In order to determine the extent of the meaning of an opulent object, one must consider it’s original purpose Reflecorites Stat. *** supra. The intent of the reflectivity may include purposes from decoration to safety. Objects in which shiny surfaces exist thereon are distinct sovereign objects yet may exist as units within another object. The effulgent material is to be regulated in reflectivity by said artist under the doctrine of inherent creativity Beads supra.
In pre-complication view, decoration is an inherent attribute of value. This assumption has since been reversed Modernism v. Decoration. Thus the extent of the power of decoration is abrogated by this adjudication.
Post decoration abrogation, the extent of the value of said shiny object is determined by the fiduciary duty of the object whereon the reflective material exists. Thus the decorative power of said object is necessarily diminished.
Cases wherein the decorated object possesses little or no value are inconsistent with the dependant status of decoration. By exceeding the quasi sovereign power of decoration in the regulation of reflectivity thereon a valueless object, said artist seeks to appeal the broad understanding of the court of complication.
In this faux court decision, I use language from historic cases defining tribal sovereignty within U.S. Federal Indian Policy to draw a correlation between tribal political status in law and the position of decoration in contemporary art.