Dickie Q&A #2

1)      Even if art is mistakenly introduced into the artworld, Dickie states that the art itself can never leave the artworld.  What do you think?

      Dickie specifies that once art is introduced into the artworld, it cannot go back.  Art is conferred by any member of the artworld however, as Dickie states, even the common theater-goer is a member.  What if art that, by the standards of most people, is not art, is conferred by a member?  One would have art in the artworld, that is not art.  Dickie eventually evolves his debate into the subject of good art and bad art, as opposed to art and non art.  Would this art then simply be classified as bad art, or should it be removed from the artistic community? 

      I do think Dickie is right in this regard.  What would the purpose be of defining art if one person or one group of people could override it?  Defining art with the exemplary clause that art can be changed at the tip of a hat is contradictory and superfluous at best.  In this case, Dickie's view on the definition and conditions of conferring art stands to good reason.