Read The Assigned Reading From The Chapter. Then Choose One ✓ Solved

Read the assigned reading from the chapter. Then choose ONE

Read the assigned reading from the chapter. Then choose ONE of the questions below to answer. Answer the question you chose in a response that is a minimum of 1-2 paragraphs. Be sure to explain your answers and give reasons for your views. You should cite the textbook and use brief quotations and summaries from the textbook in your response. Do NOT use any other sources besides the textbook.

1. Do you agree with the expression theory of art? Is art simply an expression of feelings? Is abstract art an expression of feelings? Does an art object have to serve a function to be art?
2. Are art objects valuable in themselves, without any functions? Explain.
3. Answer the question on page 337 concerning controversial art.
4. Critique Arthur Danto's institutional theory of art. One criticism of it is that if people in the artworld define what is and is not art, then there seems to be no way for the decision-makers to decide among themselves what is art. Is this a fair criticism? Why or why not?
5. According to Aristotle, what emotions should a tragedy evoke? What is the point of evoking them?
6. Explain Hume's view on art and the standard of taste.
7. Do you agree with Hume that some people are more keenly attuned to art objects and that their aesthetic sensibilities are more "delicate"? Or, is he just being a snob?

Paper For Above Instructions

The prompt asks us to choose one philosophical question about art from a reading and develop a reasoned, text-grounded response. For this paper, I will evaluate Arthur Danto’s institutional theory of art, including its core claims, supporting arguments, and notable criticisms, and then offer a stance on its strengths and limits. This approach foregrounds the social and contextual dimensions of art practice while also acknowledging enduring tensions with more traditional, aesthetic criteria. Through this examination, the essay considers how the institutional view helps explain modern and contemporary art, but also how it must contend with concerns about circularity, authority, and universality in judgments of art.

1) The core idea of an institutional theory of art is that something counts as art not by intrinsic properties alone but by its recognition, endorsement, or commissioning within established artworld institutions—galleries, museums, academies, critics, curators, and related cultural structures (Dickie, 1974). George Dickie argues that an object becomes art when an artworld institution counts it as such, effectively conferring status through social practice. This view shifts attention from the artwork’s supposed essence or aesthetic merit to the social practices that certify art. In the tradition of institutional theory, Arthur Danto extends and refines this perspective by highlighting the role of meaning, interpretive frameworks, and the “aboutness” of artworks (Danto, 1986). Danto’s program emphasizes that what counts as art is tied to the normative and conceptual environments in which artworks are embedded, and that works once deemed non-art, upon new interpretation or institutional acknowledgment, may gain art status (Danto, 1964; Danto, 1986).

2) Proponents of institutional theory offer persuasive accounts of why modern and avant-garde works resist older, essentialist definitions of art. They explain the rise of conceptual and performance art, where the idea or cultural context matters more than traditional craft or sensory properties. Duchamp’s readymades and subsequent contemporary works illustrate how context and interpretation, mediated by institutions, determine art status rather than a stable set of intrinsic attributes (Dickie, 1974; Danto, 1964). The theory also accounts for cross-cultural variations in what counts as art, suggesting that different artworlds may validate different practices without appealing to universal, fixed standards (Danto, 1986). From this vantage, the social system of art becomes a legitimate locus of authority for distinguishing art from non-art objects.

3) However, the institutional theory has faced significant criticisms. A central objection is the apparent circularity: if art is defined by what the artworld decrees, and if the artworld itself is composed of decision-makers who decide what counts as art, then how can those decision-makers resolve disagreements about art’s status? Is there a coherent criterion by which to adjudicate competing artworld voices, or does the theory simply defer to the power of the “artworld” to settle matters through consensus? Critics argue that such a framework risks collapsing into authority without independent justification, potentially privileging power, fashion, or insider status over objective evaluations of artistic merit (Danto, 1986; Wollheim, 1968; Beardsley, 1958).

4) Defenders reply that institutional theory does not ignore aesthetic judgment; rather, it contextualizes it within a network of norms, institutions, and historical development that shape what counts as art. They argue that the artworld provides stability and accountability—shared criteria, exhibitions, publications, and curatorial practices that guide interpretation and critique. Danto’s own emphasis on interpretive frameworks suggests that art’s meaning and significance often emerge through discourse within institutions, which helps explain why the same work may be received differently across time and venues (Danto, 1964; Danto, 1986).

5) The institutional account complements but does not replace other theories of art. Aristotle’s Poetics emphasizes catharsis and the moral and emotional effects of tragedy, pointing to the experiential dimensions of art, while Hume’s standard of taste highlights the social and evaluative aspects of sentiment and judgment. The institutional view foregrounds the social life of art and the roles played by critics, galleries, and museums, yet it must still account for how audiences experience, respond to, and critique artworks—elements that the classical and aesthetic-centered theories stress in different ways (Aristotle; Hume). In this sense, a robust theory of art may integrate insights from institutional, formal, and audience-centered perspectives rather than privileging one over others (Gombrich, 1960; Wollheim, 1968; Collingwood, 1938).

In evaluating the fair-mindedness of the institutional theory, it is important to recognize its explanatory value for contemporary art’s trajectory. The theory helps explain why certain artworks emerge as definitive statements within a culture’s discourse, how museums curate meaning, and how critical reception can alter status over time. Yet the concern about potential arbitrariness invites careful refinement: perhaps the most responsible account is a dialogical one that treats institutions as influential but not exclusive arbiters, acknowledging external standards of quality and public accountability, while also foregrounding the importance of interpretive communities and shared commitments within the artworld (Dickie, 1974; Danto, 1964; Danto, 1986).

Ultimately, institutional theory provides a powerful lens for understanding art’s social reality—how works gain legitimacy, how value is produced, and how communities of practice shape artistic meaning. Its strengths lie in explaining modern and contemporary art’s autonomy from traditional formal criteria, and in making explicit the social conditions that enable art’s interpretation and critique. Its limitations—potential circularity, scope of authority, and the risk of masking normative disagreements—invite ongoing refinement and integration with other models of art, including formalist, ethical, and audience-centered approaches (Gombrich, 1960; Collingwood, 1938; Beardsley, 1958; Wollheim, 1968; Dewey, 1934).

References

• Aristotle. Poetics.
• Beardsley, Monroe C. 1958. The Aesthetic Experience and the Theory of Criticism. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism.
• Danto, Arthur C. 1964. The Artworld. Journal of Philosophy, 61(19), 571-584.
• Danto, Arthur C. 1986. The Transfiguration of the Commonplace. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Dickie, George. 1974. An Institutional Theory of Art. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 32(4), 263-277.
• Dewey, John. 1934. Art as Experience. New York: Perigee.
• Gombrich, E.H. 1960. Art and Illusion. London: Phaidon.
• Wollheim, Richard. 1968. Art and Its Objects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Hume, David. 1909. Of the Standard of Taste. In Essays, Moral, and Political, ed. L.A. Selby-Bigge. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Collingwood, R.G. 1938. The Principles of Art. Oxford: Clarendon Press.