RC Question 11 Explanation
DISCUSSION: Like question 10, this question is easier if you have a good map of the passage. The author describe’s Taruskin’s position in the 3rd paragraph (lines 20-30). They say that Taruskin’s position relies on two premises:
- The elites had a consensus.
- Artists didn’t subvert elite values.
This is sort of a necessary assumption question. It continues the trend 0f reading comprehension becoming more similar to logical reasoning.
Several of the answers are wrong because they refer to the most talented or most successful artists. This is the wrong group – Taruskin’s argument is about art in general. It’s possible for art in general to reflect elite values even if a tiny fraction of talented artists don’t reflect elite values.
___________
- Why would this matter? Taruskin’s argument would potentially be easier if this weren’t true.
Negation: The most talented artists openly embodied elite values in their art. - It doesn’t matter about the most successful artists, in isolation. Taruskin’s argument is about art as a whole. Art might still generally reflect elite values even if the 0.1% of the most successful artists didn’t reflect elite values.
You might have rejected this because it was about present artists, but I don’t think that’s a good reason – the argument is about the production of art, period. It’s mainly historical, but Taruskin’s claims extend to the present. - CORRECT. This matches. If this isn’t true, Taruskin’s argument falls apart.
It’s also the second bullet point above. For support in the passage, see lines 28-30.
Negation: Enduring high art can undermine elite values. - It doesn’t matter who produces art. It would be fine if artists were peasants, as long as their art reflected elite values.
- Taruskin’s argument is stronger if this is false. Their argument is that art reflects elite values. It’s the author who argues that art often subverted elite values.
Negation: The most talented artists did not subvert elite values.
Just want to add my piece of explanation for AC (C):
When I read the passage the first time, the last sentence confused me a little bit. However, on re-read I noticed the almost ‘tongue-in-cheek’ tone of the last sentence of the passage and took mental note of it. The author is sort-of poking fun at the absurdity of Taruskin doing “Freudian analysis” because of the falsity of his premises. When you see the tone of this sentence, answer choice C is a pretty close reflection of it.
Additionally, this question is close to a main point type question. Taruskin is consistently mentioned throughout the passage and serves as an anchor for the author’s commentary on the sociohistorical critics.
As Graham said, it’s close to LR territory. This question is akin to some of the ‘fill-in-the-blank’ LR questions with regard to the conclusion of the whole passage.
I understand the explanation provided, but I picked D because I thought the passage provides textual support (albeit not a ton) in the first paragraph for the idea that high art “is produced BY and for social and political elites.” I figured that in D, art that reflects the ideology of the elites seemed equivalent to the high art mentioned in the passage, in which case I would agree based on the “produced by” that the art was itself produced by members of the aristocracy or middle class. Is there anything I’m missing that makes this answer clearly wrong? If my evidence is correct, the explanation above for why D is wrong doesn’t seem to consider this
“Typically” throws off this answer. Yes, the first paragraph does suggest that art is “produced by/for the elite”, but we don’t know how much/what proportion of the art is produced by the elite. “Typically” is like “generally” and suggests at least 51% of the art in question. We don’t know this. It could be that only 1% of the art is created by elites, and the other 99% are the elites paying peasants to create this art.
Thanks for the quick reply. I’m still a little uncertain though because just before the “produced by/for” portion, it says that “one of the defining characteristics of high art is that it is produced by and for…” I know that defining characteristic isn’t a measure word in the way that typically or most is, but wouldn’t that intuitively allow you to assume that it’s more the rule than the exception?
When it comes to degree of intensity, I’d err on the side of caution and be a bit conservative. It’s like why when we visualize “most”, we think 51%, not 99%.
A “defining characteristic” could look like this:
– 43% of art is produced by elite for elite
– 25% of art is made by commoners
– 25% of art is made by clowns
– 7% of art is made by dogs
In this scenario, elites are the largest population, but they aren’t an overall majority since the other three groups account for 57% of art. So in this scenario, elites making art for elites wouldn’t be “typical”.
I found C for this one after looking at the last para where the author mentions what “the social historical critic, like Taruskin, must do..” freudian ideals yada yada.
Hey Alex,
Agreed, the last paragraph does say that for his argument to follow, Tarsukin must concede that subversive art “in hidden ways…embodied the ideals of the elite”.
I was so excited to reach an answer a different way than you did I had to post about it. Your analaysis for all the other RC 70s have been immensely helpful in allowing me to look around the passage better and do that. Thanks.
Hey Alex,
It’s great to hear that you’ve benefited so much from Graeme’s explanations! And thanks for pointing out another piece of evidence for (C).
Hi I don’t really understand why option D is incorrect. The passage quotes Taruskin as saying high art is “produced BY and FOR political and social elites.” Given that the passage equates political and social elites with the aristocrats and the bourgeoisie later on in paragraph three, I’m struggling to understand why option D is a no-go. Thank you!
Great question! So if art is produced by the elites, that can be interpreted as the elites commissioning and controlling production. It doesn’t mean the workers (artists) are elite themselves. Let’s consider two distinctions:
Art production: Commissioned by elites, for elite consumption
Grain production: Commissioned by elites, for consumption by the general population
Artists throughout history often needed a patron, and the patron decided what art would be produced. And the art was produced in order for use by the patron and other elites. Hopefully that makes sense. Produced doesn’t mean personal production by personal labor, though clearly that is another definition of the word.
Note: This is an old comment but I wanted to clarify the point.