During the 19th century, the French Academy of Art was the major financial sponsor of
painting and sculpture in France; sponsorship by private individuals had decreased dramatically
Because the Academy discouraged innovation in the arts, there was little innovation in
19th century French sculpture.
Yet 19th century French painting showed a remarkable degree of innovation.
First step, argument or facts?
Clearly, we have a statement of facts here about the 19th century French art scene.
In this time, the French Academy was a major financial sponsor of painting and sculpture.
And the French Academy, discouraged innovation in the arts?so there was little innovation
in 19th century French sculpture, but yet somehow painting showed remarkable innovation
during the 19th century in France.
Clearly, that doesn't make any sense.
They were both sponsored by this French Academy, it was a major sponsor.
Sponsorship by private individuals had decreased dramatically by this time.
This Academy discouraged innovation.
Sponsored both of these things.
One of them had little innovation.
The other one had a remarkable degree of innovation.
You notice when we go to the question stem, 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 19th century?
Most helps to explain.
We have a Paradox question, looking for an answer choice that is going to resolve this
Again the discrepancy was that the sculpture showed little innovation, painting showed
a remarkable degree of innovation, while they were both sponsored by this French Academy,
but yet this Academy discouraged innovation in the arts.
So (A), In France in the 19th century, the French Academy gave more of its financial
support to painting than it did to sculpture.
Okay, fine, but (A) doesn't help us, because still this organization discouraged innovation
yet we saw innovation in painting but didn't see it in sculpture.
That's the discrepancy.
(A) does not help us.
It's not about the amount of money; it's about this Academy discouraging innovation in the
(B), The French Academy in the 19th century financially supported a greater number of
sculptors than painters, but individual painters received more support on average than individual
You notice (B), just like (A), deals with this idea of money.
But again, it's not about the amount of support they receive.
The problem is that this Academy discourages innovation.
It's a major sponsor of both painting and sculpture, yet sculpture had a little innovation,
painting, a remarkable degree of innovation.
Please keep the discrepancy in mind when you go through the answer choices.
You notice (A) and (B) do not solve our issue.
Which brings us to (C), 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 19th century.
You notice (C) resolves this discrepancy by saying painters were far more likely to produce
unsponsored paintings than were sculpturers because the problem was that stone was much
So it was these unsponsored paintings that had this remarkable degree of innovation,
or at least that's a possibility and a possible explanation for this discrepancy, so (C) would
be the correct answer.
Again, just making sure, checking (D).
Very few artists in France in the 19th century who produced sculptures also produced paintings.
How does that help us?
Doesn't resolve anything.
Moving to (E), Although the Academy was the primary sponsor of sculpture and painting,
the total amount of financial support that sculptors and painters received from sponsors
declined in the 19th century.
Still, the primary sponsor discouraged innovation.
We saw little innovation in sculptures but a remarkable degree of innovation in painting.
That is the discrepancy.
(E) does not help us, so (E) would be eliminated.