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  29

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.
In the first paragraph, the author refers to a highly reputed critic’s persistence in believing Van Meegeren’s forgery to be a genuine Vermeer primarily in order to______.

选项 A、argue that many art critics are inflexible in their judgment
B、indicate that the critics at that time were not as knowledgeable as they appeared
C、illustrate the difficulties that skillfully executed forgeries can pose for art critics
D、suggest that the paining may yet turn out to be a genuine Vermeer

答案C

解析 本题考查考生对第一段最后一句话所举事例的理解。第一段讲到即使是最杰出的艺术鉴赏家也可能把一个有才华的艺术家所仿制的几乎完美的赝品当作真品,接下来就举了艺术家凡·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,最后提到,甚至在凡·米格伦坦白之后,仍然有至少一位非常著名的批评家坚持认为这是维梅尔的原作。可见,如果赝品技艺精湛,那么要把赝品与真品区别开来,即使对于杰出的艺术鉴赏家来说也不是件容易事,因此,[C]正确。[A]项说法错误,这个例子恰恰说明艺术批评家的坚持已见,而不是灵活多变。[B]项提到暗示那时候的评论家,而原文只是说有至少一位非常著名的批评家,并不能说明这位批评家所处的时代,因而错误。[D]项说法也错误,因为文中明确提到凡·米格伦已经坦白了这幅作品是赝品,因而不会最后又被证明是真品,况且少数个别评论家的坚持不能改变大局。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/EToZ777K
0

最新回复(0)