11.03.

2012

An Analysis of An Institutional Analysis of Art

Aesthetic Encounters

AESTHETIC ENCOUNTERS (HTTP://ARTANDAESTHETICS.WORDPRESS.COM/)

Home (http://artandaesthetics.wordpress.com/)

"Art is not w hat you see, but w hat you make others see" Degas.

Copyright (http://artandaesthetics.wordpress.com/copyright/)

Resources (http://artandaesthetics.wordpress.com/resource

An Anal sis of An Institutional Anal sis of Art

George Dickie's Institutional Theory of Art.

It is evident from George Dickie's argument in 'Art and the Aesthetic' that he thinks his Institutional Theory is defensible. However I intend to argue that it is indefensible. My reasons for arguing the case for the indefensibility of the theory are: (i) because of its circularity; (ii) its reliance upon a privileged cognoscenti, w represent the artworld, to make decisions about what is and what is not art; (iii) its failure to distinguish good from bad art; and (iv) because the criteria used by t artworld are somewhat suspect.George Dickie formulated the institutional theory of art in which he explains how such varied things as a pile of bricks, a urinal labelled 'Fountain' etc., can be considered works of art. According to his theory the 'artworld' Dickie uses the term artworld to refer to the broad social institution network of systems consisting of theatre, painting, sculpture, literature and so on) in which works of art have their place has the authority to confer the status of 'work of art' on objects. In effect, it is the artworld's prerogative to decide which objects will be considered to have aesthetic value.

The theory states that there are two things which objects to be considered as works of art must have in common. First, that they all be artifacts: that is, they have been worked on to some extent by human beings. Dickie uses the term 'artifact' in quite a loose way, according to him even a piece of driftwood picked up on the seashore could be considered an artifact if someone displayed it in an art gallery. Placing it in a gallery in order to get people to look at it in a certain way would count as working on it:

"Natural ob jects which b ecome works of art in the classificatory sense are artifactualized without the use of tools artifactuality is conferred on the ob ject rather than worked on it. This means that natural ob jects which b ecome works of art acquire their artifactuality at the same time that the status of candidate for appreciation is conferred on them".

This definition of an artifact is so loose as to add nothing important to the concept of art. Second, and more importantly, these artifacts have all had the status of candidacy for appreciation conferred upon them by some member or members (a privileged cognoscenti) of the art world, such as a gallery owner, a publisher, or artist etc. In every case someone with the appropriate authority has had the privilege of conferring this status upon the artifacts.

Dickie argues that an artifact can acquire the status of candidate for appreciation in a way similar to that in which a person achieves the certification of being qualified for office, or more simply in the manner in which two persons acquire the status of common-law marriage. This may sound as if it means that works of ar are simply those things which certain people call works of art. However, the members of the artworld need not go through any sort of ceremony of naming someth a work of art, they need not even actually call it a work of art; it is enough that they treat the work as art. The institutional theory, then, says that some individuals and groups in our society have an ability to change any artifact into a work of art by the simple action of conferring status upon it. This may take the form of callin something 'art', but more often amounts to publishing, exhibiting, or performing the work. This raises the question: from whence does this privileged cognoscenti, make such decisions as to which artifacts should have status conferred upon them, gain their empowerment? Surely only the artists themselves are best qualified confer status upon an artefact, thus transforming it into a work of art. But I would even question this in some circumstances, as so many, so-called, works of art a simply utilitarian objects put on display. The institutional theory is circular, and Dickie, although he does see the problem of circularity, does not think that it is viciously circular, as is evident in his statement that:

"Admittedly, in a sense the definition is circular, b ut it is not viciously circular b ecause the whole account in which the definition is emb edded contains a great deal of information ab out the artworld".

What the theory says is that art is whatever a certain group of privileged people choose to call art. This sounds like some form of linguistic gymnastics which cou have disturbing political implications, if only people from a particular social class are endowed with the privilege to make such a choice. A defender of the theory might argue against this that the requirement that the work of art be an artifact, and the restriction of who is able to confer the status of candidacy for appreciation upon an it, are enough to give some content to the theory. If this is so, we need a more detailed account of precisely who is part of the artworld. Yet even if we did know who had this privilege of conferring status, and why they were entitled to it, we still would want to know why they choose one object rather than another to b considered as a work of art. Dickie does not refute Ted Cohen's claim that an object must be capable of being appreciated in order for it to be possible to confer the status of candidacy for appreciation upon it; i.e. if something cannot be appreciated it cannot become a work of art. Therefore, we also need to know what kind of appreciation is being
artandaesthetics.wordpress.com/2006/05/06/an-analysis-of-an-institutional-analysis-of-art/ 1/12

