Nymeria26
Hello,
Nymeria26. Although another Expert has already weighed in, I would like to add my thoughts. This
conclusion is unlike most in that it presents two targets within an
either... or framework. At issue is whether Caravaggio should be considered
an early practitioner of [the Baroque] style. Break down the two halves of the conclusion:
1)
One must... either abandon the opinion of this majority of commentators that Caravaggio's
realism and novel use of the interplay of light and shadow broke sharply with current styles of [his] time and significantly influenced 17th century Baroque painting OR
2)
One must... reject Mather's definition of Baroque painting, which says that for any painting to be considered Baroque , it must display opulence, heroic sweep, and extravagancein order to posit that Caravaggio was a Baroque painter. Thus, we should be thinking that either Caravaggio's stylistic elements did
not break sharply with the conventions of his time to influence the subsequent Baroque movement, or that Caravaggio did
not display opulence, heroic sweep (whatever that is), and extravagance in his works. Notice that neither of these assumptions comments on
realism or
realistic paintings as a whole, just on the specific features that may or may not be present in works by Caravaggio. Broad, sweeping assumptions such as those made in all answer choices besides (E) miss the mark for this reason. That is, this particular argument is not concerned with
paintings that belong to a single historical period (answer choice (A)), the distinction between a realistic and
nonrealistic painter (B),
realism (C), or
a realistic painting in general, but the bridge between background information and conclusion must correctly pair the key components of the first and second sentences as they relate to Caravaggio and his works.
Thank you for thinking to ask for my input. Good luck with your studies.
- Andrew