ABSTRACT
Construction arguments, being arguments, and "genuine", are not merely sets of opinions or assertions; they present justifications of whatever it is one "makes of" a critical object. Formative and performative arguments are both phases of the construction argument, and, obviously, the sort of stitching relationship described for rule and case hold. Formative and performative arguments can occur independently at certain crucial points, as criticism becomes "philosophical" and the construction argument "technical'; and upon this fact hang consequences of some explanatory value for understanding the facts of artistically relevant controversy. The regulative principles control the construction argument and are optional for talking about works of art in the sense that nothing prevents opting for the principles of consumption instead. Critics who raise questions about the construction or "nature" of an object of criticism raise questions similar to those raised in a court of law over the nature of the case in dispute.
