Dickie and the Artworld.

In this week's chapter, we were to discuss George Dickie and his interpretation of art via the institutional theory of art. Dickie takes most of his inspiration and influence from Arthur Danto, who first introduced the world to his theory of the "artworld." In the chapter, he discusses that something can be called a work of art if it is conferred by a representative member of the artworld.

However, that brings into question who is entitled to become a member of the artworld, which was the question that Johnson brought up for the Q&A over the weekend. According to Dickie, "the core personnel of the artworld is a loosely organized... set of persons including artists (understood to refer to painters, writers, composers), producers, museum directors, museum-goers, theater-goers, reporters for newspapers, critics for publications of all sorts, art historians, art theorists, philosophers of art, and others" (223). He also explains that anyone who thinks of themselves as a member of the artworld is, in fact, a member of the artworld. The artworld is based on appreciation of the art itself by presenters of the art, "goers" of the art (art enthusiasts, one might say), and the artist itself. The entire artworld is a social institution circulating with activity by all of its members working hand-in-hand to create art what it is.

Although Dickie's interpretation of art is very frigid for my liking, I do appreciate and agree with the fact that almost anybody can be a member of the "artworld" and one does not need to be of a specific status in order to understand, create, or appreciate art.

My question is, "Dickie writes that 'a person who sees himself as a member of the artworld is thereby a member' (234). What do you think could be the implications to such a theory?"