Dickie and Institutions

Now, I am not going to go on a tangent about favoritism or anything, but I actually am willing to admit that I in fact, like how Dickie makes the artworld into an institution. But at the same time, I really hate it, because he changes the definition of what an institution is in order for it to fit the description of art as we know it. The artworld is made up of its members. And who are its members? Anyone who sees themselves as a member. WHATTTT? Seriously guys, i think you can all understand my frustration when looking for an answer and then the one they give is basically another question. it reminds me of my mother... Now this idea of institutions is one we have had for a long time. Minority in power and a majority who follow rules, all of which involved in some common theme, like prison, or asylums, or... marriage? And if it had just stayed there, this concept of the artworld would bemore graspable becuase of an outline. People in the artworld decide what is art and who is an artist, and the others agree or follow. But everyone can be a member and if everyone is a member, there is no selectivity. And so those in power cannot be determined, yet we recognise them as such. It seems that the more we ask about art, the more questions we get as answers.

So my question for right now is, is the artworld really an institution in the true sense, or is is a community?