It is commonly assumed that even if some forgeries have aesthetic merit, no forgery has as much as an original by the imitated a

admin2016-10-15  22

问题     It is commonly assumed that even if some forgeries have aesthetic merit, no forgery has as much as an original by the imitated artist would. Yet even the most prominent art specialists can be duped by a talented artist turned forger into mistaking an almost perfect forgery for an original. For instance, artist Han van Meegeren’ s The Disciples at Emmaus(1937)—painted under the forged signature of the acclaimed Dutch master Jan Vermeer(1632 — 1675)—attracted lavish praise from experts as one of Vermeer’s finest works. The painting hung in a Rotterdam museum until 1945, when, to the great embarrassment of the critics; van Meegeren revealed its origin. Astonishingly, there was at least one highly reputed critic who persisted in believing it to be a Vermeer even after van Meegeren’s confession.
    Given the experts’ initial enthusiasm, some philosophers argue that van Meegeren’s painting must have possessed aesthetic characteristics that, in a Vermeer original, would have justified the critics’ plaudits. Van Meegeren’ s Emmaus thus raises difficult questions regarding the status of superbly executed forgeries. Is a forgery inherently inferior as art? How are we justified, if indeed we are, in revising downwards our critical assessment of a work unmasked as a forgery? Philosopher of art Alfred Lessing proposes convincing answers to these questions.
    A forged work is indeed inferior as art, Lessing argues, but not because of a shortfall in aesthetic qualities strictly defined, that is to say, in the qualities perceptible on the picture’ s surface. For example, in its composition, its technique, and its brilliant use of color, van Meegeren’s work is flawless, even beautiful. Lessing argues instead that the deficiency lies in what might be called the painting’s intangible qualities. All art, explains Lessing, involves technique, but not all art involves origination of a new vision, and originality of vision is one of the fundamental qualities by which artistic, as opposed purely aesthetic, accomplishment is measured. Thus Vermeer is acclaimed for having inaugurated, in the seventeenth century, a new way of seeing, and pioneering techniques for embodying this new way of seeing through distinctive treatment of light, color, and form.
    Even if we grant that van Meegeren, with his undoubted mastery of Vermeer’ s innovative techniques, produced an aesthetically superior painting, he did so about three centuries after Vermeer developed the techniques in question. Whereas Vermeer’ s origination of these techniques in the seventeenth century represents a truly impressive and historic achievement, van Meegeren’s production of The Disciples at Emmaus in the twentieth century presents nothing new or creative to the history of art. Van Meegeren’s forgery therefore, for all its aesthetic merits, lacks the historical significance that makes Vermeer’s work artistically great.
Which one of the following most accurately express the main point of the passage?

选项 A、The Disciples at Emmaus, Van Meegeren’s forgery of a Vermeer, was a failure in both aesthetic and artistic terms.
B、Forged artworks are artistically inferior to originals because artistic value depends in large part on originality of vision.
C、The most skilled forgers can deceive even highly qualified art experts into accepting their work as original.
D、All critics tend to be unreliable judges of the aesthetic and artistic quality of works of art.

答案B

解析 本题考查考生对全文大意的理解和概括。文章由艺术家凡·米格伦伪造荷兰著名艺术大师简·维梅尔的作品长期被认为是维梅尔真品的例子入手,探讨赝品与真品在审美特性和艺术特性方面的差别,得出赝品与真品相比,不一定缺少审美上的技巧和特征,缺少的是原创性的视野和历史意义,最终又回到上述例子,指出赝品的艺术性低于原作,因此[B]是正确答案。[A]选项不仅没有概括出文章大意,而且说法本身就错误,凡·米格伦仿制维梅尔的作品长期被认为是维梅尔的真作,原因就在于它并不缺乏审美上的特性,不能说是审美性的失败,因此[A]错误。[C]选项说法没有问题,但不是全文的主旨所在,因此不选。[D]选项也是不仅没有概括出文章大意,而且说法本身就错误,“所有的”“都”这种太绝对的说法往往是错误选项。
转载请注明原文地址:https://jikaoti.com/ti/TxT7FFFM
0

最新回复(0)