The Classificatory Sense of “Art”

I decades ago, and although he is highly responsive to criticism, he continues to argue that A student of the main debates of analytic philhis set of definitions is both necessary and osophy of art throughout the latter half of the sufficient to characterize "art" in the "classificatwentieth century might well be struck by what tory" sense, that neither the circularity nor the is no doubt a scandalous element in one of the uninformative character of the theory is a most influential theories of the period, George defect, and anyway, he never promised to play Dickie's brand of institutionalism. Dickie's theory the game of defining "art" according to its has long faced a pair of objections: Either the original rules.3 theory is circular or it is not sufficient to distinI will argue that the root of the scandalous guish artworks from what are not artworks. element of Dickie's institutionalism is that his The circularity is obvious; few critics comment own considerations cast serious doubt on an on it, preferring to head straight to the problem assumption so basic that it never occurs to him, of insufficiency. Noel Carroll, for example, or to his critics, to reject it. The assumption I am remarks, "There is a real question whether talking about is simply that the classificatory the ... institutional theory is really a theory of sense of "art" applies to some kinds of artifacts art. For the ... set of definitions, though menbut not to others. I will urge that this assumptioning 'art' at crucial points, could be filled just tion is false. Once we have a proper understandas easily with the names of other... practices, ing of the relevant notion of an institution, and like philosophy and wisecracking." If Dickie's once we clarify what work the classificatory claim is simply that art is some sort of practice, sense of "art" is to do, the real strength of continues Carroll, "then he should give up institutionalism is that the classificatory sense talking about defining art. For he is no longer of "art" is the ultra-abstract concept of an instiplaying that game according to its original tutional kind. rules."91 In Section II, I make some preliminary That Dickie's account appears caught between remarks about the parameters of my argument. circularity and insufficiency is not the scandal, In Section m, after sketching Dickie's theory, of course. This pair of criticisms has been 1evI distinguish the three possible noncircular eled against familiar strands of functionalism, versions of institutionalism. In Sections iv-vm, historicism, expressivism, and intentionalism. I argue that the most plausible version of The scandalous feature is that Dickie flaunts the institutionalism supports the view that all circle.2 Although he has refined the theory artificial kinds are art, in the classificatory extensively since first introducing it some three sense.