11.03.2012

An Analysis of An Institutional Analysis of Art

Aesthetic Encounters

discussed in the term 'candidate for appreciation'. It is possible to appreciate an object in many ways, and for many reasons. What seems to be required is an aesthetic appreciation of a kind that is appropriate to works of art. Although Dickie argues that:

"the only sense in which there is a difference b etween the appreciation of art and the appreciation of nonart is that the appreciations have different ob jects. The institutional structure in which the art ob ject is emb edded, not different kinds of appreciation, makes the difference b etween the appreciation of art and the appreciation of nonart".

This only makes the theory more circular, it is merely defining art in terms of appreciation and appreciation in terms of art.

It can be argued that the institutional theory is a poor theory of art because it seems to justify the conferring of status upon the most superficial objects. Thus, be as an artist, a member of the artworld, I could, by exhibiting it in a gallery, confer such status upon my left sock which has a hole in the toe. It does appear that th theory allows that almost anything could become a work of art. The conferral of status upon something does not mean that it is a good work of art, nor for that ma a bad one. It only puts the object into the class of things we call works of art; in other words it becomes a work of art in the classificatory sense only. This differs from the way in which we use the word 'art' not just to classify something, but often to suggest that it is good of its kind; for instance when we say things like 'tha omelette is a work of art'.

This theory has nothing to tell us about such evaluative uses of the word 'art', it is a theory about what all works of art good, bad, and indifferent have in comm that is from the point of view of the representative of the artworld who confers the status upon it. It is only about 'art' in the classificatory sense. However, the majo of those people who ask the question 'What is art?' are not just interested in what we call art, but want to know why some objects are valued above others. It can argued that theories such as the significant form, and the idealist theories are to a large extent evaluative. According to these theories, to call something a work o art is to say that it is good in some sense, either because it has significant form or because the artist has made a sincere attempt to convey the expression of an emotion. This theory, however, is extremely open about what can be counted as art and does not attempt to give an answer to evaluative questions about art. Som see this as its greatest virtue, whilst others see it as its most serious defect.

Dickie reminds us that what makes something a work of art is a cultural matter, dependent on social institutions at particular times rather than on some timeless canon. For example, the terracotta army as with Dickie's Egyptian example sealed in the Chinese Emperors tomb for his protection in the afterlife, whilst bein regarded as works of art, work as a counter-example to the institutional definition since they were not put forward as 'candidates for appreciation' by an artworld. T shows us that our concept of art can be applied to the art of another culture without our knowing anything about its concepts of art, or even whether it has such a concept. Perhaps the most telling objection to the theory is that even if we agree that members of the artworld have the power to confer status upon artifacts, mak them works of art, they must have reasons for conferring status upon some artifacts and not others. Oswald Hanfling puts this very point quite succinctly when he states:

"Someone who puts an ob ject forward for appreciation must b e prepared to answer the question 'Why?' treatment; and the answer must b e in terms of reasons that we can at least recognize as such".

to tell us why it should b e regarded as b eing worthy of this

If they don't have any logic behind what they do, then why should the category of art have any interest for us? And if they do have reasons, then these are what determine whether or not something is art. Analysis of these reasons would be far more interesting and informative than the rather empty institutional theory. This definition cannot truly be regarded as a useful definition because someone acting on behalf of the artworld could not properly utilize it to decide whether something a work of art. A definition of X should give its consultant a measure of guidance as to whether any given object can be described as X or not. But, the person who to make the decision, with regard to the conferral of status etc., has no appeal to any prior conferral of status to enable him/her make such a decision. It could therefore be argued that this theory would deprive such a person(s) of any reasons for classifying an object as a work of art.

So in conclusion, I hope that I have argued the case for indefensibility on the grounds that the theory is: (i) circular, which Dickie admits although he doesn't think viciously so; (ii) reliant upon a privileged cognoscenti, who represent the artworld, to make decisions about what is and what is not art; (iii) it fails to distinguish go from bad art; and (iv) because the criteria used by the artworld do not form a completely workable definition which can be used to define a work of art. Hopefully I have made the best use of the space available, although such a topic really requires a far more detailed analysis.

