The aim of this article is to critically analyse the theory of 'art as contextual art' by Jan Swidzinski. The theory of 'art as contextual art' has not been reconstructed sufficiently in terms of its logical constitution, or its formal assumptions. The area that should be analysed, through the means of logic, becomes analysed per analogiam: that is through searching until we find the simplest and the most obvious comparisons with other contemporary, or past art theories. Swidzinski claims that the logic of the game described by him, is a useful depiction of processes that take place in the reality that surrounds us, whereas the theory of 'art as contextual art' itself contains a set of events referred to as 'the logic of a game'. This text attempts to answer the following question: What do we need to verify the above assertion? (as well as others posted by Swidzinski.) Swidzinski attempts to employ the models outlined in the essay to reveal the conflicts brought on by the misunderstandings of concepts used to describe the worlds we live in. As such, models are inscribed in the long tradition going back to Hegel. They are also present in the writings of Marquard, Habermas, Welsch and Foucault; this is irrespective of the fact that the scopes of their conceptualisation differ within the writings of these writers. The models are the one of many ways in which reality may be encompassed. Their usability is determined by some particular aims. Finally, the models serve for Swidzinski to rationalise the crisis in art. It seems rather obvious that the ability to verify them is periodical – the facts, inasmuch, may both support and refute them. The essay tries to find an answer to a question: what if the categories used by the theory of 'art as contextual art' have the ability to describe reality, but only in relation to the past which is being negated and refuted by them? Doing so, they do not directly determine what the current state is, but what it is not, in relation to what has become to be accepted as such. This is a deductive method and what is more, a negative one (it is defined by negation). In this approach the theory of 'art as contextual art' turns out to be yet another archive, another collection of truths and norms. The worst that we could have done is to treat it as true. It will never be true, it will never be fully refuted, just like in the case of truths, aspiring to the status of righteousness, which will never be verified. Perhaps, what matters here is simply to remember to never accept anything as true by belief or habit. And perhaps persistently refute, verify and redefine those truths.