June 2007 PrepTest, Section 2, Question 25
During the nineteenth century, the French academy of art was a major financial sponsor of painting and sculpture in France; sponsorship by private individuals had decreased dramatically by this time. Because the academy discouraged innovation in the arts, there was little innovation in nineteenth century French sculpture. Yet nineteenth century French painting showed a remarkable degree of innovation.
During the nineteenth century, the French academy of art was a major financial sponsor of painting and sculpture in France; sponsorship by private individuals had decreased dramatically by this time. Because the academy discouraged innovation in the arts, there was little innovation in nineteenth century French sculpture. Yet nineteenth century French painting showed a remarkable degree of innovation.
During the nineteenth century, the French academy of art was a major financial sponsor of painting and sculpture in France; sponsorship by private individuals had decreased dramatically by this time. Because the academy discouraged innovation in the arts, there was little innovation in nineteenth century French sculpture. Yet nineteenth century French painting showed a remarkable degree of innovation.
During the nineteenth century, the French academy of art was a major financial sponsor of painting and sculpture in France; sponsorship by private individuals had decreased dramatically by this time. Because the academy discouraged innovation in the arts, there was little innovation in nineteenth century French sculpture. Yet nineteenth century French painting showed a remarkable degree of innovation.
Which one of the following, if true, most helps to explain the difference between the amount of innovation in French painting and the amount of innovation in French sculpture during the nineteenth century?
In France in the nineteenth century, the French academy gave more of its financial support to painting than it did to sculpture.
The French academy in the nineteenth century financially supported a greater number of sculptors than painters, but individual painters received more support, on average, than individual sculptors.
Because stone was so much more expensive than paint and canvas, far more unsponsored paintings were produced than were unsponsored sculptures in France during the nineteenth century.
Very few of the artists in France in the nineteenth century who produced sculptures also produced paintings.
Although the academy was the primary sponsor of sculpture and painting, the total amount of financial support that French sculptors and painters received from sponsors declined during the nineteenth century.
Explanations
Weird, so the academy of art was a major sponsor of painting and sculpture, but the academy discouraged innovation. And, private individuals sponsored the two artforms dramatically less. Consequently, there was little innovation in sculpture. But yet, painting had plenty of innovation. Why?
Maybe private sponsorship decreased entirely for sculpting, but not for painting? Maybe painters just didn’t care what the academy said?
This would make it more confusing, because then wouldn’t painters need to conform more to their sponsor’s wishes?
Same as A.
Ah, that makes sense. Painting is cheaper and didn’t always need sponsors. Sculptors literally couldn’t sculpt without sponsorship, so they needed to bow down to their “academy of art” overlords. Painters sometimes had no such limitation.
This does nothing. I already know there’s a difference between the two art forms.
This does nothing to distinguish why only one of the groups showed innovation.
0 Comments