When an artist put a plain urinal in a gallery and called it art, it forced the question: is it art because of what it is, or because of where — and by whom — it's placed? Aesthetics wrestles with what makes something art and who gets to decide.
A question older than any answer
Philosophers have long tried to define art. Representational theories say art imitates reality; expressive theories say it conveys emotion; formalist theories locate art in significant form. But readymades like Duchamp's 'Fountain' — a signed urinal — resist all three, prompting the institutional theory.
Arthur Danto and George Dickie argued that something is art when the 'artworld' — artists, critics, galleries, institutions — confers that status on it, not because of any visible property.
Two identical snow shovels: one in a hardware store, one titled 'In Advance of the Broken Arm' in a museum. Only context, not appearance, makes the second art.
- Take Duchamp's 'Fountain' (a urinal presented as art).
- Ask whether representational or expressive theories can call it art.
- Identify which theory best accounts for its status.
What you should see: Representational and expressive theories struggle with 'Fountain'; the institutional theory explains it — the artworld conferred art status on the object.