George Dickie

1. Introduction

George Dickie (1926–2020) is widely regarded as one of the central figures of postwar analytic aesthetics. Best known for his institutional theory of art, he argued that what makes something a work of art is not a distinctive inner essence—such as beauty, expression, or form—but its location within a socially organized artworld of artists, critics, curators, and audiences. This proposal redirected debates about the definition of art toward public practices, norms, and roles.

Dickie also became influential for challenging the idea that there is a special aesthetic attitude or unique state of mind required for appreciating art. Instead, he maintained that aesthetic appreciation involves ordinary perceptual and cognitive capacities, shaped by context and education rather than by entry into a special mental realm.

His work emerged in dialogue with mid‑twentieth‑century developments in both analytic philosophy and avant‑garde art, especially cases—such as Duchamp’s readymades—that seemed to defy traditional, property‑based definitions of art. Through a series of articles and books, Dickie offered a systematic framework in which such cases could be treated as philosophically tractable rather than anomalous.

Within philosophy, his positions helped consolidate practice‑based, social, and naturalistic approaches to art, often contrasted with earlier essentialist and experience‑centered theories. Beyond philosophy departments, his ideas have been employed in discussions of museum practice, art criticism, and cultural policy, particularly where questions arise about who has the authority to confer or recognize artistic status.

The following sections examine Dickie’s life and context, the evolution of his thought, his major writings, the structure of his institutional theory, his critique of the aesthetic attitude, his methodological commitments, and the responses his work has generated.

2. Life and Historical Context

2.1 Biographical Overview

George Dickie was born on 12 August 1926 in Palatka, Florida, and spent most of his academic career in the United States. After completing his PhD in philosophy at the University of Florida in 1954, he joined the faculty of the newly founded University of South Florida in 1957, where he remained for decades. His most influential work in aesthetics was produced between the 1960s and 1990s, though he continued to write and teach into the 2000s. He died in Tampa, Florida, in March 2020, reportedly of natural causes associated with advanced age.

2.2 Historical and Intellectual Setting

Dickie’s career developed against several intertwined backgrounds:

Situated within these developments, Dickie’s writings responded to both philosophical and art‑historical pressures: the need for a definition of art that could handle nontraditional works, and the desire to naturalize aesthetic experience without recourse to mysterious states of mind.

3. Intellectual Development

3.1 Early Formation and Aesthetic Skepticism

In the 1950s and early 1960s, Dickie’s work reflected the priorities of analytic philosophy: careful argument, attention to language, and suspicion of vaguely defined mental states. His 1964 article “The Myth of the Aesthetic Attitude” marks an early turning point, where he questioned the coherence and necessity of positing a special aesthetic stance distinct from ordinary perception and evaluation.

3.2 Move Toward Social and Institutional Analysis

By the late 1960s, Dickie’s interests shifted toward the problem of defining art itself, particularly in light of controversial works that lacked traditional aesthetic features. Essays such as “Defining Art” (1969) introduced the term artworld and proposed that artistic status depends on relations to a network of roles and practices rather than on intrinsic properties. This marked the emergence of his institutional approach.

3.3 Systematization in the 1970s and 1980s

The publication of Art and the Aesthetic: An Institutional Analysis (1974) consolidated these ideas into a comprehensive theory. During the 1980s, notably in The Art Circle (1984), Dickie refined his definitions, clarifying notions such as artworld system and candidate for appreciation, addressing worries about circularity, and broadening the scope of his theory.

3.4 Later Clarifications and Pedagogical Turn

From the 1990s onward, Dickie increasingly presented his views in accessible forms, especially in Introduction to Aesthetics (1997). This phase emphasized exposition and clarification rather than radical revision, situating his own proposals alongside competing theories for students and non‑specialists.

Across these phases, commentators often see a continuous trajectory: from critique of special mental states, through the articulation of a socially grounded conception of art, to pedagogical and synthesizing work that embedded his views within the wider landscape of contemporary aesthetics.

4. Major Works

4.1 Overview Table

4.2 Early Articles

“The Myth of the Aesthetic Attitude” argued that theories positing a distinct aesthetic state of mind misdescribe both ordinary experience and artistic practice. “Evaluating Art” explored how artworks can be assessed in ways that are neither purely subjective nor reducible to fixed criteria, foreshadowing his focus on shared practices of criticism.

4.3 Institutional Theory Monographs

Art and the Aesthetic (1974) presented a detailed institutional analysis of art. Here Dickie formulated an early definition of a work of art as an artifact created to be presented to an artworld public and elaborated the roles of artists, publics, and institutions.

The Art Circle (1984) revisited these ideas in response to criticisms. It offered an updated definition and systematically described the artworld system as an interlocking set of roles and practices that sustain art as a category.

4.4 Pedagogical Work

Introduction to Aesthetics (1997) positioned Dickie’s own theories within a broad map of classical and contemporary aesthetics. It is widely used as a textbook, presenting competing views on beauty, the definition of art, and aesthetic value, and supplying a clear account of his institutional and anti‑attitude positions.

