Cars vol1 passage 1

here is no doubt that what we call the modern movement in art begins with the single-minded determination of a French painter to see the world objectively. There need be no mystery about this word: what Cézanne wished to see was the world, or that part of it he was contemplating, as an object, without any intervention either of the tidy mind or the untidy emotions. His immediate predecessors, the Impressionists, had seen the world subjectively-that is to say, as it presented itself to their senses in various lights, or from various points of view. Each occasion made a different and distinct impression on their senses, and for each occasion there must necessarily be a separate work of art. But Cézanne wished to exclude this shimmering and ambiguous surface of things and penetrate to the reality that did not change, that was present beneath the bright but deceptive picture presented by the kaleidoscope of the senses.

Great revolutionary leaders are people with a single and a simple idea, and it is the very persistency with which they pursue this idea that endows it with power. But let us ask why, in the long history of art, it had never previously happened that an artist should wish to see the world objectively. We know, for example, that at various stages in the history of art there have been attempts to make art “imitative”; and not only Greek and Roman art, but the Renaissance of Classical art in Europe, were periods of art possessed by a desire to represent the world “as it really is.” But there always intervened between the visual event and the act of realizing the vision an activity which we can only call interpretative. This intervention seemed to be made necessary by the very nature of perception, which does not present to the senses a flat two-dimensional picture with precise boundaries but a central focus with a periphery of vaguely apprehended and seemingly distorted objects. The artist might focus on a single object, say a human figure or even a human face; but even then there were problems such as that of representing the solidity of the object, its place in space.

In every instance before Cézanne, in order to solve such problems the artist brought in extra-visual faculties-imagination, which enabled the artist to transform the objects of the visible world and thus to create an ideal space occupied by ideal forms; or intellect, which enabled the artist to construct a scientific chart, a perspective, in which the object could be given an exact situation. But a system of perspective is no more an accurate representation of what the eye sees than a Mercator’s projection is what the world looks like from Sirius. Like the map, it serves to guide the intellect; perspective does not give us any glimpse of the reality.

One might conclude from the history of art that reality in this sense is a will-o’-the-wisp, an actuality we can see but never grasp. Nature, as we say, is one thing, art quite another. But Cézanne, though he was familiar with the “art of the museums” and respected the attempts of his predecessors to come to terms with nature, did not despair of succeeding where they had failed-that is to say, in “realizing” his sensations in the presence of nature.

 

when asked about central thesis re-read frst paragrahp

Information in the passage suggests that the author probably believes that the act of interpretation:

A

allows the artist to view the world more objectively.

B

is an almost unavoidable component of the act of seeing.

C

was first popularized by Cézanne.

D

became the dominant force in art many years after Cézanne

Solution: The correct answer is B.

1. The author argues much to the contrary, saying that interpretation mediates a much more subjective or intellectual interpretation of the world and that Cézanne was trying to avoid this: “. . . what Cézanne wished to see was the world, or that part of it he was contemplating, as an object, without any intervention of the tidy mind or untidy emotions. His immediate predecessors, the Impressionists, had seen the world subjectively . . . .” For the Impressionists, “[E]ach occasion made a different and distinct impression on their senses, and for each occasion there must necessarily be a separate work of art. But Cézanne wished to exclude this shimmering and ambiguous surface of things and penetrate to a reality that did not change. . . .”

2. After stating that no artist prior to Cézanne had attempted to view the world objectively, and pointing out how several periods in art history had attempted to make art “imitative,” the author points out that “there always intervened between the visual event and the act of realizing the vision an activity which we can only call interpretative.” The author elaborates on this by stating the differences between sensual perception and art: “This intervention seemed to be made necessary by the very nature of perception, which does not represent to the senses of flat two-dimensional picture with precise boundaries but a central focus with a periphery of vaguely apprehended and seemingly distorted objects.” The author discusses the role of imagination and intellect being “like a map” in helping the artist interpret perceived reality by means of, for example, “a system of perspective,” and then states: “One might conclude from the history of art that reality in this sense is will-o’-the wisp, an actuality we can see but never grasp.” Interpretation, for the artist, becomes part of the act of seeing.

