Lord, Lewis, and the Institutional Theory of Art Author(s): Peggy Zeglin Brand Source: The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 40, No. 3 (Spring, 1982), pp. 309- 314 Published by: Wiley on behalf of The American Society for Aesthetics Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/429688 Accessed: 09-08-2017 22:42 UTC REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: http://www.jstor.org/stable/429688?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact
[email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms The American Society for Aesthetics, Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism This content downloaded from 150.135.239.97 on Wed, 09 Aug 2017 22:42:09 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms PEGGY ZEGLIN BRAND Lord, Lewis, and the Institutional Theory of Art IN "Convention and Dickie's Institutional lack of spontaneity in artworks, i.e., the Theory," Catherine Lord maintains loss the of flexibility espoused by Dickie's defi- following thesis: nition, is established by Lord via two routes: a) arguing that being a work of (L) If a work of art is defined as institutional and conventional, then the definition artpre- is incompatible with institutionality cludes the freedom and creativity associated (Incompatibility Argument), and b) argu- with art.' ing that the creation, presentation, and ap- Lord also maintains that the antecedent of preciation of a work of art is not governed this conditional is false.