Membership in the Artworld

Dickie attempts to counter Weitz's argument of Art as indefinable by providing a list of necessary and sufficient conditions for art. He provides two: artifactuality, and conferred status. Artifactuality is obvious. But who confers the status of artwork? Why, the artworld, of course.

So what the heck is the "artworld," and who are it's members? Dickie gives us a comprehensive list: "artists, producers, museum directors, museum-goers, theater-goers, reporters for newspapers, critics for publications of all sorts, art historians, art theorists, philosophers of art, and others." Wow. Quite the list there.

The better question might be "who ISN'T in the artworld?" Dickie's definition seems to be so ridiculously inclusive that we can ALL be members of the artworld merely by saying that we are thus. Given such a broad definition, whose definition can we possibly trust?

Well, we need not trust any. For the artworld does not confer the status of "Art," but merely "CANDIDATE for appreciation." Dickie goes on to say that "much great art goes unappreciated."

SO WHAT THE HECK DOESN'T QUALIFY AS ART?!?!? Under this definition, a person could take a trash can, overturn it, call it "Art," and that would not only make it a candidate for Art, but to actually BE Art, regardless of whether or not it is appreciated or has any aesthetic value whatsoever. This is not flexibility and openness while giving a closed definition. This is just ridiculous. Thank you, Mr. Weitz (uh... Dickie), for giving us a definition of Art that doesn't define anything at all.