<p>^Because it said that a long time ago she danced for the president. And later it mentioned that her friend made her a parka before she went to meet the president. These were in the past while the seagulls were in the present</p>
<p>Because she mentioned how she has danced for the President in the past, and she wore a parka for the dance so her friend giving her a parka was the answer.</p>
<p>Was the answer that the churches were the subjects of his painting?</p>
<p>^ yes it was</p>
<p>State archives WAS specifically mentioned.</p>
<p>The question asked for tone, not message. I did some analysis on the tone, and could not dig up enough evidence for admiration. For example, when the government funds “dried up”, the author was completely indifferent and non supportive. The author objectively described how WPA was formed from the Great Depression and said nothing particular until the Harlem Rennaisance. In the Harlem Rennaisance section, his only opinionated words were that the authors proved that the Harlem Rennaisance was much broader than commonly believed.</p>
<p>Perhaps my mindset of tone is narrow, but I could not get myself to ever put admiration unless the writer specifically said SOMEWHERE that the accomplishments of the WPA were important to HIM. Perhaps its implied only?</p>
<p>wait ‘‘parka’’ was one fo the choicesss???what???</p>
<p>for the question concerning how realistic or unrealistic photography is compared to painting</p>
<p>I know it said earlier in the passage something about photography being an illusion but it also said “Few buildings, at least before photography, were observed with more passionate care.”</p>
<p>s part of the New Deal, the Federal Government paid several thousand writers across the nation to write about what they observed. The collection of stories that is included in this volume all center upon Harlem and its so-called Renaissance. These essays are written by some writers that are well known, and by several who cannot be traced to this day. They all share a level of excellence that can result when talented people write about a place they are a part of. This collection is not a romanticized view of Harlem, The Apollo Theater, or any other landmarks you may know. The stories are stripped of all pretense, they each are small documentaries of what life was like for those who lived, worked, exploited, and were exploited by Harlem’s unique population. It would be easy to dwell on portions of this book that would raise the anger that remains associated with various groups. This may be part of the reason this book was not embraced. Free Speech is a difficult taskmaster, and this may explain why these stories found their home in the archives of The Library Of Congress until they were finally brought to the light of day.</p>
<p>found this gem on amazon, a review of a renaissance in harlem</p>
<p>what does that tell us?</p>
<p>I agree that it is “was put in state archives”
even though the WPA ended, it didnt say people stopped writing</p>
<p>I’m still not sure about the photography one though.
“Few buildings, at least before photography, were observed with more passionate care.”
Wouldn’t that mean that photography has more detail?</p>
<p>this is another exact quote from earlier </p>
<p>“But are they really so true to life? Or are they, like photographs, a mix of fact, error and wishful illusion?”</p>
<p>So this passage seems to contradict itself</p>
<p>Could someone please find the renaissance passage or the dutch painter passage…I had to rush through them, and I put “detached” and that photographs were more accurate…</p>
<p>That line itself is enough to answer the question imo</p>
<p>[Critic’s</a> Notebook | Sublime Architecture: Sacred Interiors Aglow; A 17th-Century Dutch Artist Gets His Due at a Getty Exhibition - The New York Times](<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/26/arts/critic-s-notebook-sublime-architecture-sacred-interiors-aglow-17th-century-dutch.html?pagewanted=1]Critic’s”>http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/26/arts/critic-s-notebook-sublime-architecture-sacred-interiors-aglow-17th-century-dutch.html?pagewanted=1)</p>
<p>@dman which one?</p>
<p>oh wow i probably missed that mabsjenbu
thats tricky putting it in the front of the passage</p>
<p>Hey,</p>
<p>Can anyone put the compiled list of answers?</p>
<p>Thanks:)</p>
<p>^ I’m referring to the “But are they really so true to life? Or are they, like photographs, a mix of fact, error and wishful illusion?” line. </p>
<p>The line states that photographs skew reality, etc. What other line are people looking at that made them confused?</p>
<p>I’m not really sure how they will justify either answer. The sentence “…whose exacting eye for measurement, light and detail gives his pictures the accuracy of scientific photographs” is followed directly by “Or are they, like photographs, a mix of fact, error and wishful illusion?” They seem to contradict each other…</p>
<p>this one</p>
<p>“Few buildings, at least before photography, were observed with more passionate care.”</p>
<p>Also for this one, what did you guys say for when it asked to describe him whether he was inferior or meticulous.</p>