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?
(A) In France in the nineteenth century, the French academy gave more of its financial support to painting than it did to sculpture.
(B) 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.
(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 nineteenth century.
(D) Very few of the artists in France in the nineteenth century who produced sculptures also produced paintings.
(E) 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.
A. Incorrect. This adds confusion rather than clarity. If the Academy stifled creativity, it’s unclear how increased academic support led to greater innovation among painters. It undermines the logic of the stimulus.
B. Incorrect. While it presents funding numbers, the difference is minimal and not impactful. Both groups received similar average support, so this can’t account for the significant difference in innovation.
C. Correct. This explains the disparity. If painters had far more access to independent funding, they weren’t dependent on the Academy and could explore more innovative styles. The phrase “far more” ensures this answer carries meaningful weight.
D. Incorrect. The fact that there was no overlap between groups doesn’t explain why painters were more innovative. Simply having different members doesn’t account for the difference in creative outcomes.
E. Incomplete. This starts to present a possible distinction but doesn’t finish explaining how it relates to the difference in innovation. Without a clear contrast or consequence, it doesn’t support the argument.
