TABLE OF CONTENTS

LETTERS

LETTERS

CIRCLE SQUARED

To the Editor:

In his review of the new Clement Greenberg collection [“Peachy Cobbler,” Summer ’99], Thierry de Duve misstated George Dickie’s Institutional Theory of Art. According to Dickie, an object qualifies as art if two conditions are met: (1) it is an artifact (human-made), and (2) it is held up as candidate for appreciation by a member of the institution called the “artworld.” This was offered as an alternative to those attempts, ultimately unsuccessful, to define art using exhibited qualities only. De Duve’s statement, “Of course, the institutionalization of the art world was only just taking off in the early ’70s,” is not strictly correct, because as long as art galleries, art museums, art collectors, art critics, and artists constituted an art economy, the institution itself was alive and functioning way before the ’70s. But why was this perceived as a “danger”

Sign-in to keep reading

Artforum print subscribers have full access to this article. If you are a subscriber, sign in below.

Not registered for artforum.com? Register here.

SUBSCRIBE NOW for only $50 a year—65% off the newsstand price—and get the print magazine plus full online access to this issue and our archive.*

Order the PRINT EDITION of the October 1999 issue for $17 or the ONLINE EDITION for $5.99.

* This rate applies to U.S. domestic subscriptions.