Dickie Question 1

Think of modern and post-modern artists who have had their artistic artwork theories vindicated and authenticated by “professionals” in the inner of the artworld. Are they correct, are the critics’ opinions biased in the vindication of the theory, or is this way of art completely irrational?

Again, we have Dickie's circularity where he does not provide substantional information for an argument like this. However, stepping away from Dickie, one can look at the artworld today and see the flaws and perhaps compose a better definition of who should be let into the artworld. Though this sounds pretentious, I think people should still be able to create art but there are some people who are too ignorant, inexperienced, or insincere to be placed in the art world or be accepted as "worthy artists." Ironically, such a statement sounds insincere and judgmental but looking at the art of many people in the post-modern artworld, I feel it is a worthwhile statement. Many people in the post-modern artworld regarded as professionals lack that sincerity and intense study of art.

All art and literature is built upon what was prior to it and I believe that many artists in the post-modern artworld fail to see that. However, I could be very wrong and they could have studied art for a very long time and I could be the one who is being most insincere. The fault here is that the viewer of art would need to talk with the artist instead of seeing the sincerity in his or her work. I think this kind of paradigm counters what previously happened in viewing art. For example, viewers could see the sincerity in art and literature without having to speak with the artist. In other words of a cliche: "the art spoke for itself."