Q25 - During the nineteenth century

[dan]

25. (C)
Question Type: Explain a Result
The fact that there was innovation in painting but not sculpture is surprising considering that both forms of art were being sponsored by the French Academy (which frowned on innovation). Why innovation in painting and not sculpture? We want to choose an answer that explains this apparent discrepancy. (C) clarifies the result. Many of the innovative paintings were coming from painters who were not sponsored by the Academy, and therefore were not bound by the Academy’s restrictions.

(A) makes the unexpected result even more unexpected. If the academy gave more support to painting, we’d expect painting to be more restricted by the Academy’s preferences (no innovation). But, we actually got the exact opposite: more innovation in painting.
(B) is similar (it makes the result even more unexpected). More money to painters would lead us to assume that painters would be more restricted.
(D) is irrelevant. The number of artists who were both painters and sculptors doesn’t matter.
(E) is irrelevant. The key is the difference in funding between painters and sculptors, not the overall trend of funding in general.


#officialexplanation

[sumukh09]

Hey Dan,

Why would we expect painting to be more restricted if the academy gave more financial support to painting? What's the connection between providing financial support and being more restricted? Are you suggesting that the more money given to painting the more the restrictions in terms of innovations deriving from that money?

[rinagoldfield]

Hey sumukh09,

Are you suggesting that the more money given to painting the more the restrictions in terms of innovations deriving from that money?

You got it! You perfectly articulated the connection between financial support and artistic innovation in this problem.

We know that the Academy financially supported sculpture, but discouraged innovation. This discouragement caused a decline in sculptural innovation. We can reasonably infer a connection between financial support from the Academy and creative decline.