جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « george dickie » در نشریات گروه « هنر و معماری »

David Hume's reflections on aesthetics and the standard of taste, as well as George Dickie's philosophy of art presented in the form of the “Institutional Theory of Art”, are both based on a social and sociological origin. According to Hume, the standard of correctness of aesthetic judgments is the joint verdict of true judges, which is true and correct in all circumstances due to the lack of defects in the faculty of taste. The institutional theory of art was presented in the middle of the 20th century, focusing on the necessity of redefining the boundary between art and non-art. A theory according to which, granting the dignity of art to an artificial object is done by a person or persons who act on behalf of the artworld as a social institution, and their judgment in granting dignity to an artificial object, in order to evaluate or honor it as a work of art compared to other opinions, is generally accepted and has authority due to its continuous connection with the artworld and delicacy. As a result, the main question of the research is to explore the importance of consensus on issuing aesthetic judgments and valuing works of art on the one hand, and explaining the distinction between art and non-art on the other hand, according to “true judges” and “qualified” people. This research, which was carried out using the comparative method and its data was collected in a library manner, first studies the concept of judgment of taste and then evaluates the relationship between Hume's aesthetics and the institutional theory of art.

In today's world, with the fast development of technology, ease of access to works of art, cultural pluralism, and the emergence of new styles and schools, it seems that the previous standards and definitions of art have lost their effectiveness. Moreover, the field of art is changing every moment while its scope is expanding. On the other hand, the distinction between works of art and everyday objects, due to the use of non-artistic objects by artists in creating their works, requires a review of the standards and definitions of art. Therefore, it seems necessary to find a way to reject or accept these works as a work of art. George Dickie (1926-2020), a philosopher and art theorist, defined the work of art by presenting and compiling the institutional theory in order to be able to keep up with the aforementioned changes in contemporary art. On the other hand, in the field of contemporary art, works created by imitating precedents may classify as adapted or illegal reproduced copies. The works have been the subject of many critical and analytical debates regarding their authenticity and have raised many disagreements among theorists, historians, and art critics. Regarding the authenticity of adapted works with concepts and ideas behind them, less might be doubted. Still, the dispute on authentication of reproductions such as kitsch, pastiche, high copy and restored works of art can hardly be settled. Evaluating art reproduction and determining its authenticity then requires a model based on which the meaning of art and its representations can be determined, especially in the contemporary period. "Institutional Theory" as one of the most prominent and recent theories for valuing art can be among the best options for appointing the mentioned model. Although it has been criticized by a number of philosophers and some theorists labeled it elitism in art; Dickie, over the years, has always tried to fix these flaws by developing "Institutional Theory". Dickie calls the three initial formulations of "Institutional Theory", "the first narrative of institutional theory" which was introduced between 1969 and 1974. He calls the fourth formulation, "the next narrative of institutional theory." The followings, which are the main and final components of the "Institutional Theory" of art, were presented by Dickie:1- An artist means a person who participates with understanding in the making of a work of art. 2- A work of art is an artifact of a kind created to be presented to an art world public. 3- A public is a set of persons the members of which are prepared in some degree to understand an object which is presented to them. 4- The art world is the totality of all art world systems. 5- An art world system is a framework for the presenting of a work of art by an artist to an art world public. This article aims to categorize the types of art reproductions and verify the authenticity of each based on the five main components of the institutional theory. In this process, the extensive literature is reviewed with a descriptive-analytical research method. This study thus seeks to answer the question that which of the types of art reproductions might be original in a sense to be considered works of art in accordance with the main components of the institutional theory. In order to achieve the results of this qualitative study, first the reproduction works were classified into different types such as forgeries, high copies, kitsch, as well as replicas for the purposes of education, restoration and reproduction. After examining each type, the following results were obtained based on the components of "Institutional Theory". The most important reason that may reject art reproductions with the purpose of "re-producing" from the institutional theory standpoint is that the artist's "understanding" of their production was not to create a work of art, and the artist knows that he deals to reproduce someone else's work. However, today, by over aging or for the fame of their creators, some of the old art replicas are labeled and stored at museums or art institutions, therefore, have gained material and spiritual values. According to the conditions mentioned in the institutional theory, such works are exceptions and can be considered works of art. In the "replica works for the purpose of education", because the "artist's understanding" of what he does is just learning, they cannot be considered works of art. In addition, these works do not have an audience from the "art world". However, amongst there are few works that, like the previous case, have made their way to galleries and museums with aging, and perhaps not considering such exceptions in "institutional theory" can be considered a weakness for this view. In the case of the "replica with the purpose of restoration", because the "understanding" of the restorer is only to preserve and maintain the original work, it is not considered art from the "institutional theory" point of view. In the "replica for the purpose of glorification", the condition of "being an artifact of a kind" is met, but the "artist's understanding" of what he does is outside the scope of creating an original work of art; although the purpose of this work is to present that work to the "art world." In market art replicas, despite being an artifact of a kind, the artist does not intend to produce a work of art, and the public is not from the art world and has no understanding of the art world. If they have a possible understanding of art, they know that the works are just copies. Therefore, such works are not considered authentic in the framework of institutional theory. "Kitsch" works, except for the condition of being an artifact of a kind, do not per se include any of the theoretical and institutional conditions and are not considered original works of art; but a type of "kitsch", called "sweet kitsch" and also the works created in the field of "pop art" due to the existence of conditions such as being an artifact, "artist's understanding" of what he does (such as creating an arrangement, framing or presentation) is to present original works to the "art world public” In "high copy" works, we are faced with the coercion of artists in performance, and as mentioned earlier, performance techniques in arts cannot be faked. Also, the result of this work is an artifact. Therefore, if the artist's understanding is to create a work of art to present to the art world, it can be accepted as an authentic work of art. "Pasteish"s belong to this type that, despite being similar to the original work, is considered a new work of art with an excellent performance technique. Fake works are not considered works of art due to not having all the conditions of "institutional theory" except being an artifact of a kind. Finally, the findings of this article, in order to answer the main research question, reveal that among reproductions, only the works that are placed in the kitsch, Artist’s Self Copies, pop art and pastiche groups might be considered works of art. The rest, according to institutional theory is rejected except for some exceptions mentioned.

