Q12

[zainrizvi]

I felt like (E) was referring to the The Disciples at Emmaus painting mentioned in the passage. That being said, I wasn't really able to find textual support for this inference.

Is it the fact that experts called it Vermeer's finest works - and that if it was a COPY of another painting, they would already know its not the original. Thus we can infer from the fact that the critics did not recognize it, that it was a new paitning.

[noah]

You've got it - this question is indeed hinging on The Disciples at Emmaus, which we learn early on is a forgery (of debatable value!). However, as (E) notes, even though the painting is not a copy of a specific painting, many consider it a forgery.

(A) is out of scope - the passage never compares attitudes towards forgery in various historical periods.

(B) is unsupported and too extreme. While we can say that some artists that use others' techniques are forgers, we can't say "most" are. In fact, in lines 37-41 we learn that some art doesn't involve a new vision, i.e. it can be using the vision(s) developed by other artists.

(C) is contradicted - we learn that forgers do not have a new artistic vision when forging art!

(D) is out of scope - we never learn about when artists are most able to come up with innovations.

I hope that clears it up.

[shirando21]

So the example in paragrahy 1, in The Disciples at Emmaus, only the signature was forged?

When I read it, I did not come to the conclusion that it was not a copy of a particular original art work of Vermeer.

How do we figure that out?

[shirando21]

also, for answer B, I do not understand from the passage, what can we conclude how to define of a forger

[noah]

So the example in paragrahy 1, in The Disciples at Emmaus, only the signature was forged?

When I read it, I did not come to the conclusion that it was not a copy of a particular original art work of Vermeer.

How do we figure that out?

also, for answer B, I do not understand from the passage, what can we conclude how to define of a forger?

The Disciples is referred to as a forgery in the passage (lines 26 and 57), so there's no reason to doubt that or start trying to figure out what constitutes a forgery.

When The Disciples is introduced, we're told that it's by Van Meegeren, not that it's a copy of a Vermeer painting. And, this example is used to further the author's idea that it is an original vision that makes a work a truly artistic accomplishment instead of just an aesthetic one. This is contrasted with the more tangible aspects of painting a painting.

(E) is not an ideal answer--I must admit I'm struggling a bit to support it--but it's more supportable than any of the other answers.

I'll have to chew on it a bit. Maybe another geek will chime in here...

[griffin.811]

I can't point to specific lines because the connection needed to arrive at E is rather abstract in my opinion and would reference quite a few lines.

I think the explanation the previous posters were looking for can be found in the last 2 paragraphs. We learn in paragraph 2 that forgeries are inferior because they lack a deeper significance, in that, they do not bring originality to the table since they (at least in this case) use TECHNIQUES that have already been established. The passage then goes on to praise Vermeer for the way in which his techniques brought about a new way of viewing the world etc.

These two paragraphs, to me, led me to believe that a forgery could consist of an artist creating an otherwise original piece, could still be considered forgery, if that piece only uses previously established techniques, and the painting itself does not depict an image, that alone is considered to offer a new perspective.

[ptewarie]

I can't point to specific lines because the connection needed to arrive at E is rather abstract in my opinion and would reference quite a few lines.

I think the explanation the previous posters were looking for can be found in the last 2 paragraphs. We learn in paragraph 2 that forgeries are inferior because they lack a deeper significance, in that, they do not bring originality to the table since they (at least in this case) use TECHNIQUES that have already been established. The passage then goes on to praise Vermeer for the way in which his techniques brought about a new way of viewing the world etc.

These two paragraphs, to me, led me to believe that a forgery could consist of an artist creating an otherwise original piece, could still be considered forgery, if that piece only uses previously established techniques, and the painting itself does not depict an image, that alone is considered to offer a new perspective.

This could work but you don't need to strain yourself that much.

It's important to note that Meegeren did not" forge" a painting by Vermeer as we would commonly understand forgery( copying an already existing painting or idea by Vermeer and sold it as pretending it to be Vermeer's)

Rather, he made his own painting and sold it by putting Vermeer's signature under it.

These are two different things.

The critics thought this painting was Vermeer's best work, failing to realize that Vermeer NEVER painted this, and it did not belong to Vermeer.

Question 12, E can be inferred because the author claims in the passage that this painting can still be a forgery because Meegeren used the innovative strategies of painting that were developed by Vermeer to make his own painting. Meegeren did NOT copy an already existing form of art.

Take for example, if John were to draw a landscape of Tuscany(something never drawn before) by using some of the techniques innovated by Rembrandt. After that, John attached Rembrandt's signature beneath it.

According to the author, John is committing forgery NOT because he is copying an original piece of work( after all, Rembrandt never painted a landscape of Tuscany) but because he is using methods that were pioneered by Rembrandt.


