Who can we really consider to be part of the artworld, since Dickie's view is far too broad?

Dickie was sort of on the right track with his idea of who should be in the artworld, and then really starts to get all skewed.  When it comes to those who are truly in the artworld, having at the very least a basic knowledge of art is very important. To be a member of the artworld, one must have had experience with art on a few different occasions, whether it be from going to a museum, to reading literature, or even attempting to make art oneself.  An audience is just as important as artists, and therefore an audience is just about on the same level in the artworld as artists are, however, artists are the creators of art, so they stand just a bit higher. Not too far behind, of course, would be art critics and owners of museums and producers and the like. In opposition to Dickie, however, not just anyone can be part of the artworld. It is one thing to appreciate art to an extent, but in order to be a member of the artworld, one must have some sort of knowledge and experience with art in order to be a part of it.