New in the “Is It Really Art?” category:
Okay apparently I’m a bit behind the curve on this one, but for those of you who didn’t catch it about a month ago, there was an art show for dogs in London, sponsored by MORE TH>N pet insurance, with artworks designed by Dominic Wilcox. Artnet News writes that “The exhibition is, of course, a marketing gimmick” – but it’s not like there’s no precedent for art that is a marketing gimmick. (*cough* BMW *cough*)
The press release from the RSA Insurance Group reads:
“They say art is for everyone, and while this may be true, the ‘everyone’ mentioned here traditionally refers only to humans. With pets assuming an ever more important role in our lives, isn’t it time that the art world catered to them as well?”
Well I don’t know who “they” are, or if they’re right… but everything about this is hilarious and also makes you wonder…
So for a little dose of philosophy: George Dickie, who defended the Institutional Theory of Art, defined a work of art as “(1) an artifact (2) a set of aspects of which has had conferred upon it the status of candidate for appreciation by some person or persons acting on behalf of a certain social institution (the artworld).”
Hmm. What do you guys think? Can the dogs actually appreciate the art? (Looks like they’re doing it!) Or do they have to appreciate it as art for it to count? Or are we the real audience for this dog art show? (Surely we’re at least the real audience for the marketing ploy.) Or is this a counterexample to Institutional Theories of Art?