Question like these go a long way in showing that one should not project our preconceived assumptions on LSAT passages. It's easy to see how one can be confused with "forgery" if one goes about thinking of it in regular terms.

[sue.liushuang]

I now understand why E is a correct answer, but I'm still a bit confused with D.
According to lines 41-46, "V is acclaimed for having inaugurated, in the seventeenth century, a new way of seeing...". Also, it is common sense that a work's innovation is related to the circumstances in which it was produced. Therefore, one same work is more likely to embody historic innovation in a earlier time. That's why I think D is also correct.
Did I infer too much or misunderstand the meaning of D?
Your reply would be great appreciated!

[ldfdsa]

The problem with E for me is that I didn't realize that The Disciples is not a copy of Vermeer's works, It is a work by Meegeren under the forged signature of Vermeer! And this newly created work is still a forgery as we all know it

[JoyS894]

Bringing this up again 3 years after the last post in case anyone is still reading... I am struggling to find support for E.

1. Is the answer supported by the fact that this Disciples painting is not by Vermeer, but rather it was created by van M and applies V's techniques and uses V's signature...but yet it is still classified as a forgery for copying the technique? If we need to know this to be true in order to get to E, where is the support for finding it is not a copy of a Vermeer painting, but instead copies the technique?

2. Is knowing that Disciples is not a copy of a Vermeer not required to get to E? If so is the support for this at the end when the discussion leans towards saying forged paintings can be forgeries if the technique is copied (it is implied you do not need to copy the entire painting to copy the technique I assume).

Any help on this is appreciated!

[AnnaC659]

Bringing this up again 3 years after the last post in case anyone is still reading... I am struggling to find support for E.

1. Is the answer supported by the fact that this Disciples painting is not by Vermeer, but rather it was created by van M and applies V's techniques and uses V's signature...but yet it is still classified as a forgery for copying the technique? If we need to know this to be true in order to get to E, where is the support for finding it is not a copy of a Vermeer painting, but instead copies the technique?

2. Is knowing that Disciples is not a copy of a Vermeer not required to get to E? If so is the support for this at the end when the discussion leans towards saying forged paintings can be forgeries if the technique is copied (it is implied you do not need to copy the entire painting to copy the technique I assume).

Any help on this is appreciated!

I picked E initially because the rest were definitely wrong. Upon review, I see E is supported by the Disciples painting discussed in the passage paragraph 1. There we learn that the Disciples is now known to be a forgery of Vermeer by Meegeren - it had a forged signature (and I would assume the usual style of Vermeer's paintings). But we do not know whether this was a "copy of a particular original work of art." In fact, I think we can infer from that paragraph in the passage that there was no "original" of the Disciples since the Disciples case is an example of how critics mistook "an almost perfect forgery for an original" not "of" and original. Hence we can say as E "a painting can be a forgery even if it is not a copy of a particular original work of art."

Hope this helped.

[KenM242]

I now understand why E is a correct answer, but I'm still a bit confused with D.
According to lines 41-46, "V is acclaimed for having inaugurated, in the seventeenth century, a new way of seeing...". Also, it is common sense that a work's innovation is related to the circumstances in which it was produced. Therefore, one same work is more likely to embody historic innovation in a earlier time. That's why I think D is also correct.
Did I infer too much or misunderstand the meaning of D?
Your reply would be great appreciated!

This is my question exactly.
Or, 'was'. I think I realized why (D) is wrong just now.
I hate these borderline-logical reasoning questions in reading comprehension section, but anyway. Here it is:

Line 52-56 makes us think that a work of art from an earlier time in history is more likely to possess historically innovative quality than that from a later one. At first glance it seems to make perfect sense but if you compare it to non-artistic creations - especially scientific ones - you can easily see that it's not necessarily true. Many inventions from day 1 of history to 19th century probably were quite innovative but who is to say that they are more important that the ones made in 20th century, right? Maybe a thousand years later, someone may invent a time machine which is WAY MORE BADASS than ANYTHING that's ever been invented, except, maybe the toothbrush.

So what we have to take away from 52-56 is NOT that earlier works of art are more likely to be historically innovative but that if there is an original and if there is a copy (which, of course, was created later than the original), only the original is historically innovative. (D) is essentially saying the reverse of this.

So that's how (D) tricked us. Say, an artist drew a painting when she was 25, and another one at 75. Would I be correct to guess that the one from age 25 is more likely to have some innovative features? Definitely not. It's even possible that the artist became more skillful and developed her own unique style when she was 75.

[obobob]

I now understand why E is a correct answer, but I'm still a bit confused with D.
According to lines 41-46, "V is acclaimed for having inaugurated, in the seventeenth century, a new way of seeing...". Also, it is common sense that a work's innovation is related to the circumstances in which it was produced. Therefore, one same work is more likely to embody historic innovation in a earlier time. That's why I think D is also correct.
Did I infer too much or misunderstand the meaning of D?
Your reply would be great appreciated!

