ABSTRACT
This chapter seeks to distinguish a “work of art” from an “artefact” through the notion of artefactuality. Contrary to George Dickie’s claims that artefactuality is a defining condition of art, the chapter argues that artefactuality is complex in nature and, therefore, neither necessary nor sufficient for certain groups of artworks and, therefore, cannot be a defining characteristic of art. As a rule, the notion of artefactuality has been tied to the idea of a craft or technical skill, the existence of which presupposes the existence of an agent whose conscious activity is directed towards the production of an artefact. The chapter proposes four essential conditions that are required for the existence of craft and, therefore, for the production of artefacts. Through analyses of these artworks, the author clarifies that an artwork may be an artefact but that art is not per se artefactual and therefore believes that Dickie has confused the notion of a work of art. The chapter concludes that what distinguishes works of art from artefact in general is the creative dimension.
