{"id":5901,"date":"2011-03-28T11:50:16","date_gmt":"2011-03-28T08:50:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/wordpress\/2011\/03\/28\/kant-adorno-ve-estetigin-toplumsal-gecissizligi-thomas-huhn\/"},"modified":"2011-03-28T11:50:16","modified_gmt":"2011-03-28T08:50:16","slug":"kant-adorno-ve-estetigin-toplumsal-gecissizligi-thomas-huhn","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2011\/03\/28\/kant-adorno-ve-estetigin-toplumsal-gecissizligi-thomas-huhn\/","title":{"rendered":"Kant, Adorno ve Esteti\u011fin Toplumsal Ge\u00e7i\u015fsizli\u011fi | Thomas Huhn"},"content":{"rendered":"

G\u00fcvercin kanat \u00e7\u0131rpmadan, havay\u0131 yaran a\u011f\u0131rl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 hissederek g\u00f6ky\u00fcz\u00fcnde s\u00fcz\u00fcl\u00fcrken, bo\u015f uzamda b\u00f6yle u\u00e7man\u0131n daha kolay olaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 hayal ediyor olmal\u0131.
Immanuel Kant<\/em><\/p>\n

Be\u015f duyundan b\u00f6ylesine uzaktayken, nas\u0131l oluyor da biliyorsun, havada s\u00fcz\u00fclen her ku\u015fun, u\u00e7suz bucaks\u0131z bir haz d\u00fcnyas\u0131nda oldu\u011funu?
William Blake<\/em><\/p>\n

Kant ve Adorno’nun estetik kuramlar\u0131 aras\u0131ndaki ili\u015fki \u00fczerinde durmak istiyorum. G\u00f6stermeye \u00e7al\u0131\u015faca\u011f\u0131m \u015fey, Adorno’nun yaln\u0131zca esteti\u011fin \u00f6znesinin ele al\u0131nmas\u0131nda de\u011fil, estetikte ele al\u0131nan \u00f6znellik konusunda da Kant’\u0131n izinden gitti\u011fidir.<\/p>\n

\u0130ddiam bu konuda Kant ve Adorno aras\u0131ndaki tek ger\u00e7ek farkl\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n, geride b\u0131rakt\u0131\u011f\u0131m\u0131z iki y\u00fczy\u0131ll\u0131k tarihte yatt\u0131\u011f\u0131; bu tarihin, estetik yarg\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan bi\u00e7imlendirilenin, \u015fimdi sanat tarihi ve geli\u015fimi olarak ger\u00e7ekle\u015fen aktar\u0131m\u0131ndan olu\u015ftu\u011fudur.<\/p>\n

\u00d6yle g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcyor ki Adorno, Yarg\u0131 G\u00fcc\u00fcn\u00fcn Ele\u015ftirisi’ni hem estetik \u00fczerine yaz\u0131lm\u0131\u015f en zengin, en incelikli ara\u015ft\u0131rma olarak, hem de u\u00e7suz bucaks\u0131z bir bask\u0131 alan\u0131 olarak okumaktad\u0131r. Kant’\u0131n metnini bu ikinciye d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcrmemek ad\u0131na, Adorno bu bask\u0131y\u0131 esteti\u011fin ayr\u0131lmaz bir \u00f6\u011fesi olarak yorumlam\u0131\u015f, b\u00f6ylelikle g\u00fczel ve y\u00fcce aras\u0131ndaki donuk Kant\u00e7\u0131 diyalektikten uzakla\u015fmaya \u00e7al\u0131\u015fm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Adorno’nun estetik anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131 Kant’\u0131n estetik anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131 uyar\u0131nca \u015fekillendi\u011fi gibi, Kant’\u0131n estetik anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131na b\u00fcy\u00fck \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde paraleldir de; Kant estetik yarg\u0131y\u0131 \u00f6znel yap\u0131n\u0131n ayna imgesi, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcr imgesi sayar; Adorno’ysa sanat eserini ayn\u0131 \u015fekilde bir t\u00fcr ayna imgesi sayman\u0131n yan\u0131 s\u0131ra, yaln\u0131zca onun arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla de\u011fil, onda g\u00f6rmeye \u00e7al\u0131\u015fma yolunu se\u00e7er.<\/p>\n

Adeta, Adorno ve Kant bir ve ayn\u0131 \u015feye kar\u015f\u0131t a\u00e7\u0131lardan bakmaktad\u0131rlar. Kant, nesnenin g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fcs\u00fcn\u00fc bast\u0131rarak, bir \u00f6znel ve \u00f6zneleraras\u0131 yap\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fcr, fakat ironik bir bi\u00e7imde bu ayn\u0131 nesne, g\u00fczellik yarg\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n arac\u0131s\u0131d\u0131r. B\u00f6ylece Kant’\u0131n estetik kuram\u0131, yarg\u0131 g\u00fcc\u00fcne i\u015flerlik kazand\u0131ran dinami\u011fin bizzat kendisinin mimetik yinelenmesidir.<\/p>\n

\u00d6te yandan Adorno’nun estetik kuram\u0131, \u00f6znenin ayr\u0131m\u0131na varmak ad\u0131na nesneyi yok saymaktansa, hem nesneyi hem de \u00f6zneyi ayd\u0131nlatmak ad\u0131na nesne \u00fczerine yo\u011funla\u015f\u0131r. Estetik yarg\u0131n\u0131n nesnesi b\u00f6ylece kendisini, \u00f6tekili\u011findeki \u00f6znellik olarak a\u00e7\u0131mlar. Adorno i\u00e7in art\u0131k, Kant’\u0131n estetik yarg\u0131 g\u00fcc\u00fc de\u011fil, bizzat sanat eseri ayr\u0131cal\u0131kl\u0131 bir yabanc\u0131la\u015fma alan\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n

Bu makalede iki amac\u0131m var: Adorno’nun ona ne \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde bor\u00e7lu oldu\u011funu g\u00f6stererek, Kant esteti\u011finin farkl\u0131 bir a\u00e7\u0131dan, yeniden de\u011ferlendirilmesini sa\u011flamak; \u00f6zellikle de insan ya\u015fam\u0131ndaki, uzla\u015fma estetik umudunun dinmezli\u011fi a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan Kant’\u0131n ve Adorno’nun metinleri aras\u0131nda temel bir yak\u0131nl\u0131\u011f\u0131n halen s\u00fcrmekte oldu\u011funu g\u00f6stermek. Bu uzla\u015fma umudu Kant’ta insan \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn ger\u00e7ekle\u015fti\u011fi alan olarak do\u011fan\u0131n terk edilmesinin reddi olarak ortaya \u00e7\u0131ksa da, Adorno bunun yerine, do\u011fal g\u00fczellik alan\u0131ndan y\u00fcceninkine ve son olarak (ya da en az\u0131ndan bug\u00fcn itibariyle) sanat\u0131n g\u00fczelli\u011fine, bahsi ge\u00e7en umudun tarihsel g\u00f6\u00e7\u00fcn\u00fc anlatmay\u0131 se\u00e7er.<\/p>\n

Adorno’nun Yarg\u0131 G\u00fcc\u00fcn\u00fcn Ele\u015ftirisi’ne getirdi\u011fi ele\u015ftiri, do\u011fal g\u00fczelli\u011fi sanatsal g\u00fczellikten ayr\u0131 tutmak ve bu iki be\u011feni \u00f6rne\u011fini, t\u00fcm medeni insanlar\u0131n \u2013g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcrde \u00fcst\u00fcnde ger\u00e7ekle\u015fse de\u2013 zihinlerinde ger\u00e7ekle\u015fen y\u00fccelik yarg\u0131s\u0131ndan ayr\u0131 bir yere koymak i\u00e7in, estetikteki diyalekti\u011fi devinimsiz hale getirdi\u011fidir.
Adorno’nun, Kant’\u0131n y\u00fccelik yorumuyla ilgili birka\u00e7 de\u011finisiyle ba\u015flamak istiyorum. Kant\u00e7\u0131 y\u00fccelik, bilindi\u011fi gibi, sanatta de\u011fil, ancak do\u011fan\u0131n huzurunda yer eder:<\/p>\n

Kant’a g\u00f6re bu y\u00fccelik, do\u011fa kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda hissetmemiz gereken bir \u015feydir, fakat \u00f6znel yap\u0131 kuram\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan de\u011ferlendirildi\u011fi takdirde, bunun anlam\u0131 do\u011fan\u0131n kendisinin y\u00fcce olmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fidir. Do\u011fan\u0131n y\u00fcceli\u011finde ger\u00e7ekle\u015fecek bir ben imgesi, onunla bir t\u00fcr uzla\u015fmay\u0131 \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fcr.1<\/p>\n

Y\u00fcce, bir vaattir, ger\u00e7ekten de g\u00fczelin verdi\u011fi vaatten \u00e7ok daha ger\u00e7ek, \u00e7ok daha etkili bir vaattir \u2013Adorno’nun Stendhal’in promesse de bonheur deyi\u015finden ne kadar ho\u015fland\u0131\u011f\u0131, bu deyi\u015fi ne kadar s\u0131k yineledi\u011finden anla\u015f\u0131l\u0131yor\u2013 \u00e7\u00fcnk\u00fc y\u00fcce, uzla\u015fma ve dolay\u0131s\u0131yla kurtulu\u015f vaat etmektedir. \u00d6te yandan Kant i\u00e7in b\u00f6yle bir vaat ve kurtulu\u015f ancak do\u011fayla m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr. Ger\u00e7ekten de, Kant i\u00e7in, b\u00f6yle bir vaadin, b\u00f6yle bir kefaretin ancak do\u011fayla ve do\u011fada olanakl\u0131 oldu\u011funu, ancak b\u00f6yle oldu\u011funda anlam ve i\u00e7erik kazanacaklar\u0131n\u0131 rahatl\u0131kla s\u00f6yleyebiliriz. Y\u00fcce sanat i\u00e7in \u2013Kant’a g\u00f6re bu neredeyse bir oksimorondur\u2013 ya\u015fam ve kurtulu\u015f vaadi \u00f6znelli\u011fin d\u00fc\u015fk\u00fcn konumuna geri \u00e7ekilmesine kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k gelir.<\/p>\n

Kant’\u0131n y\u00fcce yorumunun en \u00f6nemli \u00f6\u011fesi, herhalde s\u00fcrekli dinamizmi, daha do\u011frusu, negatif diyalekti\u011fidir. (Adorno i\u00e7in, Hegelci diyalektik \u00f6zne ve nesne aras\u0131ndaki ayr\u0131m\u0131 ve uzakl\u0131\u011f\u0131, \u00f6zne lehine ve nesne aleyhine, geri d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fc olmayan bir bi\u00e7imde y\u0131kar; Adorno’nun negatif diyalekti\u011fiyse nesne lehine ve \u00f6zne aleyhine, kendini nesnesinin yan\u0131nda konumland\u0131r\u0131r. Kant’\u0131n y\u00fccesinin dinamizmi, t\u0131pk\u0131 negatif diyalektik gibi, nesnenin b\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcyle silinmesine \u2013ki buna zaten haz\u0131rd\u0131r\u2013 y\u00f6nelir.) Y\u00fcce kendisi kurtulu\u015f olmasa da kurtulu\u015fun \u00e7ok yak\u0131n oldu\u011fu beklentisinin s\u00fcrekli etkinli\u011fidir. Yaln\u0131zca umudun de\u011fil, ger\u00e7ek ya\u015fam\u0131n do\u011frudanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ve varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n terk edilmesinin reddidir.<\/p>\n

Y\u00fcce, \u00f6te yandan, H\u0131ristiyan de\u011fildir \u2013 d\u00fc\u015fk\u00fcn bir \u00f6znellik \u00f6ng\u00f6rmez. \u00d6yleyse, ne de nostaljiktir \u2013 bir kez var oldu\u011funu kurgulad\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u015feyi geri kazanmak pe\u015finde de\u011fildir. Y\u00fcce alegorik de de\u011fildir, \u015fimdili\u011fini \u00f6lm\u00fc\u015f ba\u015fka bir \u015fey \u00fczerinde konumland\u0131rmaz. Y\u00fcce aksine do\u011fan\u0131n mimetik, kestirimci bir \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcd\u00fcr \u2013 insan do\u011fas\u0131d\u0131r bu, ya da toplumsal do\u011fa, ki \u015fu ko\u015fullar alt\u0131nda ikincil do\u011fa dememiz uygun d\u00fc\u015fecektir.<\/p>\n

E\u011fer bu ikincil do\u011fa yaln\u0131zca fenomenal bir skalaya indirgenirse, onu mu\u015ftulayan sanat da b\u00f6ylece, bir t\u00fcr ahlaka indirgenmi\u015f olur. Her ne kadar g\u00fczel zaman zaman ahlak\u0131n bir simgesi olarak i\u015flev g\u00f6rebilse de, y\u00fcce, fenomenal olan\u0131n kavray\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131 a\u015fan \u015fey hakk\u0131nda kestirimde bulunmaya devam edebilmek i\u00e7in, b\u00f6ylesi bir i\u015fleve kar\u015f\u0131 diren\u00e7 g\u00f6sterir:<\/p>\n

Tinin etki alan\u0131ndan \u00e7\u0131kan do\u011fa kendini do\u011fall\u0131\u011f\u0131n ve buyurgan \u00f6znelli\u011fin lanetli kollar\u0131ndan kurtarmal\u0131d\u0131r. Bu \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck do\u011fan\u0131n d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc beraberinde getirmelidir, daha \u00f6zele inecek olursak, y\u00fccenin, ar\u0131 ya\u015fam\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131t-imgesinin d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc.<\/p>\n

Bize muhalif bir \u00e7izgide \u015fekillenmi\u015f bir sanat arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla, do\u011fan\u0131n kendisini \u201cbuyurgan \u00f6znellikten kurtarmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi\u201d, Adorno’nun esteti\u011finde s\u00fcrekli bir tema olarak kar\u015f\u0131m\u0131za \u00e7\u0131kar. Adorno bu muhalefetin ayn\u0131 zamanda do\u011fan\u0131n bizden alaca\u011f\u0131 intikam olarak anla\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrer. Teknolojik anlamda do\u011faya y\u00fckledi\u011fimiz \u015feyler y\u00fcz\u00fcnden al\u0131nan bir intikam de\u011fildir bu, ne k\u0131l\u0131kta olursa olsun do\u011faya sayg\u0131 duymay\u0131 b\u0131rakt\u0131\u011f\u0131m\u0131z i\u00e7in al\u0131nan bir intikamd\u0131r.<\/p>\n