 Recognition and perception of contemporary Art-works including conceptual art as the first postmodern art movement can only be understood in the light of George Dickie’s institutional theory George Dickie by introducing the fundamental components of his institutional theory such as artifact, artworld and granting the artistic dignity to a work, opens way for the arrival of pre-made and readymade works to the art field. The conceptual artist such as Marcel Duchamp, Barbara Kruger, Keith Arnatt and other similar artists although might create artworks lacking aesthetic qualities , but since the world of art - which George Dickey says is composed of “Artists, Museums, Art critics, Educators, and so on” - gives these works the competency of granting artistic dignity and, as a result, they known as artworks.

The purpose of this paper is to adapt the fundamental components of the George Dickie’s institutional theory to the artworks of some conceptual artists.Hypothesis: Since many artworks created by conceptual artists correspond to components such as artworld, artifact and the nature of artwork in the targeted institutional theory, so it would be possible to analyze and adapt the philosophy of such work to the institutional theory of George Dickey. Research

The research work is performed by a descriptive-analytical method.

In George Dickie’s viewpoint, the characteristics of artifact and artworld are fully compatible with the artworks of conceptual art. In fact, there is nothing in the essence of a creature or work that be able to makes it an artwork, but rather it is the artistic dignity that matters here, which can be fulfilled by components like artworld. Therefore, from this point of view, all artistic theories which are based on the aesthetics` qualities and characteristics are challenged, and thereupon the concept of good art or bad art will become out of value.

