Tag Archives: CRMEP

CRMEP Lecture Series | Catherine Malabou | Spinoza and Symbolic Necessity

1st Dec. 2016

Catherine Malabou, Spinoza and Symbolic Necessity

In Expressionism in Philosophy: Spinoza, Gilles Deleuze contrasts philosophy and revelation. Expressionism is the privileged modality of immanence and intelligibility, opposed to ‘knowledge by signs’ that characterizes the domain of revelation and is supposedly meant to foster faith in ignorant people. The ontological dimension of revelation – its necessity – is dismissed by Deleuze’s reading. Emmanuel Lévinas, following an apparently inverted logic, reproaches Spinoza for having subjected revelation to an overly rigid ontological necessity, thus missing its ‘signifying’ value.

Do we find too many or too few signs in Spinoza? By focusing on Spinoza’s method of interpretationI challenge these approaches, showing how the issue of the symbolic inscribes itself in Spinoza’s project, and offering my own account of the symbolic.

Book Now

Call for Papers: What is the relevance of Adorno’s Aesthetic Theory today?

International Conference Call for Papers

What is the relevance of Adorno’s
Aesthetic Theory today?

Organized through the Université Renne 2


In his Theory of the Avant-Garde Peter Bürger maintained that “the norm of all contemporary aesthetic theory is Adorno’s aesthetics.” What remains of this “norm” of Adorno’s Aesthetic Theory more than forty years after its publication?

This two-day international conference will take place at the University of Rennes 2, in October 2017, and will be presided by Christophe David (senior lecturer, History and Critique of the Arts) and Florent Perrier (senior lecturer, Practical Arts and Poetics). The conference will be conducted in French and English.

This call of papers is addressed to scholars working in aesthetics, in philosophy of art, in political philosophy, in sociology, in history of art, in musicology, in literary history, literary theory, and so on.

The questions we would like to explore during the two days of the conference are the following:

  • The pre-history of Ästhetische Theorie. The point is to explore how these questions, which became thematic in the 30s and 40s (the fetish character of art, dissonance, and so on) find themselves changed, or unchanged, in Ästhetische Theorie in the 60s, to determine the ongoing or transformed role of the decisive early influences (for instance, that of Georg Lukàcs) or the exchanges with his friends (Walter Benjamin, Ernst Bloch, Alfred Sohn-Rethel). What is the role of Schönberg in Ästhetische Theorie now that this artist no longer has a central position? What are the differences between the Schönberg of the first part of the Philosophie der neuen Musik (written in 1940-41) and that of the Darmstadt conferences?
  • The relation between Ästhetische Theorie and the courses on aesthetics of the 1950s (Vorlesungen. Ästhetik [1958-59], Surkamp, 2012).
  • The references to the aesthetic tradition (Baumgarten, Schiller, Rosenkranz, Corce, Dewey, Dilthey, and so on) and the “metacritical” moments (the critique of Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Freud, and the other towering figures in the history of art criticism). The major aesthetic questions that are replayed or reinvented: appearance, mimesis, natural beauty, artistic beauty, the sublime, and so on. The relation between Ästhetische Theorie and Ohne Leibild. Parva aesthetica.
  • The major elements in the analysis of the critique of the culture industry. The dialectical opposition between autonomous art and administered art in the culture industry. What place does the critique of culture occupy in Ästhetische Theorie? And how might Ästhetische Theorie help inform the critique of culture today?
  • The articulation between Dialektik der Aufklarüng and Ästhetische Theorie is also played out in the identification of art as a symbolic form that partakes in (as a “secularization of transcendence”) the movement of emancipation from myth. The political and moral import of art as a symbolic form, then, as it emerges against the backdrop of Auschwitz, and against the epoch of the culture industry and the industries of culture.
  • The approach and analysis of the arts (music, literature, cinema, etc.) and of artworks (Ästhetische Theorie contains numerous highly suggestive analyses of works that evidently demand further development) the classical artists (Bach, Baudelaire, Beethoven, Goethe, Wagner) and the modern ones (Beckett, Brecht, Celan, Kafka, Picasso, Valéry) in Ästhetische Theorie. The question of the avant- gardes (and of all the “isms”). The treatment of contemporary art (by means, for example, of the young musicians of Darmstadt). The question of the relation of the philosophy of the arts. Philosophy, interpretation and criticism or critique.
  • The question of the political or of politics in Ästhetische Theorie. Works of art play a role in the political transformation of the administered world. Administered world and administered art. Aesthetic autonomy and political liberty. The question of utopia: “Every artwork has a utopian function to the extent that, through its form, it anticipates a reality that would at last be itself […] But because utopia—what is not yet—is veiled in darkness, it maintains through all its mediations that character of a memory, a memory of the possible against the real, something like the imaginary compensation for the catastrophe of universal history.” Is Ästhetische Theorie indeed a “materialist and dialectical aesthetics”? What relation does Ästhetische Theorie have to Marx?

The proposed papers may be sent in French, German, English or Spanish (a title and summary of no more than 15 or 20 lines) should be sent before October 20th 2016 to Christophe David (christophe.t.david@wanadoo.fr) and Florent Perrier (florentperrier@hotmail.fr). Please include a notice of 5 to 6 lines (full name, university affiliation if you have one, your most important articles or books). Your talk must not exceed 25 minutes and may be delivered in French or English.