#24 - Eighteenth-century European aesthetics was reasonably

[moshei24]

I understand why the answer is (E), but I'm having trouble making sense of the last sentence in the stimulus: "Since the work of these rebellious artists is quite beautiful but outside the bounds of the aesthetic theory then current, there can be no complete theory of aesthetics."

I feel like the words that I italicized should not have been there, and threw me off. If they weren't supposed to be there, was that a typo that also occurred on the real LSAT?

Thank you!

[Steve Stein]

Hi Moshe,

That's not a typo--it's just awkward wording; "then current" means "current at the time." Here is the same idea expressed in a more straightforward manner:

Since the work of these rebels is beautiful, but outsides the bounds of the aesthetic theory that was current at that time, there can be no complete theory...

I hope that's helpful--let me know whether it's clear--thanks!

~Steve

[moshei24]

Oh, okay. I should've paused while reading after "then." That's what through me off. Thanks!

[SMR]

Hello! Can someone please explain why (E) is correct and why (B) is incorrect?

Thank you!

[David Boyle]

Hello! Can someone please explain why (E) is correct and why (B) is incorrect?

Thank you!

Hello,

Re answer B, the 1960's artists could conceivably have been guided by earlier theory, even if they end up outside the bounds of the theory, and regardless of the completeness of the theory.
Re answer E, the 1960's artists' violating 18th-century theory proves that no complete theory is possible, only if the old theory was as complete as possible. Maybe someone will invent an artistic "Theory of Everything" tomorrow morning that completely encompasses all the centuries of art-making. Of course, that would show that 18th-century theory was not complete.

David

[JPConstantine]

Hello,

Confused about question 24 here, specifically the conclusion and how it relates back to the correct answer E.

Summary:

Premise: European aesthetic theory accounted for all art up until the 1960s, when artists rebelled against the norms of art.

Conclusion: There is no complete theory of aesthetic art.

Question: How is it correct that they are presuming the theory is as encompassing as it can be? Wouldn't that mean that the theory is complete? Or are they suggesting the theory can be expanded to include the art that rebelled against the norms in the 1960s?

[Luke Haqq]

Hi JPConstantine!

Another way of phrasing (E) is that there is no better, all-encompassing aesthetic theory.

Or are they suggesting the theory can be expanded to include the art that rebelled against the norms in the 1960s?

Yes. The author indicates that there was an aesthetic theory prior to the 1960s that purported to be all-encompassing, but it proved not to be so in the 1960s. The author then leaps to the conclusion that "there can be no complete theory of aesthetics." This fails to account for the possibility that some other theory might be posited that is able to account for art of the 1960s and be all-encompassing.