Final Thoughts on Dickie

Perhaps the most blatant conclusion to be drawn from Dickie concerns his failure to objectively define art--a problem which we keep returning to. According to Dickie, it is not inherent properties, but a relational property within the artworld that makes an object art. These relational properties elicit conferred status and then an "objective definition" is possible but doesn't often emerge. Although Dickie seems confident in declaring almost ANYTHING as a candidate for appreciation as long as it has conferred status, I am not quite as comfortable in doing so. His view appears extremely inclusive and almost demoting to true art and artists, suggesting that uniqueness and merit and independent of status in a world that anyone can be a part of. I've come to realize recently that a number of theorists (on the subject of art and of other subjects) tend to use language for reasons beyond persuasion. The circularity that we have encountered in many class discussions is due largely to language rather than theory. While it is frustrating to accept our limitations as humans, I do think that it is also necessary to realize that even the greatest of thinkers can't always articulate flawless theories. Dickie, among others, writes in a manner that seems to deny failure, but in reality he is repeating himself and not getting very far. Isn't the aim of philosophy to ask more questions? Does anyone else think that we have become so focused on "What is art" and "What is art's unique value" that it is possible that we are missing other questions?...Such as, WHY is there no single answer to these questions?Maybe then, we could answer them better.