Share this:

Twitter
(http://artandaesthetics.w ordpress.com/2006/05/06/an-analysis-of-an-institutional-analysis-of-art/?share=tw itter&nb=1)

Facebook 3 (http://artandaesthetics.w ordpress.com/2006/05/06/an-analysis-of-an-institutional-analysis-of-art/?share=facebook&nb=1) StumbleUpon

(http://artandaesthetics.w ordpress.com/2006/05/06/an-analysis-of-an-institutional-analysis-of-art/?share=stumbleupon&nb=1)

Like this:

(http://artandaesthetics.w ordpress.com/2006/05/06/an-analysis-of-an-institutional-analysis-of-art/?like=1&_w pnonce=0856d8fbe9) post.

Like

Be the first to like this

This entry was posted on May 6, 2006. It was filed under Aesthetics (http://artandaesthetics.wordpress.com/category/aesthetics/) .

artandaesthetics.wordpress.com/2006/05/06/an-analysis-of-an-institutional-analysis-of-art/

2/12

11.03.2012

An Analysis of An Institutional Analysis of Art

Aesthetic Encounters

(http://artandaesthetics.wordpress.com/2006/05/06/francis-hutcheson/)

(http://artandaesthetics.wordpress.com/2006/05/07/the-magpie

18 Responses

What is art the old mystery. I paint because I am! people are fickle. The non artist defines art to enhance themselves. While the arts fee and expree yhemselves by doing. May 8, 2006 at 5:00 pm Reply (/2006/05/06/an-analysis-of-an-institutional-analysis-of-art/?replytocom=6#respond) (http://www.blogger.com/profile/11115888) Lloyd Irving Bradbury

BondBloke

(http://www.blogger.com/profile/17250721) who finally comes up with a satisfactory working definition of art will be a hero. However I think it is an impossible ta Indeed the person

to define art because of its continually changing nature. You may have gathered by now that I have a thing about Aesthetics May 9, 2006 at 5:14 pm Reply (/2006/05/06/an-analysis-of-an-institutional-analysis-of-art/?replytocom=7#respond)

This is a very interesting piece and in fact I ve been trying to write a poem on this theme for ages! A sack of coal for example is just a sack of coal, but if someone puts it in an art gallery, hey presto, the same sack of coal (perhaps with an added implied bit of social commentary) is suddenly a work of art . But is it really art, or social commentary or just really still a sack of coal? Crafty Green Poet May 17, 2006 at 7:52 pm

(http://www.blogger.com/profile/12888918) Reply (/2006/05/06/an-analysis-of-an-institutional-analysis-of-art/?replytocom=8#respond)

well, your article is indeed very interesting and your arguments seem to work, at least if one shares your premisses. i do agree with you

that dickies greatest problem with the institutional theory of art is that it does not EXPLAIN why we actually call something a work of ar

and seems to be therefore empty and rather non-informative. that is true. instead of explaining dickie simply DESCRIBES the procedu Katrin Raschke

of how an object becomes a work of art. but why do you presuppose that a theory of art ought to answer such a question? i mean, coul dickie simply reply in the following manner that since he has already shown which was and still is a great deal by the way how and

what it takes for an object to become a work of art, that it is the instituitional setting everything depends on, it is up to sociology now t explore further why the artworld decides something to become a candidate of appreciation. ( a last question if you don t mind. you quoted some guy oswald hanfling. could you please tell me the reference? thanks o lot) September 13, 2006 at 3:26 pm Reply (/2006/05/06/an-analysis-of-an-institutional-analysis-of-art/?replytocom=94#respond) BondBloke

(http://edinburghdaybyday.wordpress.com) Thanks for the very interesting comment Katrin, I am away from home at present and until Monday. I will give your comment some thou

and come back with answers to your questions including a reference for Oswald Hanfling which I don t have at my fingertips right now,
artandaesthetics.wordpress.com/2006/05/06/an-analysis-of-an-institutional-analysis-of-art/ 3/12

11.03.2012

An Analysis of An Institutional Analysis of Art

Aesthetic Encounters

ands cannot remember which book it came from September 13, 2006 at 9:09 pm Reply (/2006/05/06/an-analysis-of-an-institutional-analysis-of-art/?replytocom=95#respond)

OK Katrin, I have given your comments some thought, and in some ways I agree with you, although I personally think that if one is setti out to create a definition of art, as Dickie claims to be, one also has to address the mechanism by which an object becomes a work of as this surely is an integral part of any answer to the question what is art? BondBloke

Yes, indeed, Dickie would argue that it is the institutional setting which is important; however I still question from whence the institution

(http://artandaesthetics.wordpress.com/) draws its authority to make decisions about what is and what is not art.

