The Institutional Theory of Art
Posted on
Commenting on the essay: 'What is Art? An Institutional Analysis' by George Dickie. George Dickie is a Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the University of Chicago at Illinois.
Given the length of George Dickie’s essay - and the level of complexity - I felt the need to try and simplify the messages, perhaps arrive at some kind of précis or short read that didn’t involve too much repetition of his text. The three phases became the starting point for this and, after a fair bit of scribbling and doodling, I arrived at a flowchart as depicted here:
My answers to the set questions below expand on this.
In this theoretical model, what defines an artwork?
In defining ‘a work of art’ Dickie proposes that two conditions exist that define a work of art in a classificatory sense, firstly that it is ‘an Artefact’ and secondly that ‘it 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 first definition is dealt with quite quickly, and it does seem fairly straightforward that where there has been human intervention (and probably intention) in an object’s creation or placement, then it can be considered an artwork. He gives the example of a piece of driftwood which remains just a piece of driftwood until someone intentionally re-purposes it as a work of art.
Taking up much more of Dickie’s interest is the second definition and he discusses this at some length in terms of four interconnected notions that apply to the condition of conferring status (see the flowchart above). My understanding of where he is going with this is to try and arrive at some sort of conclusion as to whose role it is to confer status and put forward something as a candidate for appreciation.
So the question could become more about who defines an artwork rather than what. But Dickie discusses at some length the role of the Artworld as an institution and, therefore, a ‘what’. Having addressed the more formal models of institution, those specified through legalities, constitutions, codes of practice and so on, he describes his view of the Artworld institution. Here he describes the plethora of people and roles which come together without a formal structure and which could, for instance, stretch all the way from curators of galleries to manufacturers of paint brushes. However, he says ‘there is a minimum core without which the artworld would not exist. This essential core consists of artists who create works, “presenters” to present the works and “goers” who appreciate the works’. These are all necessary constituents in order for anything to be presented (or exhibited).
"Presenter" - White Cube gallery, Bermondsey, London
His third and fourth notions discuss candidacy and appreciation, and some of the fine differences between the two. Key to this is, that while something can have the status of artwork conferred upon it, that doesn’t mean the artwork has to be appreciated. And this doesn’t necessarily mean aesthetic appreciation but is more about experiencing the qualities of something. He uses as an example Duchamp’s Fountain, saying that it is Duchamp’s gesture that has significance (and can therefore be appreciated) rather than the object itself.
I looked for the comfort of a clear conclusion to this essay but wasn’t sure I’d found one. Dickie does talk about the fact that artists today are not easily intimidated by art institutions, or indeed by what philosophers say, and the inference I draw from it is that, ultimately, it needs to be the artist - the creator - who has the key role to play in conferring status and claiming their work as a piece of art.
Does this definition exclude any things you might call art?
The role of human beings is important and Dickie states that ‘Art is a concept that necessarily involves human intentionality’. This statement follows a description of the painting produced by a chimpanzee ‘Betsy’ and it also introduces the subject of where art is exhibited and its relevance in having the status of art conferred on it.
It feels worth noting here that, at the time of George Dickie's writing, there was absolutely no notion that so much art would be exhibited digitally as it has been in recent months (due to Covid-19 and restrictions on public gatherings). Royal Academy virtual exhibition tours to watch online (April 2020) Nor does it take into account the role of street art - the work of Banksy for example or this mural that recently appeared in central Worthing. This is in fact the work of activists but the council have agreed to let it remain. It would be interesting to hear whether 'the artworld' now considers it a candidate for appreciation.
Mural/Street Art - central Worthing, West Sussex 2020
So the definitions do begin to feel slightly restricting when considering some of the activity in the contemporary artworld. I suspect the majority of artists would probably want to fit in with the definition, in large part because remaining within institutions, especially galleries, helps them to become recognised as artists and, if necessary, earn a living from art. However, it is probably the rise of digital activity that is the most significant break away from Dickie’s definitions, albeit many of the websites and organisations such as Saatchi, Artsy and similar sales platforms are mostly about commerce. Saatchi Online: Buy Original Art Online, Paintings and More
What might be the implications of this model for your own practice and identity as an artist?
For me, I suspect the implications are pretty straightforward as I am not producing currently any art that is particularly unusual or requiring some kind of ‘platform’ outside of the definition (other than digital as discussed above). That said, given I’m retired and am no longer pressured to earn a living, if the nature of the art I produce changes, I would be free to disregard the norms of artworld institutions from the point of view of selling work.
So that probably means that I fit quite tidily into the definitions; I will put forward any work I produce as ‘a candidate for appreciation’ and will rely on - hope for! - ‘presenters’ and ‘goers’ to accommodate and appreciate my efforts.
References:
Dickie, G. (1974) "What is Art? An Institutional Analysis" originally printed in Art and the Aesthetic: An Institutional Analysis (1974) Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, (pp19-52)