3. The author’s analysis contradicts the notion that interpretation was first popularized by Cézanne by saying that interpretation of reality has a long history in art including “not only Greek and Roman art, but the Renaissance of Classical art in Europe,” which “were periods possessed by a desire to represent the world ‘as it really is.’ But there always intervened…an activity which we can only call interpretative.”

4. The author points out that Cézanne began the period “we called the modern movement in art.” This period attempted to present the world as object rather than as subject to the artist’s interpretation: “Cézanne wished to see the world, or that part of it he was contemplating as an object, without any intervention either of the untidy mind or the untidy emotions."

Which of the following statements best summarizes the central thesis of the passage?

A

For the Impressionists, each sensory occasion required a separate work of art.

B

The use of perspective prevents artists from effectively interpreting reality.

C

Cézanne tried to solve the problem of interpretation by attempting to view the world objectively.

D

Before Cézanne, many periods of art reflected a desire to represent the world “as it really is.”

Solution: The correct answer is C.

1. This discussion of Impressionist art represents a subordinate idea supporting the author’s analysis of art as an interpretive act, which, in turn, supports the central thesis. See rationale C.

2. The author’s discussion of perspective serves to support the author’s analysis of art as an interpretive act, which, in turn, supports the central thesis. See rationale C.

3. The author establishes the central thesis in the first paragraph, citing the “single-minded determination of [Cézanne] to see the world objectively.” The author devotes much of the remainder of the passage to discussing how much of art previous to Cézanne represented an interpretation of reality by bringing “extra-visual faculties” such as imagination and intellect into play. Cézanne by seeing the world as object attempted to succeed in this “where [his predecessors] had failed.”

4. The author’s discussion of art as an imitation or interpretation of reality serves the author’s analysis of art as an interpretative act, which, in turn, supports the central thesis. See rationale C.

The author’s suggestion that reality in art before Cézanne had been a “will-o’-the-wisp” can most reasonably be interpreted to mean that artists before Cézanne had not:

A

attempted to imitate reality faithfully.

B

agreed about the value of Impressionism.

Answer choice eliminated

C

been able to perceive reality.

D

found a way to depict reality effectively.

Solution: The correct answer is D.

1. The author does not indicate a lack of good faith, instead devoting discussion to how efforts to represent reality were problematic.

2. The author nowhere mentions that artists failed to agree about the value of Impressionism. The author’s discussion of Impressionism serves to reinforce the author’s point that no artists before Cézanne had ever attempted to present reality objectively.

3. The problem is not failure to perceive reality, but the difficulty in grasping it artistically—“there always intervened between the visual event and the act of realizing the vision an activity which we can only call interpretative.”

4. The context of the phrase indicates that it refers to the inability of artists before Cézanne to effectively depict reality: “One might conclude from the history of art that reality in this sense is a will-o’-the wisp, an actuality we can see but never grasp.” Prior to this statement, the author had discussed how reality had eluded artists before Cézanne, including through the use of the “system of perspective:” “like a map, [perspective] serves to guide the intellect; perspective does not give us any glimpse of the reality.”

he author’s assertion that Greek, Roman, and Renaissance art tried to represent the world accurately is:

A

illustrated in the passage by examples of specific works of art.

B

not supported by evidence in the passage.

C

supported in the passage by a discussion of the nature of perception.

D

contradicted by evidence later in the passage.

Solution: The correct answer is B.

1. No specific works of art, including Cézanne’s, are discussed anywhere in the passage.

2. The author asserts Greek and Roman art was “possessed of a desire to represent the world ‘as it really is’” without offering specific examples or discussion of exactly how Greek and Roman artists attempted this.

3. The crucial distinction is between supporting an idea and elaborating upon it. The discussion later in the passage about the nature of perception elaborates on the problem raised by Greek and Roman imitation of reality while still remaining unsupported by specific examples and a detailed analysis of those examples. See rationale B.

