Most sociohistorical interpretations of art view a body of work as the production of a class, generally a dominant or governing class, imposing its ideals. …
The first way was for a member of the elite to engage a well-known artist to produce
Sociohistorical critics like Taruskin prefer to deal with art produced the second way, because it enables them to construct a subtle analysis of the way such art embodied the ideology of the elite, whatever the identity of the artist. …
Historically, the two social classes able to commission art were the aristocratic, or governing class, and the well-to-do middle class, what used to be called the bourgeoisie. The taste of the aristocracy and the upper middle class has not always been apt to produce an art that endures. In his characterization of nineteenth-century English culture, cultural critic Matthew Arnold identified the aristocracy as Barbarians, interested largely in fox hunting and gaming, and the middle class as Philistines, obsessed with respectability. As a result, the more talented artists sometimes had to find a place in the margins of the establishment—engaged by a rich patron with eccentric tastes, for example.
Moreover, a great deal of art that went against the grain of elite values was paid for by the establishment unwillingly and with misgivings. Because some of this art endured, the sociohistorical critic, like Taruskin, must engage in an analogue of Freudian analysis, and claim that in hidden ways such art embodied the ideals of the elite, who were unaware that those ideals are revealed by work of which they overtly disapproved.
The passage suggests that Taruskin's position commits him to which one of the following views?
The most talented artists throughout history have been those whose work embodied the ideology of the elite in hidden ways.
This isn’t mentioned as something Taruskin’s view commits him to. Look at the last paragraph — that’s where the author describes what Taruskin’s view commits him to. The author never claims Taruskin has to have a view about the “most talented artists.”
The most successful artists working today are those whose work reflects the ideology of the elite.
This isn’t mentioned as something Taruskin’s view commits him to. Look at the last paragraph — that’s where the author describes what Taruskin’s view commits him to. The author never claims Taruskin has to have a view about the “most successful artists working today.”
If it endures, high art that appears to undermine the ideology of the elite actually supports that ideology in some way.
This best captures what what the author claims Taruskin’s view commits him to in the last paragraph: “the sociohistorical critic, like Taruskin, must engage in an analogue of Freudian analysis, and claim that in hidden ways such art embodied the ideals of the elite, who were unaware that those ideals are revealed by work of which they overtly disapproved.”
Typically, art that reflects the ideology of the elite is produced by artists who are themselves members of the aristocratic or middle classes.
This isn’t mentioned as something Taruskin’s view commits him to. Look at the last paragraph — that’s where the author describes what Taruskin’s view commits him to.
The most talented artists throughout history have been those whose work subverted the ideology of the elite in subtle ways.
This isn’t mentioned as something Taruskin’s view commits him to. Look at the last paragraph — that’s where the author describes what Taruskin’s view commits him to.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnostic