Abstract

Institutional theories of art define works of art within a context of surrounding social relations, and in terms of their functions as the loci for specific social activities. The best known example of an institutional theory of art is that of George Dickie. While Dickie's attempts to define art in terms of behavioral patterns occurring within the "artworld" are significant, he ultimately fails to explicate the institutional basis of aesthetic behavior. Indeed, Dickie leaves obscure the complex social basis for any human institutional behavior. ;The deficiencies of the theory may, however, be remedied with a thorough description of the intersubjectivity of aesthetic creation and appreciation. Toward this end, the pragmatic interactionism of John Dewey and the social behaviorism of George Herbert Mead are of use in reconstructing the institutional theory of art. ;To execute this reconstruction, I draw upon Dewey's account of human propensities to respond creatively to novel situations arising in the everyday interactions between living creatures and a world--responses that reach apotheosis in artist production. Appreciation, too, has its place in reconstruction for it is yet another interactive response, one that mirrors structurally the gestures of creating artists. And here the precision of Mead's attention to the interactive behavioral basis for human communication and sociality complements Dewey's analysis. ;Finally, my pragmatic reconstruction of the institutional theory clarifies the functional roles that one may fill within the artworld, may be used to ground an analysis of the unique value of the artworld as a social institution