Art Appreciation An Analysis Of Dickies Criteria

George Dickie's Institutional Theory of Art, first articulated in his 1974 work 'Art and the Aesthetic,' offers a compelling, albeit debated, framework for defining art. Rather than seeking inherent aesthetic properties within an object, Dickie shifts the focus to the social context in which an object is situated. His central claim is that an object becomes a work of art when it is presented as such by members of the 'artworld' – a complex, loosely organized system of individuals and institutions involved in the creation, exhibition, and reception of art. This institutional approach moves away from essentialist definitions that attempt to isolate universal qualities of art, proposing instead that art status is conferred through social agreement and practice.

Dickie's theory hinges on two key components: the 'artcircle' and the 'artworld.' The artcircle comprises artists, critics, curators, gallery owners, and the viewing public, all of whom play a role in the art system. An object is designated as art when an artist creates it with the intention of it being regarded as a work of art, and when this intention is recognized and accepted by the artworld. This acceptance doesn't require universal consensus but rather the endorsement of a significant portion of the artworld. For instance, Marcel Duchamp's "Fountain" (1917), a readymade urinal signed "R. Mutt," is a classic example. Duchamp presented it as art, and despite initial controversy, it was accepted by the art establishment, thereby becoming a seminal work of 20th-century art. Its artistic merit, according to Dickie, is not derived from its aesthetic form or material composition but from its successful entry into the artworld's discourse and exhibition practices.

The strength of Dickie's theory lies in its ability to account for the diversity of art forms that have emerged throughout history and in contemporary practice. It explains why a simple object, like a Brillo box, can be considered art when presented in a gallery setting (as Andy Warhol did), while an identical box found in a supermarket is not. The institutional framework provides a plausible explanation for how avant-garde movements, which often challenge traditional notions of beauty and skill, gain acceptance. It acknowledges the role of critics in shaping public perception, curators in selecting works for exhibition, and collectors in bestowing value. Without the artworld's imprimatur, even objects with potentially significant aesthetic qualities might remain outside the category of art.

However, the Institutional Theory is not without its critics. A primary objection is the charge of circularity. Critics argue that the definition relies on the concept of the 'artworld,' but the 'artworld' itself is defined by its involvement with art. This creates a loop: art is what the artworld says it is, and the artworld is the set of people who deal with art. This circularity, some contend, makes the theory explanatorily weak, failing to provide an independent criterion for art. Furthermore, the theory has been accused of being overly inclusive, potentially opening the door to anything being labeled art as long as it is presented within the right context. This raises concerns about the devaluation of art and the loss of critical standards. If a child's drawing, presented by a parent at a local fair, is art because it's 'presented as art,' does this dilute the meaning of art itself?

Another point of contention is the theory's potential to overlook the subjective experience of the viewer. While Dickie focuses on the production and institutional reception of art, the theory doesn't deeply engage with how individuals aesthetically appreciate or respond to art. The emphasis on social convention might downplay the personal encounter with an artwork, which for many is central to its value. While the theory acknowledges the 'public' as part of the artcircle, it doesn't elaborate on the qualitative aspects of their engagement beyond recognition and acceptance.

Despite these criticisms, Dickie's Institutional Theory remains a significant contribution to art philosophy. It effectively highlights the crucial role of social and institutional factors in the creation and recognition of art. It encourages us to look beyond the object itself and consider the complex network of relationships, practices, and conventions that surround it. In art appreciation, understanding this theory prompts a deeper consideration of why certain objects are exhibited, discussed, and valued as art, pushing us to analyze the mechanisms of the artworld rather than solely focusing on intrinsic aesthetic qualities. It serves as a valuable lens for understanding the historical development of art movements and the contemporary art market, reminding us that art is not a static category but a dynamic social construct.

In conclusion, George Dickie's Institutional Theory provides a powerful sociological perspective on art. While its circularity and potential for over-inclusivity present challenges, its strength lies in its capacity to explain how art functions within society. For students of art appreciation, engaging with Dickie's ideas is essential for grasping the social dimensions of art and for developing a more critical understanding of how art is made, recognized, and valued in the world.