Q6

[kmewmewblue]

I really don't understand why (E) is the answer.
And what is particularly "Unforseen" indicating?

Thanks in advance.

[ohthatpatrick]

This passage more or less tells a linear story about three art movements.

Revolutionary Realism (during the Cultural Revolution) was a colored, distorted, state-sponsored form of "realism" in the 60's/70's.

Then comes Scar Art in the 80s. Instead of glorifying the urban state like RR, Scar Art depicts harsh, rural realities.

Finally, Native Soil comes in the late 80s. It focuses on the rural, but it idealizes and romanticizes the rural life.

When you get a passage that feels more or less like a straightforward or chronological description, the main point is often based off whatever overarching idea the author gives (normally this is either some broad claim that the specific example illustrates, or it's some statement about why we should find the stuff the author is telling us distinctive/interesting).

The "unforeseen" you're referring to in (E) is based off the transition from the 1st paragraph to the 2nd paragraph. After giving us the background on the Cultural Revolution, the author foreshadows that "ironically" (unforeseen), the restrictive climate of the Cult Rev cultivated opposite artistic movements to follow.

Since it is this sentence, this thought, that ties together the three artistic movements, it represents the main point.

Lines 53-57 also bundle the three movements together.

A) is wrong because the passage is about a chronological progression of three art movements, not just a survey of political influences on "contemporary" art.

B) is wrong because Scar Art and Native Soil came after the Cult Rev, but didn't transform it.

C) is wrong because the passage is mainly about three art movements, not about Chinese rural life.

D) is wrong because the Native Soil movement was definitely not realism, so this answer would fail to encompass the last paragraph of the passage.

NOTE: the correct answer to #9 is also justified by the "ironically" in lines 16-20.

Let me know if anything remains unclear.

[ttunden]

To add further,

I would also say that for D - the rise of realism would not capture the main point. Realism didn't rise post-maoist art, it was just altered/modified(as stated in paragraph 2). Realism was present in maoist art as well, as indicated by the 1st paragraph.

I think that's the primary reason D is wrong, not because the native soil movement doesn't belong to realism. Line 48 says it was a related development, so you can kinda argue that it is still realism. I would go with my reason for eliminating D.