The Artworld and the Institutional Theory of Art (original) (raw)
Related papers
Number 16 are also well-known works of art. The combination of these seemingly simple facts has puzzled many observers who have used to view art as essentially connected with expression of emotions and the like. The institutional theory of art is meant to provide us with an analysis of art which would obviate all the difficulties one encounters when attempting to define art in terms of imitation, expression of emotion, or other content-oriented conceptions. In its most recent form, viz. John Dickie's The Art Circle^, the core of the institutional theory of art consists of the following redefinitions*^: (a) The artworld is the totaUty of artworld systems; (b) An artworld system is a framework for the presentation of a work of art by an artist to an artworld public; (c) A work of art is an artifact of a primary^ kind created to be presented to an artworld public; (d) An artist is a person who participates with understanding in the making of a work ofart\ (e) An artworld public* is a set of persons the members of which are prepared in some degree to understand an object which is presented to them, within an artworld system. To be sure, this series of redefinitions* is not meant «to inform someone of the meaning of an expression one is ignorant of by means of words one already knows»^. Riilosophical analysis is rather meant «ta make clear to us in a self-conscious and explicit way what we' already in some sense know*®, and the present analysis of art is not
Institutions and the Artworld – A Critical Note
Journal of Social Ontology, 2018
Contemporary theories of institutions as clusters of stable solutions to recurrent coordination problems can illuminate and explain some unresolved difficulties and problems adhering to institutional definitions of art initiated by George Dickie and Arthur Danto. Their account of what confers upon objects their institutional character does not fit well with current work on institutions and social ontology. The claim that “the artworld” confers the status of “art” onto objects remains utterly mysterious. The “artworld” is a generic notion that designates a sphere of human activity that involves practices that create goals that have led to the emergence of formal and informal institutions. But those institutions, rather than magically “creating” objects subjected to esthetic appreciation, merely solve familiar and ubiquitous coordination problems created by artistic activity in ways other institutions in other areas (science, religion, education…) solve similar and/or analogous coordi...
Dickie's Institutional Theory and the "Openness" of the Concept of Art
Postgraduate Journal of Aesthetics, 2006
In this paper I look at the relationship between Weitz’s claim that art is an “open” concept and Dickie’s institutional theory of art, in its most recent form. I argue that the fact that Dickie's theory actually incorporates, at least to some extent, Weitz’s claim about the “openness” of the concept of art, precisely accounts for what I take to be the main flaws in the theory. I look briefly at the position of both authors with respect to the concept of art, then show how they relate to each other, and what implications this has for Dickie’s institutional theory, and more generally for the traditional project of characterising art.
Solving Wollheim's Dilemma: A Fix for the Institutional Definition of Art
Metaphilosophy 44 (5): 640-654, 2013
Richard Wollheim threatened George Dickie's institutional definition of art with a dilemma which entailed that the theory is either redundant or incomprehensible and useless. This article modifies the definition to avoid such criticism. First, it shows that the definition's concept of the artworld is not vague when understood as a conventional system of beliefs and practices. Then, based on Gaut's cluster theory, it provides an account of reasons artworld members have to confer the status of a candidate for appreciation. An authorised member of an artworld has a good reason to confer the status on an object if it satisfies a subset of criteria respected as sufficient within this artworld. The first horn of the dilemma is averted because explaining the reasons behind conferral cannot eliminate references to the institution, and the second loses its sharpness, as accepting partial arbitrariness of the conferral does not deprive the theory of its explanatory power.
Institutional Definitions of Art
2011
This thesis provides a thorough examination of the institutional theories and definitions of Arthur C. Danto and George Dickie, and assesses the pros and cons of their respective approaches. This account of Danto"s and Dickie"s theories differs from previous ones, because it organises their ideas and works chronologically and by periods, rather than in terms of topics or of an analysis of a single work. In this way it is possible to follow the development and later modifications of their theories, as well as to assess whether the account they provide in retrospect of their own previous ideas is completely correct or not. It also identifies those received interpretations of Danto"s and Dickie"s theories that seem to be generally endorsed but that do not provide a correct or fair interpretation of their theories. As a result, this thesis presents an interpretation of Danto"s and Dickie"s theories that substantially differs from the received interpretations of these theories. Although the received interpretations of Danto"s and Dickie"s theories have not yet undergone any programmatic process of standardisation, nevertheless many of the standard interpretations challenged in this thesis can be traced back to Stephen Davies"s book Definitions of Art. Given the fact that this book specifically addresses this topic and because its title is so compelling, the ideas summarised in this book have been endorsed also by major figures such as Carroll, Levinson and Dickie. As a result, the last chapter of this thesis also challenges Davies"s quasiprogrammatic standardisation of these received interpretations, and his organisation of the debate about definitions of art in terms of a divide between functionalists and proceduralists, which reinforces these received misinterpretations.
