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 author mentions
to provide an example that illustrates the understanding of elitism in art favored by sociohistorical critics
This best captures the purpose. The frescoes are an example of the second way of interpreting how art is created by and for elites. We’re told in P3 that socio-historical critics favor this second way.
to illustrate the influence of religion on the historical development of art
The purpose of mentioning frescoes is to illustrate the second way of interpreting the idea that art is created “by and for” elites.
to present an example of the most common type of relationship between a patron and an artist
The purpose of mentioning frescoes is to illustrate the second way of interpreting the idea that art is created “by and for” elites. We don’t know what kind of relationship between a patron and artist was “most common.”
to show how an artist can subvert the ideals of the patron
The purpose of mentioning frescoes is to illustrate the second way of interpreting the idea that art is created “by and for” elites. The idea of subversion doesn’t come up until the last paragraph.
to show that there are cases of artist/patron relationships that do not fit the pattern preferred by sociohistorical critics
The purpose of mentioning frescoes is to illustrate the second way of interpreting the idea that art is created “by and for” elites. This second way is the way preferred by socio-historical critics.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnostic