In George Dickie's "What is Art? An Institutional Analysis", he started with arguing against imitation theory and expressionist theory. He came about the idea that Art can be defined, but not with such kinds of necessary or sufficient conditions raised by the imitation theory or expressionist theory. The definition of the concept of art needs to be deeply analyzed.
First, art must be a closed concept instead of an open one proposed by Morris Weitz. This is mainly for the division between what is art and what is non-art. If, as Weitz said, art is an open concept, with constantly arisen new conditions and new art forms, then we cannot really distinguish art from non-art, since the classification is not so clear. Everything might be considered as art. However, if art is a closed concept, does it mean that it will foreclose the very conditions of creativity in arts? Weitz said yes, but Dickie argued against this point. Weitz mainly argued that, when the generic conception of art is closed, the subconcepts of art may still be open, which means that there can still be infinite subconcepts adding to, like, novel, tragedy, painting and sculpture.
Then, after we know that art is a closed concept, what makes an art an art? What are works of art? Firstly, it must be an artifact. If it is an object in nature, then, the only possible way that it can become a work of art is to be conferred the artifactuality by having human intentions on it. Secondly, it must be conferred the status for appreciation by some person or persons acting on behalf of a certain social institution (the artworld), these persons include artists, audience, museum workers, art critics, and so on. Although whether it will be appreciated or not is still a question, it does not influence its status of being a work of art. Appreciated or not appreciated is just on the evaluative level.
However, from this institutional theory, we can find that the argument is clearly circular, even the author himself had raised this point in his article. The process of conferring the status is vague since it is not something as formal as the one in a legal institution. It does not have certain kinds of celebrations or ceremonies. And Dickie said that, most people would rather keep art as an informal one since it would be a bad thing, threatening the freshness and exuberance of art. Then, who are these people within the artwork? Dickie’s answer is that “every person who sees himself as a member of the artworld is thereby a member”, which is clearly unsatisfactory. In reality, not everyone has the right to confer the status of art, even one sees himself as a member of the artworld. This definition needs to be more clearly explained. From my personal opinion, combining what I know for the current field of art, becoming a member of artworld actually needs some kind of semi-formal ceremonies. Most importantly, it seems that one need to struggle for recognition in order to “gain” that status of becoming a member of the artworld.
In the final part of Dickie’s paper, he acknowledged that some of the arguments and definitions are circular. Nonetheless, he suggested that this circular is not viciously so, since it is informative. It contains a great deal of information about the artworld. I personally think that he actually does not solve any problem. Although this institutional theory really provides us some insight toward how we can see the social institution of art, the definition of work of art from an environmental, social point of view, it does not necessarily depict the real situation in the current world. As a vague, informal institution, the artworld might exist. However, the particular definitions for its membership, for its process of conferring the status, for its process of appreciation and evaluation are still unsatisfactory.
Bibliography
Cahn, S. M., & Meskin, A. (2007). Aesthetics: A comprehensive anthology. Malden, Massachussetts: Blackwell.
Comments