\u00d6yleyse sanat\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131tl\u0131\u011f\u0131, y\u00fccenin Kant’tan sonra do\u011fadan sanata g\u00f6\u00e7 etmesinin bir meyvesidir. Adorno, do\u011fadaki y\u00fcceli\u011fin tarihsel d\u00f6nemini, diyelim ki on sekizinci y\u00fczy\u0131l\u0131n ikinci yar\u0131s\u0131n\u0131, \u201ctemel g\u00fc\u00e7lerin, \u00f6znenin \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla tinin \u00f6zbilince kavu\u015fmas\u0131n\u0131 i\u00e7eren sal\u0131verilmesine\u201d denk gelen bir d\u00f6nem olarak niteler. \u00d6zne kendisine gelir ve kendisini y\u00fcce do\u011fa olarak (yanl\u0131\u015f) tan\u0131r. Ama bu yanl\u0131\u015f tan\u0131ma, bu umut ve d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcm, kendisinin ger\u00e7ekten de ar\u0131 ya\u015famdan fazla bir \u015fey oldu\u011funun bilincine varamamas\u0131na y\u00f6nelik \u00f6znel eksiklili\u011fi sebebiyle s\u00fcreksizdir.<\/p>\n

Kant’\u0131n bu be\u011feni anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131 \u2013y\u00fccelik deneyimi kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda yer alan g\u00fczellik deneyimi olarak\u2013 kendisini evrensel k\u0131lma \u00f6znel \u00e7abas\u0131n\u0131n tan\u0131s\u0131 olarak a\u00e7\u0131klayabiliriz. Kant i\u00e7in \u00f6znellik, estetik (be\u011feniye dair) haz an\u0131n\u0131n \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fc olarak varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 s\u00fcrd\u00fcr\u00fcr, ama ayn\u0131 zamanda, biz bu ayn\u0131 an\u0131n \u2013yine Kant’\u0131n kendi anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131 uyar\u0131nca\u2013 asl\u0131nda \u00f6znellik taraf\u0131ndan hen\u00fcz tan\u0131nmam\u0131\u015f bir an\u0131n evrenselli\u011fi oldu\u011funu g\u00f6z \u00f6n\u00fcnde bulundurarak, bir ba\u015far\u0131s\u0131zl\u0131k olarak yarg\u0131lamal\u0131y\u0131z. Asl\u0131na bak\u0131l\u0131rsa, temelde bu ge\u00e7i\u015fsizlik, estetik \u00f6znenin kendisini bir arac\u0131 olarak tan\u0131yamamas\u0131na y\u00f6nelik ba\u015far\u0131s\u0131zl\u0131k, estetik yarg\u0131 g\u00fcc\u00fcn\u00fcn ele\u015ftirisine gereksinim do\u011furan \u015feydir.<\/p>\n

\u00d6znellik be\u011fenide kendisinin ayr\u0131m\u0131na var\u0131r ama kendisini orada, onun i\u00e7inde tan\u0131mlayamaz ve \u00f6yle g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcyor ki b\u00f6ylelikle kendisini toplumsal anlamda yeniden \u00fcretmeyi ba\u015faramaz. Her ne kadar Kant’a g\u00f6re, be\u011feninin tekil ba\u015far\u0131s\u0131 \u00f6zneleraras\u0131l\u0131k koyutlama edimine ba\u011fl\u0131 olsa da, ba\u015far\u0131s\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131 iki y\u00f6nl\u00fcd\u00fcr: be\u011feni ya elde etti\u011fi evrensel \u00f6zneleraras\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 nesnel bir \u015feye aktarmada ba\u015far\u0131s\u0131z olur ya da, \u00f6yle g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcyor ki en az\u0131ndan, ba\u015far\u0131s\u0131n\u0131, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla s\u00fcregiden ge\u00e7i\u015fsizli\u011fini de, anlamland\u0131ramaz. Be\u011feninin tek ba\u015f\u0131na bu eksiklili\u011fi \u2013yine, tam da ba\u015far\u0131 an\u0131nda\u2013 y\u00fccenin projesinin hayata ge\u00e7mesinin yolunu a\u00e7ar. Y\u00fccenin ilk hedefi, be\u011feniden, kendisini nesnel olarak yanl\u0131\u015f tan\u0131mas\u0131na olanak veren sunumu uzakla\u015ft\u0131rmakt\u0131r.<\/p>\n

Adorno i\u00e7in, y\u00fccenin do\u011fadan sanata g\u00f6\u00e7\u00fc, tek ba\u015f\u0131na do\u011fan\u0131n \u00f6c\u00fcn\u00fcn \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fc de\u011fildir; hem toplumsal\u0131n hem de \u00f6znelin kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131kl\u0131 olarak artan bir bi\u00e7imde \u015feyle\u015ftirilmesinin belirtisidir ayn\u0131 zamanda. E\u011fer y\u00fccelik, s\u00f6zde nesnelli\u011fin \u00e7ekilmesiyle ba\u015fl\u0131yorsa, negatifin g\u00fcc\u00fc olarak daha saf bir bi\u00e7imde geli\u015fecektir. \u015eeyle\u015ftirme artt\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde, onun \u00f6tesine ge\u00e7ecek bir dinamizm gereksinimi de artar. \u00d6yleyse y\u00fccenin sanata g\u00f6\u00e7\u00fc, yaln\u0131zca do\u011fan\u0131n yok say\u0131lmas\u0131 bi\u00e7iminde de\u011fil, bizzat sanat\u0131n s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131 i\u00e7indeki artan \u015feyle\u015ftirmenin bir i\u015fareti olarak da yorumlanabilir. E\u011fer sanat her daim bir \u00f6zg\u00fcr oyun alan\u0131yd\u0131ysa, y\u00fccenin ona ula\u015fmas\u0131, bundan sonra b\u00f6yle var olamayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6stergesidir. \u00c7\u00fcnk\u00fc Adorno’ya g\u00f6re sanat art\u0131k y\u00fcceyi gerektirmektedir, art\u0131k salt g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fc\u015flerin alan\u0131 de\u011fildir, bunun \u00f6tesinde, sahte g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fc\u015flerin, di\u011fer bir deyi\u015fle reddedilmeyi talep eden g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fc\u015flerin alan\u0131d\u0131r. E\u011fer estetik g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fc, Nietzsche’nin izinden gidecek olursak, bir zamanlar d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcm\u00fc ve ya\u015fam\u0131 k\u0131\u015fk\u0131rtan bir darbe i\u015flevi g\u00f6rd\u00fcyse, o zamandan bu yana sertle\u015ferek, \u00f6zellikle de kendisi i\u00e7in, bir engel haline gelmi\u015f olmal\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n

\u00d6te yandan Adorno’da, y\u00fccenin sanata g\u00f6\u00e7\u00fcne olanak tan\u0131yan \u015feyin yaln\u0131zca sanat\u0131n ba\u015far\u0131s\u0131 oldu\u011fu iddias\u0131n\u0131 da g\u00f6r\u00fcyoruz. Adorno ayn\u0131 zamanda Nietzsche’den, sanat\u0131n hem yaratt\u0131\u011f\u0131 hem de yok etti\u011fi y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki sorunsal\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131klamak i\u00e7in, bireyle\u015fim ilkesi konusundaki estetik \u015fematizmi devralm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r: \u201c\u015euras\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r ki, sanat evrenselli\u011fi bir sorunsal haline getiren kendisini, ne pahas\u0131na olursa olsun bireyle\u015ftirmelidir.\u201d B\u00fcy\u00fck olas\u0131l\u0131kla Nietzsche’nin Euripides\u00e7i drama ele\u015ftirisinin izinden giden Adorno, bir deux ex machina’n\u0131n, a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a, teknolojik mekanizman\u0131n, tikelden t\u00fcmele ge\u00e7i\u015fe yard\u0131mc\u0131 olan, tikelden t\u00fcmele ge\u00e7i\u015fi zorlayan g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcr bir m\u00fcdahalesi oldu\u011funu kaydeder. \u0130deal olarak, her sanat eseri bu ge\u00e7i\u015fi diyalektik yolla kendi ba\u015f\u0131na yapmal\u0131d\u0131r. Adorno’nun bireyselle\u015ftirme ve evrenselle\u015ftirme a\u00e7\u0131klamas\u0131 da yine Kant odakl\u0131d\u0131r:<\/p>\n

Bir sanat eseri kendi t\u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fc, \u00f6zg\u00fcl oldu\u011fu \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde sad\u0131k bir bi\u00e7imde ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirir: tikelin t\u00fcmel oldu\u011fu y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki diyalektik buyru\u011fun modelini sanatta bulmak m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr. Bunu ilk fark eden Kant olmu\u015f, ama sonra birden geri d\u00f6nm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Kant’\u0131n teleolojisinin konumland\u0131\u011f\u0131 yerden bakacak olursak, estetikte akl\u0131n b\u00fct\u00fcnl\u00fck ve \u00f6zde\u015flik varsaymak gibi bir g\u00f6revi vard\u0131r.<\/p>\n

\u00d6yle g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcyor ki bu noktada Adorno’nun akl\u0131nda Kant’\u0131n \u00f6rneklem kavram\u0131 vard\u0131r, ki Kant bu kavram\u0131 \u2013genel bir kural\u0131n ya da modelin somutlanmas\u0131ndan \u00f6te bir \u015fey olmayan \u201c\u00f6rnek\u201dten ayr\u0131 tutarak\u2013 ayn\u0131 zamanda hem tikel nitelikte hem de bir kural ya da ilke olabilen, bi\u00e7iminde form\u00fcle eder. \u00d6rneklem tek oldu\u011funa g\u00f6re tan\u0131m\u0131 gere\u011fi tikeldir, ama ayn\u0131 zamanda bir modelden fazla bir \u015feydir de, \u00e7\u00fcnk\u00fc kendisi d\u0131\u015f\u0131ndaki t\u00fcm olas\u0131 \u00f6rnekler i\u00e7in bir ideal olarak varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 s\u00fcrd\u00fcr\u00fcr.<\/p>\n

Adorno Kant’\u0131, g\u00fczelin nesnesindeki tikellik ve t\u00fcmellik aras\u0131nda \u00e7ok y\u00fczeysel, zay\u0131f bir ili\u015fki kurmakla su\u00e7lar, \u00e7\u00fcnk\u00fc estetik kuram\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131n Kant, ge\u00e7i\u015flili\u011fin teknolojik mekanizmalar\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fcnmezli\u011fi korumalar\u0131na destek olmaktad\u0131r. \u0130ster sanatsal olsun isterse do\u011fal, g\u00fczelin nesnesi, Kant i\u00e7in daha zay\u0131f bir vaat ve uzla\u015fma alan\u0131d\u0131r, \u00e7\u00fcnk\u00fc bir b\u00fct\u00fcn olarak, tikel ve t\u00fcmel aras\u0131ndaki d\u00fczenli \u00f6zde\u015flikten meydana gelir. K\u0131sacas\u0131, Kant’\u0131n g\u00fczelinde ne gerilim, ne diyalektik ne de kayma vard\u0131r. Kant’ta g\u00fczel adeta, Adorno’nun sanat\u0131n ka\u00e7\u0131n\u0131lmaz hedefi sayd\u0131\u011f\u0131 yere kendili\u011finden ula\u015fm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r: \u201c\u00c7ok eski zamanlardan beri, sanat tikeli kurtarma pe\u015findedir; tikelli\u011fe yakla\u015fmak onda i\u00e7kin olmu\u015ftur.\u201d<\/p>\n

Yine de Adorno’ya g\u00f6re, Kant’ta tikel nesne i\u00e7in (ama ayn\u0131 zamanda gizil bir bi\u00e7imde \u00f6zne i\u00e7in de) kefaret ve \u00f6d\u00fcl \u00e7ok pahal\u0131ya mal olmu\u015ftur: t\u00fcmelle tikel aras\u0131ndaki s\u00fcrekli gerilimin b\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcyle silinmesi, ayr\u0131ca bizzat g\u00fczelin nesnesinin geri d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015fs\u00fcz bir bi\u00e7imde yok olmas\u0131. Kant’ta g\u00fczel, \u00f6znelli\u011fin evrenselli\u011fini kazanmak ad\u0131na, onu nesnenin tikelli\u011fine ba\u011flayan b\u00fct\u00fcn ipleri, geri d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fc olmayan bir bi\u00e7imde koparm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. G\u00fczellik ad\u0131na nesnenin bu bi\u00e7imde yok edilmesiyle, ya da Adorno’nun sanat\u0131n i\u00e7inin bo\u015falt\u0131lmas\u0131 dedi\u011fi \u015feyle birlikte, sanat\u0131n eski zamanlardan kalma, tikeli kurtarma ve \u00f6d\u00fcllendirme tasar\u0131s\u0131, art\u0131k y\u00fccenin sorunu haline gelmi\u015ftir. Daha a\u00e7\u0131k s\u00f6ylemek gerekirse, Kant’\u0131n g\u00fczel form\u00fclasyonu, tikelle t\u00fcmel aras\u0131ndaki k\u00f6kl\u00fc gerilimi fazla h\u0131zl\u0131 ve fazla b\u00fct\u00fcnl\u00fckl\u00fc bir bi\u00e7imde \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcme kavu\u015fturmu\u015ftur. Bu gerilim y\u00fcceye g\u00f6\u00e7en gerilimdir.<\/p>\n

Kant’\u0131n sanatsal g\u00fczelliktense do\u011fal g\u00fczelli\u011fin yan\u0131nda yer almas\u0131, tikel ve t\u00fcmelin eklemlenmeyen, bunun yerine b\u00fct\u00fcne yay\u0131lan \u00f6zde\u015fli\u011fine dair bir t\u00fcr direncin \u00f6neminin i\u00e7kin bir bi\u00e7imde tan\u0131nmas\u0131d\u0131r. Adorno i\u00e7in do\u011fal g\u00fczellik temelde \u00f6zde\u015fli\u011fe direncin \u015fifresidir: \u201cDo\u011fan\u0131n g\u00fczelli\u011fi, t\u00fcmel \u00f6zde\u015fli\u011fin b\u00fcy\u00fcledi\u011fi, \u015feylerdeki \u00f6zde\u015f olmama halinin art\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ibarettir. Bu b\u00fcy\u00fc bozulmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u00fcrece, \u00f6zde\u015f-olmayan hi\u00e7bir \u015fey pozitif anlamda orada olamaz.\u201d Do\u011fal g\u00fczellik kendi ba\u015f\u0131na, \u00f6zde\u015f-olmayan de\u011fildir ama, \u00f6zde\u015f-olmama halinin olas\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ta\u015f\u0131yan bir \u015fifre, bir vaattir. \u201cDo\u011fal g\u00fczellik t\u00fcm vaatlerin zay\u0131fl\u0131\u011f\u0131na ortak olur: onlar bast\u0131r\u0131lamaz, s\u00f6nd\u00fcr\u00fclemez.\u201d Bu s\u00f6nd\u00fcr\u00fclemez, bast\u0131r\u0131lamaz vaat, ayn\u0131 zamanda k\u0131r\u0131lgand\u0131r da: \u201cKi\u015finin do\u011fal g\u00fczellikten \u00fcrkmesinin sebebi, var olanda hen\u00fcz var olmayan\u0131 sezinledi\u011fi i\u00e7in, hen\u00fcz var olmayan\u0131 yaralamaktan \u00fcrkmesidir.\u201d Y\u00fcce, daha ileride g\u00f6rece\u011fimiz gibi, hen\u00fcz var olmayan\u0131 var etmeye \u00e7al\u0131\u015f\u0131rken, do\u011fal g\u00fczellik taraf\u0131ndan d\u00fcnyaya getirilen vaadi s\u00f6nd\u00fcrme \u00e7abas\u0131nda bu k\u0131r\u0131lganl\u0131\u011f\u0131 hi\u00e7 mi hi\u00e7 dikkate almaz.<\/p>\n

