| 1964 | The Myth of the Aesthetic Attitude |
| p.209 | 20443 | The aesthetic attitude is nothing more than paying close attention | |
| Full Idea: Once analysed, Dickie claimed, the so-called aesthetic attitude is not special at all, but is rather just a matter of close attention and focus on the subject. | |||
| From: report of George Dickie (The Myth of the Aesthetic Attitude [1964]) by Alessandro Giovannelli - Some contemporary developments (aesthetics) 1 | |||
| A reaction: Sounds wrong. If a paint specialist gives close attention to a painting, they do not necessarily have an aesthetic view of it. You need to know the aim of the activity, just as when you watch a game. |
| 1983 | The New Institutional Theory of Art |
| p.53 | p.53 | 20329 | A work of art is an artifact created for the artworld |
| Full Idea: A work of art is an artifact of a kind created to be presented to an artworld public. | |||
| From: George Dickie (The New Institutional Theory of Art [1983], p.53) | |||
| A reaction: This is the culminating definition in his paper, deriving originally from Danto, and an improvement of his earlier more complex definition. Since this definition amounts to 'this is art if I say it is art', it doesn't seem to reveal much. |
| 1997 | Introduction to Aesthetics |
| Ch.8 | p.613 | 8114 | The institutional theory says only a competent expert can decree something to be an art work |
| Full Idea: Dickie's institutional theory of art says that something is a work of art if and only if it has had that status conferred on it by a competent member of the artworld. | |||
| From: report of George Dickie (Introduction to Aesthetics [1997], Ch.8) by Sebastian Gardner - Aesthetics 3.1 | |||
| A reaction: The idea that a single 'competent' person can do this sounds daft, and probably circular. A consensus in the artworld sounds more plausible, but this still leaves the revolutionary genius, who - in retrospect - produced unrecognised 'art'. |