Pre Analysis of Dickie

During the last class (11/30/2009) we discussed George Dickie and his deceitful philosophy on art. Basically Dickie believes that if an artwork is a candidate of art, then it pretty much is art. However this statement can be argued in which a candidate of art may not be an artwork in most situations. In addition we must understand what a candidate is before we analyze Dickie's philosophy. Basically a candidate can be a person or object which possesses characteristics that will make the person or object an ideal fit for a certain or specific situation. For example Dickie classifies Marcel Duchamp's "Fountain" a piece of art because Duchamp's actions confer artistic status on it. Duchamp made "Fountain" a work of art when he signed,stamped,named, and exhibited it because in doing so, he made it something that others in the art world would treat as art. However this "Fountain" created by Duchamp was not really created by him, he just signed his name on it. In addition how can a fountain become a work of art? It is more furniture like than anything else and did this "fountain" have some type of candidacy? For example one of my friends could go into a bathroom or hardware store such as Home Depot or Lowe's, pick out a toilet seat, autograph it, and name it, but is this still art? The thing about art that confuses me the most is that the field is far too inclusive in which anything can be or become art. So far I tend to disagree with Dickie one hundred percent because how can a pre-art object that may confer artistic status (and I said "may")become a work or art? Dr. Johnson exemplified this situation perfectly the other day when he stated that there were multiple parties that ran presidency of the United States of America thus possessing some type of candidacy. However were these candidates ideal leaders to become president, probably not. More or less any object or person can possess some type of candidacy but is that person or object an ideal candidate? In art I believe that a toilet bowl or fountain(such as Duchamp's) does not possess any type of candidacy to become art because an object that is used to dispose of human waste or to hydrate an individual serves more as a tool instead of an artwork.

Q: If an object possesses some type of candidacy, even though most situations the object does not (since art is an extremely inclusive field), how is an object conferred as an artwork as Dickie states?