Adorno’nun Hegel esteti\u011fi \u00fczerine yorumda bulundu\u011fu \u015fu pasaja d\u00f6necek olursak, yaln\u0131zca y\u00fccenin sanata g\u00f6\u00e7medi\u011fini, do\u011fal g\u00fczelli\u011fin de sanatsal g\u00fczelli\u011fe g\u00f6\u00e7t\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc anlayaca\u011f\u0131z:<\/p>\n

Hegel’in \u00f6zde\u015flik felsefesi bir yana, do\u011fadaki g\u00fczellik, en b\u00fcy\u00fck yak\u0131nl\u0131k an\u0131nda kendisini yeniden gizlemesi d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda her daim hakikate yak\u0131nd\u0131r. Sanat bunu da do\u011fadaki g\u00fczelden \u00f6\u011frenmi\u015ftir. Feti\u015fizmi ve zorlama panteizmi, sonu gelmez bir k\u00f6t\u00fc kaderin b\u00fcr\u00fcnd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc ho\u015f g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcml\u00fc k\u0131l\u0131klar gibi resmeden, g\u00fczelli\u011fi i\u00e7inde incelikle, \u00f6l\u00fcml\u00fcym\u00fc\u015f gibi k\u0131p\u0131rdanan do\u011fan\u0131n, ger\u00e7ekte hen\u00fcz hi\u00e7bir bi\u00e7imde var olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki apa\u00e7\u0131k ger\u00e7ektir.<\/p>\n

Di\u011fer bir deyi\u015fle, sanattaki g\u00fczel, do\u011fan\u0131n do\u011fal g\u00fczellik k\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131nda verdi\u011fi vaadin y\u00fck\u00fcn\u00fc ta\u015f\u0131maktad\u0131r \u015fimdi. \u00d6yleyse do\u011fal g\u00fczellik bir dinamik, diyalektik bir g\u00fczellik olarak anla\u015f\u0131labilir ger\u00e7ekten de: \u00f6zde\u015flik umudu olarak ba\u015flar ve \u00f6zde\u015fli\u011fe eri\u015fmesine ramak kala, \u00f6zde\u015fli\u011fin yak\u0131nl\u0131\u011f\u0131nda \u201cyeniden gizlenir\u201d, ki bunun anlam\u0131 da \u00f6zde\u015flik iddias\u0131ndan geri \u00e7ekildi\u011fidir. Burada, Adorno’nun, sanat\u0131n \u00f6zerkli\u011finden s\u00f6z ederken, tarih i\u00e7inde sanata ve sanatsal g\u00fczelli\u011fe y\u00fcklenen say\u0131s\u0131z i\u015fleve g\u00f6nderme yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 s\u00f6ylemek yanl\u0131\u015f olmaz; sanat, yaln\u0131zca ona \u00f6nerilen i\u015flevlerin ve ondan beklenenlerin \u00e7oklu\u011fu ve \u00e7e\u015fitlili\u011fi sebebiyle, \u00f6zerk bir yap\u0131ya b\u00fcr\u00fcnm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n

\u00d6yleyse sanat, ba\u015far\u0131s\u0131z projeler ve ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmemi\u015f d\u00fc\u015flerin do\u011furdu\u011fu ve insanl\u0131\u011f\u0131n azat etti\u011fi tarihsel hayalk\u0131r\u0131kl\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6\u00e7 yeri, varsay\u0131msal bir g\u00f6\u00e7 alan\u0131 olarak i\u015flev g\u00f6rm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Yine de bu alan, s\u00f6z\u00fc ge\u00e7en bu hayalk\u0131r\u0131kl\u0131klar\u0131 i\u00e7in bir ta\u015f\u0131y\u0131c\u0131 olarak i\u015flev g\u00f6rmektense, onlar\u0131 ya\u015fatmaya devam etti\u011fi s\u00fcrece, sanat\u0131n estetik s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131 \u2013Adorno i\u00e7in\u2013 etkin, ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z bir b\u00fcnye olu\u015fturur. Bunun anlam\u0131 tabii ki t\u00fcm sanatlar\u0131n \u00f6zerk oldu\u011fu, her t\u00fcr sanatsal edimin \u00f6zerk bir yap\u0131da geli\u015fti\u011fi de\u011fildir kesinlikle, baz\u0131 sanatsal ya da estetik yarg\u0131lar\u0131n ula\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u015feyin \u00f6zerklik oldu\u011fudur, hepsi bu. Di\u011fer bir deyi\u015fle, sanat\u0131n \u00f6zerkli\u011fi, insani \u00f6zerkli\u011fin (yani \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn) insan \u00f6zneden estetik \u00fcr\u00fcne aktar\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n i\u015faretidir. Sanat\u0131n ruhundan s\u00f6z ederken kendi yabanc\u0131la\u015fmam\u0131za dair bir \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131m yapmakla yetinmiyor, ayn\u0131 zamanda bir ayr\u0131cal\u0131kl\u0131 yabanc\u0131la\u015fma alan\u0131 da varsay\u0131yoruz.<\/p>\n

Y\u00fcce, t\u0131pk\u0131 do\u011fal g\u00fczellik gibi, umuttur. Bunun d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda bir\u00e7ok art\u0131s\u0131 vard\u0131r tabii ki, eksisi de vard\u0131r. Umuttan fazlas\u0131 vard\u0131r onda \u00e7\u00fcnk\u00fc tikelle t\u00fcmel aras\u0131nda olu\u015faca\u011f\u0131 umut edilen \u00f6zde\u015fli\u011fi ger\u00e7ek k\u0131lma \u00e7abas\u0131 i\u00e7indedir. Bu a\u00e7\u0131dan bak\u0131l\u0131rsa, y\u00fcce, do\u011fal g\u00fczelli\u011fin canland\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131 umut avuntusunun reddedilmesidir. Bu noktada Adorno’nun on sekizinci y\u00fczy\u0131l\u0131n ikinci yar\u0131s\u0131nda \u201ctemel g\u00fc\u00e7lerin, \u00f6znenin \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla tinin \u00f6zbilince kavu\u015fmas\u0131n\u0131 i\u00e7eren sal\u0131verilmesi\u201d s\u0131ras\u0131nda y\u00fcce ve be\u011feninin nas\u0131l kar\u015f\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131ya geldi\u011fini a\u00e7\u0131klad\u0131\u011f\u0131 c\u00fcmleleri hat\u0131rlamam\u0131z gerekir. \u00d6te yandan \u00f6zne \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe kavu\u015fmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r ve, Negatif Diyalektik’ten \u00fcnl\u00fc bir pasaj\u0131 hat\u0131rlayacak olursak, \u00f6znenin kendinin ayr\u0131m\u0131na varaca\u011f\u0131 an\u0131n ge\u00e7ip gitmi\u015f oldu\u011funu s\u00f6yleyebiliriz. Ge\u00e7mi\u015fteki bu an\u0131n, \u00f6l\u00fc do\u011fan \u00f6znenin tortusu, gelecek bir do\u011fum umudu de\u011fil, \u00fcretim ve yeniden-\u00fcretim mek\u00e2n\u0131 olarak do\u011fan\u0131n reddedilmesidir.<\/p>\n

Y\u00fcce, Kant’tan sonra, b\u00f6ylece sanata, m\u00fckemmel \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn alan\u0131na g\u00f6\u00e7er. Bu g\u00f6\u00e7 olgusu, umudun hen\u00fcz s\u00f6nmedi\u011fi, yaln\u0131zca aktar\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131 anlam\u0131na gelir. Sorun, bu g\u00f6\u00e7\u00fcn umudu nas\u0131l etkileyece\u011fi, sanata ve sanatsal g\u00fczelli\u011fe, daha \u00f6nce do\u011faya ve do\u011fal g\u00fczelli\u011fe ba\u011flanandan daha fazla umut ba\u011flan\u0131p ba\u011flanamayaca\u011f\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n

Y\u00fccenin g\u00f6\u00e7\u00fcyle birlikte sanat\u0131n ve umudun d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcm\u00fcne kafa yorabilmek i\u00e7in, \u00f6ncelikle Adorno’nun Kant’\u0131n y\u00fcce kavram\u0131n\u0131 nas\u0131l yorumlad\u0131\u011f\u0131na bir g\u00f6z atmam\u0131z gerekir. Kant’\u0131n y\u00fcce \u00fczerinde durmas\u0131n\u0131n sebebinin, be\u011feninin \u00f6zne ve nesne, tikel ve t\u00fcmel aras\u0131ndaki d\u00fczeni kurmada abart\u0131l\u0131 bir ba\u015far\u0131 kaydetmesi oldu\u011funu \u00f6ne s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcm. Bu d\u00fczenin, nesnenin yok edilmesi ve \u00f6znelli\u011fin elde etti\u011fi evrenselli\u011fi tan\u0131yamamas\u0131 pahas\u0131na ger\u00e7ekle\u015fti\u011fini de \u00f6ne s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcm. \u015eimdi de, Adorno’nun, Kant’\u0131n y\u00fcce kavram\u0131n\u0131 yorumlarken, i\u00e7kin bir bi\u00e7imde, bu y\u00fccenin, be\u011feninin ba\u015far\u0131s\u0131ndaki eksiklikleri d\u0131\u015favurur bir nitelikte oldu\u011funu d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc \u00f6ne s\u00fcr\u00fcyorum. \u00d6yleyse be\u011feninin ba\u015far\u0131s\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6lgeleyen \u015feyin semptomatik ifadesini bu y\u00fcce yorumunda bulabiliriz.<\/p>\n

Y\u00fcce, on sekizinci y\u00fczy\u0131la insani \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck \u00fcretimi i\u00e7in en geli\u015fkin diyalektik teknik olarak ad\u0131m atm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Adorno geleneksel y\u00fcce kavram\u0131n\u0131 \u201columsuzlaman\u0131n olumluluk do\u011furabilece\u011fi inanc\u0131n\u0131n can verdi\u011fi… sonsuz varl\u0131k\u201d olarak a\u00e7\u0131klar. \u00d6te yandan, bu olumluluk ger\u00e7ekle\u015femedi\u011fi i\u00e7in (ya da be\u011fenide b\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcyle negatif anlamda ger\u00e7ekle\u015fti\u011fi i\u00e7in) y\u00fccenin negatifli\u011fi \u00f6ne \u00e7\u0131kar:<\/p>\n

Y\u00fccelik, do\u011fan\u0131n terbiyecisi, tinsel bir varl\u0131k olarak insan\u0131n g\u00f6rkemi say\u0131l\u0131yordu. Gelgelelim, y\u00fccenin deneyimi, insan\u0131n \u00f6zbilinciyle, do\u011fal olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ayr\u0131m\u0131na varmas\u0131 gibi bir \u015feye d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce, y\u00fccenin yeniden kavramla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 gere\u011fi do\u011fmu\u015ftur. Kant\u00e7\u0131 form\u00fclasyonu ba\u011flam\u0131nda bile, y\u00fccelik hi\u00e7li\u011fin ve empirik bir varl\u0131k olarak insan\u0131n ge\u00e7icili\u011finin izlerini ta\u015f\u0131yordu; empirik bir varl\u0131k olarak insan rahatl\u0131kla evrensel niteli\u011finin sonsuzlu\u011funu, \u00f6rne\u011fin tini, bir kenara atabilmeliydi.<\/p>\n

Y\u00fcce \u2013k\u0131smen, tin-olmayan\u0131 yanl\u0131\u015f kavrad\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in\u2013 tinin Aufhebung’una ula\u015fmay\u0131 ba\u015faramaz. Empirik varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 b\u00f6ylesine kolay kurban ederek, ayn\u0131 zamanda do\u011fay\u0131, o zamana kadar do\u011fal g\u00fczelli\u011fin sa\u011flad\u0131\u011f\u0131 umudun s\u00fcrmesi i\u00e7in kendisinden ba\u015fka ko\u015ful olmayan alan\u0131 d\u0131\u015flar. \u0130nsan varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n, y\u00fccenin umut edilen a\u015fk\u0131nl\u0131\u011f\u0131ndaki konumlanmas\u0131yla birlikte, uzla\u015fman\u0131n nerede ve nas\u0131l ger\u00e7ekle\u015fece\u011fi art\u0131k \u00f6nemli de\u011fildir. E\u011fer bu d\u0131\u015flama, daha \u00f6nce \u00f6ne s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015f oldu\u011fum gibi, zaten do\u011fal g\u00fczelli\u011fin belirleyici niteliklerindense, demek ki y\u00fccenin empirik varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 reddetmesi etkinli\u011fi, Kant’\u0131n be\u011feni anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131 uyar\u0131nca yerine getirilmi\u015f, do\u011fan\u0131n yok edilmesi projesinin daha b\u00fct\u00fcnl\u00fckl\u00fc bir versiyonudur. Kant’\u0131n be\u011feni anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131yla y\u00fcce anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131 aras\u0131ndaki ba\u015fl\u0131ca fark, \u00f6yleyse, \u015fudur: do\u011fal g\u00fczellik h\u00e2l\u00e2, estetik bir deneyim, tikelle t\u00fcmel aras\u0131ndaki uyum i\u00e7in, bir ortam olarak (ger\u00e7ekte ne olursa olsun, ya da neye d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcrse d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015fs\u00fcn) do\u011faya gereksinim duyar; her ne kadar Kant’\u0131n yorumu, bu ortam\u0131n, yaln\u0131zca \u00f6znelli\u011fin kendisini yanl\u0131\u015f-tan\u0131mas\u0131 i\u00e7in bir f\u0131rsat oldu\u011funun \u00fczerinde dursa da.<\/p>\n

