properties of a work of art

[bakhshaliyev]

We ought to pay attention only to the intrinsic properties of a work of art. Its other, extrinsic properties are irrelevant to our aesthetic interactions with it. For example, when we look at a painting we should consider only what is directly presented in our experience of it. What is really aesthetically relevant, therefore, is not what a painting symbolizes, but what it directly presents to experience.

The conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is added to the premises?
A. What an art work symbolizes involves only extrinsic properties of that work.
B. There are certain properties of our experiences of artworks that can be distinguished as symbolic properties.
C. Only an artwork's intrinsic properties are relevant to our aesthetic interactions with it.
D. It is possible in theory for an artwork to symbolize nothing.
E. An intrinsic property of an artwork is one that related the work to itself.

[HSPA]

Ignore external/beauty related aspects on art
intrensic/experience- art shall tough your inner feel.

A) art is extrensic [wrong]
B) symbolic properties [out of scope]
c) Our sense of beauty is in intresic values, be shallow...I liked it
d) art is nothing..ahhh[not to judge]
e) intrensic property has related work to itself [havent understood]

IMO C.. I took 3.10sec for this..

[rahul_tgsp]

IMO B
OA??

[champmag]

+1 for B. what is the OA?

[Subeg Gill]

OA has to be A


When we look at an art work,we should consider only the intrinsic properties
Extrinsic properties are irrelevant to our aesthetic interactions
And what an art work symbolizes involves only extrinsic properties of that work.
So,What is really aesthetically relevant, therefore, is not what a painting symbolizes, but what it directly presents to experience.

IMO A

What is OA???

[pemdas]

Only choice A stands close to the logical completion of argument when added to the premises. However, even this choice (A) may be questioned - Does symbolizing by painting should mean the same as symbolizing by (ALL) art work? /if we disregard that question, the choice A is correct;
- choice B is not correct, as it mainly discusses 'certain properties of our experiences of artworks that can be distinguished as symbolic properties' and does not help to complete logically the argument. In the opposite way, choice B weakens our argument;
- choice C repeats two premises in the paraphrased way 'Only an artwork's intrinsic properties are relevant to our aesthetic interactions with it';
- choice D looks not helping our argument too, sort of neutral with some degree of weakening to the conclusion made, invalidates the extrinsic properties introduced as symbolizing 'It is possible in theory for an artwork to symbolize nothing';
- choice E discusses an intrinsic property in some renowned way, BUT does not help to decide whether to focus on intrinsic or extrinsic property and in which way 'An intrinsic property of an artwork is one that related the work to itself'.

I would ask mgmat instructor Ron Purewal to clarify one issue. The word "art work" has been used in choice A - we can imply that 'symbolizing' is related to all types of art work. Question - If some type of art work does not feature 'symbolizing' in the way as painting does, then the use of "art work" in choice A still valid?

[Stuart@KaplanGMAT]

We ought to pay attention only to the intrinsic properties of a work of art. Its other, extrinsic properties are irrelevant to our aesthetic interactions with it. For example, when we look at a painting we should consider only what is directly presented in our experience of it. What is really aesthetically relevant, therefore, is not what a painting symbolizes, but what it directly presents to experience.

The conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is added to the premises?
A. What an art work symbolizes involves only extrinsic properties of that work.
B. There are certain properties of our experiences of artworks that can be distinguished as symbolic properties.
C. Only an artwork's intrinsic properties are relevant to our aesthetic interactions with it.
D. It is possible in theory for an artwork to symbolize nothing.
E. An intrinsic property of an artwork is one that related the work to itself.

Hi!

First thing to note about this question - it's a retired question from an old LSAT exam. Further, although assumption questions do appear on the GMAT, it would be very rare for them to be this complex.

However, we can still treat this as we would a simpler assumption question: identify the conclusion, summarize the evidence and then look for the mismatch - the gap that needs to be closed between the two.

Deconstructing the argument:

Conclusion: relevant=presents to experience; irrelevant = symbolizes
Evidence: relevant=intrinsic; irrelevant = extrinsic

fix the mismatch: we need to connect presents to experience to intrinsic qualities or what a painting symbolizes to extrinsic qualities.

(A) matches our second prediction: choose (A)!

[bakhshaliyev]

OA is A..was a tough question

[lunarpower]

I would ask mgmat instructor Ron Purewal to clarify one issue. The word "art work" has been used in choice A - we can imply that 'symbolizing' is related to all types of art work. Question - If some type of art work does not feature 'symbolizing' in the way as painting does, then the use of "art work" in choice A still valid?

yes.

analogy: if you say "whatever people build will eventually be destroyed", then the presence of people who don't build anything does not destroy the validity of this statement -- those people just don't affect the statement in any way.

--

furthermore, in this particular argument, postulating the existence of paintings that don't symbolize anything creates no problem whatsoever -- because the argument is trying to make the point that the things that are symbolized don't matter. if there are no such things in the first place, then that works perfectly with the argument.

[Nick0203]

)(A) Correct. When we look at an art work, we should consider only the intrinsic properties
Extrinsic properties are irrelevant to our aesthetic interactions
And what an art work symbolizes involves only extrinsic properties of that work.
So, What is really aesthetically relevant, therefore, is not what a painting symbolizes, but what it directly presents to experience.
(B) mainly discusses 'certain properties of our experiences of artworks that can be distinguished as symbolic properties' and does not help to complete logically the argument. In the opposite way, choice B weakens our argument;
(C) repeats two premises in the paraphrased way 'Only an artwork's intrinsic properties are relevant to our aesthetic interactions with it'
(D) looks not helping our argument too, sort of neutral with some degree of weakening to the conclusion made, invalidates the extrinsic properties introduced as symbolizing 'It is possible in theory for an artwork to symbolize nothing';
(E) discusses an intrinsic property in some renowned way, BUT does not help to decide whether to focus on intrinsic or extrinsic property and in which way 'An intrinsic property of an artwork is one that related the work to itself'.