2. 外语
  3. Tell an investment banker that a picture bought in 1950 for $30,000 sold this month for $104.1 million and you will be unlucky i

Tell an investment banker that a picture bought in 1950 for $30,000 sold this month for $104.1 million and you will be unlucky i

admin2011-03-10  41
问题    Tell an investment banker that a picture bought in 1950 for $30,000 sold this month for $104.1 million and you will be unlucky if you fail to get his attention. That was the case with the portrait of a young boy by Picasso when Sotheby’s dispersed on May 5 the tail end of the famous collection formed by the late John Hay Whitney and his wife Betsy Cushing Whitney. Sales added up to almost $190 million within two hours.
   If you then go on to explain that Whitney bought the 1905 portrait not for investment but for art’s sake, because he loved 19th- and 20th-century painting, you might well be greeted with a stare of compassionate irony.
   Yet that was exactly so. Had the heir to a vast fortune consulted experts at the time, most would have advised against the acquisition. Received wisdom in the 1950s had it that it was Picasso’s breakthrough in modern art that made him truly important, i. e. his early Cubist work.
   The Picasso case, which is probably the greatest success story ever in the art market, neatly illustrates the financial gamble that buying art represents. The biggest winners are not investors, but art lovers with a great eye who follow their intuition.
   Art cannot be an investment because perception determines everything. No two works are ever identical. One Picasso does not equal another Picasso. On May 6, one day after the Whitney sale, Sotheby’s was offering another five Picassos. All fetched different prices.
   That night the market was on a roll and two of the Picassos sold extremely well. Even so, their diverging fates illustrate the impossibility of predicting prices. Presale calculations are frequently belied, up or down. "Le Nu Accroupi" (describing a seated woman), dated "21/24.6.59," was expected to bring $3 million to $4 million plus the 12 percent sale charge. Furious bidding sent it climbing to $11,768,000.
   The second of the two most expensive Picassos sold within the expected price bracket, costing $14,792,000．"Le Sauvetage" ("The ReScue") was painted in November 1932．This is seen as a seminal year. Why did it not arouse enthusiasm in proportion to the "Nu Accroupi" and increase the estimate by 250 percent?
   One reason, in favor of the "Nu Accroupi", is that the figure of the seated woman is distorted in a manner that best fits the general public’s idea of what Picasso’s art looks like. The face broken up in separate halves that can be read as seen sideways or full front is typical of this stereotype even if in reality Picasso was the most versatile artist of his time.
   Another reason works against "Le Sauvetage". A jarring note is introduced by the spiky rendition of the human figures. Moreover, some deem the composition to be loose. Others, by contrast, praise its rhythm. The argument can go on indefinitely. In short, no complete agreement is ever reached over the aesthetic characterization of a painting. Nor is there ever total agreement over the assessment of its importance relative to the artist’s oeuvre. How good within the 1932 style "Le Sauvetage" is will be seen differently by different viewers.
   Cubism was a crucial phase of Picasso’s art in the view of virtually all art historians today and yet the-1909 to 1914 revolutionary works are not always well received by the public at auction.
   Immediately before the "Nu Accroupi", a large charcoal sketch of a man’s head done by Picasso in 1909 in his first Cubist manner reflecting the impact that African sculpture had on its emergence came up with a $400,000 to $600,000 estimate. The drawing came from a European estate, and works with an estate provenance generally do well because they have long been out of sight. Moreover, it had previously passed through the hands of one of the greatest 20th-century dealers, Heinz Berggruen, while he was based in Paris. All to no avail. The drawing fell unsold, probably too ungainly for its art historical importance to weigh sufficiently in its favor. But both these characterizations are a matter of perception.
"Art cannot be an investment because perception determines everything." In the 5th paragraph, this suggests all of the following EXCEPT that ______.
选项 A、the biggest winners are not investors, but art lovers with a great eye who follow their intuition
B、buying art is a financial gamble
C、buying art not for investment but for art’s sake will bring you a fortune sooner or later
D、no complete agreement is ever reached over the aesthetic characterization of a painting
答案C
解析 第五段这句引文有何含义?排除错误的一个判断。这题关键是选项C有一个逻辑上的陷阱。“If you then go on to explain that Whitney bought the 1905 portrait not for investment but for art’s sake, because he loved 19th-and 20th-century painting, you might well be greeted with a stare of compassionate irony. ”第二段和选项A的论断是一致的，即最终的赢家属于那些真诚酷爱艺术的人士，他们凭自己的直觉，为艺术而艺术地进行收藏，并不仅仅出于投资的目的。但反过来，这样去做不一定就是最终的大赢家，即文中介绍的收藏品增值数千倍，一夜暴富的情况；并非绝对必然会这样，这只是一个必要条件，而非充要条件。引文的意思是：艺术是无法成为一件投资品的，因为那是由感觉决定一切的。
转载请注明原文地址:https://jikaoti.com/ti/CSpYFFFM
0

专业英语八级

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)