Below I put my additional thoughts about the structure of the first part of the Course again.
It would be much helpful to deal with the Course if the text on page 26 of our workbook would be allocated right at the beginning of the first part of the Course because it gives the clear and very needed distinction between the terms « Theory of Art » and « Art Theories.» Also, the text on page 26 is much more well written than all allocated on pages 16,17, 18 – those are very tangled, and I still can not comprehend them to 100%. I also can not understand why the topic “Social Theories as art Theories” (page 20) jumps into our attention before the main idea, which is well described on page 26 – What is the Theory of Art and Art Theory.

Below I put a brief description of Theories of Art. These notes are just for myself, they help me to learn the concepts.

It is extremely hard to bring the phenomenon of Art to one single theory which would sufficiently and fully describe art as a phenomenon of human existence. As I understood there is no such yet. Over the time a good number of Art Theories have been developed. They are the following:

Mimetic theories which consider Art as a representation or imitation of nature

Expressive Theories consider Art as a reflection, manifestation of inner state of the artist;

Formalist Theories consider Art as “not a window upon the world” but a “self -contained and self -justifying entity”. This theory explains any object of art as a unity of very tightly interrelated elements which altogether create a synergetic effect of “organic unity” and this is how we perceive them;

Processional theories explain Art from the process of creation which is also “self-contained and self-justifying process”.

Pragmatic Theories consider Art as a purposeful activity which has its certain effect on its audience aiming to create a shared experience; For example Art can enhance the thought, Art as a “means of escape from reality”, as a means to get pleasure, as a means of communication and etc.

Aestheticism is a Theory of Art which insists that Art exists for the sake of its beauty alone;

Institutional Theory: as George Dickie puts it (most experts agree that he is the best theorist of this theory): “...it is the decisions of persons, paradigmatically though not exclusively artists; that make objects into art”. George Dickie originally introduced his concept in 1974 in “Art and the Aesthetic”. Even though later he published another article “The New Institutional Theory of Art” he insisted that the overall “instructional approach” in our attempts to define -what is art? Was still very viable: “ … the works of art are art as the result of the position they occupy within an institutional framework or context”.

Artefactuality; Acting on behalf of social institutions- “artworld”; Conferring a status of “being art”;“Being a candidate”; Appreciation;

These all above give us a some definition of art.

Exercise 1.3. “In what sense could be a) A Dyson vacuum cleaner, b) Tenniel`s illustrations of Alice in Wonderland; c) The Nazca lines be works of art?”. We must “take a speculative approach to this question. Don’t say whether you think they are or they should be, considered as art. Rather say someone might see them that way.”

---

The Dyson vacuum cleaner can be considered an art object because it was created with a very careful and original design approach. We can not ignore the fact that every detail of this device in its aesthetics and overall design were equally essential factors in the creation of the device. The abovementioned makes the vacuum cleaner in total compliance with Aestheticism and Formalist theories of Art. From the Institutional Theory of Art perspective, this device can also be considered an Art and is actually considered Art because it has received numerous design awards and Dyson Research and Development Center. It has to be mentioned that Dyson products have been displayed in 34 museums all over the world, including such names as Metropolitan Museum of Art, MOMA, NYC, USA, Centre Georges Pompidou, Paris, France, Victoria and Albert Museum, London, UK.

I tried to follow a ‘speculative approach’ as it was recommended in the exercise. That is why I brought the argument about its numbers design awards.

Nazca Lines are objects of Art because they were created in a deliberate, highly aesthetic value manner. Consequently, they are unique and precious cultural heritage as recognized by UNESCO and other authoritative world organizations in Art and culture. 

Tenniel’s illustrations of “Alice in Wonderland” are Art objects because, from the Institutional Theory of Art’s point of view, his illustrations can be considered Art because art professionals have recognized them as ‘iconic’ and worth for public exhibitions. Sir John Tenneil has received formal artistic training at British Royal Academy and spent time drawing and painting the classical statutes at London` S Townley Gallery, studying consumes and armor at British Museum. This practice taught him how to draw with greater detail. He also had been a member of the Artist` S Society of Clipstone Street Life Academy; he had a very successful career as a cartoonist at Punch magazine. 

Bibliography: 1)“Theories of Art” by Ronald W. Hepburn from “A Companion to Aethestics”, David S. Cooper; 1999; on http://www.users.rowan.edu; 2) “The New Institutional Theory of Art”, Georges Dickie, on http://www.contemporaneos.files.wordpress.com; 3) “What is Art? Institutional Definition of “Work of Art” Philosophy Core Concepts” by Gregory B.Sadler; YouTube;

4) « Defining Art : This is not art …. or is it? Why does it matter? » by Brian Sherwin, 03/03/2013 on http://www.fineartviews; 5) “Get to Know Sir John Tenneil, the Prolific Illustrator Behind`s “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland” by Emma Tagart on July 26, 2020 on http://www.mymodernmet.com; 5)“The Institutional Theory of Art” by Robert J. Yanal, Wayne State University, the article allocated by David C.Graves, Academic College of Tel Aviv-Yafo; April 1997, on http://www.researchgate.net;