George Dickie's Institutional Theory, first articulated in his 1974 work Art and the Aesthetic, offers a compelling alternative to essentialist definitions of art. Rather than seeking inherent qualities within an object that make it art, Dickie proposes that art is a status conferred by an "artworld." This framework shifts the locus of artistic definition from the object itself to the social and institutional practices surrounding it, suggesting that an object becomes a work of art when it is presented as such by artists and appreciated as such by members of the artworld. While this theory provides a powerful tool for understanding how diverse objects, from Duchamp's Fountain to contemporary performance art, can be classified as art, its reliance on the artworld's acceptance can lead to circularity and struggles to account for universally recognized aesthetic merit.
At its core, Dickie's theory posits that an object becomes a work of art by virtue of being designated as such by individuals within the artworld. He defines an "art exhibit" as an object presented for the consideration of the artworld, and a "work of art" as an object of a certain sort, upon which a certain sort of status of "candidate for appreciation" has been conferred by persons acting within the context of a total artworld. This means that the artist, the critic, the curator, and the audience – collectively the artworld – are the arbiters of what constitutes art. Consider Marcel Duchamp's readymades. Before Fountain (1917), a urinal was simply a plumbing fixture. However, by signing it "R. Mutt" and submitting it to an exhibition, Duchamp, acting as an artist within the nascent modern art context, transformed it into a candidate for appreciation by the artworld. The subsequent discussions and debates surrounding Fountain solidified its status as a groundbreaking work of art, not due to any intrinsic formal qualities, but due to the artworld's recognition and engagement.
The strength of Dickie's institutional approach lies in its inclusivity and its ability to accommodate the vast range of objects and practices that have been labeled as art throughout history, particularly in the 20th and 21st centuries. Essentialist theories, which attempt to identify universal properties like beauty, form, or expressiveness, falter when confronted with minimalist sculptures, conceptual pieces, or performance art, where such traditional qualities might be absent or deliberately subverted. Dickie's theory, however, explains how these unconventional forms can be art. If a conceptual artist conceives of an idea, presents it as art, and the artworld engages with it as art (through exhibitions, criticism, and discussion), then by Dickie's definition, it is art. This moves the focus from a rigid set of criteria to the dynamic social process of art creation and reception.
However, Dickie's theory is not without its criticisms. One significant challenge is the potential for circularity. If art is defined by the artworld, and the artworld is composed of people who recognize art, then the definition seems to rely on itself. Critics argue that this could lead to an insular and self-perpetuating system where anything the artworld decides is art, simply is art, regardless of any broader appeal or perceived aesthetic value. Furthermore, the theory struggles to account for objects that possess clear aesthetic merit but were created outside the formal artworld, or for instances where an object's artistic status is recognized by a general public before it is acknowledged by the art establishment. Does a beautifully crafted folk artifact only become art when an art historian or curator labels it as such? Dickie’s framework, while useful, sometimes seems to discount the possibility of inherent aesthetic properties that might resonate independently of institutional validation.
In conclusion, George Dickie's Institutional Theory offers a sophisticated and pragmatic way to understand art as a social construct rather than a collection of inherent qualities. Its emphasis on the artworld’s role in conferring artistic status effectively explains the inclusion of diverse and unconventional objects and practices within the realm of art. While the theory faces valid criticisms regarding circularity and its ability to account for universally recognized aesthetic value outside institutional recognition, it remains a vital contribution to art theory, prompting a deeper consideration of the social, cultural, and institutional forces that shape our understanding and appreciation of art.