what is art? baby don't hurt me.

Hello class. I have sinned. It's been two weeks since my last post.

Anyway, here's a summary of what I read this week:

George Dickie begins his comprehensive institutional analysis of Art and the Aesthetic with a look at the definition of “art,” both in the past and present. He starts with the traditional description of art “as imitation.” Dickie then breaks the definition down into three phases, which are as follows: Phase I: art as imitation, Phase II: art cannot be defined, and Phase III: Dickie’s own work with trying to define art, while avoiding the “difficulties of traditional definitions” and “incorporate the insights of later analysis.”
He then breaks his essay in four sections. The first begins with a discussion of the most well known work to refute art as definable, namely, Morris Weitz’s article “The Role of Theory In Aesthetics.” He goes on to describe the article and it’s points (about the generic conception of certain art, and the classification argument), and then rebuts them utilizing Mandelbaum and his rebuttal of Wittgenstein’s contention that “game” could not be defined. He then moves on to the driftwood example, a strong argument against Weitz. He mentions other authors he has read, like Richard Sclafani, and how they apply. He is obviously well read.
Dickie then establishes three “distinct senses of ‘work of art:’ the classificatory sense, the secondary or derivative, and the evaluative. He plays a few words games with phrases like “this Rembrandt is a work of art” and it’s implications. It does not mean the same thing as “Sally’s cake is a work of art,” and he shows this through his distinct senses.
Dickie then moves on to section II, with the conclusion that “artifactuality is a necessary condition of the primary sense of art.” But this is not the only condition. To further refute claims made about art, Dickie goes into a ‘brief’ discussion of what the “art-world” is, both in the classical and modern sense. He then concludes with a specific definition of what a work of art is, and it’s kind of complicated. It divides into many conditions and notions; one condition in classificatory sense involves art as an artifact, or as appreciated by the art world. The second condition is four variously interconnected notions, acting on behalf of institutions, conferring of status, being a candidate, and appreciation. Dickie discusses them all at length.
In section II, Dickie continues to shoot down Weitz, while establishing his institutional theory of art. Section IV is just a wrap up and a conclusion of what has been said, and what is to come in Dickie’s full work.

REACTION
I’ve always had a problem with ‘abstract art,’ coming from a strong landscapes and imitative background (I use to paint very often, in fact I was going to build a portfolio of landscapes and nature type stuff, and go to art school). However, I chose music as my true calling, and stopped thinking about visual art entirely, and lost touch with the argument in my head about abstract art and it’s definition as far as the art world is concerned. Dickie raises some very intriguing points with his institutional theory, that simply a credible institution can declare something “art” by putting it on display. It’s kind of like the art-world being an exclusive club that only insiders can enter. However, it seems to me, regardless of artistic skill, anyone can transcend the level of classification and become something truly valuable.
But then there is the real value in abstract art, the passion in the creation of it. Dickie doesn’t talk enough about creation and passion, and I think that if he had Youtube at his disposal, like I do, he would easily have made another classification for the definition of art; passion. I advise everyone to check out this video:



Pollock says some really beautiful stuff about painting: “I want to express my feelings, rather than illustrate them. Technique is only a means to a statement” If anything was missing from Dickie, it was this attitude.