5. Core Ideas and the Institutional Theory of Art

5.1 Central Claims

Dickie’s institutional theory of art proposes that being a work of art is a matter of social status rather than intrinsic properties. A paradigmatic formulation from Art and the Aesthetic states:

"

“A work of art is an artifact of a kind created to be presented to an artworld public.”

— George Dickie, Art and the Aesthetic (1974)

The theory emphasizes at least three interrelated components:

1. Artifact: An artwork must be intentionally produced or modified by human agents.
2. Artworld: A structured network of roles—artists, critics, curators, audiences—within which art is created, presented, and discussed.
3. Status conferral: Members of the artworld, acting in their recognized roles, confer on certain artifacts the status of candidate for appreciation.

5.2 The Artworld and Status Conferral

Dickie characterizes the artworld as “a framework for the presentation of a work of art by an artist to an artworld public.” Within this framework, certain actions—exhibiting in a gallery, curating a show, publishing criticism—are taken to confer or acknowledge artistic status.

A later, more explicit formulation is:

"

“The status of candidate for appreciation is conferred upon an artifact by some person or persons acting on behalf of the artworld.”

— George Dickie, Art and the Aesthetic (1974)

This status does not guarantee positive evaluation; it merely positions the object to be engaged with under art‑relevant modes of attention and criticism.

5.3 Non‑essentialism and Inclusiveness

Dickie denies that artworks share a single set of necessary and sufficient aesthetic properties. Instead, they are unified by their placement within the artworld system:

"

“There is no single set of necessary and sufficient aesthetic properties common to all works of art.”

— George Dickie, The Art Circle (1984)

This non‑essentialist stance aims to accommodate traditional artworks, avant‑garde pieces, and readymades under one concept by focusing on institutional and practice‑based features rather than on formal or experiential essences.

6. Critique of the Aesthetic Attitude

6.1 Target of the Critique

In “The Myth of the Aesthetic Attitude” (1964), Dickie addressed theories claiming that aesthetic experience requires a special, disinterested, or contemplative attitude distinct from ordinary engagement with objects. Such theories, associated with figures like Edward Bullough and Jerome Stolnitz, often describe the aesthetic attitude as detached from practical concerns and focused solely on an object’s “aesthetic qualities.”

6.2 Main Arguments

Dickie contended that positing a unique aesthetic attitude is both conceptually confused and explanatorily unnecessary. He argued that:

• Descriptions of the supposed attitude are either too vague to be informative or collapse into ordinary modes of attention.
• People can appreciate artworks while engaged in practical or emotional concerns, which strict detachment theories would label “non‑aesthetic.”
• Talk of “entering” or “adopting” an aesthetic attitude obscures the continuity between aesthetic and non‑aesthetic perception.

He summarized his position as follows:

"

“To adopt an aesthetic attitude is not to enter a special state of mind but simply to attend to an object in a certain way.”

— George Dickie, “The Myth of the Aesthetic Attitude” (1964)

6.3 Alternative Account of Aesthetic Experience

Rather than invoking a sui generis attitude, Dickie treated aesthetic appreciation as a matter of how one attends to an object: focusing on its structural, expressive, or formal features, often within learned conventions. This view aligns aesthetic experience with ordinary perceptual and cognitive capacities, shaped by education and context.

Supporters of Dickie’s critique see it as demystifying aesthetic experience and clearing the way for naturalistic and practice‑based accounts. Critics argue that his dismissal of the aesthetic attitude overlooks phenomenological differences between intensely focused aesthetic engagement and routine perception, or that it underestimates the normative force embedded in notions of “disinterested” appreciation. Nonetheless, the paper has become a standard reference point in discussions of aesthetic experience.

7. Methodology and Analytic Approach

7.1 Analytic Style and Conceptual Analysis

Dickie worked squarely within the analytic tradition. His writings aim to clarify key terms—“art,” “aesthetic,” “attitude,” “artworld”—by offering definitions, counterexamples, and argumentative reconstructions. He typically proceeds by identifying a problematic concept, surveying existing views, and then proposing revised formulations designed to capture actual usage in critical and artistic practice.

Characteristic features of his method include:

• Use of explicit necessary and sufficient conditions where possible.
• Reliance on thought experiments involving borderline or avant‑garde works.
• Attention to ordinary language and institutional facts, rather than introspective reports alone.

7.2 Naturalism and Social Practice

Dickie’s approach is often described as naturalistic or practice‑oriented. Instead of grounding art and aesthetic experience in mysterious essences, he looks to:

• Publicly observable practices (exhibitions, critical reviews, art education).
• Social roles (artist, curator, critic, audience).
• Historical and institutional structures (museums, galleries, academies).

In this respect, his methodology brings aesthetics closer to philosophy of language and social ontology, treating “art” as a status category maintained by collective activities and conventions.

7.3 Engagement with Alternatives

Within analytic aesthetics, Dickie’s method contrasts with:

Proponents see his methodology as offering rigor and clarity, particularly in debates over controversial artworks. Critics argue that his focus on definitions and institutions may underplay historical change, power relations, or subjective dimensions of experience. Nonetheless, his analytic approach has become a model for later work on socially constructed categories in aesthetics.