Longinus’tan Burke’e bir\u00e7ok y\u00fcce yorumunda g\u00fc\u00e7 fig\u00fcr\u00fc \u00f6ne \u00e7\u0131kar. \u00d6te yandan Kant’\u0131n y\u00fcce yorumu, y\u00fccenin g\u00fcc\u00fcn\u00fc \u00fcstel bir bi\u00e7imde art\u0131rarak, onu, tam olarak, g\u00fcce g\u00fc\u00e7le bask\u0131n olma a\u015famas\u0131na getirir; Kant’\u0131n g\u00fc\u00e7ler\u00fcst\u00fc bu olu\u015fum i\u00e7in kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 terim, kudrettir (Gewalt). Adeta, do\u011fal g\u00fczellik deneyimiyle kendisini yeniden \u00fcretemeyecek olan \u00f6znelli\u011fin bu zaaf\u0131, \u00fcst\u00fcn bir g\u00fcce gereksinim duymaktad\u0131r. G\u00fcc\u00fcn \u00f6n\u00fcnde, kendisini g\u00fczelde tan\u0131mas\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flayacak a\u00e7\u0131k bir f\u0131rsat olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in, y\u00fcce, g\u00fczellikle bast\u0131r\u0131lan\u0131n d\u00f6nece\u011fi yer haline gelir. Ayn\u0131 bi\u00e7imde, g\u00fczellik deneyiminde ancak \u00f6rt\u00fck bir ifadesini bulabilen g\u00fc\u00e7, b\u00f6ylece y\u00fccede belirtik ve h\u00e2kim olur. Y\u00fcce yaln\u0131zca \u00f6zde\u015flik vaadi de\u011fil, ayn\u0131 zamanda \u00f6znel, bilin\u00e7li yetkenin, ve dolay\u0131s\u0131yla ondaki hazz\u0131n vaadidir. \u00d6yleyse y\u00fcce, g\u00fczelin diyalektik s\u00fcreklili\u011fidir; onun g\u00fcnahlar\u0131n\u0131 \u00fcst\u00fcne alan, onda yar\u0131m kalan taraf\u0131ndan iteklenen bir \u015fey.<\/p>\n

Bu s\u00fcreklilik, demek ki, estetikte egemenli\u011fin rol\u00fcn\u00fc, yani bu ko\u015fullar alt\u0131nda y\u00fcceyi belirtik k\u0131lar: \u201cKant, y\u00fcceyi b\u00f6ylesine ezici bir b\u00fcy\u00fckl\u00fc\u011fe, bir g\u00fc\u00e7 ve iktidars\u0131zl\u0131k kar\u015f\u0131tl\u0131\u011f\u0131na yerle\u015ftirmekle, iktidarla hafife al\u0131namayacak bir su\u00e7ortakl\u0131\u011f\u0131na girmi\u015ftir.\u201d Bu su\u00e7ortakl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n, g\u00fczellik yarg\u0131s\u0131nda \u00f6nceden kendisini g\u00f6sterdi\u011fini \u00f6ne s\u00fcr\u00fcyorum, \u00f6zellikle de, var oldu\u011fu yan\u0131lsamas\u0131 s\u00fcrse de, nesnenin \u00f6znel evrensellik bask\u0131s\u0131 arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla yok edildi\u011fi do\u011fal g\u00fczellik yarg\u0131s\u0131nda. \u00d6yleyse y\u00fcce, g\u00fczellik yarg\u0131lar\u0131n\u0131 ayakta tutan yan\u0131lsama \u00f6rt\u00fclerinin diyalektik bir bi\u00e7imde a\u00e7\u0131lmas\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n

D\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcmsel g\u00fczellik yarg\u0131s\u0131, bak\u0131\u015f\u0131n n\u00fcfuz edememesine dayan\u0131r ki bunu da \u00f6rt\u00fc sa\u011flar. Y\u00fccenin ele\u015ftirel misyonu bu \u00f6rt\u00fcy\u00fc kald\u0131rmakt\u0131r. Gelgelelim, \u00f6znelli\u011fin \u00fcst\u00fcne d\u00fc\u015feni yerine getirememesinin bir sonucu olarak, bunu ba\u015faramaz. Y\u00fcce, tarihsel anlamda, salt olumsuzlu\u011fa inen bir sarmal olarak s\u00fcrer: \u201cY\u00fccenin vaktiyle vaat etti\u011fi yan\u0131lsama kadar yal\u0131n ve ger\u00e7ek radikal negatiflik, ebedi miras\u0131 olmu\u015ftur.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u00d6te yandan y\u00fcce asla, yaln\u0131z salt g\u00fc\u00e7 ve iktidarla su\u00e7ortakl\u0131\u011f\u0131 olmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Adorno’nun Kant yorumuna g\u00f6re o, do\u011faya uygulanan \u00f6znel bask\u0131n\u0131n ba\u015fl\u0131ca arac\u0131, k\u0131sacas\u0131, \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck kazanman\u0131n yolu olmu\u015ftur. Bu \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck kazan\u0131lamad\u0131\u011f\u0131 i\u00e7in, daha do\u011frusu par\u00e7a par\u00e7a, anl\u0131k bir bi\u00e7imde kazan\u0131lmay\u0131 s\u00fcrd\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc i\u00e7in, y\u00fccenin dinami\u011fi kendisini kendisiyle beslemek ad\u0131na i\u00e7ine kapanmakla kalmaz, ayn\u0131 zamanda, diyalektik anlamda sanata d\u00f6ner. Sanat \u201cy\u00fccenin ayakta tutmak istedi\u011fi \u015feyi saklamak\u201d pe\u015findedir. Sanat\u0131n, y\u00fccede tamamlanmam\u0131\u015f kalan\u0131 sona erdirme, ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirme \u00e7abas\u0131, do\u011fal g\u00fczelli\u011fin alt\u0131nda yatan d\u00fcrt\u00fcy\u00fc hedefine ula\u015ft\u0131rma \u00e7abas\u0131 gibidir. G\u00fczel, y\u00fccenin analizi arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcm\u00fcz gibi, bir iktidar meselesidir:<\/p>\n

Egemenli\u011fin el de\u011fi\u015ftirmesi olarak anla\u015f\u0131labilecek olan, do\u011fal g\u00fczellikten sanatsal g\u00fczelli\u011fe ge\u00e7i\u015f, diyalektiktir. Sanatsal g\u00fczellik, nesnel anlamda bir imgede bask\u0131lanan, ayn\u0131 zamanda nesnelli\u011fi sayesinde bu bask\u0131nl\u0131\u011fa a\u015fk\u0131n olan g\u00fczelliktir. Sanat eserleri, bizim do\u011faya kar\u015f\u0131 tutundu\u011fumuz estetik tavr\u0131 benimseyerek ve onu, maddi i\u015fg\u00fcc\u00fcnden feyz alarak, \u00fcretime y\u00f6nelik bir i\u015fg\u00fcc\u00fcne d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcrerek, kendilerini iktidardan ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z k\u0131larlar. T\u0131pk\u0131 insanlar\u0131n, hem bask\u0131ya maruz kalan, hem de uzla\u015f\u0131m sa\u011flam\u0131\u015f dilleri gibi, sanat, do\u011fan\u0131n dilinde insanlar i\u00e7in ge\u00e7i\u015fsiz, n\u00fcfuz edilemez hale geleni diriltmeye \u00e7al\u0131\u015f\u0131r.<\/p>\n

E\u011fer yukar\u0131daki al\u0131nt\u0131y\u0131 \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ele\u015ftiri \u00fczerine bir de\u011ferlendirme olarak okursak, Kant’\u0131n do\u011fal g\u00fczelli\u011fi sanatsal g\u00fczelli\u011fe do\u011fru s\u00fcren tarihsel dinamizmi engellemeye \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 sonucuna varabiliriz. Y\u00fcce tasar\u0131m\u0131n\u0131 da, bu ko\u015fullar alt\u0131nda, tarihsel dinamizmin, Kant’\u0131n b\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcyle apayr\u0131 bir estetik deneyim olaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 umut etti\u011fi bir \u015feye ta\u015f\u0131nmas\u0131 olarak okuyabiliriz. \u00d6yleyse \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ele\u015ftirinin de\u011ferini korumas\u0131n\u0131n sebebi, esteti\u011fin \u00fc\u00e7 temel \u00f6\u011fesini birbirinden ayr\u0131 tutma \u00e7abas\u0131nda aranmal\u0131d\u0131r: bireyle\u015fim, g\u00fc\u00e7 ve \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck. Kant’\u0131n metninin do\u011frudan ifadesi bir yana, bu \u00f6\u011felerin programl\u0131 analizi, aralar\u0131ndaki uzla\u015fma eksikli\u011finin delili olacakt\u0131r. Hem uzla\u015fma arzu ve umudunu cisimle\u015ftirdi\u011fini, hem de, ister g\u00fczellik isterse y\u00fcce hakk\u0131nda olsun estetik yarg\u0131y\u0131 \u00fczerinde anla\u015fmaya var\u0131lm\u0131\u015f, zorlanm\u0131\u015f bir uzla\u015fma olarak ele ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6z \u00f6n\u00fcnde tutacak olursak, Kant’\u0131n metninin kendisi de esteti\u011fe benzer, diyebiliriz.<\/p>\n

Al\u0131nt\u0131lanan pasajda, iktidarda, do\u011fal g\u00fczellikten sanatsal g\u00fczelli\u011fe bir diyalektik ge\u00e7i\u015f g\u00f6zlemlemekle kalm\u0131yor, \u00f6znellik ve nesnellik aras\u0131ndaki diyalekti\u011fi g\u00fczelli\u011fin yak\u0131n tarihinde i\u015flerli\u011fini s\u00fcrd\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc bi\u00e7imiyle anlamaya ba\u015fl\u0131yoruz. Adorno sanatsal g\u00fczelli\u011fin, do\u011fal g\u00fczelli\u011fin elde edemeyece\u011fi bir nesnellik elde etti\u011fini kastediyor. Hegel’in b\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcyle \u00f6znelle\u015fmi\u015f bir sanatsal g\u00fczellik u\u011fruna do\u011fal g\u00fczelli\u011fi yok etme \u00e7abas\u0131na kar\u015f\u0131t bir bi\u00e7imde, Adorno, temelde, b\u00fct\u00fcnsel bir \u00f6znelli\u011fe indirgenme arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla elde edilecek bir nesnellikte \u0131srar etmektedir. Olanakl\u0131 her t\u00fcr nesnellik pahas\u0131na evrensel \u00f6znellik arayan Kant\u00e7\u0131 ele\u015ftiri Adorno’ya g\u00f6re, anl\u0131k da olsa evrensel bir nesnelli\u011fin kurulmas\u0131yla tamamlanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n

Adorno’nun Estetik Kuram\u0131’nda bizi s\u0131k s\u0131k nesneye, sanat eserine d\u00f6nmeye \u00e7a\u011f\u0131rmas\u0131n\u0131 bu bilginin \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda anlayabiliriz. Kant taraf\u0131ndan t\u00fcmelleyici bir yarg\u0131n\u0131n dinami\u011fi olarak yorumlanan \u015fey, Hegel arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla anl\u0131k bi\u00e7imde evrenselle\u015fen bir nesneye \u00e7evrilmi\u015f, nihayet Adorno’yla \u00f6zerk tikelli\u011fine geri d\u00f6nd\u00fcr\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.<\/p>\n

Bu ne t\u00fcr bir ba\u015far\u0131 ya da ba\u015far\u0131s\u0131zl\u0131kt\u0131r? \u00d6ncelikle sanat eserinin nesnelli\u011finin bir t\u00fcr \u015feyle\u015fme gibi anla\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fine y\u00f6nelik pe\u015fin h\u00fckme kar\u015f\u0131 bir tedbir almak gerekir. Sanat eseri, y\u00fccenin ona tarihsel g\u00f6\u00e7\u00fcn\u00fcn ard\u0131ndan, Kant’\u0131n estetik yarg\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n giderek silinen an\u0131 gibi olur. Nesnelli\u011fi, kavranabilecek ya da desteklenebilecek bir \u015fey \u00fczerine kurulu de\u011fildir. Estetik yarg\u0131 g\u00fcc\u00fcn\u00fcn ilkesini ayakta tutma konusunda u\u00e7 noktaya varan yetersizli\u011fimiz, Kant’\u0131n \u2013ve ayn\u0131 zamanda Hume’un da\u2013 be\u011feni anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131nda temel bir \u00f6neme sahiptir. \u0130lgin\u00e7 bir bi\u00e7imde, be\u011feni \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcn direngen g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcms\u00fczl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc, sanat nesnesinin g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcms\u00fczl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnde b\u00fct\u00fcnl\u00fc\u011fe ula\u015f\u0131r. Bu g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcms\u00fczl\u00fck y\u00fccenin tarihsel ba\u015far\u0131s\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131nda \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclen tarihsel kazan\u0131md\u0131r.<\/p>\n

Adorno’nun esteti\u011finde bu g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcms\u00fczl\u00fck kalanimge bi\u00e7iminde form\u00fcle edilmi\u015ftir. Sanat eserinin kendisi imge de\u011fildir; imge, kendisine kar\u015f\u0131n, varl\u0131k ve fark\u0131ndal\u0131k \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fcr. (Adorno i\u00e7in imgenin kendisi, g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcm kazanamayan\u0131n a\u00e7\u0131\u011fa vurulmas\u0131d\u0131r.) \u00d6te yandan kalanimge, an\u0131n ge\u00e7ti\u011fine dair iz ve tortu \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fcr. Bu a\u00e7\u0131dan bak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda, kalanimge olarak sanat eseri, yaln\u0131zca \u015fey ve imge, hatta \u015feyle \u015fey aras\u0131ndaki \u00f6zde\u015fsizli\u011fin izi de\u011fil, bizzat ge\u00e7icili\u011fin i\u00e7indeki \u00f6zde\u015fsizli\u011fin delilidir. Kalanimge bir yas, ama ayn\u0131 zamanda umut alan\u0131d\u0131r. Adorno’nun, sanat eserinin nesnel g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcm\u00fcn\u00fcn neye benzeyece\u011fine dair en a\u00e7\u0131k yakla\u015f\u0131m\u0131, havai fi\u015feklere atfetti\u011fi karakterde buluruz:<\/p>\n

Havai fi\u015feklerinki muhte\u015fem g\u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fclerdir. Genel anlamda empirik varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n bedelinden, s\u00fcrelilikten muaf empirik g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcmlerdir onlar; cenneti simgelerler ama yine de insan \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcd\u00fcrler; hem duvara yaz\u0131lan yaz\u0131d\u0131r onlar [Menetekel] ve h\u0131zla belirip h\u0131zla silinirler, hem de bizim saptayabilece\u011fimiz t\u00fcrden bir anlam ta\u015f\u0131mayan bir yaz\u0131d\u0131r bu.<\/p>\n

