-
Uri
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 229
- Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 6:56 am
- Thanked: 8 times
- GMAT Score:700
We commonly speak of aesthetic judgments as subjective, and in the short term they are, since critics often disagree about the value of a particular contemporary work of art. But over time, the subjective element disappears. When works of art have continued to delight audiences for centuries, as have the paintings of Michelangelo, the music of Bach, and the plays of Shakespeare, we can objectively call them great.
The statements above best support which of the following conclusions?
(A) When Michelangelo, Bach, and Shakespeare were alive, critics disagreed about the value of their work.
(B) The value of a contemporary work of art cannot be objectively measured.
(C) The reputation of a work of art often fluctuates greatly from one generation to the next.
(D) The mere fact that a work of art has endured for centuries does not establish its greatness.
(E) If critics agree about the value of a particular contemporary work of art, then the work can objectively be called great.
Please justify your answer with reasoning.
OA: [spoiler](B)[/spoiler]
What if critics don't disagree? Cannot the contemporary art then be objectively measured? Will the OA stand then?
Why is [spoiler](C)[/spoiler] wrong? Had it been wrong, then how could we objectively measure the piece of art in the long run?
Finally why is [spoiler](E)[/spoiler] wrong? Although I do have some reasoning for this, I would like you to share your views and then we can have some discussion!
The statements above best support which of the following conclusions?
(A) When Michelangelo, Bach, and Shakespeare were alive, critics disagreed about the value of their work.
(B) The value of a contemporary work of art cannot be objectively measured.
(C) The reputation of a work of art often fluctuates greatly from one generation to the next.
(D) The mere fact that a work of art has endured for centuries does not establish its greatness.
(E) If critics agree about the value of a particular contemporary work of art, then the work can objectively be called great.
Please justify your answer with reasoning.
OA: [spoiler](B)[/spoiler]
What if critics don't disagree? Cannot the contemporary art then be objectively measured? Will the OA stand then?
Why is [spoiler](C)[/spoiler] wrong? Had it been wrong, then how could we objectively measure the piece of art in the long run?
Finally why is [spoiler](E)[/spoiler] wrong? Although I do have some reasoning for this, I would like you to share your views and then we can have some discussion!
