George Dickie's institutional theory offers a compelling framework for understanding what makes something art, moving away from essentialist definitions that sought inherent qualities. At its core, Dickie argues that art is not defined by intrinsic properties but by its status within a social institution: the artworld. This institutional approach, most famously articulated in his 1974 work Art and the Aesthetic, proposes two primary criteria: the candidate must be an artifact, and it must be presented to the artworld by an artist. The artworld itself, in turn, is comprised of a group of individuals, including artists, critics, curators, and patrons, who are all participants in the practice of conferring art status. This essay will analyze Dickie's criteria, exploring their strengths in accounting for avant-garde movements and challenging purely aesthetic considerations, while also examining potential criticisms regarding circularity and the exclusion of non-institutionalized art forms.
A significant strength of Dickie's theory lies in its ability to accommodate the often bewildering shifts and innovations in modern and contemporary art. Before the institutional theory gained prominence, art appreciation often hinged on identifying universal aesthetic properties like beauty, harmony, or expressiveness. However, movements like Dadaism and Conceptual Art actively challenged these notions. Marcel Duchamp's Fountain (1917), a readymade urinal signed "R. Mutt," famously exemplifies this. Under a purely aesthetic lens, Fountain might be dismissed as a mere utilitarian object, lacking discernible artistic merit. Dickie's theory, however, explains its art status by recognizing it as an artifact (a manufactured object) presented to the artworld by an artist (Duchamp) with the intention of it being considered art. The subsequent exhibition and discussion of Fountain within art circles solidified its position, demonstrating how the artworld's reception, rather than inherent visual qualities, confers art status. This framework effectively explains how artists can intentionally create works that provoke, question, and redefine art itself, without relying on pre-existing, often subjective, aesthetic standards.
Furthermore, Dickie's theory shifts the focus of art appreciation from a passive contemplation of beauty to an active engagement with social and historical contexts. By emphasizing the role of the artworld, he highlights that our understanding and appreciation of art are mediated by a community of experts and enthusiasts. This community possesses a shared understanding of artistic conventions, historical precedents, and critical discourses, which informs their judgment. When a critic writes about a painting, or a curator selects a sculpture for an exhibition, they are engaging in acts that contribute to the object's art status and shape public perception. This communal aspect explains why certain works gain recognition and value over time, while others, despite perhaps possessing similar formal qualities, do not. It suggests that appreciation involves understanding not just the object itself, but also its place within the ongoing dialogue and history of art.
However, Dickie's theory is not without its critics. A primary concern revolves around the potential for circularity. If art is defined by the artworld, and the artworld is composed of those who recognize art, then the definition seems to rest on itself. Critics argue that this leaves us with an unsatisfactory explanation: something is art because the artworld says it is, and the artworld is the artworld because it deals with art. This can make it difficult to identify the boundaries of the artworld itself and to account for how new artists or art forms are recognized and incorporated into it. Additionally, the theory faces challenges in explaining art from cultures or historical periods that did not have a clearly defined, Western-style art institution. While Dickie's framework is robust for understanding modern and contemporary Western art, its applicability to non-Western traditions or pre-institutionalized art forms remains a point of contention. Some scholars argue that it risks imposing a Western-centric view of art onto diverse global practices.
In conclusion, George Dickie's institutional theory provides a powerful and influential model for understanding art, particularly in the context of modern and contemporary art. By positing that art status is conferred by an artifact's relationship to the artworld, he successfully accounts for avant-garde innovations and the social construction of artistic value. While criticisms regarding circularity and the potential exclusion of non-institutionalized art forms are valid, the theory's emphasis on the social and contextual nature of art appreciation remains a significant contribution to aesthetic discourse. It compels us to consider art not as an isolated phenomenon, but as a product of human intention, social practice, and communal recognition.