Soru

Read the following two passages regarding the evaluation of visual art.

Passage A
In evaluating visual art, the strict formalist approach correctly insists that the aesthetic merit of a piece is intrinsic, residing entirely in its composition, color, line, and form. The artist’s biographical details, political affiliations, or the broader socio-economic conditions surrounding the work’s creation are categorically irrelevant to its aesthetic evaluation. When viewers allow themselves to be distracted by these extraneous historical narratives, they cease to engage with the artwork as art and instead treat it as a mere historical document. True artistic appreciation requires a deliberate suspension of historical curiosity. This allows the viewer to apprehend the structural harmony and emotional resonance generated purely by the artist's masterful manipulation of the medium itself. To introduce sociological considerations into the gallery space is to dilute the pure aesthetic experience with academic trivia. The greatness of a masterpiece lies not in what it tells us about the artist's era, but in its timeless ability to evoke a visceral response through its formal properties alone. Any suggestion that a painting is elevated by its political commentary misunderstands the fundamental purpose of art, which is to provide an autonomous realm of visual pleasure independent of worldly concerns. Consequently, the critic's sole duty is to analyze the internal relationships among the visual elements on the canvas, deliberately ignoring the cultural noise outside the frame.

Passage B
The persistent academic tendency to evaluate art through a strictly formalist lens severely impoverishes our understanding of artistic achievement. An artwork is never created in a cultural or political vacuum; it is inevitably a direct response to, or a product of, the specific historical pressures of its era. To isolate a painting's structural elements from the historical realities it reflects, reinforces, or challenges is to strip the work of its vital substance. For instance, the jagged, chaotic lines and dissonant color palettes of early twentieth-century Expressionist paintings cannot be fully or accurately comprehended merely as aesthetic choices or formal experiments. Rather, they are deliberate articulations of the profound alienation and anxiety pervading a society on the brink of global conflict. Ignoring this crucial context and focusing solely on brushstrokes or geometry reduces a profound cultural critique to a superficial decorative exercise. The true meaning of an artwork is always tethered to the world that produced it. By artificially severing the artwork from its societal origins, the formalist not only misinterprets the artist's fundamental intentions but also renders the art itself mute on the very issues that gave it life. Therefore, any critical framework that actively suppresses historical awareness in the name of "pure" appreciation is fundamentally flawed, as it willfully blinds the viewer to the most urgent and substantive communicative layers of the art.

Based on the passages, Author A would be most likely to respond to Author B's assertion that focusing solely on a painting's structural elements "reduces a profound cultural critique to a superficial decorative exercise" (Passage B) in which one of the following ways?