Response to Nick

I am responding to Nick’s post,
“What do you think of my analysis? What do I do with Dickie? What do I do with Weitz?”
First off, I think your analysis is very accurate; there do seem to be two categories of art-philosophers and I think you defined those categories very well. However, I do disagree with your placement of Goodman. Goodman should be in the human category because his definition depends upon the social/historical context which depends upon society as a whole, and thus depends on other people. I am also unsure of Plato’s placement, because art does not involve the influence of other people; rather, other people are involved in Plato’s theory by being influenced by art.
In order to place Dickie in only one category, I think your categories simply need further clarification. Does the human category require the influence of other’s? or does it merely leave open the possibility of the influence of others? If you clarify by using the latter, then Dickie would belong solely in the human category because, although art status can be conferred by only the individual artist, the possibility of another’s influence is still present.
As for Weitz—Morris Weitz never actually gave a definition of art, and so he does not belong in any category.
How would Dickie be categorized if the human category required the influence of others? Where should Plato be placed?