Most sociohistorical interpretations of art view a body of work as the

Question

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. For
example, Richard Taruskin writes in his Oxford
  (5)   History of Western Music that one of the defining
characteristics of "high art" is that "it is produced by
and for political and social elites." What Taruskin and
others fail to clarify, however, is that there are two
different ways that art, historically, was "produced
  (10)   by and for political and social elites."

The first way was for a member of the elite to
engage a well-known artist to produce something for
display. For instance, if one commissions a famous
architect to design one's house, that may reflect great
  (15)   credit on one's taste, even if one finds the house
impossible to live in. The second way was to create,
or to have created, a work that expressed and mirrored
one's ideals and way oflife, like Raphael's frescoes in
the Vatican apartments commissioned by Pope Julius II.

(20)   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. For this kind of analysis to work,
  (25)   however, 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, and it must also be the case that we can
eliminate the possibility that artists subverted the
  (30)   ideals of the patron for their own reasons.

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
  (35)   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
  (40)   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.

(45)   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
  (50)   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.    1 
 1. Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main point of the passage?

(A) Historically, art was primarily commissioned by the governing classes and the well-to-do middle classes, despite the fact that this arrangement was not apt to produce art that endures.
(B) Sociohistorical interpretations of art that claim that art merely reflects the ideals and values of the elite classes are overly simplistic.
(C) Historically, patrons of the arts have generally been more interested in what being a patron would do for their reputation than in influencing the development of the arts.
(D) Sociohistorical critics must engage in a form of Freudian analysis to justify, in light of apparently conflicting evidence, the claim that works of art embody the ideals of the elite.
(E) There have historically been two distinct ways in which members of the elite classes have had art produced for them.

2 
 2. In using the phrase "something for display" (lines 12-13), the author most probably means art that

(A) allowed the patron to make a political statement to the world
(B) could be used to attract customers to the patron's business
(C) was meant to create an impression that reflected positively on the patron
(D) was representative of the artist's broader body of work at the time
(E) provided the patron with personal satisfaction

3 
 3. It can be inferred from the passage that the attitude of Matthew Arnold toward the aristocratic and middle classes can best be described as one of

(A) respect
(B) empathy
(C) indifference
(D) disappointment
(E) scorn

4 
 4. The passage raises all of the following as complications for the sociohistorical interpretation of art EXCEPT:

(A) artists who subverted the ideals of patrons for reasons of their own
(B) patrons who had eccentric tastes not reflective of the ideals of the elite classes
(C) patrons whose taste was unlikely to produce art that endured
(D) patrons who bought artwork solely for the purpose of reselling that artwork for a profit
(E) patrons who unwillingly bought artwork that conflicted with their values

5 
 5. The passage suggests that Taruskin's position commits him to which one of the following views?

(A) The most talented artists throughout history have been those whose work embodied the ideology of the elite in hidden ways.
(B) The most successful artists working today are those whose work reflects the ideology of the elite.
(C) If it endures, high art that appears to undermine the ideology of the elite actually supports that ideology in some way.
(D) Typically, art that reflects the ideology of the elite is produced by artists who are themselves members of the aristocratic or middle classes.
(E) The most talented artists throughout history have been those whose work subverted the ideology of the elite in subtle ways.

6 
 6. The primary function of the third paragraph is to

(A) reject a possible response to the argument made in the first paragraph
(B) identify assumptions relied upon by a type of analysis referred to in the first paragraph
(C) present an argument that weakens the argument made in the second paragraph
(D) offer additional evidence for the conclusion reached in the second paragraph
(E) draw a definitive conclusion from the claims made in the second paragraph

7 
 7. The author mentions "Raphael's frescoes in the Vatican apartments" (lines 18-19) for which one of the following reasons?

(A) to provide an example that illustrates the understanding of elitism in art favored by sociohistorical critics
(B) to illustrate the influence of religion on the historical development of art 
(C) to present an example of the most common type of relationship between a patron and an artist
(D) to show how an artist can subvert the ideals of the patron
(E) to show that there are cases of artist/patron relationships that do not fit the pattern preferred by sociohistorical critics

8 
 8. The passage suggests that Matthew Arnold would be most likely to identify which one of the following as the primary reason why, historically, people in the middle class became patrons of the arts?

(A) a belief in the importance of the arts to society as a whole
(B) a dislike for the kind of art typically sponsored by the aristocracy
(C) a belief that patronage would ultimately prove profitable
(D) a realization that patronage ensures the production of high-quality art
(E) a desire to establish a reputation as a patron of the arts

ashutosh_73 · Accepted Answer

Really a beautiful one. 
Below is the passage overview by a Manhattan instructor:

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.'"

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Explanation

1. Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main point of the passage?

Explanation

Use your Bottom Line of the passage to help you to evaluate the choices. The correct answer will describe the main idea of the passage.

A. No.  While this is mentioned in the passage, it is too narrow and is not the overall main idea.

B.  Yes.   This answer accurately paraphrases the Bottom Line.

C. No.  The passage makes no such comparison.

D. No.  While this is mentioned in the passage, it is too narrow and is not the overall main idea.

E. No.  While this is mentioned in the passage, it is too narrow and is not the overall main idea.

Answer: B

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Explanation

5. The passage suggests that Taruskin's position commits him to which one of the following views?

Explanation

The question is asking for a statement that follows from Taruskin’s position as it is described by the passage. The correct answer will be supported by evidence from the passage.