I think that the questions about how and why the artworld makes decisions about what is and what is not art are still very much philosophical ones rather than sociological ones, in that the sociological approach is more concerned with society as a whole, and the

philosophical has more of a tendency to think about individual approaches to aesthetics. I agree that sociology has a part to play in the

understanding of how and why people make their decision about what they think is, and is not, art; but I think that this is very different fr answering the question of how an individual work acquires the status of candidate for appreciation, which I think is very much a philosophical question The Oswald Hanfling quote comes from Philosophical Aesthetics: an introduction, ed. Oswald Hanfling, 1992, Blackwell, ISBN 0-63118035-4 September 21, 2006 at 9:35 am Reply (/2006/05/06/an-analysis-of-an-institutional-analysis-of-art/?replytocom=97#respond)

I just want to point out that there are some useful pragmatic considerations in Dickie s theory, but in my view, it is not sufficient. I believ

that there is a negation of institutional art, that he does not acknowledge. In one website a writer tries to refute the theory by stating tha

little old lady paints a scottie and that has no value in the artworld. There is an artworld, a web of academic, financial, cultural insitutions Frank Shifreen
(http://googleme)

that validate and support it. It could possibly be equated with fetishized objects( Benjamin, and other Frankfurt critics) In his theory ther seems to be an economic condition of value and validation. There are to my mind, gradations of value of art objects, Hobbyist, gifted amateur, professional and venues for showing or performing art. Dickie is trying to show it is a cultural construct

On the other hand, art is made by someone identifying his or herself as an artist, whether it is acknowledged by others at all. There are web of experts and institutions that act as gatekeepers that attempt to declare what is good art. In a Hegelian sense, once a such a concept is constructed and defended, an opposition springs up to challenge it, to scale the walls. Outsider art, graffitti, fluxus, and many other individual examples exist. Perhaps if Dickie had extended it- a culturally grounded lifeworld as Habermas postulates, he would be closer. He seems to discount artists who sometimes have a relation to art very different than an artworld One might look to thoughts by Camus, Deleuze,,Nietzsche, or even Hakim Bey, where art, to generalize is not social capital but an individuals crisis of identity. Many artists are not part of the artworld whatever art is socially, it can be an artists expression of primal material, and thus not insitutional February 1, 2008 at 9:24 am Reply (/2006/05/06/an-analysis-of-an-institutional-analysis-of-art/?replytocom=3662#respond)
artandaesthetics.wordpress.com/2006/05/06/an-analysis-of-an-institutional-analysis-of-art/ 4/12

11.03.2012

An Analysis of An Institutional Analysis of Art

Aesthetic Encounters

Frank: some real food for thougght there, you make spme very good points even though I don t have a great deal of time for Habermas. I

agree with you that Dickie takes a very narrow and blinkered view of both art and the artworld; my problem with him is that his theory i viciously circular, just running around and around in circles but never actually going anywhere, particularly never giving us any definition art. BondBloke

(http://numptiesnest.wordpress.com/) As I state here (http://artandaesthetics.wordpress.com/2007/10/02/confession-time/) I am very much a self taught artists, and as such n

inculded in an artworld which therefore makes me an outsider artist. I am quite happy with this situation, because I sometimes look at some of the stuff that the artworld lauds and think to myself how could anyone call that art . February 1, 2008 at 9:59 am Reply (/2006/05/06/an-analysis-of-an-institutional-analysis-of-art/?replytocom=3663#respond)

How about this as a working theory of art? A work of art is any (human made) artifact which is purposely made to appeal to our sense of aesthetic sensibility and/or to our imagination. Ernest Garcia

This means that a sunset or daffodil could not be a work of art but a billboard alongside a grimy and noisy urban freeway portraying a ju hamburger would be as would something in the Louvre called the Mona Lisa.

