Dickie's institutional theory of art - has it harmed fine art?

When reading about aesthetics I encountered George Dickie's theory of art, which he described in 1974 and then revised and refined in response to criticism. Dickie was a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

Dickie's theory

Dickie's theory has become known as the Institutional theory of art. In his own words the institutional theory is as follows.

By an institutional approach I mean the idea that works of art are art as the result of the position they occupy within an institutional framework or context.

Dickie agrees with the traditional view of what a work of art is.

There is, then, a sense in which the institutional approach is a return to the traditional way of theorizing about art for it too maintains that works of art are artifacts. By the way, what is meant by "artifact" here is the ordinary dictionary definition: "an object made by man, especially with a view to subsequent use.

Dickie accepts that works of art have a certain status, but tries to explain how that status is achieved.

Being a work of art is a status all right, that is, it is the occupying of a position within the human activity of the artworld. Being a work of art is not, however, a status which is conferred but is rather a status which is achieved as the result of creating an artifact within or against the background of the artworld.

Originally in 1974 Dickie said that the artworld institutions conferred the status of 'work of art' on works of art. Let's clarify Dickie's later amended definition of the 'artworld' here.

In almost every actual society which has an institution of art-making, in addition to the roles of artist and public, there will be a number of supplementary artworld roles such as those of critic, art teacher, director, curator, conductor, and many more. The presentation group, i.e., the roles of artist and public in relation, however, constitutes the essential framework for art-making.

We can put together this definition of the artworld and the work of art as an artifact, to understand Dickie's theory.

…artifactuality is a necessary condition for being a work of art. This claim of necessity implies one rule of art-making: if one wishes to make a work of art, one must do so by creating an artifact. Also earlier in this paper I claimed that being a thing of a kind which is presented to an artworld public is a necessary condition for being a work of art. This claim of necessity implies another rule of art-making: if one wishes to create a work of art, one must do so by creating a thing of a kind which is presented to an artworld public. These two rules are jointly sufficient for making works of art.

When Dickie originally said that artworld institutions confer the status of work of art on artifacts, this was interpreted to mean that anything in an art gallery was necessarily a work of art. One could infer that the views of the general public, who may not recognise it as a work of art, are deemed irrelevant.

This definition of art includes for example Marcel Duchamp's infamous urinal. The piece was made with a view to exhibition in an art gallery. So it is a work of art.

The institutional theory of art has created a plethora of art which is made out of everyday objects such as vacuum cleaners. If it is presented to the public, say in an art galley, it is a work of art.

Problems with the institutional theory of art

Does the institutional theory steal art for privileged and ideological elites?

If works of art are incomprehensible then art has been stolen from the people. If there is no discernible skill in its creation, it could even make a mockery of those who do work with skill, such as working class people or other artists.

Traditionally skill was required to make art, but under Dickie's rules the elite could supplant the traditional role of the fine artist.

Does the institutional theory exclude outsider art?

Critics of Dickie have pointed out that outsider art can become art via alternative art communities and galleries. Such art can eventually be recognised as art, despite it not originating in the institutions of the known art world.

Does the institutional theory take control from artists?

Since art is judged by its place in the art world instead of its own merit, the artist loses control over the process of making art. If Michelangelo is not in a gallery, he is not an artist and his works are not art.

Is there public backing for the institutional theory?

I once viewed an exhibition of art at the Liverpool Tate Gallery. It was a collection of washing machines with holes cut in them. A local woman stood next to me expressed a very negative and hostile view about the works. I felt sorry for her; she was confused. She had paid to see art but saw washing machines instead. I wondered if artists have the right to do that to people. It could be interpreted as disrespectful, even contemptuous.

Has the institutional theory contributed to a fall in public interest in fine art?

I recently read that in Britain and indeed the USA, the level of public interest in fine art is falling and has been falling for a couple of decades. The decline cannot be blamed on the recent COVID pandemic, though that pandemic was catastrophic for the weakened fine art sector. Apparently the attendance at the world's top 100 art galleries has fallen dramatically, and many art galleries are not surviving. One wonders if the decline is partly due to the public being confused like the aforementioned woman in Liverpool.

How do artworld institutions acquire their reputation anyway?

The institutions of the artworld, which Dickie states have the power to confer the status of art on works, acquire their power to do so from a carefully built reputation. This reputation may take generations to form. If those institutions lose public trust and confidence will they retain their power to confer the status of 'work of art'? Dickie's theory and some of the art it encourages could undermine the credibility of artworld institutions.

Once upon a time art theorists talked of the way in which great art has the power of the sublime to impress viewers. Perhaps this sublime quality has been a casualty of the institutional theory of art, and the result is that art has lost some of its appeal.