\u015eimdi esteti\u011fin \u00f6zneden nesneye ge\u00e7i\u015finin bir ba\u015far\u0131 olarak m\u0131, yoksa ba\u015far\u0131s\u0131zl\u0131k olarak m\u0131 okunmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi sorusuna d\u00f6nelim. Tabii ki her iki \u015fekilde de okunabilir. Bir ba\u015far\u0131 olarak, \u00f6znelli\u011fin, nesnenin tan\u0131nma talebinde bulundu\u011fu konuma geri d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcd\u00fcr \u2013 \u00f6znelli\u011fin y\u00fcce deneyiminde kazanmay\u0131 ba\u015faramad\u0131\u011f\u0131 tan\u0131nmay\u0131 talep etmektedir nesne. \u00d6yleyse sanatsal g\u00fczelli\u011fe ge\u00e7i\u015f \u00f6znelli\u011fin ba\u015far\u0131s\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131nda \u00f6ng\u00f6r\u00fclm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Evrenselli\u011fin kar\u015f\u0131 \u00e7\u0131k\u0131lan g\u00fcc\u00fcn\u00fcn d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fc i\u00e7in yol d\u00f6\u015feyen, bizzat bu ba\u015far\u0131s\u0131zl\u0131kt\u0131r.<\/p>\n

E\u011fer \u00f6znellik kendisini evrensellik olarak tan\u0131yamazsa, diyalektik anlamda d\u00f6n\u00fclecek tek yer; do\u011fal g\u00fczellik yarg\u0131s\u0131nda \u00f6rt\u00fck bir bi\u00e7imde, y\u00fccedeyse belirtik bir bi\u00e7imde kurban edilen nesnedir. Sanatsal g\u00fczellikte birlik ve evrensellik d\u00fcrt\u00fcs\u00fc, b\u00f6ylece, bast\u0131r\u0131lan\u0131n d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fc olarak ortaya \u00e7\u0131kar. \u00d6yleyse sanat eseri, \u00f6znenin estetik yarg\u0131da anl\u0131k da olsa tarihsel a\u00e7\u0131dan ger\u00e7ekli\u011fe eri\u015fmesiyle birlikte, nesnel olur.<\/p>\n

Modern sanat eserinin nesnelli\u011fi, diyalektik tarihi sebebiyle, evrensel \u00f6znelli\u011fin ayna imgesi olarak anla\u015f\u0131lmal\u0131d\u0131r. Modern sanat eserleri, k\u0131sacas\u0131, \u00f6znel yabanc\u0131la\u015fman\u0131n en temel \u00f6rnekleri haline gelmi\u015ftir; temel \u00f6rnekler onlard\u0131r, \u00e7\u00fcnk\u00fc hem \u00f6znellikten en ciddi uzakla\u015fma, hem de \u00f6znelli\u011fin en b\u00fct\u00fcnl\u00fckl\u00fc ifadesidirler. Adorno’nun s\u00fcrekli tekrarlad\u0131\u011f\u0131 sanat\u0131n nesnesine yo\u011funla\u015fma \u00e7a\u011fr\u0131s\u0131, ayn\u0131 bi\u00e7imde sanat eserinin nesnelli\u011fi \u00fczerinde \u0131srarla durmas\u0131, sanat eserinin ba\u015far\u0131s\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6znelli\u011fin ba\u015far\u0131s\u0131 olarak de\u011ferlendirmeye kar\u015f\u0131 g\u00f6sterilen diren\u00e7 olarak yorumlanabilir. \u00d6yleyse Adorno, nesnellik ve \u00f6znelli\u011fe dayat\u0131lan uzla\u015fmay\u0131, ayr\u0131ca beraberce y\u0131k\u0131lmalar\u0131n\u0131 engellemek istiyor demektir.<\/p>\n

E\u011fer h\u00fcmanizm kendini, insano\u011flunun konumunu ve kaydetti\u011fi geli\u015fmeyi \u2013\u00fcr\u00fcnlerinin ba\u015far\u0131lar\u0131na g\u00f6re\u2013 hesap ederek tan\u0131ml\u0131yorsa, Adorno’nun antih\u00fcmanizmi denen \u015feyi, t\u00fcm bu ba\u015far\u0131lar\u0131n ancak \u00f6znel geli\u015fimin verili ko\u015fulu olarak ger\u00e7ekle\u015fti\u011fi anlam\u0131nda almak gerekir. H\u00fcmanizmin en b\u00fcy\u00fck yan\u0131lg\u0131s\u0131, yani Kant’\u0131n do\u011fal g\u00fczellik yarg\u0131s\u0131 tan\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n tersi bi\u00e7imde nesnelli\u011fin \u00f6znellik san\u0131lmas\u0131 yan\u0131lg\u0131s\u0131, Adorno’ya g\u00f6re sanat eseri taraf\u0131ndan yasaklanan bir \u015feydir, desteklenen bir \u015fey de\u011fil. Sanat eseri asla \u00f6znel \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn ba\u015far\u0131s\u0131na tan\u0131kl\u0131k etmez, bunun yerine, asla son bulmayacak olan ba\u015far\u0131s\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n s\u00fcreklili\u011fine tan\u0131k olur. B\u00f6ylece, sanat eserinin nesnelli\u011fi bulundu\u011fumuz yerle \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck aras\u0131ndaki mesafenin yal\u0131n bi\u00e7imde somutlanmas\u0131d\u0131r. Sanat eseri \u00f6zg\u00fcr olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131m\u0131za dair yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131m\u0131z bir anla\u015fmad\u0131r ve bize s\u00fcrekli \u00f6zg\u00fcr olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131m\u0131z\u0131 an\u0131msat\u0131r.<\/p>\n

Bu sonucun ard\u0131ndan, k\u00fc\u00e7\u00fck bir ad\u0131m daha atarak, Schiller, Nietzsche ve Marcuse taraf\u0131ndan farkl\u0131 bi\u00e7imlerde sunulmu\u015f olan bir g\u00f6zleme, sanat eserinin, \u00f6zg\u00fcr olmama haline tan\u0131kl\u0131k etmekle kalmay\u0131p, \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe yakla\u015fmam\u0131z\u0131 da engelledi\u011fine y\u00f6nelik g\u00f6zleme ge\u00e7ebiliriz. Onlar\u0131n elinde sanat eserinin nesnelli\u011fi, insan\u0131 \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe ta\u015f\u0131yan yolda kar\u015f\u0131la\u015f\u0131lan bir engeldir. K\u00fclt\u00fcr insan\u0131n eksiklili\u011finin bir g\u00f6stergesine d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcr. Hatta bu eksiklili\u011fe duyulan bir t\u00fcr sonsuz ba\u011fl\u0131l\u0131kt\u0131r k\u00fclt\u00fcr.<\/p>\n

\u00d6te yandan Adorno i\u00e7in sanat eseri, \u00f6zg\u00fcrle\u015ftirici bir \u00f6znelli\u011fin vekili gibidir. (Bu onun, t\u00fcm sanat eserleri ba\u015far\u0131s\u0131zd\u0131r demeye gelen s\u00f6ylemini de a\u00e7\u0131klar; yaln\u0131zca \u00f6znelli\u011fi \u00f6zg\u00fcr k\u0131lmak ad\u0131na de\u011fil, ayn\u0131 zamanda bir \u00f6zne \u00fcretmek ad\u0131na, ba\u015far\u0131s\u0131z olurlar. Sanatta tam anlam\u0131yla insani-olmayan bir \u015fey varsa, o da budur.) Bir vekil olan sanat eseri, tamamlanmam\u0131\u015f kal\u0131r, ayn\u0131 bi\u00e7imde, ne kadar tamamlanm\u0131\u015f g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcrse g\u00f6r\u00fcns\u00fcn bir sanat eserinin (en az\u0131ndan sanat eseri olmaya devam etti\u011fi s\u00fcrece) tamama ermesinin ancak bir t\u00fcr \u00f6znelli\u011fe d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f olarak olanakl\u0131 oldu\u011funu hat\u0131rlatacak bir estetik kuram\u0131na duyulan gereksinim de tamamlanmam\u0131\u015f kalacakt\u0131r.<\/p>\n

Sanat eserinin \u00f6znellik etraf\u0131ndaki tarihsel y\u00f6r\u00fcngesi, y\u00fccenin az daha ba\u015far\u0131ya eri\u015fecek olan, \u00f6zneyi kendi yabanc\u0131la\u015fm\u0131\u015f tasar\u0131lar\u0131yla birle\u015ftirmeye y\u00f6nelik projesi \u2013ki bu kapitalin kar\u015f\u0131t-program\u0131d\u0131r\u2013 taraf\u0131ndan \u00e7ok uzaklara p\u00fcsk\u00fcrt\u00fclm\u00fc\u015f; \u00f6zneden, bug\u00fcne kadar g\u00f6r\u00fclen en uzak noktaya varm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Y\u00fccenin ba\u015far\u0131s\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ard\u0131ndan, sanat eseri \u00f6znelli\u011fin nesnel kar\u015f\u0131t-imgesi haline gelir; modern sanat\u0131n kazan\u0131mlar\u0131 y\u00fccenin ba\u015far\u0131s\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131yla do\u011frudan ili\u015fkisinde de\u011ferlendirilmelidir. Modern sanat eseri, \u00f6yleyse, \u00f6zneye en yak\u0131n analoji olarak, \u00f6zneye en yak\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fc\u015f\u00fc ta\u015f\u0131yan \u015fey olarak okunmal\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n

\u00d6yle g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcyor ki dikkat edilmesi gereken ilk \u015fey, hermen\u00f6tik anlamda m\u00fch\u00fcrl\u00fc do\u011fas\u0131. Modern sanat eserinin kaderi, daha \u00f6nce bir\u00e7oklar\u0131n\u0131n dile getirdi\u011fi gibi, tap\u0131nakvari m\u00fczelerde saklanmakt\u0131r sanki. Philip Fisher a\u00e7\u0131k, ikna edici bir bi\u00e7imde, modern sanat eserinin, nas\u0131l da, b\u00f6yle bir sona erece\u011fi g\u00f6z \u00f6n\u00fcnde bulundurularak \u00fcretildi\u011fini a\u00e7\u0131klam\u0131\u015ft\u0131.2 Benim odakland\u0131\u011f\u0131m konuyla daha yak\u0131ndan ilgili ba\u015fka bir meseleyse, modern sanat \u00fcr\u00fcnleri ve do\u011fay\u0131 g\u00fczel bulma olanaklar\u0131 aras\u0131ndaki kar\u015f\u0131tl\u0131k. Kant’a g\u00f6re, do\u011fal g\u00fczellik nesnesi, bir t\u00fcr, \u00f6znelle do\u011fal\u0131 uzla\u015ft\u0131rma daveti, do\u011fal olanla insan elinden \u00e7\u0131kan aras\u0131nda bir bo\u015fluk yaratarak, insan \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn fark\u0131na var\u0131lmas\u0131na yol a\u00e7acak bir f\u0131rsat do\u011furma \u00e7abas\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n

\u00d6te yandan modern sanat eserleri, do\u011fayla uzla\u015fma f\u0131rsat\u0131 do\u011furmaktan uzakt\u0131r. Her ne kadar bir t\u00fcr uzla\u015f\u0131ya davetiye \u00e7\u0131karsalar da, alan b\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcyle farkl\u0131 bir aland\u0131r. Art\u0131k b\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcyle, bizzat k\u00fclt\u00fcr\u00fcn i\u00e7inde gibi g\u00f6r\u00fcnmektedir; sanki sanat eserleri yaln\u0131zca, \u00f6znellik ve kendisi aras\u0131nda ger\u00e7ekle\u015fecek bir t\u00fcr uzla\u015fma hayal edebilirmi\u015f, tan\u0131mlayabilirmi\u015f gibi.<\/p>\n

Yine de, do\u011fal g\u00fczellik ve y\u00fccenin \u00f6ne s\u00fcrd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc uzla\u015fmadan farkl\u0131 olsa da, bu hi\u00e7 de hafife al\u0131nacak bir \u015fey de\u011fildir; modern sanat\u0131n nesnel bir bi\u00e7imde ortaya att\u0131\u011f\u0131 soru, \u00f6znelli\u011fin, fark edilmelerinden uzun zaman \u00f6nce yok etti\u011fi olanaklar\u0131 bir daha geri kazan\u0131p kazanamayaca\u011f\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n

Adorno’nun bu olanaklardan baz\u0131lar\u0131n\u0131 \u00fcretme yolu olarak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc \u201cteknik\u201dle neler tasarlad\u0131\u011f\u0131na bir bakal\u0131m. Do\u011fayla insan \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fc aras\u0131ndaki diyalekti\u011fin hedefinin ne taklit\u00e7ilik ne de do\u011fadan kurtulma oldu\u011funu hat\u0131rlayal\u0131m:<\/p>\n

Sanat eserlerinin arad\u0131\u011f\u0131 kendinde-varl\u0131k, haz\u0131rda var olan bir \u015feyin taklidi de\u011fil, hen\u00fcz var olmayan, bilinmeyen ama kendisini \u00f6zne y\u00f6n\u00fcnden belirleyen bir t\u00fcr kendinde-varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n beklentisi, sezgisidir. Sanat eserleri, kendinde-varolan diye bir \u015fey oldu\u011funu \u00f6ne s\u00fcrerler, ama bunun ne oldu\u011fu konusunda a\u00e7\u0131klama yapmazlar.<\/p>\n

