ARTIST / SPECTATOR --DEDUCTIVE- Preconceived beliefs/knowledge/thoughts
NONDEDUCTIVE
external/objective?-- Does nondeductive imply Induction or something else? Induction would fail as it would imply that a=b, all b’s are a’s. This white piece of paper is art, all pieces of white paper are art. Or Nondeductive simply implies no prejudged conceptions of what art is.
Deductive- all art has X (quality), this has X (quality), therefore it is art.

It is usually supposed that beliefs can be represented by sentences to which a person would assent under appropriate conditions.

With regard to what is or is not believed to be art, assuming ‘I’ above, then which condition or set of conditions might co...can art be considered deductive? It would mean a recognisable predicate...nstitute appropriate ones. According to Judd’s dictum ‘if someone says it’s art it’s art’ a more or less accurate translation is ‘if someone believes it’s art it’s art’. The latter would in normal usage be a presupposition from which a statement like the former could be made.++art as an object of quality should be left as linguistic definition, or anything other than art. Quality and taste would need some authority.
If I wish so, I may deny the status of art to the Mona Lisa, on the grounds of a lack of quality and taste - or ?


Kosuths denial of art before Duchamp. On the destabilising of art (or authenticity of the artist) of Van Gogh palette being displayed next to his paintings.++

The notion of appropriateness for beliefs concerning art is a variable of such wide ranging dimensions today that many people believe that the utility of art is precisely this factor. They
believe that because art can be most anything[[‘Art is ...’
nondeductive inference!
‘Art is not ...‘

Methodology right’!’ Could this mean a
PERFORMATIVE ACT - An act of nomination
or judgement

CHOICE / RECOGNITION}} this is a good thing, and this lines up hazily with half-baked notions of democracy, tolerance and the importance of the subjective. These latter are baubles for indulgence and dumb indulgence at that. Reinhardt had it methodologically right when he used the imperative form ‘Art is ...’, ‘Art is not ...’ Marxist aesthetics has it methodologically right when it uses the form ‘Art is ...’, ‘Art is not ...’. The case of believing a thing to be or not to be art seems to be purely a matter of nondeductive inference and the crucial nondeductive cases occur when two people accept some sentences as expressing facts known to them both, but disagree on their interpretation, that is, on what hypotheses and predictions it is reasonable to believe on the basis of those facts.

The first-ever discussion concerning (what we now call) art is taking place between say X, who has made some thing (which is under discussion) and Y who along with X is perusing this thing. Y has an idea of what (we now call) art is and is trying to persuade X that this thing he has made is art. He is outlining some conditions that the thing fulfills. Y’s statements are assertive ones, of the form ‘Art is ...’. X, who is perhaps less flamboyant than Y, is ,
characteristically, asking perhaps more fundamental questions than Y. X asks, firstly, how Y knows what art is, secondly, what use it is.

Nondeductive rules in detecting art are not so much designed to single out regularities which are intrinsic features of the universe, as they are designed to systemize the choice of regularities of which predictive extensions are ...Making / choosing

Intention / recognition
... made in making nondeductive inferences.

Questioning 5 above, if there are nondeductive rules which the concept of art is founded upon, what kind of features do they have? Do they locate a regularity in the facts given in a certain situation?