or even correctly identifying the conditions that lead to truly flourishing arts (widespread humanism, serious tragedy, economic hardship, cross cultural pollination).
objection
the conditions that lead to a flourishing of any particular type of art are way too fine grain to reduce to these sort of basal factors. To speak on my particular wheelhouse, noteworthy periods of film production have more to do with much more specific conditions of production within a particular nation's industry, mass media consumption habits, small groups of talented filmmakers forming up and influencing each other, etc. Yeah broad causes matter but when you try to delineate them or God forbid create a formula you're just backing yourself into a corner.
To take the Soviet example, yes Tarkovsky had a horrible relationship with the authorities but he is far from an example of a unique genius who overcame the unfortunate location of his birth, in fact he is very much a Soviet filmmaker and especially their system of film education. The Soviet Institute of Cinematographer produced really incredible directors and cinematographers, ones far less known than Tarkovsky, that in craft represent the peak of cinema. The only problem with
Andrei Rublev is that it's almost too perfect, to paraphrase one of our great art critics. And Tarkovsky is far from a lone talent in an otherwise barren landscape. Give me
The Ascent over any American movie made since.
Or for an example from the capitalist world the Japanese new wave made some of the boldest avant garde films ever in part because of all that shit we all know about the 60s but just as much because Japanese movie studios were desperate because they were losing money to TV and made the most inexplicable business decision of all time and hired a bunch of freaks who were sick of how nice Ozu made Japanese society seem.