<p>In the following passage from a newspaper commentary
written in 1968, an architecture critic discusses old
theaters and concert halls.</p>
<p>After 50 years of life and 20 years of death, the great
Adler and Sullivan Auditorium in Chicago is back in
business again. Orchestra Hall, also in Chicago, was
beautifully spruced up for its sixty-eighth birthday. In
5 St. Louis, a 1925 movie palace has been successfully
transformed into Powell Symphony Hall, complete with
handsome bar from New Yorks demolished Metropolitan
Opera House.
Sentimentalism? Hardly. This is no more than a
10 practical coming of cultural age, a belated recognition
that fine old buildings frequently offer the most for the
money in an assortment of values, including cost, and
above all, that new cultural centers do not a culture
make. It indicates the dawning of certain sensibilities,
15 perspectives, and standards without which arts programs
are mockeries of everything the arts stand for.
The last decade has seen city after city rush pell-mell
into the promotion of great gobs of cultural real estate. It
has seen a few good new theaters and a lot of bad ones,
20 temples to bourgeois muses with all the panache of suburban
shopping centers. The practice has been to treat the
arts in chamber-of-commerce, rather than in creative,
terms. That is just as tragic as it sounds.
The trend toward preservation is significant not only
25 because it is saving and restoring some superior buildings
that are testimonials to the creative achievements of other
times, but also because it is bucking the conventional
wisdom of the conventional power structure that provides
the backing for conventional cultural centers to house the
30 arts.
That wisdom, as it comes true-blue from the hearts and
minds of real estate dealers and investment bankers, is that
you dont keep old buildings; they are obsolete. Anything
new is better than anything old and anything big is better
35 than anything small, and if a few cultural values are lost
along the way, it is not too large a price to pay. In addition,
the new, big buildings must be all in one place so they will
show. Theyll not only serve the arts, theyll improve the
surrounding property values. Build now, and fill them later.</p>
<ol>
<li>In lines 27-30, the author uses the word conventional
several times in order to
(A) reveal the performers frustration with modern
theaters
(B) disparage the present-day treatment of the arts
(C) parody the creative efforts of contemporary artists
(D) emphasize the absurdity of a purely aesthetic
approach to the arts
(E) exaggerate the importance of tradition in the arts</li>
</ol>
<p>The phasing of the text is somewhat confusing...</p>
<p>Well I’m not the best when it comes to CR, but playing Devil’s advocate I assume that the answer is B. Why? Well you can eliminate A and C first since the author doesn’t really mention modern theaters or contemporary artists in those lines. When the author says “The PRACTICE HAS BEEN TO TREAT the arts in chamber-of-commerce, rather than in creative, terms. That is just as TRAGIC AS IT SOUNDS.” I believe he is trying to convey that he doesn’t like this held belief or treatment of art. Hence, we can assume the answer is B. In my opinion, it’s the answer choice that is mostly supported by the text.</p>
<p>I would say D. The reason being is that in the previous lines he is claiming that are theaters are no longer retaining their cultural significance because they are all being transformed to modern, cookie-cutter design infrastructures. Following the lines noted, we see him talking further about real-estate and how old buildings are no longer view valuable.</p>
<p>Yea that’s the right answer (B) and I got that through POE but it took me a while to figure it out. </p>
<p>The sentence where the author says “conventional” 3 times confuses me. I have no idea what he/she is talking about. I was stuck on that sentence and burned up my time…</p>
<p>Paul, I eliminated A and E immediately but I couldn’t comprehend exactly what the author was saying.</p>
<p>The book answer was B?</p>
<p>I would now see how B is fitting since he talks about how the arts are being treated in a very contemporary way when they should be retaining their cultural themes and beauty</p>
<p>Yes. The answer is B. Can someone explain that one sentence for me?</p>
<p>The conventional wisdom he is talking about is explained in the last lines </p>
<p>“That wisdom, as it comes true-blue from the hearts and
minds of real estate dealers and investment bankers, is that
you don’t keep old buildings; they are obsolete. Anything
new is better than anything old and anything big is better
35 than anything small, and if a few cultural values are lost
along the way, it is not too large a price to pay. In addition,
the new, big buildings must be all in one place so they will
show. They’ll not only serve the arts, they’ll improve the
surrounding property values. Build now, and fill them later.”</p>
<p>The conventional wisdom is that old art theaters are useless and small and should be replaced with a new, larger, typical art building. The author supports older art buildings because they preserve artistic achievements of other times</p>
<p>Oh I just did it yesterday. The answer is B. He says that art is now being used commercially with all the new and shiny buildings. And he opposes against such trend, saying art servers the opposite, which is conventional.</p>
<p>The passage is really vague and hard to understand. I did the questions mostly by elimination.</p>