Paragraph Summaries
- Sociohistorical theories of art view it as a means through which the dominant class imposed its views. But these views ignore that there are two ways that elites produced art.
- The two ways are: i. build something impressive for prestige ii. build something that reflects your values.
- Taruskin and similar critics focus on the second, and purport to show how the elite shaped artists’ works. For this analysis to work, i. Elites needed consensus about their identify, and ii. Artists couldn’t have subverted patron’s goals.
- Aristocrats and the richer middle classes had poor taste. So to make enduring art, artists had to work in the margins.
- Art often attacked the values of the elite that produced it. Critics must employ a complex (and likely wrong) Freudian analysis to show this art actually did reflect elite values.
Analysis
The author makes a pretty damning critique of art critics such as Taruskin. It’s important, when reading a passage, to figure out the author’s point of view.
The author’s argument is subtle, but clear: They think Taruskin is entirely wrong. Some indicators:
- “Fail to clarify” (line 8)
- “Prefer to deal….because it enables them to construct” (lines 20-22, the author implies that Taruskin is ignoring a significant way that art was created, and making something up that doesn’t match the world.)
- “For this kind of analysis to work, however” (lines 24-25, the author implies the analysis does not, in fact, work, because it won’t meet the two conditions)
- “The taste of the aristocracy….has not….produce an art that endures” (lines 34-36, the author means that the enduring art we do see is not the art that elites produced according to their values)
- Lines 45-47, the author implies that the simpler explanation is that elites funded art that disagreed with their values, and that the Freudian analysis is wrong.
So anything put forth by Taruskin and other critics is likely something the author disagrees with. Now, let’s summarize why they disagree with Taruskin.
- Critics ignore that much art was produced for display/prestige, and did not reflect elite values. (lines 11-16, particular “impossible to live in”).
- 3rd paragraph: Is it not the case that there was a consensus of elite values, and that artists always followed the wishes of patrons. Paragraphs 4 and 5, respectively, show that these two necessary conditions aren’t met.
In summary, the critics are wrong to think that enduring art reflected elite values because:
- Much art was produced merely for display (and so didn’t reflect the tastes of those who commissioned it – the rich just wanted the prestige of having commissioned it.)
- Of the art produced for values:
- Most of the upper classes were philistines, and the art they commissioned didn’t endure.
- Often, artists subverted the wishes of those who commissioned the art.
The author’s implied conclusion is that artists often were able to exercise their own values in their art.
Note that the third paragraph is extremely important. Questions 11 and 12 both rely on it.
The author says Taruskin’s argument requires two assumptions:
- The elites had a consensus.
- Artists didn’t subvert elite values.
In paragraph 4, the author indirectly attacks the idea that elites shared a consensus. In paragraph 5, the author directly attacks the second point: they show much art did not embody elite values.
Want a free Reading Comp lesson?
Get a free sample of the Reading Comprehension Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving RC questions
Leave a Reply