Talk:Theodor W. Adorno/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Adorno and homosexuality

Why no mention of Adorno's notoriously problematic theoretical relation between homosexuality and Fascism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.175.113 (talk) 03:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Source? Lettuceeat (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Recent Revisions

In January 2012 I made significant additions and revisions to this entry - practically rewriting the introduction and biography. Since then I have noticed several welcome changes to the entry, but it seems someone has recently tried tweaking the introduction with the following result:

He is widely regarded as one of the 20th century's foremost thinkers on aesthetics and philosophy, as well as one of its preeminent essayists.“in the field of Cultural Studies have repeatedly cast Adorno in the role of the father [...] he has given life to the critical analysis of mass culture”(Apostolidis: p. 56) ( As a critic of both fascism and what he called the culture industry, his writings—such as Dialectic of Enlightenment (1947), Minima Moralia (1951) and Negative Dialectics (1966)—strongly influenced the European New Left.

I am not sure who is responsible - I am a researcher quite unskilled in such matters - but it's clear to me that "in the field of ... 56)(" has no place in the entry. Or at least not where it now sits. So I am taking it out. Does that sound OK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francetourdetour (talk • contribs) 19:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Impartiality, please!

Whoever wrote the section focusing on Adorno's musicological work clearly has difficulties remaining objective. That Adorno's work in that field has seen a "steady decline since his death" is news to me considering that new editions and translations of his seminal works in that field are regularly issued. Nor does he lack attention, be it of the positive or negative sort. Norman Lebrecht is one of the many people to go on record writing in praise of Adorno's work. Honestly, it comes off as being the work of a resentful jazz fan or classical reactionary.

In fact, Adorno's arguments more than stand the test of time if we accept that what he means by jazz was merely the pop music of his day. I think we ca all agree that "jazz" as Adorno understood it (Paul Whiteman, Louis Armstrong, Bing Crosby, Glenn Miller, etc.) is nothing like the truly searching and complex art-form it would become under the likes of Miles Davis, Albert Ayler, Anthony Braxton, Cecil Taylor, Kaoru Abe, etc. What would he have said had he been given a chance to hear them?

Certainly his work remains controversial. But the fact that it remains so is hardly a sign of "decline." CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Opponents? Critics? Contradictions?

This article suffers from the inevitable slaver syndrome typical of Wiki bios. No mention is made of the the fundamental attack on traditional mores which Adorno and the Frankfurt school represents, of its dependency on dubious economic (Marxian) theory, of the role which Adorno’s Jewishness had in shaping his worldview, or of his naive reliance on the long-dicredited “science" of Freud. Critique’s of Adorno abound, so why are none addressed/assessed here? Orthotox (talk) 01:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem is that well-informed editors like yourself have not contributed yet. Please feel free to redress this imbalance. That is what Wikipedia is supposed to be all about.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)