#24 - Until recently, experts have been unable to identify

[Halfie]

I feel like this was a questionably written question honestly.

The idea that it would have been a violation of etiquette is an extremely weak weakener, to the point where I would usually just toss it as irrelevant. Who cares if it violates etiquette? Especially in young people and artists, etiquette is often tossed aside. I see how it could weaken it, but I feel like the term "etiquette" is flimsy and subjective enough to make this not a true weakener.

(C), to me, seems to be an actual weakener. It points towards another potential explanation, that the artist may have just been a live model for the artist who depicted the scene.

Indeed, if someone tried to make the stimulus's argument to me, I could very well respond "actually, it wasn't uncommon for painters to use live models in depicting people in their paintings" and I'm pretty sure that rebuttal would be quite well understood. That said, I see how the phrase "not uncommon" isn't really strong enough to truly damage the argument, but I do think it opens up a clear alternative explanation.

I don't think (C) is a particularly good answer, but this question is one where I feel there are not really good answers, and (D) does not strike me as better than (C) in any appreciable way. (D) requires the assumption that young artists make attempts to avoid violating etiquette, which I'm not comfortable assuming. Not a well-written question, in my opinion.

[Jeff Wren]

Hi Halfie,

First, if you haven't already done so, I'd recommend reading some of the earlier posts in this thread, as there's been a lot of discussion on this question, especially Answers C and D.

Every time I answer student questions about this problem, I feel like an old man thinking to himself, "Back in my day, we actually cared about etiquette!" Perhaps it's the prevalence of smart phones and social media, but etiquette doesn't seem to get the respect that it once did.

On the topic of etiquette, I'm going to borrow from one of my previous posts (Post #18).

While it isn't required to answer the question, understanding the social/economic dynamics between artists and nobles during the Renaissance can help flesh out why Answer D might provide a stronger motive for an artist not to violate this etiquette than may be apparent to our modern way of thinking. These days, the ideas of social class and etiquette are often viewed as antiquated relics that are not to be taken too seriously.

During the Renaissance, nobles (along with the Church) were the primary patrons of artists. In other words, they were their employers/customers, so Renaissance artists had a strong motive for not upsetting/offending them, as the expression goes "Don't bite the hand that feeds you." Of course, there may have been some hot-headed young artists who didn't care about upsetting their patrons, but many understood that offending their patrons could directly impact their livelihood and took that into consideration.