Practice question · Multiple choice
The eighteenth-century art hierarchy was not a distinction of technical skill, but an institutional boundary. What follows from this distinction when evaluating why applied arts were devalued?
Hints
- Where did academic institutions draw the line between named masters and anonymous makers?
- Does an institutional boundary reflect the quality of an object or the status granted to its producer?
Show the answer
C. They were judged by who made them and where they were taught
Why
Confusing institutional status with aesthetic merit misses how academy training and gendered labour enforced the split. Elite patrons regularly collected decorative items, but the institutional framework denied the makers individual artistic prestige.
Practise Design and the Arts of the Object
The app has 4 more questions on this lesson, and keeps your place in the course. Art History I is free to start.
More questions on Design and the Arts of the Object
- The Arts and Crafts movement wanted beautiful objects for ordinary life and produced goods mainly affordable…
- In what year was the Bauhaus founded?
- Arrange these developments in the status of the applied arts in order.
- The Bauhaus rejected the machine in favour of hand craftsmanship.
- Which practices were placed on the "applied" side of the art/craft division?
- Sort each characteristic by whether it attached to the FINE arts or the APPLIED arts under the old division.
- Complete the account of design reform.
- Arrange these demands on an industrial designer in the order they constrain the work.
- Most people encounter designed form far more often through everyday objects than through fine art.