In the twentieth century, the visual arts have embarked on major exper

Question

In the twentieth century, the visual arts have embarked on major experimentation, from cubism to expressionism. While tastes always vary, there are certainly some people who find beautiful objects of each of the art movements of the first half of the twentieth century. In the latter half of the twentieth century, though, most works are so abstract or shocking that neither the critic nor the general public uses the word "beautiful" to describe them: indeed, sometimes late twentieth-century artists have, as one of their expressed goals, the creation of a work that no one could find beautiful. Whatever these artists are creating may be intellectually engaging at some level, but it is no longer art.

Which of the following is an assumption that supports drawing the conclusion above from the reasons given for that conclusion?

A. Art critics generally have a different appraisal of a work of art than does the general public.
B. The meaning of any work of art is defined entirely by the ideas of the artist who created it.
C. Beauty is a defining quality of art.
D. All art movements of the latter half of the twentieth century are responses to the movements of the first half of the century.
E. It is not possible for any work to be simultaneously beautiful and intellectually engaging.

IanStewart · Answer

Art of the second half of the twentieth century is characterized by fragmentation; it's the era of pop art and photorealism and all kinds of other movements that rejected abstraction, along with many movements that embraced it. It is not true that after 1950 "most works are so abstract or shocking" that no one would describe them as "beautiful", so I have serious issues with how this passage recounts historical fact (and it's hard to believe anyone would contend that no one could find any beauty in a Richter or Rothko abstract, say, but I suppose some people do make arguments similar to this one).

Regardless, the argument says, paraphrasing, that beauty is not a characteristic anyone finds in post-1950 works, and concludes on that basis that those works are not "art". So the argument is really proposing a partial definition of "art": for something to be "art", it must be beautiful (among possibly other things). So the answer is C.

Regardless, the argument says, paraphrasing, that beauty is not a characteristic anyone finds in post-1950 works, and concludes on that basis that those works are not "art". So the argument is really proposing a partial definition of "art": for something to be "art", it must be beautiful (among possibly other things). So the answer is C.

pranavmenon619 · Answer

Conclusion - Whatever these artists are creating may be intellectually engaging at some level, but it is no longer art.
Premise - Neither critics nor general public uses the word beautiful to describe the work of these artists. Movement to create work that no one finds beautiful.
Negation of option C - Beauty is not a defining quality of art.
Since this weakens our conclusion, Option C is correct.

Bunuel · Answer

Official Explanation

The argument makes a number of factual statements. Art in the first half of the 20th century are, or could be considered, beautiful. Works by artists in the latter half of the 20th century are not supposed to be beautiful, and even, are supposed to be devoid of beauty. Then the argument draws a bold powerful conclusion: therefore, they are not art! The assumption seems to be something that links beauty to whether something qualifies as art. We definitely need an answer to speak to the question: what does, or doesn't, qualify as art?

(C) is credited answer. If something needs to be beautiful, or potentially beautiful, to qualify as art, then this would explain that works that "no one could find beautiful" would fall outside the author's definition of art.

The other answers are all quite tempting, because we could imagine an art professor or someone in an art class arguing for any one of them.

(A) is irrelevant. Critics & the general public might have different appraisals, but what one or the other thinks does not, in and of itself, seem to determine whether something is art.

(B) is also irrelevant: who determines the meaning is a separate question from whether the work qualifies at art in the first place. (BTW, exceedingly few modern critics would accept the interpretive idea contained in choice .)

(D) is undeniably true, but not relevant: again: it provides no standard by which we could say the former objects are art and the latter objects aren’t.

(E) is a far-flung idea, unrelated to the discussion. The passage doesn't address the issue of whether any works of art are intellectually engaging.

rahul_518303 · Answer

The creation of a work that  no  one could find beautiful

Since  NO  one could find the creation of later half century beautiful. Hence author is concluding that it can't be said as art.

Pre-Thinking: creation must be beautiful in order to declared as an art.

option C correctly captures the essence of our pre-thinking.

Hope it helps.

In the twentieth century, the visual arts have embarked on major exper

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

In the twentieth century, the visual arts have embarked on major exper

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards