Robert J. Yanal, in The Institutional Theory of Art illuminates George Dickie’s concept of Institutional theory by way of Arthur C. Danto’s ‘artrelevant paradox’. As Yanal sees it, Dickie is furthering Danto’s Theory of Aboutness, which partitions Art as occurring not by manner of any of its perceptual qualities, but by it’s relation to some larger context.
If X and Y are aesthetically identical, yet X is art and Y is not where does the distinction between the two lie?
“it is the decisions of persons, paradigmatically though not exclusively artists, that make objects Art” (Dickie)
As a whole Institutional theory does not tell us what exactly art is, but rather that an artwork fits into social context - the Artworld. This system for homing in on what is or isn’t art has thus, it would seem, become a question of consenus. Do we as the artworld deem this art?
Again we are left in a state of openness, it is us as a collective whole who decides. However this openness stems from the roots of the ‘artworld’ and must therefore have a participatory relationship with it.
“the artworld is the totality of all artworld systems” (Dickie)
If this is true, would it not then mean that our understanding adheres in some way or another to the systems of this artworld? Whereby isn’t this openness just as open as it is closed, for as Yanal points out our ‘understanding’ is made up of a belief in the artworld and the acknowledgment that the artworld contains options for presentation of art works. It seems to me that this ‘artworld’ is entering a state of Ourboros(ness) in which the artwork and artworld are connected mouth and tail.
If X and Y are aesthetically identical, yet X is art and Y is not where does the distinction between the two lie?
“it is the decisions of persons, paradigmatically though not exclusively artists, that make objects Art” (Dickie)
As a whole Institutional theory does not tell us what exactly art is, but rather that an artwork fits into social context - the Artworld. This system for homing in on what is or isn’t art has thus, it would seem, become a question of consenus. Do we as the artworld deem this art?
Again we are left in a state of openness, it is us as a collective whole who decides. However this openness stems from the roots of the ‘artworld’ and must therefore have a participatory relationship with it.
“the artworld is the totality of all artworld systems” (Dickie)
If this is true, would it not then mean that our understanding adheres in some way or another to the systems of this artworld? Whereby isn’t this openness just as open as it is closed, for as Yanal points out our ‘understanding’ is made up of a belief in the artworld and the acknowledgment that the artworld contains options for presentation of art works. It seems to me that this ‘artworld’ is entering a state of Ourboros(ness) in which the artwork and artworld are connected mouth and tail.
No comments:
Post a Comment