{"title":"《友谊无国界:东西德女性权力、政治和日常生活的故事》,Phil Leask著(评论)","authors":"Kara L. Ritzheimer","doi":"10.1353/gsr.2022.0056","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"he states that “Adorno holds that art-music even at its most avant-garde reflects the sundered nature of modern society” (88, emphasis added), this is missing Adorno’s crucial rejection of any reflection theory of art (as in Lenin’s or Lukács’ more orthodox Marxism). Terry Pritchard’s chapter skims superficially over Adorno’s relation to Hegel, while never mentioning Drei Studien zu Hegel, nor engaging with the considerable body of work on this topic in German. Adorno’s relation to Heidegger is more complicated than Pritchard’s chapter allows. Michael Gallope sets up a completely unwarranted opposition between what he thinks are two types of Adornian music writing, one more precise, and the other supposedly merely loosely metaphorical or “ineffable” (the musicologist will think of Vladimir Jankélévich here). Gallope’s opposition is, however, undermined by the fact that the works he wants to adduce as somehow deliberately imprecise, like the Mahler monograph, include more detailed score analyses and technical discussion than the Philosophy of New Music. These are unfortunate flaws in a book that aims to be, and will no doubt be treated as, a standard reference work. In Negative Dialektik Adorno noted philosophy’s dependence on culture, a major difference remaining between Continental and analytic traditions. It is the job of a handbook to try to bridge these cultural differences, as most of its authors well succeed in doing; a few, however, still inadvertently demonstrate that Adorno remains hard to digest for non-German speakers. Larson Powell, University of Missouri – Kansas City","PeriodicalId":43954,"journal":{"name":"German Studies Review","volume":"45 1","pages":"600 - 602"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Friendship without Borders: Women's Stories of Power, Politics, and Everyday Life across East and West Germany by Phil Leask (review)\",\"authors\":\"Kara L. Ritzheimer\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/gsr.2022.0056\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"he states that “Adorno holds that art-music even at its most avant-garde reflects the sundered nature of modern society” (88, emphasis added), this is missing Adorno’s crucial rejection of any reflection theory of art (as in Lenin’s or Lukács’ more orthodox Marxism). Terry Pritchard’s chapter skims superficially over Adorno’s relation to Hegel, while never mentioning Drei Studien zu Hegel, nor engaging with the considerable body of work on this topic in German. Adorno’s relation to Heidegger is more complicated than Pritchard’s chapter allows. Michael Gallope sets up a completely unwarranted opposition between what he thinks are two types of Adornian music writing, one more precise, and the other supposedly merely loosely metaphorical or “ineffable” (the musicologist will think of Vladimir Jankélévich here). Gallope’s opposition is, however, undermined by the fact that the works he wants to adduce as somehow deliberately imprecise, like the Mahler monograph, include more detailed score analyses and technical discussion than the Philosophy of New Music. These are unfortunate flaws in a book that aims to be, and will no doubt be treated as, a standard reference work. In Negative Dialektik Adorno noted philosophy’s dependence on culture, a major difference remaining between Continental and analytic traditions. It is the job of a handbook to try to bridge these cultural differences, as most of its authors well succeed in doing; a few, however, still inadvertently demonstrate that Adorno remains hard to digest for non-German speakers. Larson Powell, University of Missouri – Kansas City\",\"PeriodicalId\":43954,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"German Studies Review\",\"volume\":\"45 1\",\"pages\":\"600 - 602\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"German Studies Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/gsr.2022.0056\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"AREA STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"German Studies Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/gsr.2022.0056","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
他指出,“阿多诺认为艺术音乐即使在最前卫的时候也反映了现代社会的分裂本质”(88,重点补充),这与阿多诺对任何艺术反思理论的关键拒绝(如列宁或卢卡奇更正统的马克思主义)不符。特里·普里查德(Terry Pritchard)的这一章肤浅地回避了阿多诺与黑格尔的关系,而从未提及德雷·斯图迪恩·祖·黑格尔(Drei Studien zu Hegel),也没有用德语参与这一主题的大量工作。阿多诺与海德格尔的关系比普里查德的章节所允许的更为复杂。迈克尔·加洛佩(Michael Gallope)在他认为的两种类型的阿多诺音乐创作之间建立了一种完全没有根据的对立,一种更精确,另一种则被认为只是松散的隐喻或“无法形容”(音乐学家会在这里想到弗拉基米尔·詹凯莱维奇)。然而,加洛佩的反对意见受到了以下事实的破坏:他想引用的作品,如马勒的专著,在某种程度上故意不精确,包括比《新音乐哲学》更详细的乐谱分析和技术讨论。这些都是一本书中的不幸缺陷,这本书的目标是,而且毫无疑问,它将被视为一本标准的参考书。阿多诺在《否定的迪亚莱克提克》一书中指出哲学对文化的依赖,这是大陆传统和分析传统之间的一个主要区别。手册的工作是试图弥合这些文化差异,正如大多数作者所做的那样;然而,一些人仍然无意中证明,对于非德语使用者来说,阿多诺仍然难以消化。Larson Powell,密苏里大学堪萨斯城分校
Friendship without Borders: Women's Stories of Power, Politics, and Everyday Life across East and West Germany by Phil Leask (review)
he states that “Adorno holds that art-music even at its most avant-garde reflects the sundered nature of modern society” (88, emphasis added), this is missing Adorno’s crucial rejection of any reflection theory of art (as in Lenin’s or Lukács’ more orthodox Marxism). Terry Pritchard’s chapter skims superficially over Adorno’s relation to Hegel, while never mentioning Drei Studien zu Hegel, nor engaging with the considerable body of work on this topic in German. Adorno’s relation to Heidegger is more complicated than Pritchard’s chapter allows. Michael Gallope sets up a completely unwarranted opposition between what he thinks are two types of Adornian music writing, one more precise, and the other supposedly merely loosely metaphorical or “ineffable” (the musicologist will think of Vladimir Jankélévich here). Gallope’s opposition is, however, undermined by the fact that the works he wants to adduce as somehow deliberately imprecise, like the Mahler monograph, include more detailed score analyses and technical discussion than the Philosophy of New Music. These are unfortunate flaws in a book that aims to be, and will no doubt be treated as, a standard reference work. In Negative Dialektik Adorno noted philosophy’s dependence on culture, a major difference remaining between Continental and analytic traditions. It is the job of a handbook to try to bridge these cultural differences, as most of its authors well succeed in doing; a few, however, still inadvertently demonstrate that Adorno remains hard to digest for non-German speakers. Larson Powell, University of Missouri – Kansas City