独钓兄在读完本博客上的《阿多诺论建筑之美（＋朱批）》后在他的博客上发出回应。他认为我读阿多诺的 Functionalism Today 得出了自己的结论：“反对单纯的形式主义，因为它创造了毫无意义的美；要鼓励针对社会矛盾社会实践的“美”或形式。”

我认为该概括不甚准确，这里再补充一下我对阿多诺文的理解：

1. 阿多诺反对艺术简单追求浅层次的感观愉悦，也反对“为艺术而艺术”的主张。他用一些含贬义色彩的词如“空洞的形式”、“无意义的形式”是批评一些艺术创作完全失去语言内部的张力，仅满足于提供表层感观愉悦，或失去与社会之间的张力，变成一种自说自话的神秘炼金术。但他并没有抨击“形式主义”，因为该词有更复杂的涵义。“形式主义”现在常被泛指那些追求“空洞”形式的主张，但历史上并非一直如此。比如1920年代的俄国文学理论中的形式主义追求的恰恰不是“为艺术而艺术”，而是不断通用新鲜的文学语言来刷新人们的经验，以抵制独断政治和重复生活导致的人的心神麻木——这种艺术主张追求的不是与政治、社会性一对一的关系，但也不是一种退避，而是始终保持一种警醒的张力。

2.进一步说，阿多诺强调艺术处理矛盾性不等同于只强调艺术处理社会矛盾和进行社会性实践。他强调的既有艺术作品与社会性之间的张力，也有艺术语言内部处理复杂性、矛盾性冲突的张力。简言之，艺术语言既是自足的，与社会之间关系又是辩证的。见阿多诺在Functionalism Today 中的另一段论述：

Art, in order to be art according to its own formal laws, must be crystallized in autonomous form. This constitutes its truth content; otherwise, it would be subservient to that which it negates by its very existence. And yet, as a human product, it is never completely removed from humanity. It contains as a constitutive element something of that which it necessarily resists. Where art obliterates its own memory, forgetting that it is only for others, it becomes a fetish, a self-conscious and thereby relativized absolute.

3.在更具体地谈到城市规划和建筑时，阿多诺显然更加强调社会性，强调建筑师在特定历史语境中对建筑美学的反思：

First, with regard to social things, he must account for the position of his work in society and for the social limits which he encounters on all sides. This consideration becomes crucial in problems concerning city planning, even beyond the tasks of reconstruction, where archi-tectonic questions collide with social questions such as the existence of a collective social subject...

Second,...architecture, indeed every purposeful art, demands constant aesthetic reflection...

接下来在结尾处，他下了这个结论：

Beauty today can have no other measure except the depth to which a work resolves contradictions. A work must cut through the contradictions and overcome them, not by covering them up, but by pursuing them.

这是我读解到的阿多诺较有启发性的观点，是不是符合阿多诺的本意是一个问题，同不同意他的观点则是另外一个问题。欢迎大家进一步批评！