This pares it down to the fundamental function without concern for an institutional role or for the need that the object have any intrinsic o socially recognized value. The qualification of the object as a work of art is based on its function, not its rareness. The only gatekeeper

the perceiver as long as he or she is able to respond. If he is distracted by a traffic pileup ahead, he cannot appreciate the billboard. It

failed to function as art for him in that moment, but unfortunately it may so function for the driver coming up behind at 60 miles per hour. Relative to the billboard, Hanfling s question, Someone who puts an object forward for appreciation must be prepared to answer the question Why? to tell us why it should be regarded as being worthy of this treatment; and the answer must be in terms of reasons that we can at least recognize as such. can be answered: Because it makes my mouth water. March 12, 2008 at 2:08 am Reply (/2006/05/06/an-analysis-of-an-institutional-analysis-of-art/?replytocom=3668#respond)

Ernest: A very interesting comment there, and one that will need a deal of thought I think. However, for me personally, this comes as close, if not closer, to a working definition of art as any of the theories that are around at present March 12, 2008 at 7:00 am Reply (/2006/05/06/an-analysis-of-an-institutional-analysis-of-art/?replytocom=3669#respond) (http://numptiesnest.wordpress.com/) BondBloke

I think you might be a little off on interpreting the institutional theory of art. By saying an object becomes a work of art through being

recognized by the artworld, Dickie does not mean that an artist or a group of privileged individuals have the power to confer art status t

an object. There is no collective decision at work (they don t decide what is and isn t art in a little room). Instead, members of the artwo decide whether or not an object is considered artwork to themselves and with enough leverage, an object can become an artworldDavid
artandaesthetics.wordpress.com/2006/05/06/an-analysis-of-an-institutional-analysis-of-art/ 5/12

11.03.2012

An Analysis of An Institutional Analysis of Art

Aesthetic Encounters

interpreted object/work of art.

Also, artworld membership is very loose. It s not simply artists and curators. Art history, art philosophy, critics, artworks, amateur artist or even the average person interested in art are all considered members of the artworld. Of course, amateur artists will most likely have

less leverage than artists, but that is not to say that the artists or any group of artworld elites have the power to just decide whimsicall October 8, 2008 at 3:25 am Reply (/2006/05/06/an-analysis-of-an-institutional-analysis-of-art/?replytocom=3705#respond)

Thanks for your comment David, I will do my best to address it. You say that Dickie does not mean that an artist or a group of privilege individuals have the power to confer art status to an object that is precisely what he is saying if we look at Dickie s first attempt to construct an institutional (social-contextual-relational) definition of art (1974 version). BondBloke A work of art in the classificatory sense is: an [original] artifact, a set of the aspects of which has had conferred upon it the status of

(http://numptiesnest.wordpress.com/) appreciation by some person or persons acting on behalf of a certain social institution (the artworld). candidate for

This strikes me as referring to a group of privileged individuals, a priviliged cognoscenti, whichever way one looks at it. You also say Also, artworld membership is very loose, and then give you view of the artworld; a view which I don t entirely agree with.

Your view is, perhaps, how it should be, but is not how it is. I my view the artworld is a social-economic network which is made visible in

the activities of art world institutions (social and economic networks, organizations, corporations). Works of art are always presented in

institutional contexts, in art world containers (galleries, museums, alternative art spaces, biennials, large and small curated exhibitions

catalogues). The artworld is really an aggregation of art worlds, a network emerging from many smaller micro-worlds, subcommunities with greater or lesser knowledge of the entire network. Therefore it is the artworld institutions which create the visible structure and hierarchies in the presentation of art. October 8, 2008 at 8:08 am Reply (/2006/05/06/an-analysis-of-an-institutional-analysis-of-art/?replytocom=3706#respond)

Ah, it has occurred to me that you might be reading an older version of Dickie s institutional theory of art (the one he wrote in 1974). Yo can find a short point form version of his 1997 revised edition here: http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/irvinem/visualarts/Institutional-theory-artworld.html
(http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/irvinem/visualarts/Institutional-theory-artworld.html)

David

In his revision, even there artworld public is included in the artworld. Alternatively, I prefer Danto s version (written in 1964, and probably the first use of the term artworld) which can be found at: estetika.ff.cuni.cz/files/Danto.pdf October 8, 2008 at 8:00 pm Reply (/2006/05/06/an-analysis-of-an-institutional-analysis-of-art/?replytocom=3707#respond)

To be honest David it is not a debate that I can engage in with any confidence these days as the reading involved would be far too time consuming and expensive, especially when there are so many other avenues to explore. Personally I have never had a great deal of

confidence in Dickie s writings, as, in my opinion, he just tinkers around the edges of definitions and never really seems to come to soli BondBloke

conclusions; but as I say that is just my opinion. I do much prefer Arthur Danto s writings, I find them much more user friendly, much le
(http://numptiesnest.wordpress.com/)

dense and he does come to solid conclusions.

