Abstract
AbstractThe article deals with ethical questions relating to artistic responses to catastrophe. Its starting point is James E. Young's thesis that post‐Holocaust art must renounce the traditional redemptory promises of art. Against this, drawing on the work of Theodor W. Adorno, it makes the case for art's redemptory dimension. Whereas Young and Adorno disagree with regard to the idea of redemption, they agree in their approval of a certain kind of negative aesthetics. Both writers advocate particular kinds of art as the ethically most appropriate response to catastrophe. The article raises questions concerning the ethical dimension of the kinds of art they advocate. In addition, it warns against hypostasising just one kind of art as the only ethically valid response to catastrophe. Finally, it argues that representational works of art are also important since they offer a particular ethical perspective that can stimulate reflection and debate.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
