Art Appreciation: an Analysis of Dickie’s Criteria

The Nature of Art and Its Classification

Art can be considered art as long as it has been worked upon in some fashion and it is deemed significant by a member of the art community. The art institution has the knowledge and background to classify art. Art must be worked upon in some form (including the simple placing of an object) in order to distinguish itself from ordinary items.

The Ever-Evolving Appreciation of Art

What society deems as art is always changing and ever-evolving.

Dickie sought to explain art in terms that were broad enough to encompass all the various forms while also allowing for the future expansion of works deemed art. He proposed that art should be something that has been worked upon in some form or fashion and that it should be considered art if someone who is a significant member of the “art society” has deemed it significant enough to be displayed.
Dickie asserts that the Weitz contention that artwork can not be defined by certain aspects is counterintuitive to the entire concept of art. Art must be defined in some terms, as otherwise, the concept of “art” could include a plethora of items that have no connection to the artistic society. Dickie uses driftwood as his example of this. In the theory proposed by Weitz (or lack thereof), driftwood lying on a beach could be considered art. Dickie maintains that in order for it to be considered an art form, there must be some form of human interaction and significance in the work. If the driftwood were to be discovered and placed in an environment where it could be observed by a member of the art society, however, it would be considered art. This is best shown in the term “work of art.”

Art Appreciation and Human Interaction

Dickie also asserts that art must be deemed significant by a member of the art institution. A single individual may act as a representative for the art society and deam any works as “art.” While it is not always possible to know if a work of art has been appropriately deemed as such, it is more significant that it is understood why an object has been deemed so. A work that has been deemed art is done so to allow for its appreciation. A member of the art society will decide that it is worthy of this based on its significance and whether it may have an impact on the art world if it is deserving of appreciation by others. Dickie sought to find a set of rules that could withstand future evolutions and changes in the art society. His two main factors in determining art are that it must be worked upon in some way and it must be deemed art by a member of the art society.

Analyzing Dickie's Definition

I will begin by discussing his first factor. This half of Dickie’s definition allows for a distinction between art and everyday objects. In order for something to be considered art, it must be worked upon in some fashion. Even the simple act of placing an object in a location is considered art in this definition, which helps to incorporate modern forms of art, such as finding various pieces of trash and placing them together. I agree with this portion of the definition. The sky may be beautiful during sunrise, but it can not be placed in a museum and considered art. There has been no human interaction similar to a mountain or the ocean. Art can not be solely defined by beauty, and this half of Dickie’s theory is essential to differentiate between objects simply found in nature and items that can actually be considered art.

The second portion of Dickie’s theory, however, is highly flawed. While his assertion that art can be defined by a member of an art society who has the background knowledge to do so is somewhat plausible, he fails to determine what it is that makes the artwork valuable. His argument is circular in nature because it essentially states that art is art because someone says so. When asked why it is valuable, the response would be, “Because a member of the art institution said so.” When asked why a member said so, the response would be, “Because they find it to be valuable.” It is oddly reminiscent of the days as a child when questioning the motives of an adult was met with “because I said so.” Dickie’s definition completely ignores one of the two major questions asked when determining art, and that is not something that can simply be overlooked. Value cannot be ignored, and thus this half of the argument is invalid.

References:

1. Dickie, G. (1974). Art and the Aesthetic: An Institutional Analysis. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 32(3), 379-388.

2. Weitz, M. (1956). The Role of Theory in Aesthetics. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 15(1), 27-35.

3. Sontag, S. (1964). Against Interpretation and Other Essays. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

4. Danto, A. C. (1984). The Artworld. Journal of Philosophy, 61(19), 571-584.

5. Hauser, A. (1951). The Philosophy of Art History. Routledge & Kegan Paul.

6. Zangwill, N. (2003). The Metaphysics of Beauty. Cornell University Press.

7. Greenberg, C. (1961). Art and Culture: Critical Essays. Beacon Press.

8. Shiner, L. (2001). The Invention of Art: A Cultural History. University of Chicago Press.

Did you like this example?

374

16