4. The author only elaborates on the point about problematic depictions of reality by Greek and Roman art (and, later, classical European art) without offering concrete evidence supporting or contradicting this point. See rationale B.

my first thought was not supported should have wet eith that no specific examplesare provided 

It can most reasonably be concluded from the passage that Cézanne’s work exerted a powerful influence because Cézanne:

A

pursued the concept of objectivity with persistence.

B

brought extra-visual faculties into his work.

C

expanded the concept of interpretation.

D

painted scenes as they were presented to his senses.

Solution: The correct answer is A.

1. The key to the author’s point about Cézanne is the influence Cézanne’s persistence exerted on modern art: “There is no doubt that what we call the modern movement in art begins with the single-minded determination of a French painter to see the world objectively.” The author, referring to Cézanne, discusses the persistence of great revolutionaries in pursuing an idea. Near the end of the passage, the author reinforces this point, saying, “But Cézanne . . . did not despair of succeeding where his predecessors had failed.”

2. The author points out that it was artists before Cézanne who brought extra-visual faculties to their work in the attempt to solve the problem of depicting reality.

3. While perhaps arguably true, the author does not think Cézanne expanded the concept of interpretation, but, in order to “see the world objectively,” tried to do away with an art mediated by an interpretation of reality.

4. The statement that Cézanne painted scenes as they were presented to his senses is a supporting idea that describes how Cézanne pursued the concept of objectivity with persistence (see rationale A), so the statement should not be taken as a reason why Cézanne’s work exerted a powerful influence.

If it were discovered that Cézanne learned the concept of objective painting from another artist, this finding would challenge the contention that Cézanne:

A

pursued goals similar to those of Greek and Roman art.

B

was the founder of the modern movement in art.

C

respected the attempts of his predecessors to come to terms with nature.

Answer choice eliminated

D

was familiar with “the art of the museums.”

Solution: The correct answer is B.

1. The author does not suggest that Cézanne ever pursued goals similar to those of Greek and Roman art; rather, the author refers to those goals, which emphasized imitation, in order to contrast them with Cézanne’s pursuit of objectivity in art.

2. The author asserts in the beginning of the passage that Cézanne founded the modern movement with his “single-minded determination . . . to see the world objectively” and later implies that Cézanne’s contribution to art was revolutionary. This discovery would represent a strong challenge to the author’s premise.

3. This discovery would not challenge the contention in the passage that Cézanne respected the attempts of his predecessors to come to terms with nature. How Cézanne responded to these artists is a separate issue from the respect he showed for their efforts. If anything, this discovery would possibly reinforce that idea since it would show Cézanne respected another artist’s outlook enough that he was willing to let it influence his own.

4. It does not logically follow that this discovery would challenge the contention that Cézanne was familiar with the art of museums, especially since it would show that Cézanne looked to other artists to influence his work and that he made his own “revolutionary” breakthrough by studying their efforts.

The author’s comparison of a system of perspective to a map is most likely intended to show that:

A

maps are more accurate than even the most realistic artistic depictions of the world.

Answer choice eliminated

B

systems of perspective have grown more sophisticated over the years, while mapmaking has not.

Answer choice eliminated

C

both afford a clearer view of the reality beneath everyday objects.

D

both are intellectual methods of perceiving the world.

Solution: The correct answer is D.

1. The artist is quite clear that maps are far from reality, implying they are as far from reality as the Earth is from Sirius, while still acknowledging that they are useful guides for the intellect.

2. The implication is that systems of perspective are no more, nor less, sophisticated than maps, but very similar in their function of guiding the intellect through reality but not grasping it. See rationale D.

3. The author strongly suggests that Cézanne found surface reality suspect and wanted to “penetrate to a reality that did not change, that was present beneath the bright but deceptive picture presented by the kaleidoscope of the senses.” The author goes on to suggest that art, as imitation or interpretation of the world, intervenes and hides this reality that Cézanne searched for. Neither maps nor perspective “give us any glimpse of the reality.”

4. The author is explicit on this point, drawing a direct analogy between maps and the system of perspective: “But a system of perspective is no more an accurate representation of what the eye sees than a Mercator’s projection is what the world looks like from Sirius. Like a map, it serves to guide the intellect. . . .”