Teknik sorusuna geri d\u00f6necek olursak, Kant ve Adorno sanat eserinin konumu a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan da \u00e7ok \u00f6nemli bir g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f birli\u011fi i\u00e7indedirler, \u00e7\u00fcnk\u00fc ikisi de, b\u00fct\u00fcn bir sanat d\u00fczlemini olu\u015fturan \u015feyi, teknolojinin ara\u00e7-merkezci rasyonalitesi olarak tan\u0131mlar. Kant’\u0131n do\u011fal g\u00fczelli\u011fin yan\u0131nda olmas\u0131na sebep olan bu rasyonalitedir, hatta sanatsal g\u00fczellik s\u00f6z konusu oldu\u011funda, salt g\u00fczellikle ba\u011f\u0131ml\u0131 g\u00fczellik aras\u0131ndaki ayr\u0131m\u0131 yapmas\u0131na olanak tan\u0131man\u0131n yan\u0131nda, erekten ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z olmas\u0131 sebebiyle salt g\u00fczelli\u011fin yan\u0131nda yer almas\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flayan da yine bu rasyonalitedir. Adorno’ya g\u00f6re, ge\u00e7 on sekizinci y\u00fczy\u0131ldan ba\u015flayarak, \u201c[sanat\u0131n] teknolojizasyonu genel bir kural olarak h\u00e2kimiyet kurmu\u015ftur\u201d. Ayn\u0131 zamanda, \u00f6yle g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcyor ki, Adorno teknikle teknoloji aras\u0131nda bir ayr\u0131m yapmaktad\u0131r: e\u011fer teknoloji, ara\u00e7sal akl\u0131n insan edimlerine uygulanmas\u0131 ve bu alanda giderek artan bir bi\u00e7imde merkezile\u015fmesiyse, \u00f6yleyse Adorno’nun metninde ortaya \u00e7\u0131kt\u0131\u011f\u0131 bi\u00e7imiyle teknik kavram\u0131, teknolojinin diyalektik zaferidir. Ara\u00e7-merkezci rasyonalitenin kendine y\u00f6neltilmi\u015f halidir.<\/p>\n

\u00d6yleyse diyalektik anlamda, tekni\u011fin ba\u015far\u0131l\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcmleri, ara\u00e7-merkezci rasyonalitenin buyru\u011funda olmama gibi b\u00fcy\u00fcl\u00fc bir duygu yayarlar: \u201cSanat\u0131n teknolojizasyonu, hem \u00f6znenin kendine gelen bilinci hem de b\u00fcy\u00fcn\u00fcn karart\u0131c\u0131 niteli\u011fine duyulan g\u00fcvensizlik, bunlar\u0131n yan\u0131nda sanat\u0131n nesnel konumu taraf\u0131ndan tetiklenmi\u015ftir, ki bunun anlam\u0131 da, sanat eserlerinin gitgide ortaya \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131lmas\u0131 g\u00fc\u00e7le\u015fen \u015feyler haline gelmesi.\u201d<\/p>\n

Kant’\u0131n da do\u011fa ve insan \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fc aras\u0131ndaki bu diyalekti\u011fi do\u011frulad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6steren \u00e7arp\u0131c\u0131 sat\u0131rlar\u0131 vard\u0131r. Kant’a g\u00f6re, ba\u015far\u0131l\u0131 bir sanat eseri \u2013g\u00fczel bir eser\u2013 t\u00fcm g\u00fczelli\u011fini, \u00f6z\u00fcnde, do\u011fal gibi g\u00f6r\u00fcnmeye bor\u00e7ludur. Demek oluyor ki, sanatsal g\u00fczellik ancak, ereklilikte i\u00e7erilen ara\u00e7-merkezci rasyonalitenin ba\u015far\u0131l\u0131 bir bi\u00e7imde gizlenmesiyle, ya da diyelim ki d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcm\u00fcyle olanakl\u0131d\u0131r. \u00d6yleyse Kant i\u00e7in g\u00fczellik teknolojinin dinamik d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcm\u00fcd\u00fcr, tam da Adorno’nun teknik tan\u0131mlamas\u0131na benzer bi\u00e7imde.<\/p>\n

Kant’\u0131n esteti\u011finin b\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcyle diyalektik oldu\u011funa dair di\u011fer bir kan\u0131t da, do\u011fal g\u00fczelli\u011fin ba\u015far\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n, insan \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fc gibi g\u00f6r\u00fcnmesine ba\u011fl\u0131 oldu\u011fu iddias\u0131d\u0131r. Ger\u00e7ekten de, Kant’\u0131n g\u00fczelin diyalektik do\u011fas\u0131 i\u00e7in kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00f6zel, teknik bir terim oldu\u011funu hat\u0131rlamal\u0131y\u0131z: \u00f6rnek g\u00fczellik. Kant esteti\u011finde, \u00f6rnek ge\u00e7erlilik d\u0131\u015f\u0131nda da, teknik ve teknoloji diyalekti\u011fine ili\u015fkin bir\u00e7ok i\u015farete rastlamak m\u00fcmk\u00fcnd\u00fcr: estetik yarg\u0131daki can al\u0131c\u0131 karakteriyle \u201cereksiz ereklilik\u201d kavram\u0131n\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcn, ya da t\u00fcm \u00f6znel tikelli\u011fin \u00fcstesinden gelme olarak tan\u0131mlanan dehay\u0131. Ger\u00e7ekten de, bir b\u00fct\u00fcn olarak \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc ele\u015ftiriyi neden \u00f6znelli\u011fin, ereksiz ve do\u011faya zarar vermeksizin, kendi tikelli\u011finin ve ara\u00e7sall\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n \u00fcstesinden gelerek, bir b\u00fct\u00fcn olarak kendisinin fark\u0131na varmas\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flayacak bir arac\u0131n, b\u00f6yle bir esteti\u011fin form\u00fcle edilmesi \u00e7abas\u0131 olarak tan\u0131mlamayal\u0131m? Dahas\u0131, bu b\u00fct\u00fcnl\u00fck, modelini ve \u00f6nc\u00fcl\u00fcn\u00fc, yine tamamen ereksiz bir bi\u00e7imde, do\u011fada bulur.<\/p>\n

\u201c\u00d6zerk sanat eseri, ki ancak kendisi y\u00f6n\u00fcnden i\u015flevseldir, i\u00e7kin teleolojisi dolay\u0131s\u0131yla, bir zamanlar g\u00fczel denen \u015feyi elde etmeyi ama\u00e7lam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.\u201d Teknik, \u00f6zerk sanat eserinin telosuna ula\u015fmas\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flayan ara\u00e7t\u0131r. Ama bu ara\u00e7-merkezci ili\u015fkinin, sanat eserinin teknolojiye k\u00f6leli\u011fini onaylamas\u0131ndansa, Adorno tekni\u011fi, ara\u00e7sall\u0131\u011f\u0131n diyalektik zaferi olarak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcr. \u00d6yleyse teknik, teknolojinin salt ifadeye d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fcm\u00fcd\u00fcr: \u201c\u015eeyle\u015ftirme radikalle\u015ftirildi\u011finde, nesnelerin diline yakla\u015f\u0131r. \u015eeyle\u015ftirme kendisini do\u011fa kavram\u0131na yak\u0131n k\u0131lar ve bu da insani anlam\u0131n \u00f6nceli\u011fini yok eder.\u201d Burada sanatsal teknik, \u015feyle\u015ftirmenin diyalektik geli\u015fimini anlamam\u0131z\u0131 sa\u011fl\u0131yor. \u00d6znelli\u011fin m\u00fckemmel ara\u00e7sall\u0131\u011f\u0131 olarak da d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fclebilecek olan teknolojik \u015feyle\u015ftirme, \u201cradikal \u015feyle\u015ftirme uygulamas\u0131\u201d arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla do\u011fan\u0131n bir ifadesi haline de gelebilir, tabii do\u011fa, en az\u0131ndan teknolojik anlamda, bize kar\u015f\u0131 olan olarak tan\u0131mland\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u00fcrece.<\/p>\n

\u00d6yleyse \u015feyle\u015ftirmenin radikalle\u015ftirilmesi, \u00f6znellikle do\u011fa aras\u0131ndaki yabanc\u0131la\u015fm\u0131\u015f ili\u015fkinin radikalle\u015ftirilmesiyle ayn\u0131 \u015feydir. Bu bilgiler \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda teknoloji, nesnelerle bizler aras\u0131ndaki \u00f6zde\u015fsizli\u011fin mimetik kestirimi ve a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 d\u00fczeylere \u00e7ekilmesidir. \u00d6yleyse ayn\u0131 zamanda, e\u011fer yeterince uca \u00e7ekilirse, potansiyel anlamda bir kendine-yabanc\u0131la\u015fmad\u0131r ve ba\u015fka bir \u015feyin konu\u015fmas\u0131 i\u00e7in yer a\u00e7ar. K\u0131sacas\u0131, teknolojinin, do\u011fa dedi\u011fimiz \u015feye benzer olmas\u0131n\u0131n sebebi, ikisinin de, i\u00e7eri\u011fin, t\u00f6z\u00fcn, anlam\u0131n reddine denk d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcyor olmas\u0131d\u0131r. Teknoloji yaln\u0131zca bir ara\u00e7t\u0131r, \u00f6nc\u00fcl\u00fc anlam\u0131n ink\u00e2r\u0131 olan bir metot. Do\u011fa diyalektik anlamda bize davetk\u00e2r bir dinamik olarak g\u00f6r\u00fcnmekle kalmaz, daha \u00f6nemlisi, ondan \u00e7\u0131karmak isteyebilece\u011fimiz b\u00fct\u00fcn anlamlara kar\u015f\u0131 da direnir.<\/p>\n

Teknik, sahip oldu\u011fumuzu hayal etti\u011fimiz her t\u00fcr anlam\u0131n silinmesini beraberinde getirebilecek olan, teknoloji ve \u015feyle\u015ftirmenin anlams\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131na ivme kazand\u0131rmakt\u0131r. Teknik, Kant’\u0131n do\u011fal g\u00fczellik diye a\u00e7\u0131klad\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u015feyi elde eder: bir ara\u00e7 ki, ereksizli\u011fi, her ko\u015fulda ereklili\u011finin \u00fcretebilece\u011fi t\u00fcrden bir g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcme a\u00e7\u0131kt\u0131r. \u00d6yleyse teknik, do\u011fal g\u00fczellikle ayn\u0131 ge\u00e7i\u015fsizlikle ger\u00e7ekle\u015fir. Ama her iki durumda da, ge\u00e7i\u015fsiz olan yaln\u0131zca ereklilik de\u011fildir; \u00e7\u00fcnk\u00fc temelde \u00fcstesinden gelinen budur. Daha \u00e7ok, hem g\u00fczellikte hem de teknikte ge\u00e7i\u015fsiz olan, \u00f6znelli\u011fin evrenselli\u011fidir. G\u00fczellik yarg\u0131lar\u0131nda ayr\u0131m\u0131na varmay\u0131 ba\u015faramad\u0131\u011f\u0131m\u0131z \u015fey \u2013her ne kadar g\u00fczelin ger\u00e7ekle\u015fmesinin tek ko\u015fulu bizim bu ba\u015far\u0131s\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131m\u0131z olsa da\u2013 \u00f6zneleraras\u0131l\u0131kt\u0131r; Kant’\u0131n ele\u015ftirisinin g\u00fcn \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131na \u00e7\u0131kard\u0131\u011f\u0131 bir evrensel \u00f6znellik bi\u00e7imi. Ayn\u0131 bi\u00e7imde, teknikle bulu\u015fmam\u0131zda da, ayr\u0131m\u0131na varmay\u0131 ba\u015faramad\u0131\u011f\u0131m\u0131z \u015fey temelde, bu en ileri d\u00fczey \u00fcretim bi\u00e7iminin do\u011frudan toplumsal do\u011fas\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n

Onu bir bireye atfederek tikelle\u015ftirdi\u011fimiz s\u00fcrece, tekni\u011fe kar\u015f\u0131 k\u00f6r\u00fcz. \u00dcretilen nesneyi feti\u015fle\u015ftirmektense, ki bir esere ba\u015fyap\u0131t dedi\u011fimizde yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131m\u0131z budur, teknik olarak tan\u0131mlad\u0131\u011f\u0131m\u0131z yaratma ediminin kendisini feti\u015fle\u015ftiriyoruz. Tekni\u011fin teknik olarak tan\u0131nmas\u0131, \u00f6yleyse, i\u00e7inden \u00e7\u0131k\u0131lamaz bi\u00e7imde hem k\u00f6rl\u00fck hem de kavray\u0131\u015fa ba\u011fl\u0131d\u0131r. Tekni\u011fin ayr\u0131m\u0131na varmak demek, kendi ba\u015f\u0131na teknolojinin \u015feyle\u015ftirilmesinin \u00fcstesinden gelmi\u015f olan\u0131 \u015feyle\u015ftirmek demektir; \u00f6yleyse k\u00f6rl\u00fck temelli bir kavray\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Tekni\u011fin ayr\u0131m\u0131na varmay\u0131 ba\u015faramamak, ayn\u0131 zamanda, \u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fc \u00f6znel (yani, do\u011frudan do\u011fruya insanc\u0131l) bir edim olarak tan\u0131may\u0131 ba\u015faramamakt\u0131r, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla kavray\u0131\u015f temelli bir k\u00f6rl\u00fckt\u00fcr. Bu diyalektik teknik a\u011f\u0131 toplumsal\u0131n ge\u00e7i\u015fsizli\u011fini korumas\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flar.<\/p>\n

Bu a\u00e7\u0131dan yakla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda, teknik das Immergleiche’de tarihsel anlamda en geli\u015fmi\u015f \u00f6\u011fedir. \u00d6yleyse, estetik yarg\u0131 g\u00fcc\u00fc ya da estetik kuram\u0131 tarihine bir t\u00fcr tarihsel geli\u015fim atfetmek i\u00e7in bir sebep yoktur: Adorno’nun tekni\u011fe dair a\u00e7\u0131klamas\u0131, Kant’\u0131n do\u011fal g\u00fczellik kuram\u0131n\u0131n yirminci y\u00fczy\u0131ldaki tam kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n

Ama e\u011fer estetik dahilinde bir tarih \u2013hatta diyalektik bir tarih\u2013 oldu\u011funu varsayacak olursak, hem de ba\u015fka hi\u00e7bir yerde tarih yokken (bu d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncenin \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda Hegel’in estetik tarihini hat\u0131rlamal\u0131y\u0131z), \u00f6yleyse esteti\u011fin telosu insan\u0131n \u00f6zg\u00fcrle\u015fmesiyle bir ve ayn\u0131 \u015feydir. (Sanat, Hegel’e g\u00f6re, zamansall\u0131\u011f\u0131n yaln\u0131zca ifadesi de\u011fil, ayn\u0131 zamanda kucaklanmas\u0131d\u0131r \u2013 bu y\u00fczden de, \u00f6yle g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcyor ki, \u00f6l\u00fcml\u00fcl\u00fc\u011fe duyulan ba\u011fl\u0131l\u0131kt\u0131r.) Bu d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce b\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcyle \u00f6zel bir alana y\u00f6nelen Hegel esteti\u011fiyle uyum i\u00e7indedir. Yine ayn\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce, her t\u00fcr tikel \u00f6znellik ifadesini b\u00fct\u00fcn\u00fcyle silmeye devam eden Hegel esteti\u011finin, Kant esteti\u011finin diyalektik devam\u0131 oldu\u011funu da do\u011frular. Hegel esteti\u011fini estetik tarihinin b\u00f6ylesine ayr\u0131lmaz bir par\u00e7as\u0131 yapan \u015fey, onda, insan \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fcn kazan\u0131laca\u011f\u0131 alan olarak do\u011fan\u0131n d\u0131\u015flanmas\u0131 de\u011fil, \u00f6znelli\u011fi \u00f6zg\u00fcr k\u0131lacak b\u00fct\u00fcn bir eme\u011fin \u00f6znellik dahilinde ve \u00f6znelli\u011fe kar\u015f\u0131 verilmesi gerekti\u011finin tan\u0131nmas\u0131d\u0131r. Di\u011fer bir deyi\u015fle, bu \u00f6ncelikli \u00f6dev i\u00e7sel bir \u00e7aba gerektirecektir.<\/p>\n

