-
patanjali.purpose
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 784
- Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 3:51 am
- Thanked: 114 times
- Followed by:12 members
It is a well known fact among art
historians that in the 1720's some painters
bid up the prices of paintings and drawings
at auctions "in order to emphasize the
5 prestige of their profession," and in recent
years Francis Haskell has concluded that the
large sums received by artists such as
Bernini in the seventeenth century served a
similar purpose: "These high prices, besides
10 making life more comfortable for the artist,
had an important symbolic function. They
raised the whole status of art in the eyes of
the world." In the twentieth century, this
role of the market has certainly been
15 revived, if not elevated to new heights of
influence and honed to a sharp edge.
During most of the intervening years,
however, the conception of the artist as an
entrepreneur lost its charm. The official
20 academies of art and agencies of state
patronage that arose in the later seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries promulgated an
opposing model. Seeking to centralize
artistic theory and practice, these new
25 institutions viewed the independence and
worldliness of some preceding artists as
detrimental to the standing of the profession.
Instead of applauding the commercial
success, the French Academy went so far as
30 to dismiss it as harmful to the intellectual
stature of art. The Academy's founding
statutes specifically forbade members to
publicly engage in the sale of their work or
"to do anything to permit the confounding of
35 two such different things as a mercenary
profession and the status of Academician."
Until the middle of the nineteenth century,
the power of the Academy to create
reputations and influence commissions
40 subsumed self-promotion under the guise of
institutional advancement. Competition for
a Prix de Rome - the highly coveted
fellowship to study at the French Academy
in Rome - seamlessly melded the various
45 threads of this enterprise because success
could mean not only aesthetic
commendation but lucrative contracts as
well.
Despite the Academy's original goal of
50 isolating artists from commerce, its
patronage rarely sufficed, and its members
refused, however discreetly, to refrain from
promoting their work.
What was the primary purpose of the French Academy's trying to separate the artist from the sale of his/her artwork?
1)to minimize view that the combination of art and commerce is detrimental to the standing of the artist's profession
2)to centralize artistic theory and practice
3)to trace the chronological evolution of the relationship between artists and commerce
4)to promote Prix de Rome
5)to satisfy the needs of the patronage
Could you pls try and give your reasoning.
regards,
Patanjali
[spoiler]source: Princetone free test [/spoiler][/size][/size]
historians that in the 1720's some painters
bid up the prices of paintings and drawings
at auctions "in order to emphasize the
5 prestige of their profession," and in recent
years Francis Haskell has concluded that the
large sums received by artists such as
Bernini in the seventeenth century served a
similar purpose: "These high prices, besides
10 making life more comfortable for the artist,
had an important symbolic function. They
raised the whole status of art in the eyes of
the world." In the twentieth century, this
role of the market has certainly been
15 revived, if not elevated to new heights of
influence and honed to a sharp edge.
During most of the intervening years,
however, the conception of the artist as an
entrepreneur lost its charm. The official
20 academies of art and agencies of state
patronage that arose in the later seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries promulgated an
opposing model. Seeking to centralize
artistic theory and practice, these new
25 institutions viewed the independence and
worldliness of some preceding artists as
detrimental to the standing of the profession.
Instead of applauding the commercial
success, the French Academy went so far as
30 to dismiss it as harmful to the intellectual
stature of art. The Academy's founding
statutes specifically forbade members to
publicly engage in the sale of their work or
"to do anything to permit the confounding of
35 two such different things as a mercenary
profession and the status of Academician."
Until the middle of the nineteenth century,
the power of the Academy to create
reputations and influence commissions
40 subsumed self-promotion under the guise of
institutional advancement. Competition for
a Prix de Rome - the highly coveted
fellowship to study at the French Academy
in Rome - seamlessly melded the various
45 threads of this enterprise because success
could mean not only aesthetic
commendation but lucrative contracts as
well.
Despite the Academy's original goal of
50 isolating artists from commerce, its
patronage rarely sufficed, and its members
refused, however discreetly, to refrain from
promoting their work.
What was the primary purpose of the French Academy's trying to separate the artist from the sale of his/her artwork?
1)to minimize view that the combination of art and commerce is detrimental to the standing of the artist's profession
2)to centralize artistic theory and practice
3)to trace the chronological evolution of the relationship between artists and commerce
4)to promote Prix de Rome
5)to satisfy the needs of the patronage
Could you pls try and give your reasoning.
regards,
Patanjali
[spoiler]source: Princetone free test [/spoiler][/size][/size]
