This master thesis "Perspectives of an Art Institution" focuses on the George Dickie's institutional theory of art (thereafter IT). This theory defines "work of art" as a result of the position of an artefact in the institutional framework of the artworld. The author of the thesis pays attention to the historical development of the IT- firstly published in 1969 in the article "Defining Art" and radically revisited in the book The Art Circle in 1984- as well as to the critical discussion based on Dickie's theory. In the first chapter she compares both the earlier and the later version of the theory; in following chapters she concerns with objections formulated against Dickie's IT. IT seems to be problematic in several aspects: the term "institution" is considered to be ambiguous; Dickie fails to give a full description of roles and rules which determine the operations of the artworld; the notion of appreciation seems to be contradictory with Dickie's opinions presented earlier; circularity; and Dickie's unsatisfactory attention to the historical dimension of the artworld. All of these objections are compared with Dickie's theory to prove their legitimacy or to refuse them as illegitimate. Not only aims the thesis to sum up the critical discussion but it aims to answer the question if the theory...

No description available.

寫作這篇論文的動機，是為了探討哲學家George Dickie的藝術制度理論(Dickie’s institutional theory of art)。在第一章中，回顧哲學家Arthur Danto與Morris Weitz的反本質主義(anti-essentialism)，及其如何影響Dickie藝術制度理論的發展，以及研究制度理論的重要性；第二章中，說明Dickie的藝術制度理論內容，並以實際的作品為例子講述藝術制度理論的應用；第三章至第四章中，整理反對藝術制度理論的數個哲學家(Jeffery Wieand, Robert Stecker, Stephen Davis, Richard Wollheim, Noël Carroll)的重要論點，並為Dickie的藝術制度理論辯護。最後第五章為結論，提出「藝術眼鏡」此一觀點用以修正藝術制度理論。 / The purpose of this paper is to investigate George Dickie’s institutional theory of art. I will first discuss Arthur Danto and Morris Weitz’s anti-essentialism, which is the groundwork for Dickie’s institutional theory of art. I will then discuss Dickie’s institutional theory of art, which has been developed as two versions. Both versions have been widely criticized. Stephen Davis argues that art created outside any institution seems possible, although Dickie’s institutional theory of art rules it out. Noël Carroll argues that Dickie’s definition of art is circular, and his institutional theory of art fails to distinguish art institutions from other social institutions. Jeffery Wieand argues that Dickie’s perceptually indistinguishable objects argument fails to show that his institutional theory of art is tenable. In this paper, I will argue that Dickie’s theory can be modified as “the glass theory of art.” If this is true, then these criticisms fail to undermine Dickie’s theory, and Dickie’s theory is still powerful.