Drawing insights from sociology and philosophy, particularly the work of Karl-Otto Apel and Jürgen Habermas, this paper proposes a theory of art as a mode of communicative action which plays a vital role in the symbolic reproduction of social life. The focus is on autonomous art in the context of modern society. The analysis touches on art’s significance for individual identity formation; the interdependence of the intellectual, moral and aesthetic dimensions of culture; and the relation of moral consciousness to art which accounts for the historically specific societal significance of art, e.g., art and industry in first half of the 20th century, and art and ecology in the late 20th century. As a mode of communicative action, first, art assumes the outcome, but also marches ahead, of the process of socialisation, opening up and exploring new sensibilities and competencies. In so doing, it serves the formation of identity, displays individual competencies and a style of life practice, and contributes towards the maintenance of both culture and society by generating interpretations and motivating actions. Secondly, as regards cultural reproduction, art while basing itself on cultural resources, at the semantic dimension at the same time renews valid cultural knowledge by interpreting subjective experience in terms of cultural values, thereby serving the continuity of tradition and the coherence of knowledge. But it also explores and proposes new cultural values, and contributes towards the maintenance of both society and personality by legitimating existing institutions and providing models for the acquisition of generalised competencies. Thirdly, as regards a process of social integration, art while assuming certain action patterns and basing itself on stabilized group identities, at the dimension of social space co-ordinates actions and stabilizes group identity, thereby contributing towards the maintenance of both personality and culture by creating legitimately regulated social or interpersonal relations and generating normative or moral obligations.
16 Sociology of Art: New Stakes in a Post-Critical Time
The international handbook of sociology, 2000
During a long period, sociology of art has been divided mainly between two major directions. Both show art as a social reality but they do so from quite different points of view: one is frontally critical and aims at revealing the social determination of art behind any pretended autonomy (be it the autonomy of the works, following the objectivist aesthetics, or the autonomy of the taste for them, following an aesthetics of subjectivity); the other is more pragmatic and, without pretending to make statements about the works or aesthetic experience, procedes through a minutious reconstitution of the "collective action" necessary to produce and consume art. Against a purely internal and hagiographic aesthetical commentary of art works, sociology has thus filled back an "art world" which formerly included only very few chefs-d'oeuvre and geniuses. Mainstream productions and copies, conventions and material constraints, professions and academies, organizations and markets, codes and rites of social consumption have been pushed to the front of the scene.
Sociology of Art: New Stakes in a Post-Critical Time
The international handbook of …, 2000
During a long period, sociology of art has been divided mainly between two major directions. Both show art as a social reality but they do so from quite different points of view: one is frontally critical and aims at revealing the social determination of art behind any pretended autonomy (be it the autonomy of the works, following the objectivist aesthetics, or the autonomy of the taste for them, following an aesthetics of subjectivity); the other is more pragmatic and, without pretending to make statements about the works or aesthetic experience, procedes through a minutious reconstitution of the "collective action" necessary to produce and consume art. Against a purely internal and hagiographic aesthetical commentary of art works, sociology has thus filled back an "art world" which formerly included only very few chefs-d'oeuvre and geniuses. Mainstream productions and copies, conventions and material constraints, professions and academies, organizations and markets, codes and rites of social consumption have been pushed to the front of the scene.
Art and Its Institutions, 2006
The relationship between art and its institutions is an unsteady one. Sometimes it generates arguments and critique and sometimes it forms an alliance against the expectations brought to an art institution from outside. These expectations are often ambiguous and argue for an active and sometimes radical self-positioning. I. The twilight of the welfare state - a seminal background for new institutions? II. Enterprise art institution under late capitalism III. Criticizing new institutions: new concepts of relationality IV. An Art Institution as Production Unit? IV. The book "Art and its Institutions" Art and its Institutions is a comprehensive reader on current institutional conditions and the role of institutions within artistic processes, offering a powerful insight into the diversity of art institutions and their practice today.