Q8

[marosheg]

Question 8 is tricky in that it has two answers I feel the passage strongly supports. I originally picked answer choice (E) for this question.

If you read lines 37-47, you have strong support for the claim that "works of art that have little or no aesthetic value can still be said to be great achievements in artistic terms."

I fail to find, however, strong support for the correct answer choice, (A). It simply states that critics were embarrassed, not that they continued to find it aesthetically beautiful.

What am I missing, and how can I read between the lines when two questions present possible correct answers in a RC question like this?

[bbirdwell]

Here's how I think about it:

Most likely, I will find the answer in the 3rd paragraph.

Here's what I learn there:
1. Lessing thinks forgeries are inferior as art.
2. this is NOT due to a lack of aesthetic quality
3. this is due to intangible qualities, such as the origination of new vision (originality of vision = artistic accomplishment rather than aesthetic accomplishment)

My job when going to the choices is to find one that fits with these facts, and eliminate others. Interpreting the choices is often the hardest part.

(A) says "Emmaus can be aesthetically superb even though it's a forgery." This matches what Lessing said above. Do you see how I arrived at that simple interpretation?

"Critics who think it's aesthetically superb were not invalidated" means "it's ok to consider it aesthetically superb...." even though it's a forgery. This is exactly what Lessing says.

(B) easy elimination. Monetary value never mentioned.

(C) easy elimination.

(D) easy elimination - no comparison is made to other "less significant" artists.

(E) I can see why this was appealing. However, Lessing never mentions works of art that have "no aesthetic value." We can infer that "aesthetic value" is not alone sufficient to guarantee "artistic value," however "aesthetic value" might very well be necessary to a work of "artistic value." We just don't know.

So, while (E) is not disproven by the passage, it is not supported, either -- we don't know whether Lessing believes this or not.

[rfrahman]

For answer E, I was thinking of another reason it might be wrong or directly disproves the answer. It said in line 27 that all art involves technique. So since all art requires technique, and art that's considered artistic is also considered art, wouldn't it be required for art considered artistic to at least have some aesthetic value? Or am I incorrectly equivocating aesthetic and technique?