8. Impact on Aesthetics and Art Theory

8.1 Influence within Analytic Aesthetics

Dickie’s institutional theory became a central reference point in late twentieth‑century debates about the definition of art. Many subsequent accounts—cluster theories, historical narrativist views, procedural and practice‑based definitions—developed partly in response to his proposals. Within analytic philosophy, his work helped:

• Legitimize social‑institutional explanations in a field previously focused on beauty, taste, or form.
• Encourage attention to avant‑garde and conceptual art as philosophically instructive rather than anomalous.
• Shape standard textbook presentations of competing definitions of art and theories of aesthetic experience.

8.2 Effects on Art Theory and Museum Studies

Outside philosophy departments, Dickie’s notion of the artworld has been employed by art theorists, curators, and cultural critics as a tool for analyzing how artworks are validated and circulated. It has informed discussions about:

• The role of museums and galleries in conferring artistic status.
• The authority of critics and curators in shaping canons and reputations.
• How new media, performance, and conceptual practices are incorporated into existing institutions.

Some museum professionals and theorists have used institutional language inspired by Dickie to reflect on their own gatekeeping roles, while others adapt his ideas to highlight power, exclusion, or market dynamics.

8.3 Cross‑disciplinary Reception

In cultural studies and sociology of art, Dickie’s framework is often discussed alongside, or in contrast to, sociological approaches such as those of Howard Becker and Pierre Bourdieu. While sociologists typically emphasize networks of cooperation or fields of power, Dickie’s focus on status conferral and role‑defined practices provides a more conceptual, normative map of art’s social ontology.

His critique of the aesthetic attitude has also fed into broader moves toward everyday aesthetics and naturalistic accounts of experience, influencing how philosophers and theorists describe aesthetic engagement in non‑art contexts such as nature, design, and popular culture.

9. Debates, Criticisms, and Revisions

9.1 Alleged Circularity and the “Artworld” Notion

One of the most common objections is that Dickie’s definition is circular: “art” is defined by reference to the “artworld,” which itself seems defined in terms of art. Critics argue that this offers little explanatory traction. Dickie responded, especially in The Art Circle, by elaborating artworld systems in role‑based terms (artists, publics, critics, etc.), aiming to reduce the circularity to a benign mutual dependence rather than a vicious circle.

9.2 Elitism and Exclusion

Some commentators contend that institutional theories risk elitism, since established institutions and experts appear to control what counts as art. This raises concerns about marginal, folk, or non‑Western practices that may not fit dominant institutional structures. In reply, defenders of Dickie’s approach emphasize that his definition allows for multiple artworld systems and evolving institutions; however, critics maintain that power asymmetries and social inequality are insufficiently addressed.

9.3 Cross‑Cultural and Historical Applicability

Another line of criticism questions whether Dickie’s theory applies across cultures and historical periods lacking modern Western‑style museums or professional criticism. Skeptics argue that some traditional or ritual objects function as art without an artworld in Dickie’s sense. Supporters respond that many societies nonetheless have role‑differentiated practices of making, presenting, and evaluating artifacts, which could be understood as artworld analogues.

9.4 Value and Aesthetic Properties

Because Dickie defines art in terms of institutional status, some critics claim that he downplays aesthetic value and the role of perceptual or expressive qualities. They worry that his account could classify trivial or deliberately bad works as art so long as institutions confer status. Dickie acknowledges that artistic status does not guarantee merit, and he treats evaluation as a distinct, though related, issue explored in other writings, such as “Evaluating Art.”

9.5 Dickie’s Own Revisions

Over time, Dickie refined his formulations:

These revisions sought to clarify ambiguities, respond to criticisms, and better reflect the variety of ways artifacts enter the artworld.

10. Legacy and Historical Significance

10.1 Position in the History of Aesthetics

Dickie is often situated as a key figure in the shift from essence‑based to institutional and practice‑based understandings of art within analytic philosophy. His work stands alongside that of contemporaries who treated meaning, reference, and social practices as central philosophical topics. In aesthetics, his institutional theory is regularly presented as a canonical option alongside formalist, expressivist, and historical definitions.

10.2 Lasting Contributions

Commentators typically highlight at least three enduring aspects of his legacy:

• The institutional theory of art, which continues to frame debates about what unifies artworks and how controversial objects can be included under the concept of art.
• The artworld notion, which has entered both scholarly and popular vocabularies as a way of talking about the network of people and institutions surrounding art.
• The critique of the aesthetic attitude, which remains a standard reference for naturalistic and anti‑mystificatory treatments of aesthetic experience.

His writings, particularly The Art Circle and Introduction to Aesthetics, are frequently used in teaching, ensuring that new generations encounter his ideas as part of the standard landscape.

10.3 Influence on Subsequent Theories

Later philosophers have drawn on, modified, or rejected elements of Dickie’s views:

Through these ongoing engagements, Dickie’s proposals continue to serve as a touchstone—whether as a framework to be defended, a foil to be criticized, or a starting point to be extended—for contemporary inquiry into the nature and value of art.