6/12

artandaesthetics.wordpress.com/2006/05/06/an-analysis-of-an-institutional-analysis-of-art/

11.03.2012

An Analysis of An Institutional Analysis of Art

Aesthetic Encounters

You may have gathered that I have little time for the Institutional Theory; as a working artist I have great difficulty with those who try to te me what art is, particularly those who do not do it for themselves. Personally I don t think that there ever will be a truly solid working definition of art, or that there ever can be, and that due to the very changeable nature of art itself. October 9, 2008 at 8:09 am Reply (/2006/05/06/an-analysis-of-an-institutional-analysis-of-art/?replytocom=3708#respond)

A work of art is any (human made) artifact which is purposely made to appeal to our sense of aesthetic sensibility and/or to our imagination.

Ernest, your definition of art definitely seems to allow for things that Dickie does not such as children s art and sociologically isolated Dawn However, citing function as the definitional factor gives rise to further problems: 1) You talk about paring things down to the fundamental function , but it is not the case that everything we would appreciate as art has solely or even primarily artistic function. For examples of this, think of architecture, pottery, craftwork and all design items such as clothing, cars etc. You d have to do a lot of work to disclude these things from the definition of art. 2) If you re talking about function, it follows that anything created for aesthetic purposes is always and eternally defined as art, but your

billboard example suggests that the object is not art when the first motorist passes, but it becomes art when the second one passes. Y

need to decide what you mean by function either you mean the function ascribed to an object by its creator, or the perceived use of a object by an external audience. 3) As a side-point: Only human-made? What about paintings by Congo the chimpanzee (http://www.spikedonline.com/index.php?/site/article/880/ (http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/880/) ). March 19, 2009 at 1:14 pm Reply (/2006/05/06/an-analysis-of-an-institutional-analysis-of-art/?replytocom=3771#respond)

Dawn, thanks for the interesting comment, some good points. I do, however, think that when Dickie speaks of an artifact he is not limiti that to only the human made ; it seems to me that he also allows for the found artifact like, for example, a piece of driftwood; and that

could not be said to appeal to our sense of aesthetic sensibility and/or to our imagination in the same way that something made wou even though it does inspire our aesthetic sense in some ways. BondBloke
(http://artandaesthetics.wordpress.com/)with you when you say that everything we would appreciate as art has a solely or even primarily artistic function to an I would agree

extent, purely and simply because art is such an open concept, and as such is inclusive of a very wide range of things. Where I would

disagree is when you include design items such as cars and clothing; agreed they can be appreciated aesthetically, but that is not thei sole purpose, which is one of practicality and commodity in a very different way to those things deliberately produced to please aesthetically.

Function is a word that makes me distinctly twitchy when used in conjunction with art/aesthetics, because it has such a broad meaning

But it was used by Ernest, and I think that in some ways he is right in what he says. However I don t think that he goes far enough, and

don t think that any decision as to the meaning of function is necessary. I think that the function of an object, whatever it may be, work on a multitude of levels, and that it can be very different for the viewer than that originally conceived by the creator. I know this from experience as an artist myself, and how I can produce something with a specific idea in mind, but there are others who miss the idea completely and see something entirely different. Therefore it might be more relevant to think in terms of interpretation than in terms of function, because it could be so easily argued that art has no function; but I am not prepared to follow that path right now
artandaesthetics.wordpress.com/2006/05/06/an-analysis-of-an-institutional-analysis-of-art/ 7/12

11.03.2012

An Analysis of An Institutional Analysis of Art

Aesthetic Encounters

I definitely am steering clear of the Chimpanzee s art because that has led me to some very heated debates in the past. March 19, 2009 at 3:38 pm Reply (/2006/05/06/an-analysis-of-an-institutional-analysis-of-art/?replytocom=3772#respond) Nina My comment is a little late maybe but thank you Bondbloke. This was nourishing. And still relevant to discuss. English is not my mother tongue. I apologize for lingual mistakes. I regard art as an expandable possibility of our natural language ability. As an existential tool for universal communication. The artifacts Bondeson
(http://ramverk.se/vardagsbilder/nina/)

make or process in order to make them communicate, can do fine without their makers once they are made. We can indeed look at an

communicate with paintings in caves and warriors of clay that we dig out from the ground or paintings in medieval churches. Or children paintings.