A. No.  Matthew Arnold makes an argument about more talented artists, but Taruskin does not.

B. No.  Taruskin does not mention contemporary artists.

C.  Yes.   In the first paragraph, Taruskin states that a defining attribute of high art is that it’s produced by and for elites, and in the fifth paragraph, the author argues that Taruskin must claim that art that overtly goes against the grain of elite values actually embodies those ideals in hidden ways.

D. No.  The passage does not compare artists who are members of the elites to those who are commissioned by elites.

E. No.  Matthew Arnold makes an argument about more talented artists, but Taruskin does not.

Answer: C

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Explanation

7. The author mentions "Raphael's frescoes in the Vatican apartments" (lines 18-19) for which one of the following reasons?

Explanation

The question is asking why the author mentions “Raphael’s frescoes in the Vatican apartments.” In the second paragraph, the frescoes are introduced as an example of a work that expressed and mirrored one’s ideals and way of life.

A.  Yes.   This accurately paraphrases the discussion in thesecond paragraph.

B. No.  While the frescoes are in the Vatican, the passage does not discuss the influence of religion.

C. No.  This answer choice is extreme and is unsupported. While the passage says that sociohistorical interpreters prefer to analyze this type of relationship, the passage does not argue that it is the most common type of relationship.

D. No.  An artist subverting the ideals of a patron is not mentioned until the third paragraph.

E. No.  The frescoes are mentioned as an example of the relationship that is preferred by sociohistorical critics.

Answer: A

egmat · Answer

I'll help you tackle these three questions by first mapping the passage structure, then addressing each question systematically.

Passage Structure Map 
 
 Paragraph 1:  Introduces the debate - Taruskin claims "high art" is produced by/for elites, BUT there are actually TWO different ways this happens (key distinction!)
 Paragraph 2:  Explains the two ways:
 
  Way 1:  Elite hires famous artist for prestige (like commissioning a famous architect) 
  Way 2:  Create work that mirrors elite's ideals (like Raphael's Vatican frescoes)  
 Paragraph 3:  Critics prefer Way 2 because it lets them analyze elite ideology  BUT  this requires:
 
 Elite had recognizable identity/consensus 
 Artists didn't subvert patron's ideals  
 Paragraph 4:  Problem - Elite taste (aristocracy="Barbarians", middle class="Philistines") often didn't produce enduring art
 Paragraph 5:  Major complication - Much enduring art actually went  against  elite values, forcing critics to claim it "secretly" embodied elite ideals
 
 Question 1: Main Point 
 
The passage's central argument is that sociohistorical interpretations are  problematic  because:
 
 They oversimplify how art was produced for elites 
 Elite taste often failed to produce enduring art 
 Much great art actually opposed elite values 
 Critics must perform mental gymnastics to maintain their theory  
 
Answer: (B)  - Sociohistorical interpretations are overly simplistic
 
Why others are wrong: 
 
 (A) - Only partial; misses the critical analysis aspect 
 (C) - Too narrow; focuses only on reputation 
 (D) - This is a consequence, not the main point 
 (E) - Just a detail from Para 1-2, not the main argument  
 
 Question 5: Taruskin's Position 
 
Taruskin believes high art = produced by/for elites. The passage's final paragraph reveals the logical bind: when enduring art  opposed  elite values, critics like Taruskin must claim it "secretly" supported them anyway.
 
Answer: (C)  - If high art endures but appears to undermine elite ideology, it must actually support it somehow
 
Why others are wrong: 
 
 (A) & (E) - Contradict Taruskin's position 
 (B) - About today's artists; passage discusses historical art 
 (D) - About artist's class background; not discussed  
 
 Question 6: Third Paragraph Function

Paragraph 3 explicitly states what  must be true  for sociohistorical analysis to work: " For this kind of analysis to work, however, it must be the case that... "
This paragraph identifies the  assumptions  underlying the sociohistorical approach mentioned in Paragraph 1.

Answer: (B)  - Identifies assumptions of the analysis type from Paragraph 1
 
Why others are wrong: 
 
 (A) - Doesn't reject anything; states requirements 
 (C) - Doesn't weaken Para 2; explains prerequisites 
 (D) - Doesn't provide evidence; states conditions 
 (E) - Doesn't draw conclusions; lists assumptions  
 
Key Strategy Tips:

Track "pivot words":  "however," "but," "moreover" signal important shifts 
  Identify the author's stance:  Here, the author is  critical  of sociohistorical interpretations 
  Watch for structural indicators:  "The first way..." "The second way..." help you map the argument 
  Main point questions:  Look for what the author is arguing  against  or critiquing 
  Function questions:  Focus on transition words and how paragraphs connect

The passage essentially shows how sociohistorical critics oversimplify the relationship between art and elite ideology, forcing them into increasingly strained interpretations to maintain their theory.

Most sociohistorical interpretations of art view a body of work as the

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Reading Comprehension (RC) Questions

Most sociohistorical interpretations of art view a body of work as the

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards