阿多諾之所以對藝術作品採取極端主觀的價值判斷，來自他特殊的歷史觀。藉由達爾豪斯的一系列質問，本文將從阿多諾對藝術與社會的辨證關係與藝術的質料性(Material)的討論，引入他對於藝術品的「單子」特質所延伸出的非斷裂、亦非延續的歷史時間觀。本文除了引述阿多諾有關音樂的著作外，理論的討論也會延伸至他後期的主要著作《否定辯證法》對於質料性的洞見、《美學理論》中對於藝術品歷史性的要求、以及他在《歷史與自由》講稿中對於歷史斷裂性的思考。本文指出，過去對阿多諾音樂歷史觀的理解陷於進步歷史觀的遺緒。事實上，阿多諾的音樂歷史評論之所以看來不像一般歷史，關鍵在於他對於歷史的想法與他對於整體∕部份、一般∕特殊、個人∕社會的解釋互相呼應，其立論本在挑戰一般的線性歷史觀。尤其是，阿多諾幾乎重新定義了歷史的時間與空間概念，他認為人的歷史時間感，其實是在延續與斷裂兩種理解方式裡一起進行。他的歷史觀受到班雅明的影響，是一種單子式(monadisch)的歷史觀：藝術品的歷史意義在於，人的主體透過藝術品，以破碎與斷裂的方式來展現整體歷史的矛盾與張力。對阿多諾來說，藝術展現的整體性並非被假定為具有統攝力的一般全體性，而是一種必定要以孤立斷片的方式來呈現才可觀照到的整體。

This paper argues that Adorno’s apparently subjective value judgments on artworks are actually based on his historical premises. By way of Carl Dahlhaus’ critical remarks, this paper traces Adorno’s discussions on the dialectic relationship between music and society; in particular, this paper examines Adorno’s term of musical materiality that constitutes a “monadic,” that is, fragmentary yet continuous historical time. In addition to his musical writings, this paper also investigates Adorno’s major philosophical works such as Negative Dialectic, Aesthetic Theory, and his later class lectures on History and Freedom. This paper argues that past understandings of Adorno’s music historiography were informed by a linear model of progressive historical time. Instead, it is essential to reconsider Adorno’s history from the relationship between part and whole, general and particular, individual and society. For Adorno, the meaning of musical art is displayed not as a historical totality, but only in fragmentary expressions of human subjectivity mediated through materials.

阿多諾；斷片；歷史學；音樂質料性

Adorno; fragments; historiography; music; materiality