This is my question exactly.
Or, 'was'. I think I realized why (D) is wrong just now.
I hate these borderline-logical reasoning questions in reading comprehension section, but anyway. Here it is:

Line 52-56 makes us think that a work of art from an earlier time in history is more likely to possess historically innovative quality than that from a later one. At first glance it seems to make perfect sense but if you compare it to non-artistic creations - especially scientific ones - you can easily see that it's not necessarily true. Many inventions from day 1 of history to 19th century probably were quite innovative but who is to say that they are more important that the ones made in 20th century, right? Maybe a thousand years later, someone may invent a time machine which is WAY MORE BADASS than ANYTHING that's ever been invented, except, maybe the toothbrush.

So what we have to take away from 52-56 is NOT that earlier works of art are more likely to be historically innovative but that if there is an original and if there is a copy (which, of course, was created later than the original), only the original is historically innovative. (D) is essentially saying the reverse of this.

So that's how (D) tricked us. Say, an artist drew a painting when she was 25, and another one at 75. Would I be correct to guess that the one from age 25 is more likely to have some innovative features? Definitely not. It's even possible that the artist became more skillful and developed her own unique style when she was 75.

Bringing this up again 3 years after the last post in case anyone is still reading... I am struggling to find support for E.

1. Is the answer supported by the fact that this Disciples painting is not by Vermeer, but rather it was created by van M and applies V's techniques and uses V's signature...but yet it is still classified as a forgery for copying the technique? If we need to know this to be true in order to get to E, where is the support for finding it is not a copy of a Vermeer painting, but instead copies the technique?

2. Is knowing that Disciples is not a copy of a Vermeer not required to get to E? If so is the support for this at the end when the discussion leans towards saying forged paintings can be forgeries if the technique is copied (it is implied you do not need to copy the entire painting to copy the technique I assume).

Any help on this is appreciated!

I picked E initially because the rest were definitely wrong. Upon review, I see E is supported by the Disciples painting discussed in the passage paragraph 1. There we learn that the Disciples is now known to be a forgery of Vermeer by Meegeren - it had a forged signature (and I would assume the usual style of Vermeer's paintings). But we do not know whether this was a "copy of a particular original work of art." In fact, I think we can infer from that paragraph in the passage that there was no "original" of the Disciples since the Disciples case is an example of how critics mistook "an almost perfect forgery for an original" not "of" and original. Hence we can say as E "a painting can be a forgery even if it is not a copy of a particular original work of art."

Hope this helped.

Can someone please confirm the two explanations above????

[ohthatpatrick]

They are correct.

(D) is wrong because nowhere in the passage does it say or hint that an artist is more likely to be innovative earlier in their career than later in their career.

(E) is correct because "Disciples" is considered a forgery, but it was not a copy of a Vermeer.

How do we know that Meegeren didn't copy a Vermeer, he made a new painting that resembled Vermeer's style?

1. DISCIPLES was painted in 1937. Vermeer died in 1675.

2. Critics heaped lavish praise on DISCIPLES in 1937. They later felt great embarrassment in 1945 when they found out it wasn't originated by Vermeer.

3. If DISCIPLES had been painted by Vermeer in the 1600s (and just copied, stroke for stroke, by Meegeren 300 years later), then why would critics have been so excited to see it in 1937? If it were already an established masterpiece from Vermeer, art critics would have long known about it. Instead, we can tell that art critics were seeing it for the first time in 1937, and they were believing that someone had found a long-lost Vermeer that had been painted in the 1600s. Line 17 speaks of the experts' INITIAL enthusiasm. When they thought it was a never before seen Vermeer, they effusively praised it. Once they learned it was created by Meegeren, they stopped praising it.

If Meegeren had just COPIED an existing Vermeer, then critics would continue to praise the artwork embodied in Meegeren's copy. They would have only come to realize that the painting hanging in the Rotterdam museum wasn't as valuable as a 300 year old Vermeer would have been. They still would have critically assessed DISCIPLES as a masterpiece. They would have just said, "This facsimile created by Meegeren isn't the original copy of this painting."

Instead, they "revised downwards their assessment".

4. In the last paragraph, they're talking about how Meegeren's 20th century production presents nothing new or creative to the history of art.

If DISCIPLES were just a copy of an old work, that would be too obvious to even mention.

If I photocopy the Mona Lisa, (or create some other forgery), then critics are obviously not going to think I've presented something new or creative to the history of art. We wouldn't need art theorist Lessing to weigh in on the merits of my production.

However, if I stole Leonardo DaVinci's style, and painted a new work, in DaVinci's style, that was arguably technically superior to DaVinci's work, we could debate whether I actually contributed something new or creative.

That's what this passage was all about. Hope this helps.