2. 职称英语
  3. In the late nineteenth century, art critics regarded seventeenth-century Dut

In the late nineteenth century, art critics regarded seventeenth-century Dut

游客2025-02-19  14
问题     In the late nineteenth century, art critics regarded seventeenth-century Dutch paintings as direct reflections of reality. The paintings were discussed as an index of the democracy of a society that chose to represent its classes, actions, and occupations exactly as they were; wide-ranging realism was seen as the great accomplishment of Dutch art. However, the achievement of more recent study of Dutch art has been the recovery of the fact that the “realistic” paintings are more than depictions of daily life. They are, of course that too, but it has now become clear that such paintings are to be taken as symbolizing mortality, the transience of earthly life, and the power of God, and as messages that range from the mildly moralizing to the firmly didactic. How explicit and consistent the symbolizing process was intended to be is a much thornier matter, but anyone who has more than a passing acquaintance with Dutch literature or with the kinds of images used in illustrated books (above all emblem books) will recognize how pervasive was the habit of investing ordinary objects and familiar scenes with meanings that go beyond their surface and outward appearance. In the mid-1960s, Eddy de Jongh published an extraordinary array of material —especially from the emblem books and vernacular literature—that confirmed the unreliability of taking Dutch pictures at surface value alone.
    The major difficulty, however, with the findings of critics such as de Jongh is that it is not easy to assess the multiplicity of levels in which Dutch viewers interpreted these picture. De Jongh’s followers typically regard the pictures as purely symbolic. Not every object within Dutch paintings need be interpreted in terms of the gloss given to its equivalent representation in the emblem books. Not every foot warmer is to be interpreted in terms of the foot warmer in Roemer Visscher’s Sinnepoppen of 1614; not every bridle is an emblem of restraint (though many were indeed just that) . To maintain as Brown does, that the two children in Netscher’s painting A Lady Teaching a Child to Read “stand for industry and idleness” is to fail to understand that the painting has a variety of possible meanings, even though the picture undoubtedly carries unmistakable symbolic meanings, too. Modern art historians may well find the discovery of parallels between a painting and a specific emblem exciting; they may, like seventeenth-century viewers, search for the double meanings that lie behind many paintings. But seventeenth-century response can hardly be reduced to the level of formula. To suggest otherwise is to imply a laboriousness of mental process that may well characterize modern interpretations of seventeenth-century Dutch art, but that was, for the most part, not characteristic in the seventeenth century. [br] The author of the passage mentions bridles in the highlighted portion of the passage most likely in order to
选项 A、suggest that restraint was only one of the many symbolic meanings attached to bridles
B、provide an example of an everyday, physical object that was not endowed with symbolic meaning
C、provide an example of an object that modern critics have endowed with symbolic meaning different from the meaning assigned it by seventeenth-century Dutch artists
D、provide an example of an object with symbolic meaning that was not always used as a symbol
E、provide an example of an everyday object that appears in a significant number of seventeenth-century Dutch paintings
答案 D
解析 本题定位到第二段第四句，这很明显是第三句的例子。第三句想要表达的就是荷兰绘画不仅仅拥有象征含义，因此选项D正确。A项文章想用缰绳表达评论家应该关注到荷兰绘画的多层次性，即不仅仅看象征性，还要看物品的本意，这并不是在说一个物品的象征含义不止一个。B项缰绳有象征含义，但是不能完全按照象征含义去解读。C项现代评论家确实给缰绳赋予了象征含义，但是文中看不出来17世纪荷兰画家给缰绳赋予的象征含义是什么。E项看不出“大量”。
转载请注明原文地址:https://www.tihaiku.com/zcyy/3963934.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)