<p>For the zen question, it was partially agree because the zen person talks about bringing happiness to others as well as yourself. the second paragraph argues that it is a hedonist view (or selfish).</p>
<p>lullaby: The question was like, “Betty and Michelle (or whatever the girls’ names were), who had been excited for the journalism instruction, were disappointed because he gave criticism that was _____ instead of _____”</p>
<p>It was along the lines of that.</p>
<p>Hey this is the women and art passage for you freakchild12:</p>
<p>The question “Why have there been no great women artists?” is ismply the top tenth of an iceberg of misinterpretation and misconception; beneath lies a vast dark bulk of shaky idees recues about the nature of art and its situational concomitants, about the nature of human abilities in general and of human excellence in particular, and the role that the social order plays in all of this. While the “woman problem” as such may be a pseudo-issue, the misconceptions involved in the question “Why have there been no great women artists?” points to major areas of intellectual obfuscation beyond the specific political and ideological issues involved in the subjection of women. Basic to the question are many naive, distorted, uncritical assumptions about the making of art in general, as well as the making of great art. These assumptions, conscious or unconscious, link such unlikely superstars as Michelangelo and van Gogh, Raphael and Jackson Pollock under the rubric of “Great”–an honorific–attested to by the number of scholarly monographs devoted to the artist in question–and the Great Artist is, of course, conceived of as one who has “Genius”; Genius, in turn, is thought of as an atemporal and mysterious power somehow embedded in the person of the Great Artist. Such ideas are related to unquestioned, often unconscious, meta-historical premises that make Hippolyte Taine’s race-milieu-moment formulation of the dimensions of historical thought seem a model of sophistication. But these assumptions are intrinsic to a great deal of art-historical writing. It is no accident that the crucial question of the conditions generally productive of great art has so rarely been investigated, or that attempts to investigate such general problems have, until fairly recently, been dismissed as unscholarly, too broad, or the province of some other discipline, like sociology. To encourage a dispassionate, impersonal, sociological, and institutionally oriented approach would reveal the entire romantic, elitist, individual-glorifying, and monograph-producing substructure upon which the profession of art history is based, and which has only recently been called into question by a group of younger dissidents.</p>
<p>The magical aura surrounding the representational arts and their creators has, of course, given birth to myths since the earliest times. Interestingly enough, the same magical abilities attributed by Pliny to the Greek sculptor Lysippos in antiquity–the mysterious inner call in early youth, the lack of any teacher but Nature herself–is repeated as late as the 19th century by Max Buchon In his biography of Courbet. The supernatural powers of the artist as Imitator, his control of strong, possibly dangerous powers, have functioned historically to set him off from others as a godlike creator, one who creates Being out of nothing. The fairy tale of the discovery by an older artist or discerning patron of the Boy Wonder, usually in the guise of a lowly shepherd boy, has been stock-in-trade of artistic mythology ever since Vasari immortaized the young Glotto, discovered by the great Cimabue while the lad was guarding his flocks, drawing sheep on a stone; Cimabue, overcome admiration for the realism of the drawing, immediately invited the humble youth to be his pupil. Through some mysterious coincidence, later artists including Beccafumi, Andrea Sansovino, Andrea del Castagno, Mantegna, Zurbarfin, and Goya were all discovered in similar pastoral circumstances. Even when the young Great Artist was fortunate enough to come equipped with a flock of sheep, his talent always seems to have manifested itself very early, and independent of external encouragement: Filippo Lippi and Poussin, Courbet and Monet are all reported to have drawn caricatures in the margins of their schoolbooks instead of studying the required subjects–we never, course, hear about the youths who neglected their studies and scribbled in the margins of their notebooks without ever becoming anything more elevated than department-store clerks or shoe salesmen. The great Michelangelo himself, according to his biographer and pupil, Vasari, did more drawing than studying as a child. So pronounced was his talent, reports Vasari, that when his master, Ghirlandaio, absented himself momentarily from his work in Santa Maria Novella, and the young art student took the opportunity to draw “the scaffolding, trestles, pots of paint, brushes and the apprentices at their tasks” in this brief absence, he did it so skillfully that upon his return the master aimed: “This boy knows more than I do.”</p>
<p>As is so often the case, such stories, which probably have some Even when based on fact, these myths about the early manifestations of genius are misleading. It is no doubt true, for example, that the young Picasso passed all the examinations for entrance to the Barcelona and later to the Madrid, Academy of Art at the age of fifteen in a single day, a feat of such difficulty that most candidates required a month of preparation. But one would like to find out more about similar precocious qualifiers for art academies who then went on to achieve nothing but mediocrity or failure–in whom, of course, art historians are uninterested–or to study in greater detail the role played by Picasso’s art professor father in the pictorial precocity of his son.</p>
<p>What if Picasso had been born a girl? Would Senor Ruiz have paid as much attention or stimulated as much ambition for achievement in a little Pablita?</p>
