Dickie’s trys to define art using his institutional theory, which has been greatly influenced by Danto. His theory is based around the idea that the art world in general is a social institution, much like an educational institution or something of that nature. He states that in order for something to be considered a work of art it must be viewed as one with the institution of art. He furthers his views by explaining that in order for something to become a work of art it will be judged on the matter of its “artifactuality” and its “conferred status of candidate for appreciation.” What this claim means is that the piece of art work must be intended to be art as well as it must be recognized as art within the social institution of art by one or more people within the institution. In my opinion Dickie fails at his attempt to give a definition on what art truly is due to his theory on who is within the art world and who is not. He view is based around the claim that in order for something to be considered an art work it must be viewed and treated like one within the institution of art, an institution that is loosely defined within his statements. Within his work he never really gives a set list of criteria for who is or isn’t within this art world. He just states that basically anyone who comes in contact with a work of art can recognize it an say its truly art and become part of this institution. In my opinion if he Dickie’s theory has to many loose ends and no real structure, and in order to define something I believe that it should at least have some foundation to fall back on (not that I am claiming art can truly be defined).
No comments:
Post a Comment