I'm not sure about the structure of this passage.
So did the artist actually describe the elite wrongly? (inside of their heart they hated elite but painted good pictures?) Or it's just what the elites think and actually it's not true?
What's the author's position is?? Does he disagree with Taruskin? What does the last paragraph means?
I'm so confused with this passage...
LSAT Forum
4 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- ganbayou
-
Thanks Received: 0
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 213
- Joined: June 13th, 2015
-
- ohthatpatrick
-
Thanks Received: 3808
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: April 01st, 2011
- This post thanked 1 time.
Re: Passage Discussion
First clue about Purpose:
"MOST interpretations view a body of work as ______"
Normally an author says something is USUALLY, TYPICALLY thought of a certain way because she's planning to push back against that way of thinking.
Sure enough, we get the author's voice in 7-10, with the classic "but/yet/however/recently" turning point.
PURPOSE: Clarify a misconception / Make a Distinction
P1: Background claim and author's focus
Most sociohist. interps of art = dominant, governing class imposes its ideals.
Author = we need to distinguish two different ways in which art was produced by and for the dominant, governing class.
P2: The two different ways
Way 1 = Elite person pays an artist to make something just because owning that artist's work gives the elite person some cool popularity points.
Way 2 = Elite person pays an artist to make something because he wants the artist to create a work that reflects the elite's ideals and way of life.
(I would pause there to reflect on how those are distinct. They seem similar. Essentially, the first way just allows a rich person to brag "Look -- I own something Picasso made". The second way allows a rich person to brag "Look --- Picasso made me something that is totally ME.")
P3: Critics usually focus on the 2nd way
Author's push back = who says the rich person even HAS enough personality or ideals for an artist to try to express? Who says we can look at a piece of art and say "that art reflects the elite person who paid for it". Maybe the artist took the money and made a piece of art SHE wanted to make, and the art really reflects HER ideals, not the elite's.
P4: Author expands on why he thinks focusing on the 2nd way is troubling
It's unlikely that mainstream rich people (who were lame and obsessed with stupid things like fox hunting and reputation) had good enough taste to have specifically requested the great art we see from that era. It's more likely that talented artists just got funding from weird rich people, who were willing to let these artists be creative.
P5: Author continues expanding on why 2nd way is unlikely to be right
A lot of great art was the result of an artist getting money from a rich person, but then creating a piece of art that specifically went AGAINST the elite (maybe even against that specific person).
If artists frequently made sarcastic pieces of art that were critical of the elite or went against the tastes of the elite, then critics like Taruskin are pretty foolish when it comes to their habit of looking at a piece of art, seeing what part of the elite paid for that art, and then leaping to the assumption that the piece of art reflects the tastes of the elite that paid for it.
=========
The passage is essentially this:
When we look at a piece of art, does it tell us about the artist or about the person who paid the artist to make the work?
Critics usually assume that the piece of art tells us about the person who paid the artist. The critics assume that the art turned out the way the buyer requested/wanted.
This author is saying: That's crazy!
1st - this great art we're talking about involves refined taste and bold artistic visions. Meanwhile, the rich people paying the artist did not have refined taste or bold vision.
2nd - A bunch of times, a rich person would pay an artist to make something, and the artist would come back with something the rich person hated. (paid for unwillingly / paid with misgivings / overtly disapproved)
The confusing Freudian line is saying, "If the rich person hated this piece of art he paid for, and some stupid critic is still maintaining that this piece of art reflects the ideals and vision of the rich person, then the critic must be saying something ridiculous like 'the rich person didn't consciously know that he wanted this controversial piece of art, but some part of his Freudian subconscious knew it wanted this piece of art.'"
"MOST interpretations view a body of work as ______"
Normally an author says something is USUALLY, TYPICALLY thought of a certain way because she's planning to push back against that way of thinking.
Sure enough, we get the author's voice in 7-10, with the classic "but/yet/however/recently" turning point.
PURPOSE: Clarify a misconception / Make a Distinction
P1: Background claim and author's focus
Most sociohist. interps of art = dominant, governing class imposes its ideals.
Author = we need to distinguish two different ways in which art was produced by and for the dominant, governing class.
P2: The two different ways
Way 1 = Elite person pays an artist to make something just because owning that artist's work gives the elite person some cool popularity points.
Way 2 = Elite person pays an artist to make something because he wants the artist to create a work that reflects the elite's ideals and way of life.
(I would pause there to reflect on how those are distinct. They seem similar. Essentially, the first way just allows a rich person to brag "Look -- I own something Picasso made". The second way allows a rich person to brag "Look --- Picasso made me something that is totally ME.")
P3: Critics usually focus on the 2nd way
Author's push back = who says the rich person even HAS enough personality or ideals for an artist to try to express? Who says we can look at a piece of art and say "that art reflects the elite person who paid for it". Maybe the artist took the money and made a piece of art SHE wanted to make, and the art really reflects HER ideals, not the elite's.
P4: Author expands on why he thinks focusing on the 2nd way is troubling
It's unlikely that mainstream rich people (who were lame and obsessed with stupid things like fox hunting and reputation) had good enough taste to have specifically requested the great art we see from that era. It's more likely that talented artists just got funding from weird rich people, who were willing to let these artists be creative.
P5: Author continues expanding on why 2nd way is unlikely to be right
A lot of great art was the result of an artist getting money from a rich person, but then creating a piece of art that specifically went AGAINST the elite (maybe even against that specific person).
If artists frequently made sarcastic pieces of art that were critical of the elite or went against the tastes of the elite, then critics like Taruskin are pretty foolish when it comes to their habit of looking at a piece of art, seeing what part of the elite paid for that art, and then leaping to the assumption that the piece of art reflects the tastes of the elite that paid for it.
=========
The passage is essentially this:
When we look at a piece of art, does it tell us about the artist or about the person who paid the artist to make the work?
Critics usually assume that the piece of art tells us about the person who paid the artist. The critics assume that the art turned out the way the buyer requested/wanted.
This author is saying: That's crazy!
1st - this great art we're talking about involves refined taste and bold artistic visions. Meanwhile, the rich people paying the artist did not have refined taste or bold vision.
2nd - A bunch of times, a rich person would pay an artist to make something, and the artist would come back with something the rich person hated. (paid for unwillingly / paid with misgivings / overtly disapproved)
The confusing Freudian line is saying, "If the rich person hated this piece of art he paid for, and some stupid critic is still maintaining that this piece of art reflects the ideals and vision of the rich person, then the critic must be saying something ridiculous like 'the rich person didn't consciously know that he wanted this controversial piece of art, but some part of his Freudian subconscious knew it wanted this piece of art.'"
-
- ganbayou
-
Thanks Received: 0
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 213
- Joined: June 13th, 2015
Re: Passage Discussion
Thank you so much! This makes a lot of sense now...
-
- PhoebeL747
-
Thanks Received: 2
-
Jackie Chiles
- Posts: 28
- Joined: November 20th, 2017
Re: Passage Discussion
This passage is so deep! Beautiful, isn't it?
4 posts Page 1 of 1