Pages

Showing posts with label dickie. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dickie. Show all posts

November 07, 2010

George Dickie, “A Tale of Two Artworlds” (and Arthur Danto, "Responses and Replies")

George Dickie, “A Tale of Two Artworlds,” in Danto and his critics, ed. Mark Rollins (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993), 73-78.

Respond to Danto's critiques/misunderstandings in “The Artworld Revisited: Comedies of Similarity” and comment on his approach
Different versions of the artworld
How does the prescribing of artistic status take place?
Artworld is not a homogeneous empowering elite of experts
Dickie stresses the role of the artist
“My basic claim is that the artworld is a structure of roles within which artists create art.”
Artworld relations
Danto: “the Art World as the historically ordered world of artworks, enfranchised by theories which themselves are historically ordered.”
Does Danto actually argue that a group confers the status of art, or is he concerned with “what is required for someone to realize that a certain kind of thing can be a work of art”?

Arthur Danto, “Responses and Replies,” in Danto and his critics, ed. Mark Rollins (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993), 193-216.  


“a world consisting of works of art, a self-enriching community of ontologically complex objects, often inter-referential [... intertextual ...] and which above all had a historical vector, so that something could be part of that world at one time but not at an earlier time.”
“Discourse of reasons”
Seeing something as art VS being art
“I don't believe any institutional theory gives us a definition of art, simply a certain account of how something gets to be received as art.”
Also, therefore, a factor in the creation of art: “artist and audience are caught up together in the evolving discourse of reasons.”
Historical /cultural factors
Institutionalism =/= ontology, and Danto is more interested in creating ontologies than sociologies
Dickie, on the other hand, attempts to make his institutional theory also a definition/ontology

George Dickie, “A Tale of Two Artworlds”

George Dickie, “Defining Art,” American Philosophical Quarterly 6, no. 3 (July 1969): 253-256.

Descriptive use of “work of art” indicates that a thing belongs to a certain category of objects
“Artifactuality” as the genus of art (but what exactly is artifactuality? Dickie does not elaborate)
Art can be defined even if all or some of its subconcepts cannot be (painting, novel, tragedy)
In addition to artifactuality, a second, social property – non-exhibited, relational
No guarantee that current conceptions bear any resemblance to historical conceptions
What we do with certain objects (ie: works of art)
“(1) an artifact upon which (2) some society or some sub-group of a society has conferred the status of candidate for appreciation.” [Later version: “A work of art in the classificatory sense is (1) an artifact (2) a set of the aspects of which has had conferred upon it the status of candidate for appreciation by some person or persons acting on behalf of a certain social institution (the artworld).”]
Only a candidate, not necessarily appreciated
Can be conferred by a single person (often the artist)? Perhaps in a preliminary, small-scale sense
More broadly, an artifact acquires status within the system of the artworld
The (aesthetic) appreciation characteristic of experiences of artworks: “in experiencing the qualities of a thing one finds them worthy or valuable” (applies to all kinds of artworks)
“Official” status of candidate for appreciation is conferred by the artworld – authority (however scattered, heterogeneous and ambiguous that authority might be)
A certain institutional setting
Artifactuality is acquired at the same time as status of candidate for appreciation (two distinct properties)
“It all depends what is done with the paintings.”
This theory 1) doesn't presume “good” art (value-neutral); 2) is not overloaded; 3) is not based on any metaphysical/unempirical theory; 4) is broad enough to cover all things generally considered art without strain; 5) accounts for the specific practices of the artworld;
“A work of art is an object of which someone has said, 'I consider this object a work of art.'”