As with any work of art, the merit of Chapman KelleyV’Wildflower Works I" wa

游客2023-12-27  3

问题     As with any work of art, the merit of Chapman KelleyV’Wildflower Works I" was in the eye of the beholder.
    Kelley, who normally works with paint and canvas, considered the twin oval gardens planted in 1984 at Daley Bicentennial Park his most important piece.
    The Chicago Park District considered it a patch of raggedy vegetation on public property that could be dug up and replanted at will like the flower boxes along Michigan Avenue. And that’s what happened in June 2004, when the district decided to create a more orderly vista for pedestrians crossing from Millennium Park via the new Frank Gehry footbridge.
    If you’re looking for evidence that the rubes who run the Park District don’t know art when they see it, all you have to do is visit what’s left of Kelley’s masterpiece. The exuberant 1. 5-acre tangle of leggy wildflowers is now confined to a tidy rectangle, restrained on all sides by a knee-high hedge and surrounded by a closely cropped lawn. White hydrangeas and pink shrub roses complete the look. We don’t know who’s responsible for the redesign, but We’ll bet the carpet in his home doesn’t go with the furniture.
    Still, you’d think the Park District Was within its rights to plow under the prairie. Wrong. Kelley just won at lawsuit in which he argued that the garden was public are and therefore protected by the federal Visual Artists Rights Act. Under that law, the district should have given him 90 days’ notice that it intended to mess with his artwork instead of rushing headlong into the demolition, a la Meigs Field. That way Kelley could have mounted a legal challenge, or at least removed the plants.
    Park District officials said they never considered the garden a work of art, even though it was installed by an established artist and not, say, Joe’s Sod and Landscaping. We can understand their confusion. Just recently, we figured out that the caged greenery directly south of Pritzker Pavilion is supposed to be an architectural statement and not a Christmas tree lot.
    All that’s left is for the district to compensate Kelley for his loss. Whatever price the parties settle on, let’s hope the agreement also provides for the removal of the rest of "Wildflower Works I. If it was’t an eyesore before—and plenty of people thought it was... it sure is now. [br] What’s the author’s attitude towards the present "Wildflower Works I"?

选项 A、He takes a neutral position.
B、He believes in the long arm of the law.
C、He regards it a masterpiece of public art.
D、He is in favor of demolishing the ugly garden.

答案 D

解析 根据文中最后一段最后一句的内容可知,作者认为公园现在被改造的真的很丑陋,所以D项“作者支持拆除丑陋的公园"符合文意。A项“作者保持中立的立场”,作者在最后用的词“eyesore眼中钉,难看的东西”这个词语并不是中性词,所以中立立场显然不正确;B项“他相信法律长远的帮助”;C项“他把公园看成是公众的艺术”,B、C两项在文中都没有体现,所以这三项都不符合题意。
转载请注明原文地址:https://www.tihaiku.com/zcyy/3308913.html
最新回复(0)