Kant’\u0131n g\u00fczel analizinde i\u00e7kindir bu, ama as\u0131l y\u00fcce anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131nda kendini g\u00f6sterir. Adorno bu potansiyeli daha genel anlamda Kant’\u0131n \u00f6znel i\u00e7sellik yorumunun politik getirilerinde konumland\u0131r\u0131r: \u201c\u0130\u00e7sellik, Kant’\u0131n da onaylad\u0131\u011f\u0131 bi\u00e7imde, ayn\u0131 zamanda, \u00f6znelli\u011fe \u00f6zerk olmayan bir yolla dayat\u0131lan d\u00fczene kar\u015f\u0131 bir protestodur.\u201d<\/p>\n

Bir an i\u00e7in bu kavramlar toplulu\u011funu Ayd\u0131nlanman\u0131n Diyalekti\u011fi’nin \u0131\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131nda d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnmek demek, Odysseus’un, heterojenli\u011fin teknik, mimetik yakla\u015f\u0131m\u0131 olarak \u00fcstlendi\u011fi, yine de d\u0131\u015far\u0131dan dayat\u0131l\u0131yormu\u015f gibi hissetmekten geri duramad\u0131\u011f\u0131 emri anlamak demektir.<\/p>\n

Bu a\u00e7\u0131dan bak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda, teknoloji mimesisin reddini ortaya \u00e7\u0131karan \u015feydir. Kendini-\u00fcretme teknolojisi, \u00f6z\u00fcn\u00fc inkar eden mimesisin dinami\u011fi i\u00e7inde ortaya \u00e7\u0131kar. Bunun yan\u0131 s\u0131ra ortaya \u00e7\u0131kan benlik de kendi \u00f6z\u00fcn\u00fc tan\u0131mada ba\u015far\u0131s\u0131z olur. \u00d6yleyse diyalektik anlamda, her ne kadar ayn\u0131 i\u00e7selin kendine en uygun bi\u00e7imde h\u00fckmetmesine olanak tan\u0131yan kategorik buyru\u011fu form\u00fcle etmi\u015f olsa da, Adorno’nun Kant’\u0131 i\u00e7selli\u011fi d\u00fczene kar\u015f\u0131 isyana g\u00f6t\u00fcren ki\u015fi olarak anmas\u0131 hi\u00e7 de \u015fa\u015f\u0131lacak bir \u015fey de\u011fildir. Ama Adorno i\u00e7in mimesis’le teknoloji aras\u0131ndaki diyalektikte eksik olan bir \u015feyler vard\u0131r; fazladan, \u00f6z\u00fcmsenmemi\u015f bir \u015fey. Diyalekti\u011fin \u00e7atlaklar\u0131 aras\u0131nda ger\u00e7ekle\u015fen \u015fey i\u00e7in Adorno’nun kulland\u0131\u011f\u0131 terim, \u201cifade\u201ddir [Ausdruck]: \u201c\u0130fade bir aral\u0131k fenomenidir, teknik s\u00fcrecin bir i\u015flevi oldu\u011fu kadar, mimesisin de bir i\u015flevidir. Kendi ad\u0131na mimesis, teknik s\u00fcrecin yo\u011funluyla ortaya \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131l\u0131r, ki onun da i\u00e7kin rasyonalitesi, ne olursa olsun, ifadeye kar\u015f\u0131 \u00e7al\u0131\u015f\u0131yormu\u015f gibi g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcr.\u201d M\u00fckemmel bir d\u00fcnyada teknoloji ve mimesis s\u00fcrekli, adeta hi\u00e7 durmayacakm\u0131\u015f gibi, birbirine evriliyor olmal\u0131yd\u0131. \u00d6znellik kendini \u00f6teki olarak sunar ve sonra buraya yerle\u015firdi. Gelin g\u00f6r\u00fcn ki ifade bu \u00fcretim ve yeniden-\u00fcretim i\u00e7inde, daha \u00e7ok Luddite’vari bir u\u011frakt\u0131r.<\/p>\n

Kendi kendisine y\u00f6nelmi\u015f olan bir protestodur; bu anlamda, ele\u015ftiriye benzedi\u011fi s\u00f6ylenebilir, \u00e7\u00fcnk\u00fc o da hi\u00e7bir d\u0131\u015f etkene ba\u011f\u0131ml\u0131 de\u011fildir. \u00d6yleyse ifade, hi\u00e7 kimse ad\u0131na konu\u015fmaz, hen\u00fcz konu\u015fma hakk\u0131 olmayanlar ad\u0131na konu\u015fur; \u00f6znel ifade bir oksimorondur: \u201cBu bizi sanata dair \u00f6znel bir paradoksa g\u00f6t\u00fcr\u00fcr: d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcmden, form arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla g\u00f6r\u00fcnmezi \u2013ifadeyi\u2013 \u00fcretmek; g\u00f6r\u00fcnmezi rasyonel k\u0131lmak de\u011fil, \u00f6ncelikle onu estetik anlamda yaratmak.\u201d G\u00f6r\u00fcnmez olan, \u201cmimetik olmayan, teknolojik anlamda kusurlu\u201d bir \u015feye sahip olal\u0131m diye \u00fcretilmelidir. K\u0131sacas\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fcnmezlik, ifadenin bir t\u00fcr mimetik kestirimidir. \u0130\u015fte temelde bu ba\u011flant\u0131, Kant’\u0131n Adorno’ya b\u0131rakt\u0131\u011f\u0131 miras\u0131, ayr\u0131ca Adorno’nun Kant d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesini nas\u0131l geli\u015ftirmeye \u00e7al\u0131\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 anlamam\u0131z\u0131 sa\u011flar. Kant’\u0131n g\u00fczellik esteti\u011finin dehas\u0131, g\u00fczel dedi\u011fimiz nesnenin \u2013ve deneyimin\u2013 ge\u00e7i\u015fsizli\u011finin mutlak \u00f6nemini tan\u0131mas\u0131nda gizlidir. Kant esteti\u011finde yeni yeni filizlenen g\u00fczelden y\u00fcceye ge\u00e7i\u015f, nesnenin g\u00f6r\u00fcnmezli\u011finin, ne yaz\u0131k ki, \u00f6znenin g\u00f6r\u00fcnmezli\u011fiyle tamamlanaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131n tan\u0131nmas\u0131d\u0131r.<\/p>\n

Adorno i\u00e7in, modernist bir sanat\u00e7\u0131, bu \u00f6znel g\u00f6r\u00fcnmezli\u011fi, teknik anlam\u0131nda \u00fcretken bir hale getirmelidir; Formgef\u00fchl (formun sezgisel duyumu) terimi sanatsal \u00f6znenin, her ko\u015fulda \u00fcretken olan bir ge\u00e7i\u015fsizli\u011fin fark\u0131nda olma halini betimler. Bu terim, Kant’\u0131n sanatsal deha anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131yla uyum i\u00e7inde olmakla kalmaz, Adorno ayr\u0131ca bu yolla Kant esteti\u011finin ikilemine \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm getirdi\u011fini de fark etmi\u015ftir:<\/p>\n

Bu, Kant\u00e7\u0131 sorunsal\u0131 bir dolay\u0131m kategorisiyle \u00e7\u00f6zer. Kant i\u00e7in sanat \u00f6znel ve hi\u00e7bir \u015fekilde kavramsal de\u011filse de, her ko\u015fulda bir evrensellik ve zorunluluk an\u0131 i\u00e7erir, yaln\u0131zca, akl\u0131n ele\u015ftirisine g\u00f6re, gidimli bilginin koruna\u011f\u0131 olan bir bak\u0131\u015f a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131. Formgef\u00fchl ilkin, nesnelerin g\u00f6r\u00fcnmez ve ba\u011flay\u0131c\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcm\u00fcd\u00fcr ve s\u0131ras\u0131 gelince onlara dayanmak zorundad\u0131r. Formgef\u00fchl \u00f6znel mimetik yetiye ak\u0131n eden hermetik nesnelliktir. Bu yeti, kar\u015f\u0131t\u0131, rasyonel in\u015fa kar\u015f\u0131s\u0131nda, giderek g\u00fc\u00e7 kazan\u0131r. Formgef\u00fchl’\u00fcn g\u00f6r\u00fcnmezli\u011fi nesnelerin zorunlulu\u011funa kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k gelir.<\/p>\n

\u00d6yleyse, tuhaf bir bi\u00e7imde, bu \u00f6n\u00fcm\u00fczdeki Formgef\u00fchl’de (ister yaratarak isterse deneyimleyerek) hem teknolojinin hem de tekni\u011fin par\u00e7as\u0131 haline geldik. Ge\u00e7i\u015fsiz olsa da bir y\u00f6ntem izliyoruz, art\u0131k bir dinamik olarak da olsa, \u015fimdiden yo\u011funla\u015farak bir nesneye d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015fen \u015feyi biraz daha d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcmlemek umuduyla. Estetik yarg\u0131 sanat eserinin mimetik kestirimi haline geliyor, ki o da bizim teknik, mimetik bir kestirimimiz. Estetikte i\u00e7erilen d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcmlenirlik kendini \u00e7ifte katlar ve bu haliyle d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcm, ancak haz\u0131rda bir t\u00fcr g\u00f6r\u00fcnmezlik an\u0131 varsa ger\u00e7ekle\u015fir. D\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcm kendisini bu ge\u00e7i\u015fsizlik \u00fczerinden ate\u015fler. Adorno Formgef\u00fchl’\u00fc tam da bu y\u00fczden g\u00f6r\u00fcnmez ve ba\u011flay\u0131c\u0131 diye betimler. \u00c7\u00fcnk\u00fc d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcm\u00fc eyleme ge\u00e7iren bu ge\u00e7i\u015fsizliktir, bu ge\u00e7i\u015fsizli\u011fin diyalektik anlamda bir d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015f\u00fc olmal\u0131d\u0131r, t\u0131pk\u0131 Kant esteti\u011finde g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcm\u00fcz, be\u011feni \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fct\u00fc yoklu\u011funa kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131k gelen, \u00f6znelli\u011fin kendini k\u00f6rle\u015ftirmesi gibi.<\/p>\n

Formgef\u00fchl’\u00fcn \u00fcstlendi\u011fi bir i\u015flev, dolay\u0131m kategorisi de, benzer bir bi\u00e7imde \u00f6znellik i\u00e7in bir model gibi yorumlanmal\u0131d\u0131r. Bu modelin \u00f6nemi, y\u00fccenin verdi\u011fi \u00f6nemli dersin anafikrini ortaya koymas\u0131d\u0131r; bu derste t\u00fcm modeller ve model alma edimi, \u00f6znelli\u011fin kendisi olarak geli\u015fip de\u011fi\u015fmesi i\u00e7in da\u011f\u0131t\u0131l\u0131r. \u201cTeknolojik anlamda \u00e7\u0131karsanabilecek olan \u015fudur, sanat eserleri olmazlar, olu\u015f halindedirler.\u201d Adorno, ayn\u0131 pasajda s\u00f6zlerine, sanat eserlerinin bir \u201ci\u00e7kin dinamik\u201dten olu\u015ftu\u011funu s\u00f6yleyerek devam eder, yine, t\u0131pk\u0131 Kant’\u0131n y\u00fcce anlay\u0131\u015f\u0131ndaki i\u00e7kin dinamizm gibi. \u00d6yleyse sanat eserleri, her ne kadar var olmalar\u0131, \u015feyle\u015ftirilmi\u015f nesneler olarak dondurulmalar\u0131na ba\u011fl\u0131 olsa da, bu bedeli \u00f6dedikten sonra, eylemin ve olu\u015fun modelleridirler. Adorno, eylem olarak sanat eserlerinin, bu hallerinin ayr\u0131m\u0131na ancak teknolojik yolla var\u0131labilece\u011finde \u0131srar eder; eylem ancak dura\u011fan bir nesnenin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 taklit eden bir s\u00fcre\u00e7 olarak kavranabilir. Yine de sanat eserleri, insan elinden \u00e7\u0131kan her \u015feyin, insan ediminin engellenmi\u015f, dolay\u0131s\u0131yla g\u00f6r\u00fcnmez mimesisi oldu\u011fu sars\u0131c\u0131 hat\u0131rlatmas\u0131na v\u00fccut verirler.<\/p>\n

Teknolojinin avantaj\u0131, kendini k\u00f6rle\u015ftiren \u00f6znelli\u011fe benzer bir bi\u00e7imde, ona dair \u015feyle\u015ftirmenin tamamlanmam\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131d\u0131r. Tamamlanmam\u0131\u015f bir \u015feyle\u015ftirme, t\u0131pk\u0131 ge\u00e7i\u015fsizlik gibi, daha fazlas\u0131n\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fclece\u011fine y\u00f6nelik vaadi i\u00e7inde bar\u0131nd\u0131r\u0131r.<\/p>\n

\u00c7eviren: E. Efe \u00c7akmak<\/p>\n

Notlar<\/strong><\/p>\n

Bu makalenin \u00f6nceki versiyonlar\u0131n\u0131 dikkatle, \u00f6zenle ve derin bir anlay\u0131\u015fla okuyan Leo Damrosch, Gregg Horowitz, Bob Hullot-Kentor, Jean Heller-Levi ve Lambert Zuidervaart’ya te\u015fekk\u00fcr\u00fc bor\u00e7 bilirim.<\/p>\n

