Support We ought to pay attention only to the intrinsic properties of a work of art. βββ ββββββ βββββββββ ββββββββββ βββ ββββββββββ ββ βββ βββββββββ ββββββββββββ ββββ βββ βββ ββββββββ ββββ ββ ββββ ββ β ββββββββ ββ ββββββ ββββββββ ββββ ββββ ββ ββββββββ βββββββββ ββ βββ ββββββββββ ββ βββ ββββ ββ ββββββ βββββββββββββ βββββββββ ββββββββββ ββ βββ ββββ β ββββββββ βββββββββββ βββ ββββ ββ ββββββββ ββββββββ ββ βββββββββββ
The author concludes that what a painting symbolizes is NOT aesthetically relevant. Rather, it is what the painting directly presents to experience.
Why does the author believe this?
Because the extrinsic properties of an artwork are aesthetically irrelevant. In addition, we should consider only what is directly presented in our experience of an artwork.
Notice that βwhat a painting symbolizesβ is a new concept in the conclusion β itβs not mentioned or logically covered by any of the premises. So, at a minimum, we should look for an answer that involves what a painting symbolizes.
To go further, we can anticipate a more specific connection between the premise and conclusion. A premise tells us that extrinsic properties of an art are aesthetically irrelevant. So if we want to conclude that what a painting symbolizes is aesthetically irrelevant, we want to establish that what a painting symbolizes is an extrinsic property of art. (If a premise says extrinsic β irrelevant, and we want to conclude symbol β irrelevant, then we want to establish symbol β extrinsic.)
The conclusion follows logically if βββββ βββ ββ βββ βββββββββ ββ βββββ ββ βββ βββββββββ
What an artwork ββββββββββ ββββββββ ββββ βββββββββ ββββββββββ ββ ββββ βββββ
There are certain ββββββββββ ββ βββ βββββββββββ ββ ββββββββ ββββ βββ ββ βββββββββββββ ββ ββββββββ βββββββββββ
Only an artwork's βββββββββ ββββββββββ βββ ββββββββ ββ βββ βββββββββ ββββββββββββ ββββ βββ
It is possible ββ ββββββ βββ ββ βββββββ ββ βββββββββ ββββββββ
An intrinsic property ββ ββ βββββββ ββ βββ ββββ βββββββ βββ ββββ ββ βββββββ