We dont get to know very much about their makers or if the artifacts they created were considered to be art when they were made. B

in the communication with these artifacts insight and understanding about life and about yourself can suddenly accrue. No words neede

to legitimize the experience. I believe that we have an inherited readiness for this kind of communication. Antonio Gramsci also said tha

we are all intellectuals and philosophers, though we are often told that we are not. This encourages me to not give up hope that we wil eventually be able to defend this readiness. When it comes to George Dickie and his institutional theory it stems from whole other kind of art making with different terms for communication: Henry Flynt wrote in an essay in 1963: Conceptual art is an art of which the material is language We got a brief blink

this with Duchamps fountain, but it was established as a new way of making art in the US in the 1960s. So; art has from then develope two tracks of knowledge production and communication; one is the old artifactual track and one is the new conceptually textual track uses verbal language to create meaning. The problem we have today is that we live in a time that has developed a superstitiously over

dimensioned belief in theoretical analysis and control and have lost faith in other ways of communicating. Art that verbalizes meaning ha an advantage. To describe two tracks in art like I do, does not give a true picture of the real situation in art today. I only try to create a conceptional tool, to make a meaningful generalization (Max Weber said that it is allowed. Even necessary.) to help me sort out and understand something of what I experience from the complicated reality I have to deal with. To get a room to manoeuvre as an artist today, you have to be able to articulate you artistic experience verbally. It takes time and it is, me, an interesting, but very different intellectual activity than the art making itself. October 15, 2011 at 9:37 am Reply (/2006/05/06/an-analysis-of-an-institutional-analysis-of-art/?replytocom=3894#respond) BondBloke
(http://scottisheye.wordpress.com/) Nina, thank you for your very insightful and perceptive comment. No need to apologise for it being a little late maybe, such comments

never late, and always perform the duty of expanding the argument. I found what you had to say quite interesting and, especially about institutional theory, thought provoking. maybe I now need to go away and think about this topic again in a slightly different way. October 15, 2011 at 11:06 am Reply (/2006/05/06/an-analysis-of-an-institutional-analysis-of-art/?replytocom=3895#respond)

Leave a Repl

artandaesthetics.wordpress.com/2006/05/06/an-analysis-of-an-institutional-analysis-of-art/

8/12

11.03.2012

An Analysis of An Institutional Analysis of Art

Aesthetic Encounters

Enter our comment here...

Fill in our details below or click an icon to log in:

(https://gravatar.com /site/signup/) Email (required) (https://gravatar.com /site/signup/) Email (required) Name (required)

(#com m ent-

(Address never made public) (Address never made public)

Name (required) Website Website Notif me of follow-up comments via email. Notif me of new posts via email.

Post Commen

V IS IT O R S
116,305

A LF T HO MA S O N B LIPFO T O
(http://www.blipfoto.com/alfthomas)

C O NT A C T
Contact BondBloke (mailto:bondbloke@gmail.com)

R E C E NT C O MME NT S
BondBloke (http://scottisheye.wordpress.com/) on Laocoon: an Analysis
(http://scottisheye.wordpress.com/) (http://artandaesthetics.wordpress.com/2007/08/30/laocoon-an-analysis/#comment-3930)

Dyaln on Laocoon: an Analysis (http://artandaesthetics.wordpress.com/2007/08/30/laocoon-ananalysis/#comment-3929)

mjspringett (http://mjspringett.wordpress.com) on Light and Reflected Light

(http://mjspringett.wordpress.com) (http://artandaesthetics.wordpress.com/2012/02/10/light-and-reflected-light/#comment-3914)

artandaesthetics.wordpress.com/2006/05/06/an-analysis-of-an-institutional-analysis-of-art/

9/12

11.03.2012

An Analysis of An Institutional Analysis of Art

Aesthetic Encounters

BondBloke (http://scottisheye.wordpress.com/) on Shadows and Steps Recover (http://scottisheye.wordpress.com/) (http://artandaesthetics.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/shadows-and-steps-recovered/#comment-3913)

mjspringett (http://mjspringett.wordpress.com) on Shadows and Steps Recover

(http://mjspringett.wordpress.com) (http://artandaesthetics.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/shadows-and-steps-recovered/#comment-3912)

R E C E NT PO S T S
Light and Reflected Light (http://artandaesthetics.wordpress.com/2012/02/10/light-and-reflected-light/) Shadows and Steps Recovered (http://artandaesthetics.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/shadows-and-steps-recovered/) Collages in Photoshop (http://artandaesthetics.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/collages-in-photoshop/) Changes (http://artandaesthetics.wordpress.com/2012/01/24/changes/) From the Mundane to the Artistic (http://artandaesthetics.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/from-the-mundane-to-the-artistic/)

