It is currently 23 Oct 2017, 12:10

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# It is very difficult to prove today that a painting done two

Author Message
Senior Manager
Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 358

Kudos [?]: 378 [0], given: 0

It is very difficult to prove today that a painting done two [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Jul 2008, 15:55
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

It is very difficult to prove today that a painting done two or three hundred years ago, especially one without a signature or with a questionably authentic signature, is indubitably the work of this or that particular artist. This fact gives the traditional attribution of a disputed painting special weight, since that attribution carries the presumption of historical continuity. Consequently, an art historian arguing for a deattribution will generally convince other art historians only if he or she can persuasively argue for a specific reattribution.
Which one of the following, if true, most strongly supports the position that the traditional attribution of a disputed painting should not have special weight?
(A) Art dealers have always been led by economic self-interest to attribute any unsigned paintings of merit to recognized masters rather than to obscure artists.
(B) When a painting is originally created, there are invariably at least some eyewitnesses who see the artist at work, and thus questions of correct attribution cannot arise at that time.
(C) There are not always clearly discernible differences between the occasional inferior work produced by a master and the very best work produced by a lesser talent.
(D) Attribution can shape perception inasmuch as certain features that would count as marks of greatness in a master’s work would be counted as signs of inferior artistry if a work were attributed to a minor artist.
(E) Even though some masters had specialists assist them with certain detail work, such as depicting lace, the resulting works are properly attributed to the masters alone.

Kudos [?]: 378 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 01 Jan 2008
Posts: 618

Kudos [?]: 198 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

24 Jul 2008, 16:40
vksunder wrote:
It is very difficult to prove today that a painting done two or three hundred years ago, especially one without a signature or with a questionably authentic signature, is indubitably the work of this or that particular artist. This fact gives the traditional attribution of a disputed painting special weight, since that attribution carries the presumption of historical continuity. Consequently, an art historian arguing for a deattribution will generally convince other art historians only if he or she can persuasively argue for a specific reattribution.
Which one of the following, if true, most strongly supports the position that the traditional attribution of a disputed painting should not have special weight?
(A) Art dealers have always been led by economic self-interest to attribute any unsigned paintings of merit to recognized masters rather than to obscure artists.
(B) When a painting is originally created, there are invariably at least some eyewitnesses who see the artist at work, and thus questions of correct attribution cannot arise at that time.
(C) There are not always clearly discernible differences between the occasional inferior work produced by a master and the very best work produced by a lesser talent.
(D) Attribution can shape perception inasmuch as certain features that would count as marks of greatness in a master’s work would be counted as signs of inferior artistry if a work were attributed to a minor artist.
(E) Even though some masters had specialists assist them with certain detail work, such as depicting lace, the resulting works are properly attributed to the masters alone.

B because "It is very difficult to prove today that a painting ... is indubitably the work of this or that particular artist. This fact gives the traditional attribution of a disputed painting special weight". If a painting can be accurately attributed when the painting is created and then historicans can find evidence of eyewitnesses -> a painting can be attributed without traditional atrribution.

Kudos [?]: 198 [0], given: 1

Manager
Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 175

Kudos [?]: 70 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

24 Jul 2008, 18:07
A very tough question. Anyways will give a try:

The passage says since incorrect attribution causes special weight to a painting it should not be there.

A: A valid choice which says since Art dealers benefit from incorrect attribution to famous painters it should not be allowed. My second choice.

B: This says that since every painting has an eye witness none of the painting can be incorrectly attributed. Which is wrong as some paintings many not have any eye witness.

C: irrelevant

D: This sounds correct as it says that incorrect attribution causes a perception and hence a special weight it should not be allowed.

E: Irrelevant

IMO D

Kudos [?]: 70 [0], given: 0

Re: CR: painting -   [#permalink] 24 Jul 2008, 18:07
Display posts from previous: Sort by