Philosophy and the Arts, Lecture 4:

1
Philosophy and the Arts, Lecture 4

• The
• Institutional Theory
• Of Art

2
What do these sentences have in common?

• I dub thee knight.
• I gladly confer on each of you the degree of
  Doctor of Philosophy.
• I now pronounce you man and wife.

3
The late J. L. Austin called them Performative
utterances.

• He then noted that it would make no sense to
  reply to any of them with Yes, or No, or
  True, or False.
• The Preacher is not informing you of your current
  marital status. Rather, when the Preacher says I
  now pronounce this actually makes you man and
  wife.
• How can such sentences go wrong? Well, Austin
  spoke of misfires, or miscues. For example,
  a man way already be marriedor the Preacher
  may not be authorized to perform marriages, etc.

4
Back to the artsis this an art work?
5
Leonardos Mona Lisa is a paradigm casehow about
this?

• NO?

6
Brancusis Bird sculpture was called an
Implement by a U.S. Govt. agency!

• The judgment was reversed, because the bird
  served no purpose (has to be art, since its
  useless!).
• Also,Brancusi was a recognized artist, and
  artists make art.
• Critics also said it didnt look like a bird
  supporters said it does sort of have a forward
  sweep like a bird in flight.
• Finally, it was noted that Brancusi had made this
  himself, polished the metal, etc.

7
What about this?

• This urinal was entered in an art show by
  Duchamp, who turned it upside down, and called it
  Fountain.

8
How could Fountain be art? Or is it?

• In earlier versions of the institutional theory,
  George Dickie maintained that just as someone
  becomes a Ph. D. by having that status conferred
  upon him/her by the relevant institution, e.g.
  Baylor University, so an artifact becomes art by
  having that status conferred on it by the
  relevant institution, the Artworld.

9
Can just anything be art?

• It would seem so. In one early paper, Dickie said
  we cannot go wrong in making something art, but
  we can go wrong by making something art.
• What could that mean? Let me explain with a dumb
  example.

10
Suppose I decided to marry my God-child!

• Alyssa!!

11
As a teenager, she was gorgeous, and she is still
attractive (and married).

• Clearly, I could have made mistakes by marrying
  her, since she was underage, I was already
  married, etc. Such a marriage would thus be
  illegal. But the Artworld has no such laws
• But I could make mistakes of another
  sortmarriages involving a man of 50 (yes, I was
  younger then) and a girl of 16 rarely work out
  old folks and teenagers do not want or like the
  same things. Remember Ibsens The Master
  Builder.
• Forget such stupid examples. The point is I could
  call myself an artist, and declare a pile of
  garbage to be art---but people would only laugh
  at me, and I wouldnt like that.

12
But what is really wrong with the Institutional
Theory?

• Dickie has had to back up on a lot of things over
  the years, but give him thisif he is wrong, what
  does make Fountain art??
• I personally think the best response is this
  scenariosuppose Duchamp gets word that there is
  a local art show in progress. He decides to enter
  a urinal he happens to have on hand. He enters
  the gallery, and says to those in charge, Here,
  this is my art work (chuckle). They respond,
  Fine. Label it 23, and put it over there by
  that painting of Texas bluebonnets. Do you think
  Duchamp would have been pleased? No, he wanted to
  stretch the limits of what would count as art.
  This was an act of rebellion, and the calm
  acceptance of this thing as art would have
  ruined his day.

13
A Note of Explanation

• It should be emphasized again that Dickie
  changed his mind under criticism, many times. The
  above is based on an early version of the
  Institutional theory.