" to e$st outs$de of $tself both $n real space- and rhetor$cal

space.

7$nall"- the tet $tself $s a model of the pr$nc$ples $t outl$nes. %$th$n the tet

are $ma)es- none of wh$ch are $ntended to be Gudd9s work. A photo)raph of

Gudd9s Untitled (1!"# $s $ncluded but w$th an aster$ and a note stat$n)

“he ed$tor- not ,- $ncluded the photo of m" work.” E6F o l$tter h$s tet w$th

$ma)es of h$s own work would appear to let the $deas beh$nd $t rema$n

$nclus$*e to a s$n)le pract$t$oner and a s$n)le method. o the contrar"- the

$ma)es are all of Spec$f$c Objects eecuted b" other art$sts- a)a$n creat$n)

the *ar$ance of subject object relat$onsh$p and creat$n) a space $n front of

the pa)e $tself. As $f descr$b$n) the bod" of tet $tself- Gudd states “,f there

$s a reference- $t $s s$n)le and epl$c$t. ,n an" case the ch$ef $nterests are

ob*$ous.”

%hen operat$*e- Spec$f$c Objects clears the wa" for the cr$t$cal e"e to

rema$n cr$t$cal. ,t re(u$res the suspens$on and d$ssolut$on of an" a priori def$n$t$on of art- and $n do$n) so- (uest$on the nature and role of art $n

our l$*es. ,n $ts $ntens$f$cat$on of objects as such- and the$r break $nto

spec$f$c objects- Gudd w$shes to frame real space- and re!center the *$ewer

$n real space- throu)h real mater$al art$culat$on- and throu)h real perceptual

eper$ence contrar" to the projected trope of mean$n) so often appl$ed to

artwork. hrou)h these methods- the subject and object relat$onsh$ps are

cont$nuousl" chan)ed. ,n a s$n)le $nstance- we can perce$*e the object $n a

wa" $n wh$ch $t w$ll ne*er be a)a$n as well as understand that our presence



$n space - our own perceptual facult$es- ha*e been object$f$ed b" the

subjecthood of the work. %e are at once $n control and completel"

powerless. h$s fra)$l$t"- and our ab$l$t" to understand $ts operat$on- $s the

form of autonom" that has been too (u$ckl" lost $n $ts commod$f$cat$on $nto

a st"le. “,f chan)es $n art are compared backwards- there alwa"s seems to

be a reduct$on- s$nce onl" old attr$butes are counted and these are alwa"s

fewer.” EKF he acceptance of the aesthet$c $nto mass culture $s the rojan

horse that art and arch$tecture ma" now use to recla$m the autonom" of our

d$sc$pl$nes- b" produc$n) work that $s operat$*e $n $ts seem$n) reduct$on-

sub*ers$*e $n $ts ostens$ble s$mpl$c$t".

Heferences

. 7r$ed- &$chael. Shape as 7orm: 7rank Stella9s ,rre)ular 'ol")ons $n Art

and Objecthood. he Mn$*ers$t" of Bh$ca)o 'ress- Bh$ca)o. ??8. 'p. LL.

2. oos- Adolf. Arch$tecture. ?0

I. Gudd- Donald. Spec$f$c Objects $n Bomplete %r$t$n)s:?6?!?L6. ;ew

ork Mn$*ers$t" 'ress- ;ew ork. 2006. 'p. 8!8?.

>. Gudd. 'p. 8

6. 4on@ale@- &arta. &$n$mal$smos- Mn S$)no de los $empos. Aldesa- &adr$d.

200. 'p.6>!KI.

K. 7r$ed.'p.LL

L. Gudd. 'p. 8I

8. ,b$d. 'p.6

?. Gudd. 'p. 8>

0. 4on@ales. 'p. 6K

. ,b$d. pp. 6K.

2. Gudd. 'p. 8L

I. Gudd. 'p. 82.



>. Gudd. 'p.8L

6. Gudd. 'p.88

Adorno Subject Object

Documents

Transcript of Adorno Subject Object