DOUGHNUTS AND DICKIE
Identifieur interne : 000C86 ( Main/Exploration ); précédent : 000C85; suivant : 000C87DOUGHNUTS AND DICKIE
Auteurs : Nick ZangwillSource :
- Ratio [ 0034-0006 ] ; 1994-06.
Abstract
In this paper, I assess Dickie's institutional theory of art. I compare the earlier and later forms of the theory, and I point to various problems of detail with these accounts. I then proceed by arguing that Dickie's definition excludes Krispy Kreme doughnut boxes from possessing the status of being works of art, and it excludes those who made them from possessing the status of being artists. The intention is not to offer a counter example to Dickie's account. Rather, the complaint is that there could be no philosophical point or interest in a concept of art which excludes these doughnut boxes. The best way to see this is by contrast with a concept of art that includes them. Thus I outline what I call a ‘creative’ account. What we want is a concept of art which helps us understand a certain phenomenon in the world – the phenomenon that we call ‘art’. In this light, I argue that Dickie's institutional theory tells us nothing about why people want to make art and nothing about why they want to experience it. By contrast, the creative theory, which embraces both doughnut boxes and things in galleries, is more explanatory.
Url:
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9329.1994.tb00154.x
Affiliations:
Links toward previous steps (curation, corpus...)
Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">DOUGHNUTS AND DICKIE</title><author><name sortKey="Zangwill, Nick" sort="Zangwill, Nick" uniqKey="Zangwill N" first="Nick" last="Zangwill">Nick Zangwill</name></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:282762EE425D600A8F560EB532CA334CED57701B</idno><date when="1994" year="1994">1994</date><idno type="doi">10.1111/j.1467-9329.1994.tb00154.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/282762EE425D600A8F560EB532CA334CED57701B/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Main/Corpus">001354</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Main" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">001354</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Main/Curation">001354</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Main/Exploration">000C86</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Main" wicri:step="Exploration">000C86</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">DOUGHNUTS AND DICKIE</title><author><name sortKey="Zangwill, Nick" sort="Zangwill, Nick" uniqKey="Zangwill N" first="Nick" last="Zangwill">Nick Zangwill</name><affiliation><wicri:noCountry code="no comma">University of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8QQ</wicri:noCountry></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">Ratio</title><idno type="ISSN">0034-0006</idno><idno type="eISSN">1467-9329</idno><imprint><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="1994-06">1994-06</date><biblScope unit="vol">7</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">1</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="63">63</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="79">79</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0034-0006</idno></series><idno type="istex">282762EE425D600A8F560EB532CA334CED57701B</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1467-9329.1994.tb00154.x</idno><idno type="ArticleID">RATI63</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0034-0006</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">In this paper, I assess Dickie's institutional theory of art. I compare the earlier and later forms of the theory, and I point to various problems of detail with these accounts. I then proceed by arguing that Dickie's definition excludes Krispy Kreme doughnut boxes from possessing the status of being works of art, and it excludes those who made them from possessing the status of being artists. The intention is not to offer a counter example to Dickie's account. Rather, the complaint is that there could be no philosophical point or interest in a concept of art which excludes these doughnut boxes. The best way to see this is by contrast with a concept of art that includes them. Thus I outline what I call a ‘creative’ account. What we want is a concept of art which helps us understand a certain phenomenon in the world – the phenomenon that we call ‘art’. In this light, I argue that Dickie's institutional theory tells us nothing about why people want to make art and nothing about why they want to experience it. By contrast, the creative theory, which embraces both doughnut boxes and things in galleries, is more explanatory.</div></front></TEI><affiliations><list></list><tree><noCountry><name sortKey="Zangwill, Nick" sort="Zangwill, Nick" uniqKey="Zangwill N" first="Nick" last="Zangwill">Nick Zangwill</name></noCountry></tree></affiliations></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Wicri/explor/CircusV2/Data/Main/Exploration
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000C86 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Main/Exploration/biblio.hfd -nk 000C86 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Wicri
|area= CircusV2
|flux= Main
|étape= Exploration
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:282762EE425D600A8F560EB532CA334CED57701B
|texte= DOUGHNUTS AND DICKIE
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.31. |  |