面對著文化工業 (culture industry) 的崛起，藝術家高喊著「藝術自主性」 (autonomy of art) ，來對抗國家機器與資本主義對藝術的侵蝕。前衛的藝術家就已經面臨內部矛盾的論證：一部分認為藝術應該當作社會真實的反映工具，進而觸發社會的整體革命，另一部分則抱持著「為藝術而藝術」 (l'art pour l'art) ，不應該被任何社會的風潮牽動。本文挑選阿多諾的美學思想作為研究的課題，研究其批判文化工業的藝術哲學，並且就《啟蒙的辯證：哲學的片簡》 (Dialec-tics of Enlightenment) 的篇章〈文化工業：大眾欺騙的啟蒙〉 (The Culture Indus-try: Enlightenment of Mass Deception) 以及《美學理論》 (Aesthetic Theory) 當作本文研究之原典。 除了緒論與結論，本文共分為三個章節。第一章分析的是「文化工業」：藉由商品拜物教的形式，文化工業從藝術的外部性質──傳播媒體──來取得藝術的社會形式，卻也因此異化藝術本身的內在邏輯，甚至使得傳播媒體異化且取代了藝術作品本身。第二章分析的是「前衛藝術」：雖然前衛藝術是文化工業的對立面，但是它們都享有共同的外在語法與邏輯。因此，前衛藝術與文化工業的對立是基於什麼原因，則是本章所要分析的。第三章分析的是「藝術的雙重性」：藝術的雙重性是阿多諾《美學理論》的重要貢獻，也一直是後繼者研究其藝術哲學的重點。藝術的雙重性──社會性與自主性──都是藝術作品內部精神，而表現在它的物質形式上，這都可被視為藝術作品本身的物化。 從阿多諾的觀點中分析，藝術的自主性──就如同資本主義對於自由的形容──是不切實際的虛假意識，藝術是物質的、社會的產物，也只是反映下層建築的菱鏡、主體的附庸；另一方面，藝術卻又渴望不被他者束縛的自由，對於現實的理所當然是不屑一顧的，而試圖在化外之地找尋更好的理念。在阿多諾的美學理論，藝術的雙重性是其自身內部矛盾的辯證過程，卻也是藝術最迷人之處，無論傾向哪一個層面之體現，都無法完整表達藝術的真面目而使之終結。如果要為藝術找尋其雙重性的辯證，最終必然為找尋其動態的平衡，時而接近主體，時而離開主體，與主體展開曖昧不明又難分難捨的關係。也因為如此，藝術為達到自身辯證的平衡，就成為了縈繞於社會邊緣的遊蕩者。 / The artistic manifestation for “autonomy of art” is against the rise of culture in-dustry which corrupts art’s sake in the capitalist society. Those artists who claim self as the avant-garde argue whether their artwork should be the reflection of social real-ity or should be “l'art pour l'art”. My thesis is focus on T.W. Adorno’s aesthetic theory, and his critique against the culture industry. T.W. Adorno’s aesthetic theory should be rediscovered from his “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment of Mass Deception” from Dialectics of Enlightenment and his masterpiece Aesthetic Theory. Besides the epilogue and the conclusion, there are other three chapters. The first chapter is focus on “culture industry”: from commodity fetishism, the culture industry claims art’s form by its externality: media. However, it also reifies the internal logics of art which media takes over art in its own sake. The second chapter is on “avant-garde art”: though it is the counterpart of culture industry, avant-garde art shares the same syntax and logic with the culture industry. The reason of their conflicts should be explored by the history of modern art. The third chapter is on “the duality of art”: as the most important part in Adorno’s aesthetic theory, the duality of art contributes the essential idea in the aesthetic history. Nevertheless, the autonomy and social faux are both elements of art’s spiritual perpective which will be reified as its form. From Adorno’s theory, art’s autonomy and social faux are dialectical. Art must seek its own autonomy from its heteronomy, which avoids itself from its own fetish character. It circulates it own vital experience, then it terminates itself in the reification. Therefore, in Adorno’s theory, art’s duality is both dialectical and mysterious. Whether any aspect could not embody the truth content of art, and hence art is so amusing. The dialectical duality of art comes with its equilibrium with the social; real-ity, while the former is object and the latter is subject. While art approaches with the society, it also detaches from the society. The dialectical relationships has made art and society both indistinct and inseparable, therefore, art must become the edge of so-ciety in its own sake as the “flâneur”.