PA G E S
Copyright (http://artandaesthetics.wordpress.com/copyright/) Resources (http://artandaesthetics.wordpress.com/resources/)

B LO G S O N A R T
About Art & Porn/ Porn and Art (http://artasidentity.blogspot.com/)

Abstract Views (http://abstract-view.blogspot.com/)

AlterEgo (http://foundcraftygreenart.blogspot.com/)

Artists Blog : Original Paintings By Nickola McCoy (http://arteccentrix.wordpress.com/)

BlueLijn (http://bluelijn.blogspot.com/)

Compass WebWorks (http://www.compasswebworks.com/blog/)

Conann Fitzpatrick (http://www.conann.com/)

Crafty Green Poet (http://craftygreenpoet.blogspot.com/)

Miranda Swan Australian Artist (http://mirandaswan.blogspot.com/)

Pics and Poems (http://picsandpoems.blogspot.com/)

Sexy Pink (http://sexypink.wordpress.com/)

The Convoluted Muse (http://convolutedmuse.com/)

artandaesthetics.wordpress.com/2006/05/06/an-analysis-of-an-institutional-analysis-of-art/

10/12

11.03.2012

An Analysis of An Institutional Analysis of Art

Aesthetic Encounters

B O ND B LO KE B LO G S
Big Sky Photos (http://bigskyphotos.wordpress.com/)

Colias Reflections (http://coliasreflections.wordpress.com/)

Edinburgh Day by Day (http://edinburghdaybyday.wordpress.com/)

Fotos That Dont Fit (http://fotofit.wordpress.com/)

Photogenic Scotland (http://scottisheye.wordpress.com)

The Sensual Eye (http://sensualeye.wordpress.com/)

INT E R E S T ING B LO G S
Alvasons Weblog (http://alvason.wordpress.com/)

Cherokee by design's Blog (http://cherokeebydesign.wordpress.com/)

IslayBlog.com (http://islayblog.com/)

LightHouseRock (http://lighthouserock.com/)

Roma Cafe (http://istvanpogany.wordpress.com/)

Stop the Time (http://stopthetime.net/)

The Creative Act (http://thecreativeact.wordpress.com/)

Wires of My Dreams (http://wiredreams.wordpress.com/)

PO E T R Y R E LA T E D
Bluelijn (http://bluelijn.blogspot.com/)

Bolts of Silk (http://boltsofsilk.blogspot.com/)

Crafty Green Poet (http://craftygreenpoet.blogspot.com/)

Extemporaneoous (http://extemporaneous.wordpress.com/)

Life Words (http://lifewords.wordpress.com/)

Pics and Poems (http://picsandpoems.blogspot.com/)

artandaesthetics.wordpress.com/2006/05/06/an-analysis-of-an-institutional-analysis-of-art/

11/12

11.03.2012

An Analysis of An Institutional Analysis of Art

Aesthetic Encounters

WE B S IT E S
Alf's Art (http://ccgi.alfthomas.free-online.co.uk/wordpress/)

BlogCatalog (http://www.blogcatalog.com/directory/history/arthistory)

Boslinney Barn (http://www.boslinney-barn.co.uk/)

Copyright Info (http://www.llrx.com/features/bloggersbeware.htm)

Dowgill House (http://www.dowgillhouse.co.uk)

Juliet Wilson (http://juliet.m.wilson.googlepages.com/)

C A T E G O R IE S
Select Categor

A R C HIV E S
Select Month

ME T A
Register (http://artandaesthetics.wordpress.com/wp-login.php?action=register) Log in (http://artandaesthetics.wordpress.com/wp-login.php) Entries RSS (http://artandaesthetics.wordpress.com/feed/) Comments RSS (http://artandaesthetics.wordpress.com/comments/feed/) WordPress.com (http://wordpress.com/)

(http://www.facebook.com/people/Alf_Thomas/613689889)

R S S FE E D
(http://artandaesthetics.wordpress.com/feed/)

Blog at WordPress.com (http://w ordpress.com /?ref=footer) . | Theme: Modularity Lite (http://them e.w ordpress.com /them es/m odularity-lite/) by Graph Paper Press (http://graphpaperpress.com /) .

artandaesthetics.wordpress.com/2006/05/06/an-analysis-of-an-institutional-analysis-of-art/

12/12