Answer:
authoritarian regime
Explanation:
authoritarian regime - it is referred to that central power that are not answerable to the people. In this type of regime, people have very limited freedom and oppose the style of the multi political party system. the authoritarian regime is a regime that wants central power without having any oppose from another political party.
Answer:
C
Explanation:
my teacher helped me with this quiz
According to Sporre, it was during the 18th century that a differentiation between fine art and applied art began to take shape.
This distinction can be traced back to philosophers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau who argued that there is an inherent difference in talent between artists who paint landscapes versus those who create portraits or figure sketches.
<h3>When was the separation of the fine and applied arts encouraged?</h3>
In the 18th century, Sporre argues that the values of an era encouraged the division of fine and applied arts.
He states that during this time period, people were more interested in practical applications than artistically-oriented endeavors.
This was due to advances made in science and technology, which allowed for things like machines, weapons, transportation systems etc to be developed and manufactured.
As a result of this emphasis on practicality, art became less important as it did not immediately have utilitarian value.
Taking account of both aesthetic and functional aspects simultaneously became something considered innovative or even daring which set the scene for later developments within the fine arts such as symbolism and abstractionism.
To learn more about applied and fine arts, visit:
brainly.com/question/14339622
#SPJ4
Answer:
The United States Supreme Court.
Explanation:
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees citizens the right to freedom of speech. This amendment protects Legal Practitioners as it allows them to advertise in giving information to the client and potential clients. The Supreme Court in Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, however, held that Freedom of advertisement of Commercial speech by a Lawyer is guaranteed by the First Amendment and that it is unconstitutional to curtail this right.
