Verifying Artworks Authenticity with Institutional Theory in Visual Arts

In today's world, with the fast development of technology, ease of access to works of art, cultural pluralism, and the emergence of new styles and schools, it seems that the previous standards and definitions of art have lost their effectiveness. Moreover, the field of art is changing every moment while its scope is expanding. On the other hand, the distinction between works of art and everyday objects, due to the use of non-artistic objects by artists in creating their works, requires a review of the standards and definitions of art. Therefore, it seems necessary to find a way to reject or accept these works as a work of art. George Dickie (1926-2020), a philosopher and art theorist, defined the work of art by presenting and compiling the institutional theory in order to be able to keep up with the aforementioned changes in contemporary art. On the other hand, in the field of contemporary art, works created by imitating precedents may classify as adapted or illegal reproduced copies. The works have been the subject of many critical and analytical debates regarding their authenticity and have raised many disagreements among theorists, historians, and art critics. Regarding the authenticity of adapted works with concepts and ideas behind them, less might be doubted. Still, the dispute on authentication of reproductions such as kitsch, pastiche, high copy and restored works of art can hardly be settled. Evaluating art reproduction and determining its authenticity then requires a model based on which the meaning of art and its representations can be determined, especially in the contemporary period. "Institutional Theory" as one of the most prominent and recent theories for valuing art can be among the best options for appointing the mentioned model. Although it has been criticized by a number of philosophers and some theorists labeled it elitism in art; Dickie, over the years, has always tried to fix these flaws by developing "Institutional Theory". Dickie calls the three initial formulations of "Institutional Theory", "the first narrative of institutional theory" which was introduced between 1969 and 1974. He calls the fourth formulation, "the next narrative of institutional theory." The followings, which are the main and final components of the "Institutional Theory" of art, were presented by Dickie:1- An artist means a person who participates with understanding in the making of a work of art. 2- A work of art is an artifact of a kind created to be presented to an art world public. 3- A public is a set of persons the members of which are prepared in some degree to understand an object which is presented to them. 4- The art world is the totality of all art world systems. 5- An art world system is a framework for the presenting of a work of art by an artist to an art world public. This article aims to categorize the types of art reproductions and verify the authenticity of each based on the five main components of the institutional theory. In this process, the extensive literature is reviewed with a descriptive-analytical research method. This study thus seeks to answer the question that which of the types of art reproductions might be original in a sense to be considered works of art in accordance with the main components of the institutional theory. In order to achieve the results of this qualitative study, first the reproduction works were classified into different types such as forgeries, high copies, kitsch, as well as replicas for the purposes of education, restoration and reproduction. After examining each type, the following results were obtained based on the components of "Institutional Theory". The most important reason that may reject art reproductions with the purpose of "re-producing" from the institutional theory standpoint is that the artist's "understanding" of their production was not to create a work of art, and the artist knows that he deals to reproduce someone else's work. However, today, by over aging or for the fame of their creators, some of the old art replicas are labeled and stored at museums or art institutions, therefore, have gained material and spiritual values. According to the conditions mentioned in the institutional theory, such works are exceptions and can be considered works of art. In the "replica works for the purpose of education", because the "artist's understanding" of what he does is just learning, they cannot be considered works of art. In addition, these works do not have an audience from the "art world". However, amongst there are few works that, like the previous case, have made their way to galleries and museums with aging, and perhaps not considering such exceptions in "institutional theory" can be considered a weakness for this view. In the case of the "replica with the purpose of restoration", because the "understanding" of the restorer is only to preserve and maintain the original work, it is not considered art from the "institutional theory" point of view. In the "replica for the purpose of glorification", the condition of "being an artifact of a kind" is met, but the "artist's understanding" of what he does is outside the scope of creating an original work of art; although the purpose of this work is to present that work to the "art world." In market art replicas, despite being an artifact of a kind, the artist does not intend to produce a work of art, and the public is not from the art world and has no understanding of the art world. If they have a possible understanding of art, they know that the works are just copies. Therefore, such works are not considered authentic in the framework of institutional theory. "Kitsch" works, except for the condition of being an artifact of a kind, do not per se include any of the theoretical and institutional conditions and are not considered original works of art; but a type of "kitsch", called "sweet kitsch" and also the works created in the field of "pop art" due to the existence of conditions such as being an artifact, "artist's understanding" of what he does (such as creating an arrangement, framing or presentation) is to present original works to the "art world public” In "high copy" works, we are faced with the coercion of artists in performance, and as mentioned earlier, performance techniques in arts cannot be faked. Also, the result of this work is an artifact. Therefore, if the artist's understanding is to create a work of art to present to the art world, it can be accepted as an authentic work of art. "Pasteish"s belong to this type that, despite being similar to the original work, is considered a new work of art with an excellent performance technique. Fake works are not considered works of art due to not having all the conditions of "institutional theory" except being an artifact of a kind. Finally, the findings of this article, in order to answer the main research question, reveal that among reproductions, only the works that are placed in the kitsch, Artist’s Self Copies, pop art and pastiche groups might be considered works of art. The rest, according to institutional theory is rejected except for some exceptions mentioned.