Participatory truth between Adorno’s negativity and Gadamer’s play: digital media, the culture industry, and Kantian aesthetic consciousness
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.38140/aa.v57i2.10196Keywords:
Critical Theory, culture industry, aesthetic consciousness, play, philosophical hermeneutics, negativityAbstract
This article investigates the intersection between critical theory and hermeneutics, examining whether Hans-Georg Gadamer’s aesthetic philosophy – especially his critique of Kantian aesthetics – might offer an ontological alternative to the culture industry critique developed by Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer. Gadamer reimagines aesthetic experience as a participatory event of understanding, rooted in the ontological seriousness of play (Spiel), in contrast to the Frankfurt School, which contends that art under capitalism becomes commodified and bereft of critical potential. His paradigm suggests that artworks reveal truth through dialogical involvement, challenging Kantian “aesthetic consciousness” as a detached, disinterested subject. The article proposes that Gadamer reframes the question of aesthetic critique by foregrounding tradition, interpretation, and historical consciousness. In doing so, it invites reflection on how art might resist commodification and sustain critical possibilities, even within the structures of digital capitalism, by renewing attention to the interpretive act as a space of truth-making.
References
Adorno TW. [1938] 2001. On the fetish character in music and the regression of listening. In: The culture industry: selected essays on mass culture. London: Routledge.
Adorno TW. [1967] 2001. The culture industry: selected essays on mass culture. London: Routledge.
Adorno TW. [1970] 2004. Aesthetic theory. Edited by G Adorno and R Tiedemann. Translated by R Hullot-Kentor. London: Continuum.
Adorno TW and Horkheimer M. [1944] 2002. Dialectic of enlightenment. Translated by E Jephcott. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Bernstein JM. 1992. The fate of art: aesthetic alienation from Kant to Derrida and Adorno. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bowie A. 2003. Aesthetics and subjectivity: from Kant to Nietzsche (2nd ed.). Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Fuchs C. 2022. Digital democracy and the digital public sphere: media, communication and society volume six. London: Routledge.
Gadamer H-G. [1960] 2004. Truth and method (2nd rev. ed.). Translated by J Weinsheimer and DG Marshall. London: Continuum.
Grondin J. 1997. Introduction to philosophical hermeneutics. Translated by J Weinsheimer. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Han B-C. [2013] 2017a. In the swarm: digital prospects. Translated by E Butler. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Han B-C. [2014] 2017b. Psychopolitics: neoliberalism and new technologies of power. Translated by E Butler. London: Verso.
Han B-C. [2019] 2020. The disappearance of rituals: a topology of the present. Translated by D Steuer. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Horkheimer M. [1947] 2004. Eclipse of reason. London: Continuum.
Kant I. [1790] 2001. Critique of the power of judgment. Translated by P Guyer and E Matthews. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Muelder Eaton M. 1999. Kantian and contextual beauty. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 57(1): 11–15.
Zimmerman RL. 1963. Kant: the aesthetic judgment. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 21(3): 333–344.
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 William Shaer
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
