Q5 - Vandenburg: This art museum is

[Shiggins]

Vandenburg argues that the art museum is not adhering to its purpose of as much attention to contemporary art.

His evidence is that the contemporary collection is smaller compared to the other collections.

I believe he is assuming that the size has bearing on attention, but overlooks maybe what they have is all they can get.

Simpson argues saying the collection is appropriate and explains that it is small because of what the curators believe and that it is a museum not a ethnographical museum, which is that there is little-high quality art.

I want to clarify A as right. Simpson says the collection is appropriate based off what the curators believe. The art museum should not be gathering every kind of work but should focus on what the curators believe.
If anyone could clarify, correct, much appreciated

[wallace.rachael]

I was stuck between A and C. Can someone explain why C is incorrect?

Perhaps I am attacking these questions incorrectly. I was thinking that if C were not true (that a Museum's purpose was to collect art for every style from every period) then the argument would not hold.

It seems like the argument could still work if A were not true.

I guess C does not help justify the reasoning as much, since the reasoning is not that the museum is not required to collect pieces from every style/period, but instead that the collection is small since the curators only collect high-quality art, which there is little of.

Please let me know if I am missing something.

[Shiggins]

I was stuck between A and C. Can someone explain why C is incorrect?

Perhaps I am attacking these questions incorrectly. I was thinking that if C were not true (that a Museum's purpose was to collect art for every style from every period) then the argument would not hold.

It seems like the argument could still work if A were not true.

I guess C does not help justify the reasoning as much, since the reasoning is not that the museum is not required to collect pieces from every style/period, but instead that the collection is small since the curators only collect high-quality art, which there is little of.

Please let me know if I am missing something.

I believe if you negate A it says "An art museum should not collect any works that its curators consider to be of high artistic quality. If that is the case; If you do not pick what they suggest then what are you left with in the museum collection.

C is a little tough to cross out. I believe you reasoning is right. If the art museum's purpose were to collect styles of every period, I believe the decision on the contemporary pieces would still come from the curators.

This is my reasoning for it, I am not definite on it but if anyone wants to add or correct much appreciated. I hope I was able to help

[noah]

Great discussion. I'd be wary of busting out the negation technique on anything but necessary assumption questions. With principle support questions, we need something that will bridge the gap, but it doesn't have to be assumed.

Shiggins, I think you got it - but you didn't mention the gap in Simpson's argument. Take a look at how I see it:

We need to help Simpson's argument. Simpson concludes that it's fine for the museum to have a small contemporary art collection (even though it's supposed to focus as much on contemporary art as other art). Why? Because the curators think that there isn't much high-quality contemporary art.

What's the gap? Well, just because they think that there isn't much good contemporary art doesn't necessarily mean they shouldn't put some of that allegedly lower quality stuff in the museum. Perhaps other people have different opinions; perhaps curators should put their personal feelings aside.

(A) bridges that gap - a museum shouldn't collect stuff that the curators think isn't high quality.

(B) doesn't help Simpson's argument. Simpson isn't suggesting that there's a potential violation of the museum's purpose. (B) would work if the argument were about why the museum shouldn't collect another early art piece.

(C) is a premise booster - don't we already that Simpson thinks that an art museum shouldn't become an ethnographic museum? How does that get us to his or her conclusion about whether the small modern collection is justified.

(D) is about ethnographic museums and their purposes. That's not in the core of Simpson's argument. He or she mentions ethnographic museums to describe what an art museum is not!

(E) is tempting because it's basically the opposite of what we want. To draw Simpson's conclusion, we want the curator's opinions to be very important and to determine what art is collected!

I hope that helps - though it seems like you two figured out a lot on your own.

[Shiggins]

Thanks again Noah, really appreciate your help and input.

[m28010000]

I was really surprised to hear about the shortage of the contemporary art work in museum because I have visited the museum and got a very nice collection of this beautiful art form.

[keonheecho]

Hi,
What role does Simpson's statement play when he says "it's an art museum, not an ethnographic museum designed to collect every style of every period"? Is this just irrelevant background information, or is it a premise? I don't see how this could even support the argument, and it seems to make an irrelevant claim because Vandenburg is arguing about the amount of contemporary art, not how much of each kind of art is in the museum


Thank you

[maryadkins]

I agree that it's background information. It's just Simpson spouting off and showing that he knows the word "ethnographic."

His argument doesn't rely on this so I wouldn't call it a premise.

[VendelaG465]

I'm a bit confused as to how A is correct I had picked it through process of elimination but would like a clearer explanation & to confirm I'm on the right page. Would it be fair to say that if they collected only art works of "higher quality" then there would be no inequality in the #s between the amount of high vs low quality art pieces ? what is the usual breakdown/approach for a principle support question?

[ohthatpatrick]

what is the usual breakdown/approach for a principle support question?


1. Find the Conclusion.
2. Find the Support.
3. Evaluate the argument, by solving for a missing link between the Premise and Conclusion or by thinking of potential objections (ways that the Premise could be true, while the OPPOSITE of the conclusion could be true).
4. A correct answer will help the argument by providing a missing link or ruling out an objection

Would it be fair to say that if they collected only art works of "higher quality" then there would be no inequality in the #s between the amount of high vs low quality art pieces ?

I think you're close, but the conversation isn't about an inequality in # of high vs. low quality pieces, it's about an inequality in the # of contemporary vs. earlier pieces.

According to the museum's purpose, there would be as much attention devoted to contemporary art as to earlier art.

If you define "as much attention" as "number of pieces", then the museum hasn't adhered to its purpose. It ought to have as big a collection of contemporary art as it does of earlier periods, and it does not.

If you define "as much attention" as "looking equally hard for worthy pieces", then maybe the museum HAS adhered to its purpose. That's the argument Simpson is making: they've looked just as hard at contemporary art as they have at earlier art in searching for worthy pieces. Since there weren't as many high-quality pieces of contemporary art, they ended up with a smaller contemporary collection than their collection of earlier art.

Simpson's argument:
CONCLUSION - the small size of the contemporary art collection is appropriate (it's as it should be)

EVIDENCE - the curators don't think there's as much high quality contemporary art as there is high quality earlier art.

If you're trying to bridge that gap, you need something resembling "It is appropriate to only include high-quality art".

Otherwise, you're vulnerable to the objection that "even if contemporary art doesn't have as many high-quality examples, we should have still made the contemporary art collection as big as the other collections."

[JeremyK460]

I agree that it's background information. It's just Simpson spouting off and showing that he knows the word "ethnographic."

His argument doesn't rely on this so I wouldn't call it a premise.

it's definitely a premise lol

the premise: it's an art museum, not an ethnographic museum designed to collect an equal number of art from each and every period

in other words, the intention of an art museum isn't to collect from each and ever period an equal number of works

this is relevant to V's claims about the museum and curators not adhering to their purposes and intentions