Criticism of the Fundamental Concepts of Institutional Theory, George Dickie The nature of the artwork of the art object of the world of art

George Dickie introduces an innovative definition in the knowledge of art through a social-cultural context in institutional theory. The purpose of such a context is the same artworld which has the ability and competence to grant an artistic dignity to a work and can turn it into an artwork. So, what turns something into an artwork is not apparently a specific noticeable quality, but rather a particular dignity that the artworld attaches to it. In fact, a work is only referred to as an artwork when formed in its institutional context called artworld. So, in George Dickie's viewpoints, the subject of art is based on a more anthropomorphic subject and on cultural phenomena, actions and behaviors related to the artworld. On the one hand, the design of the artifact component in the institutional theory opens the way for the arrival of many pre-made and ready-made works to the art field. In this context, many postmodern artistic movements, including the works of conceptual art, can be evaluated and analyzed. Prior to introducing the artifact component to the creation of artworks, what was always accepted by the audience as art and artwork was works based on the traits and qualities of aesthetics and other artistic theories such as imitation, expression, and formalism, but by introduction of such a component, many of the works that were previously not accepted as an artwork were turned into art by receiving dignity from the artworld.
The objective of this research is to challenge the basic concepts of Dickie's institutional theory, including the nature of the artwork, the artifact, and the artworld. In his viewpoint, George Dickie regards the artworld including members of (art philosophers, instructors, artists, etc.) who, by granting artistic dignity to a work, can transform it into an artistic work, but what are the eminent criteria for the artworld qualified to grant artistic dignity to a work? On the one hand, according to George Dickie, a work is an artifact that shapes the nature of an artwork. Now, a question arises as to whether the artifact has a clear definition in George Dickie's viewpoint? However, what is known about the characteristics of an artifact is based on the notion of Noël Carroll.
Considering the descriptive-analytical research method of this paper, the basic concepts of institutional theory seem to be ambiguous. Such ambiguities are caused by the fact that George Dickie, in his viewpoints, does not set out particular criteria and specifications for defining them. Such ambiguities challenge art as an institution, and according to Levinson's historical theory, the creation of an artwork does not always require a social institution such as artworld. On the other hand, institutional theory cannot provide a comprehensive definition of art and artworks like artistic theories since a social and cultural context, such as the artworld, may be effective in transforming a work into an artwork but it cannot be considered as a necessary and sufficient condition for creation of an artwork. Despite the ambiguity and critique of the above theory, the introduction of such a theory in art can cause to include many works in the field of art. In George Dickie's institutional theory, despite the presence of a convincing definition of art and artwork, many arts, including conceptual art, can be analyzed and evaluated because the fundamental components of institutional theory are fully adaptable to such works. For example, what has always been considered for a conceptual artist in the creation of an artwork is the artist’s idea and the negation of the work of art. For example, what has always been for the conceptual artist in the creation of the work of art was the idea of the artist and the objectivity negation of the artwork. The transfer of the artist’s idea, as a member of the artworld, is fully compatible with the component of the artifact of George Dickie’s theory, and on the other hand, rejecting any objectivity in the creation of the artwork, challenges all artistic theories based on the traits and qualities of modern aesthetics. It can certainly be said that such a theory is important because it gives open and wide meaning to art and artwork. George Dickie's institutional theory does not intend to determine the value of an artwork, but what is emphasized by such a theory is the nature of art which can be provided by components such as artifact, artworld, and the good and suitable object. Dickie can give his audience a more comprehensive definition of art and artwork by setting out the specifications and criteria for an artifact and every member of the artworld. However, such ambiguity may lead to include many unartistic works in the field of art. The entry of unrelated works may deviate George Dickie’s aim on presenting the nature of art and defining the artwork