While I can see how B is correct, I have trouble seeing why it's a better answer than C.
C tells me that forgers can be talented and dupe experts (showing aesthetic excellence) but since they are forgeries, they are probably not of high degree of artistic value.
This is kind of parallel to van Meegeren. His piece is aesthetically beautiful, but when it comes down to it, it lacks vision and historical significance to be of artistic merit.
What do you guys think?
LSAT Forum
6 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- tommywallach
-
Thanks Received: 468
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 1041
- Joined: August 11th, 2009
Re: Q13
Hey Maymay,
Sorry there hasn't been a faster response on this. I'm happy to take it on!
I like to look at questions holistically, so let's start by summing up the passage. The author seems to agree with Lessing's contention that art isn't just about aesthetics, but also originality. So, for this question, we need a fact that would strengthen the idea that something can be aesthetically satisfying, but lacking in originality.
(A) If anything, this goes against Lessing, who believes that forgers deserve less success/respect than others.
(B) In this example, the reproductions are aesthetically sound ("beautiful"), but they are not great art, because there is no originality (they are reproductions made by people who have only been trained in the "copying of masterpieces". This supports Lessing's view that there's more at stake than sheer beauty/technique.
(C) This is irrelevant to Lessing's point. He accepts that reproductions can be beautiful (and thus might fool the experts). The issue is that they are still not good art, because they express no originality of vision. This answer choice doesn't even bring up the idea of originality.
(D) This is the opposite of Lessing's thesis. He believes that plenty of forgeries ARE technically successful, but not ARTISTICALLY successful.
(E) Time is irrelevant to this argument.
Hope that helps!
-t
Sorry there hasn't been a faster response on this. I'm happy to take it on!
I like to look at questions holistically, so let's start by summing up the passage. The author seems to agree with Lessing's contention that art isn't just about aesthetics, but also originality. So, for this question, we need a fact that would strengthen the idea that something can be aesthetically satisfying, but lacking in originality.
(A) If anything, this goes against Lessing, who believes that forgers deserve less success/respect than others.
(B) In this example, the reproductions are aesthetically sound ("beautiful"), but they are not great art, because there is no originality (they are reproductions made by people who have only been trained in the "copying of masterpieces". This supports Lessing's view that there's more at stake than sheer beauty/technique.
(C) This is irrelevant to Lessing's point. He accepts that reproductions can be beautiful (and thus might fool the experts). The issue is that they are still not good art, because they express no originality of vision. This answer choice doesn't even bring up the idea of originality.
(D) This is the opposite of Lessing's thesis. He believes that plenty of forgeries ARE technically successful, but not ARTISTICALLY successful.
(E) Time is irrelevant to this argument.
Hope that helps!
-t
-
- tommywallach
-
Thanks Received: 468
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 1041
- Joined: August 11th, 2009
Re: Q13
Hey MayMay,
I'm not quite sure which answer choice you're defending with your question. The passage goes to great lengths to differentiate "aesthetic excellence" and "artistic value." The former is a question of technique/skill, the latter also adds in the idea of "originality of vision". So yes, the argument does assume that anything a forger does cannot have great "artistic value". But it CAN have "aesthetic excellence". Does that make more sense?
-t
I'm not quite sure which answer choice you're defending with your question. The passage goes to great lengths to differentiate "aesthetic excellence" and "artistic value." The former is a question of technique/skill, the latter also adds in the idea of "originality of vision". So yes, the argument does assume that anything a forger does cannot have great "artistic value". But it CAN have "aesthetic excellence". Does that make more sense?
-t
-
- krisk743
-
Thanks Received: 2
-
Jackie Chiles
- Posts: 49
- Joined: May 31st, 2017
Re: Q13
How can it not be D?
It is saying the opposite but if it's considered true that they're unsuccessful because the forger hasn't mastered the techniques, then when they DO master them they would be great. Which is essentially what Lessing says - it may not be considered original and inferior but the aesthetic qualities should not go unnoticed.
It is saying the opposite but if it's considered true that they're unsuccessful because the forger hasn't mastered the techniques, then when they DO master them they would be great. Which is essentially what Lessing says - it may not be considered original and inferior but the aesthetic qualities should not go unnoticed.
6 posts Page 1 of 1