In Dickie's aesthetic theory, he blatently points out that those who consider themselves members of the Artworl may be such. This makes his theory radically inclusive and determines everything to be art. However, when human decision is in the equation, we must consider a few things about "membership" to the Artworld.
First thing's first, Dickie describes those who are "artists . . . producers, museum directors, museum-goers, theater-goers, reporters for newspapers, critics for publications of all sorts, art historians, art theorists, philosophers of art, and others" (431). Primarily, this is a concern because if you consider yourself one of these things, you technically "must" be a part of the Artworld. Furthermore, many of these roles are open concepts, therefore it's difficult to even distinguish whether or not you satisfy any of the conditions of the roles. An interesting problem, however, is one who meets the conditions of one or more of these titles "must" be in the Artworld, but if they do not consider themselves a member, then they aren't. Is this paradoxical, or is there an overriding title that prevails?
Other interesting things to consider - what can you make of the judgements of one who is in the above situation? Do the artifacts in question become art or candidates thereof?
Q: Answer either of the above questions
