Passage - General Questions

[Administrator]

Please post below with any questions!

[mokkyukkyu]

What does the last paragraph (especially the last sentence) talk about?
It was so confusing...thanks!

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi mokkyukkyu,

The last paragraph was indeed slightly confusing, but it is consistent with the overall purpose of the passage - to convince us that Taruskin's analysis, and others like it, are overly simplistic.

Contrary to what Taruskin seems to imply, the author observes that a lot of art went against the grain of elite values. Imagine an "elite value" among the elite in the 18th century was a spiritual or platonic attitude in love. If an 18th century artist depicted a highly erotic scene, for instance, that would ostensibly go against the grain of an elite value, and the elite would probably disapprove of it. So, how do you reconcile this fact with Taruskin's belief that art is produced "by and for the elite"? Well, we need to assume that the erotic scene actually embodied a platonic attitude in love: the elite just couldn't see it as such.

Does that make sense?

Thanks,

[sgd2114]

Hi,

When reading the passage, I had trouble understanding exactly the purpose and function of the fourth paragraph. Is the author expanding upon the assumption in paragraph 3, lines (25-27), that "it must be the case that the elite had a recognizable identity and displayed some kind of consensus about the world and the way life was to be lived" ? It seems the author is suggesting then in paragraph four that this assumption is not the case - that, according to Matthew Arnold, the elites don't have a coherent identity or worldview.

Thanks!

[nicholaspavic]

Hi sgd,

Yes, I think that's exactly what the author is doing here. And to expand on that, the author is proposing that on the subject of high art that Taruskin likes to view the art as a function of the elite "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." In the fourth paragraph, the author is rejecting that many of the elite had such lofty ideals and instead is pointing out that those ideals expressed in certain fringe elements of the elite were, in fact, ideals of the artist and not the patron. The quote you note, is the beginning of the shift in the passage where the author begins expressing his own viewpoint and so it should be noted when you are working your way through this passage to the questions.

Thanks for the great question!

[rita02]

Hi, can someone help explain the structure and perhaps the VIEWSTAMP of this passage? I had a really hard time understanding it. Thanks!

[KelseyWoods]

Hi Rita!

Here's a summary and VIEWSTAMP analysis for you:

Summary

Paragraph 1: This paragraph presents the viewpoint of "most sociohistorical interpretations of art" (for example, Richard Taruskin)--that it is produced by and for political and social elites. The last sentence is the author's viewpoint--that these prevailing viewpoints fail to clarify that there are actually 2 different ways that art was produced by and for political and social elites.

Paragraph 2: This paragraph expands on the author's viewpoint at the end of the 1st paragraph--the 2 different ways that art is produced by and for political and social elites. First way: member of the elite commissions work from a well-known artist for display. Second way: create or commission a work that expressed and mirrored one's ideals and way of life.

Paragraph 3: Here, the author argues that the sociohistorical critics introduced in the 1st paragraph prefer to deal with art produced the second way (as described in the 2nd paragraph) and analyze the art as reflecting the ideology of the elite. But the author says there are 2 assumptions necessary for this type of analysis to work: (1) the elite had a recognizable identity and consensus about how the world should work; and (2) we can eliminate the possibility that the artists subverted the ideals of their patrons.

Paragraph 4: In this paragraph, the author argues against the view of most sociohistorical critics by elaborating on how the 1st assumption described in paragraph 3 (that the elite had a recognizable identity and consensus about how the world should work) was not necessarily true: mainstream tastes often produced artwork that did not endure and the artists who were more talented sometimes worked with outlier elites--those who had tastes that differed from most other elites.

Paragraph 5: In this paragraph, the author continues to argue against the view of most sociohistorical critics by elaborating on how the 2nd assumption described in paragraph 3 (that we can eliminate the possibility that the artists subverted the ideals of their patrons) was not necessarily true: a great deal of art that went against the rain of elite values was paid for by the elite establishment unwillingly and with misgivings. The author argues that Taruskin and critics like him must engage in a type of "Freudian analysis" when they claim that art which elites overtly disapproved of still somehow expresses their ideals.

VIEWSTAMP Analysis

Viewpoints: Sociohistorical critics' viewpoint that art simply reflects the ideals of the elite; Author's viewpoint that this viewpoint fails to consider that the elite class did not necessarily have a single identity and that the artists did not necessarily reflect the ideals of their patrons

Structure:
Paragraph 1 - Viewpoint of most sociohistorical critics and the beginnings of the author's criticism of it
Paragraph 2 - Two different ways art is produced by and for elites
Paragraph 3 - Assumptions necessary for the sociohistorical viewpoint of art
Paragraph 4 & 5 - Author's argument for why the assumptions in the 3rd paragraph do not hold up

Tone: The author is critical of the sociohistorical viewpoint of art

Arguments: The author presents arguments as to why the sociohistorical viewpoint of art relies on unwarranted assumptions

Main Point: The sociohistorical viewpoint that argues that art is simply a reflection of the ideals of the elite class fails to consider that the elite class did not necessarily have a single identity and that artists did not necessarily reflect the ideals of their patrons.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey