For most of its history art has been mimetic in nature; not surprisingly, mimetic theories of art held sway for a long time. By the middle of the twentieth century art had departed so radically from the mimetic traditions that philosophers were forced to shift their focus away from functional theories (which typically drew on the formal features of artworks) to procedural ones (which are concerned with the imperceptible, relational properties external to the work of art). This breakthrough would eventually culminate in the Institutional Theory of Art, a perspective that provides the most exhaustive classificatory definition of art available, and which (despite the objections of its critics) remains the most persuasive theory of art on offer. The same logic that makes the Institutional Theory of Art a satisfying classificatory theory can be applied, in a similar manner, to questions about the source of the terms by which we evaluate works of art. In other words: the Institutional Theory is capable of serving not only as a powerful classificatory theory, but also as a highly effective evaluative theory of art. Moreover, if the Institutional Theory can be shown to provide a satisfying account of artistic value, it may also be equipped to deal with the related problems of subjectivism (i.e., that artistic judgments are a matter of personal taste) and cultural relativism (i.e., that artistic judgments are culturally specific). Presently, no theory of art can explain away these difficulties; accordingly, an institutional account of artistic value might offer – as does the Institutional Theory of Art itself – an explanatory framework capable of dealing with seemingly intractable problems of subjectivism and relativism in artistic judgment. / Graduate / 0422 / michaelabhainn@shaw.ca

For most of its history art has been mimetic in nature; not surprisingly, mimetic theories of art held sway for a long time. By the middle of the twentieth century art had departed so radically from the mimetic traditions that philosophers were forced to shift their focus away from functional theories (which typically drew on the formal features of artworks) to procedural ones (which are concerned with the imperceptible, relational properties external to the work of art). This breakthrough would eventually culminate in the Institutional Theory of Art, a perspective that provides the most exhaustive classificatory definition of art available, and which (despite the objections of its critics) remains the most persuasive theory of art on offer. The same logic that makes the Institutional Theory of Art a satisfying classificatory theory can be applied, in a similar manner, to questions about the source of the terms by which we evaluate works of art. In other words: the Institutional Theory is capable of serving not only as a powerful classificatory theory, but also as a highly effective evaluative theory of art. Moreover, if the Institutional Theory can be shown to provide a satisfying account of artistic value, it may also be equipped to deal with the related problems of subjectivism (i.e., that artistic judgments are a matter of personal taste) and cultural relativism (i.e., that artistic judgments are culturally specific). Presently, no theory of art can explain away these difficulties; accordingly, an institutional account of artistic value might offer – as does the Institutional Theory of Art itself – an explanatory framework capable of dealing with seemingly intractable problems of subjectivism and relativism in artistic judgment. / Graduate / 0422 / michaelabhainn@shaw.ca

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...

This study investigates effects on the ephemeral artwork and its ephemeral quality when documented and archived. To define the ephemeral artform a definition presented by Mary O’Neill in her thesis Ephemeral Art: Mourning and Loss (2007) is used, and two ephemeral artworks are studied: Zoe Leonard’s Strange Fruit (for David) (1992-1997) and Felix Gonzalez-Torres' ”Untitled” (Portrait of Ross in L.A.) (1991). Results from these case studies are compared to each other and to Peggy Phelan’s critical stance on the possibilities of documenting time-based and performative artforms in Unmarked: The Politics of Performance (1993). Results show that the ephemeral artwork becomes ephemeral through slow degradation and the experience this degradation generates in the observer; processes in time that cannot be documented. However, documentation can affect the observer’s experience of ”here and now,” which may alter the artwork’s communicative abilities and its effectiveness in creating a sense of presence within the passing of time. / I denna studie studeras påverkan på det efemära konstverket och dess efemära egenskap när det dokumenteras och arkiveras. För att definiera den efemära konstformen används en definition som presenteras av Mary O’Neill i avhandlingen Ephemeral Art: Mourning and Loss (2007), och två efemära konstverk studeras: Zoe Leonards Strange Fruit (for David) (1992–1997) och Felix Gonzalez-Torres ”Untitled” (Portrait of Ross in L.A.) (1991). Resultat från verkanalyser av dessa verk jämförs mot varandra samt mot Peggy Phelans uppfattning att performance-baserad konst inte kan dokumenteras i Unmarked: The Politics of Performance (1993). Resultat visar att det efemära konstverket blir efemärt genom sin långsamma nedbrytning och genom betraktarens upplevelse av denna nedbrytning – temporala processer som inte kan dokumenteras med exakthet. Dokumentering kan dock innebära att betraktarens upplevelse av ”här och nu” påverkas och således verkets förmåga att kommunicera effektivt om passerande tid och frambringa närvaro i nuet.

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.