1- Leo Damrosch favai fi\u015fe\u011fin Frans\u0131zcas\u0131n\u0131n feu d’artifice oldu\u011funu hat\u0131rlatt\u0131. Havai fi\u015fekler Adorno’dan ba\u015fkalar\u0131 taraf\u0131ndan da estetik deneyim fig\u00fcrleri olarak an\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. \u00d6rne\u011fin Burke, y\u00fccenin kaynaklar\u0131ndan biri olarak g\u00f6rkemi tart\u0131\u015f\u0131rken, \u015funlar\u0131 yaz\u0131yordu: \u201cYine de bir t\u00fcr havai fi\u015fek, ayr\u0131ca ba\u015fka birka\u00e7 \u015fey daha, bu yolla ba\u015far\u0131ya ula\u015f\u0131r ve ger\u00e7ekten g\u00f6rkemlidir.\u201d Edmund Burke, A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of Sublime and Beautiful, ed. James T. Boulton, University of Notre Dame Press, 1958 [1757], s. 78. Genet de kendi eserini bu ayn\u0131 fig\u00fcrle betimler: \u201cBu kitap yaln\u0131zca bir edebiyat eseri, ama umar\u0131m ac\u0131m\u0131 y\u00fcceltmemi sa\u011flar, \u00f6yle ki duydu\u011fum ac\u0131 kendili\u011finden ortaya \u00e7\u0131kar ve varl\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan feragat eder \u2013 t\u0131pk\u0131 patlayarak varl\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan feraget eden havai fi\u015fekler gibi.\u201d Jean Genet, Pompes funebres, Oeuvres Completes, III, Editions Gallimard, 1953, s. 281. Ulysses’ten bir al\u0131nt\u0131 yapacak olursak: \u201c\u00d6tede, Jack Caffrey bak\u0131n diye ba\u011f\u0131rd\u0131, bir fi\u015fek daha, Gerty de gerilere kayk\u0131ld\u0131, jartiyerleri \u015feffaf oldu\u011funa uysun diye mavi, hepsi fi\u015fe\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fcp ba\u011f\u0131rd\u0131lar bak, bak i\u015fte orda Gerty de fi\u015fekleri g\u00f6rmek i\u00e7in yatar gibi geriye ta geriye uzans\u0131n \u00f6yle tuhaf bir \u015fey havada u\u00e7u\u015fmaktayd\u0131, zikzak giden yumu\u015fak, koyu bir \u015fey. Gerty, a\u011fa\u00e7lar\u0131n \u00fczerinde y\u00fckselen, hep y\u00fckselen upuzun bir Roma kandili g\u00f6rd\u00fc, maytap durmaks\u0131z\u0131n t\u0131rmand\u0131k\u00e7a, o gergin sessizlikte, hepsinin heyecandan solu\u011fu kesilmi\u015f, Gerty habire y\u00fckselen, art\u0131k zor g\u00f6r\u00fclen maytab\u0131 izlemek amac\u0131yla daha da gerilere yaslanmak zorunda kald\u0131, s\u0131rt\u0131n\u0131 fazlaca zorlad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan kan\u0131 ba\u015f\u0131na h\u00fccum etti de y\u00fcz\u00fcnde kutsal, b\u00fcy\u00fcleyici bir alevlenme yarat\u0131rken adam k\u0131z\u0131n \u00f6b\u00fcr \u015feylerini de g\u00f6rebildi […]\u201d James Joyce, Ulysses, \u00e7ev. Nevzat Erkmen, Yap\u0131 Kredi Yay\u0131nlar\u0131, 1996, s. 413.<\/p>\n

2- Philip Fisher, Making and Effacing Art; Modern American Art in a Culture of Museums (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

G\u00fcvercin kanat \u00e7\u0131rpmadan, havay\u0131 yaran a\u011f\u0131rl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 hissederek g\u00f6ky\u00fcz\u00fcnde s\u00fcz\u00fcl\u00fcrken, bo\u015f uzamda b\u00f6yle u\u00e7man\u0131n daha kolay olaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 hayal ediyor olmal\u0131.Immanuel Kant Be\u015f duyundan b\u00f6ylesine uzaktayken, nas\u0131l oluyor da biliyorsun, havada s\u00fcz\u00fclen her ku\u015fun, u\u00e7suz bucaks\u0131z bir haz d\u00fcnyas\u0131nda oldu\u011funu?William Blake Kant ve Adorno’nun estetik kuramlar\u0131 aras\u0131ndaki ili\u015fki \u00fczerinde durmak istiyorum. G\u00f6stermeye \u00e7al\u0131\u015faca\u011f\u0131m \u015fey, Adorno’nun yaln\u0131zca esteti\u011fin […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[103],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-5901","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-felsefe-genel"},"yoast_head":"\nKant, Adorno ve Esteti\u011fin Toplumsal Ge\u00e7i\u015fsizli\u011fi | Thomas Huhn - narteks.net<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2011\/03\/28\/kant-adorno-ve-estetigin-toplumsal-gecissizligi-thomas-huhn\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"tr_TR\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kant, Adorno ve Esteti\u011fin Toplumsal Ge\u00e7i\u015fsizli\u011fi | Thomas Huhn\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"G\u00fcvercin kanat \u00e7\u0131rpmadan, havay\u0131 yaran a\u011f\u0131rl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 hissederek g\u00f6ky\u00fcz\u00fcnde s\u00fcz\u00fcl\u00fcrken, bo\u015f uzamda b\u00f6yle u\u00e7man\u0131n daha kolay olaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 hayal ediyor olmal\u0131.Immanuel Kant Be\u015f duyundan b\u00f6ylesine uzaktayken, nas\u0131l oluyor da biliyorsun, havada s\u00fcz\u00fclen her ku\u015fun, u\u00e7suz bucaks\u0131z bir haz d\u00fcnyas\u0131nda oldu\u011funu?William Blake Kant ve Adorno’nun estetik kuramlar\u0131 aras\u0131ndaki ili\u015fki \u00fczerinde durmak istiyorum. G\u00f6stermeye \u00e7al\u0131\u015faca\u011f\u0131m \u015fey, Adorno’nun yaln\u0131zca esteti\u011fin […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2011\/03\/28\/kant-adorno-ve-estetigin-toplumsal-gecissizligi-thomas-huhn\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"narteks.net\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-03-28T08:50:16+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"http:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/jacket\/9780521775007\/size\/lg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Tar\u0131k\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@narteks\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@narteks\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Yazan:\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Tar\u0131k\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Tahmini okuma s\u00fcresi\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"48 dakika\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2011\/03\/28\/kant-adorno-ve-estetigin-toplumsal-gecissizligi-thomas-huhn\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2011\/03\/28\/kant-adorno-ve-estetigin-toplumsal-gecissizligi-thomas-huhn\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Tar\u0131k\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#\/schema\/person\/61f37d9834294b72d31d274e7ed79bca\"},\"headline\":\"Kant, Adorno ve Esteti\u011fin Toplumsal Ge\u00e7i\u015fsizli\u011fi | Thomas Huhn\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-28T08:50:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2011\/03\/28\/kant-adorno-ve-estetigin-toplumsal-gecissizligi-thomas-huhn\/\"},\"wordCount\":9652,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2011\/03\/28\/kant-adorno-ve-estetigin-toplumsal-gecissizligi-thomas-huhn\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"http:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/jacket\/9780521775007\/size\/lg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Felsefe (Genel)\"],\"inLanguage\":\"tr\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2011\/03\/28\/kant-adorno-ve-estetigin-toplumsal-gecissizligi-thomas-huhn\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2011\/03\/28\/kant-adorno-ve-estetigin-toplumsal-gecissizligi-thomas-huhn\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2011\/03\/28\/kant-adorno-ve-estetigin-toplumsal-gecissizligi-thomas-huhn\/\",\"name\":\"Kant, Adorno ve Esteti\u011fin Toplumsal Ge\u00e7i\u015fsizli\u011fi | Thomas Huhn - narteks.net\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2011\/03\/28\/kant-adorno-ve-estetigin-toplumsal-gecissizligi-thomas-huhn\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2011\/03\/28\/kant-adorno-ve-estetigin-toplumsal-gecissizligi-thomas-huhn\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"http:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/jacket\/9780521775007\/size\/lg\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-28T08:50:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2011\/03\/28\/kant-adorno-ve-estetigin-toplumsal-gecissizligi-thomas-huhn\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"tr\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2011\/03\/28\/kant-adorno-ve-estetigin-toplumsal-gecissizligi-thomas-huhn\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"tr\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2011\/03\/28\/kant-adorno-ve-estetigin-toplumsal-gecissizligi-thomas-huhn\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/jacket\/9780521775007\/size\/lg\",\"contentUrl\":\"http:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/jacket\/9780521775007\/size\/lg\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2011\/03\/28\/kant-adorno-ve-estetigin-toplumsal-gecissizligi-thomas-huhn\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Anasayfa\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kant, Adorno ve Esteti\u011fin Toplumsal Ge\u00e7i\u015fsizli\u011fi | Thomas Huhn\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/\",\"name\":\"narteks.net\",\"description\":\"K\u00fclt\u00fcr Sanat Edebiyat Felsefe\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"K\u00fclt\u00fcr Sanat Edebiyat Felsefe\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"tr\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#organization\",\"name\":\"narteks.net\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"tr\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/narteks.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/narteks.png\",\"width\":300,\"height\":90,\"caption\":\"narteks.net\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/x.com\/narteks\",\"https:\/\/instagram.com\/narteksnet\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#\/schema\/person\/61f37d9834294b72d31d274e7ed79bca\",\"name\":\"Tar\u0131k\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"tr\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50865afb55632c4ae467e0af0930f6510aa2297d8014be502a55b14f3b7550cf?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50865afb55632c4ae467e0af0930f6510aa2297d8014be502a55b14f3b7550cf?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Tar\u0131k\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\/\/narteks.net\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/author\/narbak\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Kant, Adorno ve Esteti\u011fin Toplumsal Ge\u00e7i\u015fsizli\u011fi | Thomas Huhn - narteks.net","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2011\/03\/28\/kant-adorno-ve-estetigin-toplumsal-gecissizligi-thomas-huhn\/","og_locale":"tr_TR","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kant, Adorno ve Esteti\u011fin Toplumsal Ge\u00e7i\u015fsizli\u011fi | Thomas Huhn","og_description":"G\u00fcvercin kanat \u00e7\u0131rpmadan, havay\u0131 yaran a\u011f\u0131rl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 hissederek g\u00f6ky\u00fcz\u00fcnde s\u00fcz\u00fcl\u00fcrken, bo\u015f uzamda b\u00f6yle u\u00e7man\u0131n daha kolay olaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 hayal ediyor olmal\u0131.Immanuel Kant Be\u015f duyundan b\u00f6ylesine uzaktayken, nas\u0131l oluyor da biliyorsun, havada s\u00fcz\u00fclen her ku\u015fun, u\u00e7suz bucaks\u0131z bir haz d\u00fcnyas\u0131nda oldu\u011funu?William Blake Kant ve Adorno’nun estetik kuramlar\u0131 aras\u0131ndaki ili\u015fki \u00fczerinde durmak istiyorum. G\u00f6stermeye \u00e7al\u0131\u015faca\u011f\u0131m \u015fey, Adorno’nun yaln\u0131zca esteti\u011fin […]","og_url":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2011\/03\/28\/kant-adorno-ve-estetigin-toplumsal-gecissizligi-thomas-huhn\/","og_site_name":"narteks.net","article_published_time":"2011-03-28T08:50:16+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"http:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/jacket\/9780521775007\/size\/lg","type":"","width":"","height":""}],"author":"Tar\u0131k","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@narteks","twitter_site":"@narteks","twitter_misc":{"Yazan:":"Tar\u0131k","Tahmini okuma s\u00fcresi":"48 dakika"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2011\/03\/28\/kant-adorno-ve-estetigin-toplumsal-gecissizligi-thomas-huhn\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2011\/03\/28\/kant-adorno-ve-estetigin-toplumsal-gecissizligi-thomas-huhn\/"},"author":{"name":"Tar\u0131k","@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#\/schema\/person\/61f37d9834294b72d31d274e7ed79bca"},"headline":"Kant, Adorno ve Esteti\u011fin Toplumsal Ge\u00e7i\u015fsizli\u011fi | Thomas Huhn","datePublished":"2011-03-28T08:50:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2011\/03\/28\/kant-adorno-ve-estetigin-toplumsal-gecissizligi-thomas-huhn\/"},"wordCount":9652,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2011\/03\/28\/kant-adorno-ve-estetigin-toplumsal-gecissizligi-thomas-huhn\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"http:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/jacket\/9780521775007\/size\/lg","articleSection":["Felsefe (Genel)"],"inLanguage":"tr","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2011\/03\/28\/kant-adorno-ve-estetigin-toplumsal-gecissizligi-thomas-huhn\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2011\/03\/28\/kant-adorno-ve-estetigin-toplumsal-gecissizligi-thomas-huhn\/","url":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2011\/03\/28\/kant-adorno-ve-estetigin-toplumsal-gecissizligi-thomas-huhn\/","name":"Kant, Adorno ve Esteti\u011fin Toplumsal Ge\u00e7i\u015fsizli\u011fi | Thomas Huhn - narteks.net","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2011\/03\/28\/kant-adorno-ve-estetigin-toplumsal-gecissizligi-thomas-huhn\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2011\/03\/28\/kant-adorno-ve-estetigin-toplumsal-gecissizligi-thomas-huhn\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"http:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/jacket\/9780521775007\/size\/lg","datePublished":"2011-03-28T08:50:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2011\/03\/28\/kant-adorno-ve-estetigin-toplumsal-gecissizligi-thomas-huhn\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"tr","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2011\/03\/28\/kant-adorno-ve-estetigin-toplumsal-gecissizligi-thomas-huhn\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"tr","@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2011\/03\/28\/kant-adorno-ve-estetigin-toplumsal-gecissizligi-thomas-huhn\/#primaryimage","url":"http:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/jacket\/9780521775007\/size\/lg","contentUrl":"http:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/jacket\/9780521775007\/size\/lg"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2011\/03\/28\/kant-adorno-ve-estetigin-toplumsal-gecissizligi-thomas-huhn\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Anasayfa","item":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kant, Adorno ve Esteti\u011fin Toplumsal Ge\u00e7i\u015fsizli\u011fi | Thomas Huhn"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#website","url":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/","name":"narteks.net","description":"K\u00fclt\u00fcr Sanat Edebiyat Felsefe","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#organization"},"alternateName":"K\u00fclt\u00fcr Sanat Edebiyat Felsefe","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"tr"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#organization","name":"narteks.net","url":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"tr","@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/narteks.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/narteks.png","width":300,"height":90,"caption":"narteks.net"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/x.com\/narteks","https:\/\/instagram.com\/narteksnet"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#\/schema\/person\/61f37d9834294b72d31d274e7ed79bca","name":"Tar\u0131k","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"tr","@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50865afb55632c4ae467e0af0930f6510aa2297d8014be502a55b14f3b7550cf?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50865afb55632c4ae467e0af0930f6510aa2297d8014be502a55b14f3b7550cf?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Tar\u0131k"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/narteks.net"],"url":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/author\/narbak\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5901","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5901"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5901\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5901"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5901"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5901"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}