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.
It can be inferred from the last paragraph that______.

选项 A、it is probable that many paintings currently hanging in important museums are actually forgeries
B、the historical circumstances surrounding the creation of a work are important in assessing the artistic value of that work
C、van Meegeren’s production of The Disciples at Emmaus in the twentieth century presents nothing new or creative to the history of art
D、A successful forger must originate a new artistic vision

答案B

解析 本题考查考生对最后一段内容的理解。最后一段承接上一段,在讨论了赝品之所以在艺术性上低于真品是因为它缺乏视野的原创性之后,第五段又回归封凡·米格伦的作品《以马忤斯的门徒》上面,指出这部作品确实反映了作者对维梅尔的创新技术的掌握,但是这是在维梅尔发明这种技法约三百年后才实现的,维梅尔开创的这些技法在17世纪代表一种真正令人瞩目的历史性的成就,而三百年后再用这种技法却对艺术史没有什么创造性的贡献,由此可见,作者创作一幅艺术品时,其所处的历史大背景对后来评价这幅作品是很重要的,即[B]选项。[A]属于过度推断,[C]是原文第二句后半句的内容,不属于需要推断的内容,[D]属于偷换概念,文章讨论的是成功的艺术品与赝品在艺术性上的差异,而不是探讨成功的赝品需要具备的素质,因此[A][C][D]均不正确。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/zToZ777K
0

最新回复(0)