Notes to pp. 473– 477 611philosophy and sociology of art, see Günter Seubold, Das Ende der Kunst
und der Paradigmenwechsel in der Ästhetik.
130 Adorno, ‘Die Kunst und die Künste’, GS, vol. 10.1, p. 438.
131 Adorno, Negative Dialectics, p. 33.
132 Adorno, ‘Notizheft ß’, Frankfurter Adorno Blätter, VI, 2000, p. 7.
133 Adorno to Tilly Dreyfus, 17 April 1969, Theodor W. Adorno Archive,
Frankfurt am Main (Br 332/3).
134 Adorno to Carla Henius, 27 March 1969, Theodor W. Adorno Archive,
Frankfurt am Main (Br 592/57); see also Frankfurter Adorno Blätter, VI,
2000, p. 42.
135 After Hans-Jürgen Krahl had been taken into custody for questioning,
Adorno had telephoned Fritz Bauer, the state prosecutor, with whom
he was on friendly terms, in order to tell him that Krahl was a sensitive
person who ought to be set free quickly. See Rudolf zur Lippe, ‘Die
Frankfurter Studentenbewegung und das Ende Adornos’, p. 116.
136 The present author has benefited from a number of personal accounts
from those who witnessed the disruption of this lecture. See also Kraushaar
(ed.), Frankfurter Schule und Studentenbewegung, vol. 1, p. 418; Alex
Demirovic, Der nonkonformistische Intellektuelle, p. 856ff., and especi-
ally p. 945ff.; Hans-Klaus Jungheinrich, who was present at the lecture,
wrote a report about it for the Frankfurter Rundschau on 24 April 1969
with the title ‘Adorno as an Institution is Dead: How the Consciousness
Changer was Driven out of the Lecture Hall’. In this article, the author, a
pupil of Adorno, wrote: ‘Anyone who has direct experience of fascism
will necessarily feel allergic towards the slightest hint of terrorism....The
disrupting of the philosophy lecture... was an own goal, for the left
at any rate. The rowdy treatment of Adorno, far from signalling the
emergence of a new post-bourgeois style, as one commentator claimed,
points to a pre-bourgeois, indeed pre-civilized, relapse into barbarism.’
137 Adorno, ‘Keine Angst vor dem Elfenbeinturm’, GS, vol. 20.1, p. 406f.
138 Adorno to Eduard Grosse, 5 May 1969, Frankfurter Adorno Blätter, VI,
2000, p. 101.
139 Adorno, ‘Kritische Theorie und Protestbewegung’, GS, vol. 20.1, p. 399ff.
140 Adorno, ‘Keine Angst vor dem Elfenbeinturm’, GS, vol. 20.1, p. 402.
141 Ibid., p. 404. As to the question of the influence of the representatives
of critical theory on the New Left, see Günter C. Behrmann’s study. He
concludes: ‘If we look through the notable theoretical publications and
indeed through the entire New Left before the mid-sixties, we look in
vain for any sign that critical theory formed a significant reference point
for the discussion of theory. Even later on, when the traces of Marcuse’s
ideas can be found and followed up, there is no general turn to Frankfurt
critical theory either in the Frankfurt Neue Kritik or in the Berlin
Argument.’ Clemens Albrecht et al., Die intellektuelle Gründung der
Bundesrepublik, p. 333f.
142 Adorno, ‘Keine Angst vor dem Elfenbeinturm’, GS, vol. 20.1, p. 405f.
143 Adorno to the dean of the Arts Faculty, 13 June 1969, Frankfurter Adorno
Blätter, VI, 2000, p. 108f.
144 On 5 April 1969, Marcuse wrote to Adorno: ‘I believe that if I were to
accept the institute’s invitation without also speaking to the students,
I would identify myself with a position... that I do not share politically.