 George Dickie (2001) said that Dewey sets forth an expression theory of art without any supporting argument. Lumping Dewey with Collingwood, he thought such theorists place art in the same domain with the growl of a dog with a bone. They made the creation of art like the bowerbird’s production of bowers, i.e., a result of innate natures without a plan in mind. For Dickie, expression of emotion is neither sufficient nor necessary for defining art. He thought these theories wrongly hold that psychological mechanisms in human nature are sufficient for the production of art, as if the production of artworks is teleologically determined by such.