<p>As far as the relationship of artistic occupation and social class is concerned, an interesting paradigm for the question “Why have there been no great women artists?” might well be provided by trying to answer the question “Why have there been no great artists from the aristocracy?” One can scarcely think, before the anti-traditional 19th century at least, of any artist who sprang from the ranks of any more elevated class than the upper bourgeoisie; even in the 19th century, Degas came from the lower nobility-more like the haute bourgeoisie, in fact–and only Toulouse-Lautrec, metamorphosed into the ranks of the marginal by accidental deformity, could be said to have come from the loftier reaches of the upper classes. While the aristocracy has always provided the lion’s share of the patronage and the audience for arts, indeed, the aristocracy of wealth does even in our own more democratic days–it has contributed little beyond amateurish efforts to the creation of art itself, despite the fact that aristocrats (like many women) have had more than their share of educational advantages, plenty of leisure and, indeed, like women, were often encouraged to dabble in the arts and even develop into respectable amateurs, like Napoleon III’s cousin the Princess Mathilde, who exhibited at the official Salons, or Queen Victoria, who, with Prince Albert, studied art with no less a figure than Landseer himself. Could it be that the little golden nugget–genius–is missing from the aristocratic makeup the same way that it is from the feminine psyche? Or rather, is it not that the kinds of demands and expectations placed before both aristocrats and women–the amount of time necessarily devoted to social functions, the very kinds of activities demanded–simply made total devotion to profession out of the question, indeed unthinkable, both for upper-class males and for women generally, rather than its being a question of genius and talent?</p>
<p>My question was where is the thread that has the passage about the women/art? Masterus2010 said some people found it on another thread.</p>
<p>Oh, then this might be what you’re talking about:</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/sat-preparation/791943-passage-why-there-no-famous-women-artists.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/sat-preparation/791943-passage-why-there-no-famous-women-artists.html</a></p>
<p>Andie1059: Thank you!</p>
<p>I’m still not getting the logic to the second native american question. what is incorrect about saying that a highly developed memory is needed to understand ceremonial texts?</p>
<p>Cacciato, the question referenced about 10 lines, and in those lines, the geologist describes different features of different planets. The question asked about the purpose of those lines (I think). I forget the middle choices, but I remember that they were definitely wrong. The remaining choices were something like “note the detail and extent of the discovery” and “express personal admiration”.</p>
<p>dareallycoolguy, I’m almost sure it was diversity/novelty. He compared the pictures in the atlas book that he had seen already before with pictures he had never seen before.</p>
<p>^k, I’ll trust your judgment. Again, that was the only one I wasn’t confident about, so I can’t really back up my choice as well as I would like to. Hopefully I didn’t make any stupid bubbling mistakes…I’m probably at -2, so as long as I got the undiscussed questions right, I’m set.</p>
<p>“Betty and Michelle (or whatever the girls’ names were), who had been excited for the journalism instruction, were disappointed because he gave criticism that was _____ instead of _____”</p>
<p>WHAT WERE THE CHOICES?^^
captious …edifying…etc.</p>
<p>In addition, this thread would be alot more useful if someone put a list of the questions (or some approximate ‘remake’) and the answers for the reading section.</p>
<p>Maybe someone should try to clarify the ones that have been debatable the whole time.</p>
<p>Jeering vs. mocking conventional biographies (referring to sheep)-Many people are saying both. I think it could be jeering because the author thought that it was humorous that everyone is supposedly discovered in a rustic lifestyle, or whatever it said in the story. He was poking fun at the supposed discovery. </p>
<p>Singer looking at familiar arrangement of song vs. chef tasting a herb-Most people here said singer looking at familiar arrangement of song. However, by choosing that answer, one would have to infer that the author found something in the familiar arrangement that was different than it previously had. Therefore, I think that if the answer was chef tasting a herb it would make sense as the chef has tasted many herbs throughout his career and this new herb is something different. That is the point. It is stated that this new herb is different while one can only imply that the musical arrangement is different.</p>
<p>Worth obtaining (luxuries, cars, etc…) vs. things people assume they will eventually obtain-What does everyone think about that one?</p>
<p>And which vocabulary question had an answer of admonish? Was it the one about the forest ranger warning about the dangers or something?</p>
<p>for the question that had the answer Captious… Edifying, what were some of the other choices. I think i put Captious… Edifying but im note sure. Other choices were…</p>
<p>^ Who cares what the other choices were? For this question, there is def. only one answer, which is captious/edifying. You either got it right or wrong. </p>
<p>Now, for some of the crazy women-art passage questions, there are several questions which seem to have two or more good answers. If only we could remember the actual questions and answers!</p>
<p>It would be funny if none of us remembered the questions/answers correctly and got everything wrong =(</p>
<p>Another choice for “captious…edifying” was “didactic…extemporaneous”. I don’t remember the others because these were the two I narrowed it down to. </p>
<p>For the “car, luxuries, etc” it’s things people think are worth putting effort into obtaining, because the passage stated that people sacrifice/ put in a lot to get those things. Passage mentions nothing about whether people think they will evantually get these things or not, just that they tried really hard to get them.</p>
<p>I’m not sure about the jeering/mocking question…I only felt that jeering is very harsh, very snide, whether as mocking is more…amused, making fun of. I feel the word ‘jeer’ has a tone of insult…which is why I picked mocking.</p>
<p>I think it’s singer with familiar arrangement because the the question asked for the author
's reaction to the ANTICIPATED pictures, not the ones he actually saw. When he found the book, he expected “humdrum” pictures of Saturn’s rings and moons and stuff like that, so he was like, “ok, been there, done that” which is what a singer looking at a familiar arrangement would be like. The author wasn’t surprised or happy until he saw the actual pictures.</p>
<p>1.I think that basically jeering and mocking are too related words that we can’t distinguish from very clearly so that I want to ask does anybody remember the full choices containing these two words?
2.I noticed "historical speculation"one.Can anybody remember the context and why you chose this?</p>
<p>freakchild…the reaction to the anticipated pictures means the reaction to what he anticipated…so he anticipated it would be humdrum but when he saw these pictures he thought would be humdrum it was something totally different…i guess its how you interpret the question…i think its asking his reaction to what he actually saw (because he is reacting (surprised reaction) to what he anticipated (humdrum))…if you interpret it your way it could be right too…i dont know</p>
<p>I remember one question but you guys omitted to discuss:as for the Buddist beauty paragraph what does “precious” mean? elegant or valuable or adorable???</p>