George Dickie introduces an innovative definition in the knowledge of art through a social-cultural context in institutional theory. The purpose of such a context is the same artworld which has the ability and competence to grant an artistic dignity to a work and can turn it into an artwork. So, what turns something into an artwork is not apparently a specific noticeable quality, but rather a particular dignity that the artworld attaches to it. In fact, a work is only referred to as an artwork when formed in its institutional context called artworld. So, in George Dickie's viewpoints, the subject of art is based on a more anthropomorphic subject and on cultural phenomena, actions and behaviors related to the artworld. On the one hand, the design of the artifact component in the institutional theory opens the way for the arrival of many pre-made and ready-made works to the art field. In this context, many postmodern artistic movements, including the works of conceptual art, can be evaluated and analyzed. Prior to introducing the artifact component to the creation of artworks, what was always accepted by the audience as art and artwork was works based on the traits and qualities of aesthetics and other artistic theories such as imitation, expression, and formalism, but by introduction of such a component, many of the works that were previously not accepted as an artwork were turned into art by receiving dignity from the artworld.The objective of this research is to challenge the basic concepts of Dickie's institutional theory, including the nature of the artwork, the artifact, and the artworld. In his viewpoint, George Dickie regards the artworld including members of (art philosophers, instructors, artists, etc.) who, by granting artistic dignity to a work, can transform it into an artistic work, but what are the eminent criteria for the artworld qualified to grant artistic dignity to a work? On the one hand, according to George Dickie, a work is an artifact that shapes the nature of an artwork. Now, a question arises as to whether the artifact has a clear definition in George Dickie's viewpoint? However, what is known about the characteristics of an artifact is based on the notion of Noël Carroll. Considering the descriptive-analytical research method of this paper, the basic concepts of institutional theory seem to be ambiguous. Such ambiguities are caused by the fact that George Dickie, in his viewpoints, does not set out particular criteria and specifications for defining them. Such ambiguities challenge art as an institution, and according to Levinson's historical theory, the creation of an artwork does not always require a social institution such as artworld. On the other hand, institutional theory cannot provide a comprehensive definition of art and artworks like artistic theories since a social and cultural context, such as the artworld, may be effective in transforming a work into an artwork but it cannot be considered as a necessary and sufficient condition for creation of an artwork. Despite the ambiguity and critique of the above theory, the introduction of such a theory in art can cause to include many works in the field of art. In George Dickie's institutional theory, despite the presence of a convincing definition of art and artwork, many arts, including conceptual art, can be analyzed and evaluated because the fundamental components of institutional theory are fully adaptable to such works. For example, what has always been considered for a conceptual artist in the creation of an artwork is the artist’s idea and the negation of the work of art. For example, what has always been for the conceptual artist in the creation of the work of art was the idea of the artist and the objectivity negation of the artwork. The transfer of the artist’s idea, as a member of the artworld, is fully compatible with the component of the artifact of George Dickie’s theory, and on the other hand, rejecting any objectivity in the creation of the artwork, challenges all artistic theories based on the traits and qualities of modern aesthetics. It can certainly be said that such a theory is important because it gives open and wide meaning to art and artwork. George Dickie's institutional theory does not intend to determine the value of an artwork, but what is emphasized by such a theory is the nature of art which can be provided by components such as artifact, artworld, and the good and suitable object. Dickie can give his audience a more comprehensive definition of art and artwork by setting out the specifications and criteria for an artifact and every member of the artworld. However, such ambiguity may lead to include many unartistic works in the field of art. The entry of unrelated works may deviate George Dickie’s aim on presenting the nature of art and defining the artwork

George Dickie formulates the institutional theory of art based on two necessary conditions which are sufficient for artmaking. The first condition in various versions of theory claims, primarily, that a work of art has to be an artifact. Dickie intends to use this unexhibited and nonconventional property as the beginning step for taking an argument against antiessentialists, like Weitz, and thus introduce artifactuality as the essential characteristic of art. Holding traditional meaning of artifactuality which is associated with traditional crafts and altering the materials, Dickie developes another meaning which is more suitable for contemporary art. In earlier version of theory he describes it by conferring the statue of artifactuality by some person on behalf of artworld, but in later version he abandons the notion of conferral status and describes it by the notion of using an object as an artistic medium in context of artworld. Despite objection critics consider this argument on artifactuality as an effective factor in defeating anti-essentialism and revival of desire for definition of art.